Climate Change as a Secular Religion

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Climate change actually has everything to do with science and religion when you consider that the poorest countries of the world are the most vulnerable and the least likely to be able to adapt to more extreme weather events, rising seas, and diminishing crop production.  And this all happened because of wealthy nations’ reliance on fossil fuels.  

Truth is truth.  One of the great things about Mormonism is that we can accept truth whatever source it may come from.  Science is one way to better understand the world around us and make our world a better place.  

My senior year in high school way back in 1991, I was brainwashed by my Biology professor to believe that in 20 years Florida would be underwater and 1/2 the size it is today due to global warming and rising oceans......and that it was my fault because of my lifestyle (the american lifestyle). Complete BS. I was also indoctrinated to think that we had reached "Peak Oil production" and that society was soon to be thrown back to the stone age because we were running out of oil. More complete BS. My Pops said the same hysteria was going on in the 70's regarding global cooling. How can computer models that predict the future (20-50 years out) be in any way considered science?  

[cacheman]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am not the one who thought of secularism as a religion- secularists have.  THAT is the point I would really like to explore in this thread.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

"They express a conviction that the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it."

What i really want to explore is that "the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it."

The important point for us is that for them this is "REAL"

Now I think THAT is "religion"

 

I agree with what you are saying.  Another interesting short book on this topic might be Ursula Goodenough's 'Sacred Depths of Nature'.  She is a biologist who discusses the idea of 'religious naturalism'.  That book impacted me years ago by helping connect some dots to explain experiences I was having. 

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If we are to convert them, they must not see us as wackos but as folks who have a lot of similarities with them.

To do this, I think the respective religions must facilitate the humility and relatability of its adherents, which would be functions of the quality of the religion and the submissiveness of the adherents to it.

[longview]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps he chose the field because of a deep commitment to environmentalism long before he was getting any financial benefit from it.

That would be a noble and responsible sentiment and commitment.  However, like many movements, there are some frightful extremists.  A few that are actually advocating extermination of 80% of the world's population (in order to restore earth to its "pristine" state).

2 hours ago, Gray said:

This is loony tunes.

What was loony tunes the prediction that ALL polar ice would be completely gone during the nineties and ocean levels would rise by 40 feet.  A nice discussion of ice volume related to ocean volume is presented in http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html   To quote:

"So why wouldn't people drown? Again, a change in the Earth this dramatic would take thousands of years to effect from any realistic cause. Over generations people would migrate as the coasts changed. Consider that virtually all of the settlements in the United States were established only in last 350 years. Of course, many settlements inhabited for thousands of years would have to be abandoned to the ocean--just as many would have to be abandoned if ice age conditions returned and covered vast areas with ice sheets. But people can comfortably adjust where they live over periods of decades, far shorter than the thousands of years needed for these climate changes to naturally take place. Also, that's if they occur, and we have no evidence to indicate what would happen to climate over the next few thousand years."

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is nothing new or revolutionary about any of this particular family's efforts to reduce the overall carbon footprint, and there are no government contracts necessary to do so.  In fact many people who simply live old fashioned lifestyles can so very similar things to reduce family costs, and to reduce climate change.  So any cynicism is completely uncalled for.

It is sheer hubris to think mankind can make anything more than a noticeable contribution to global temperatures.  99.999% is overwhelmingly controlled by geological forces and orbital positions and the state of the sun.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Indeed, the die is already cast for future global warming.  We as humans did not take action in time to catch the  problem before it ballooned out of control and into a fait accompli.  Future generations will now be very much worse off, what with large scale droughts, famine, ocean level rise, and increasingly freak weather.  The consequent high death rates, wars, and general chaos will infest the end times, as we all stew in our own juices.  That is the longview.

How can the die be cast?  They were predicting a new ice age back in the seventies.  Now there is concern it still could be a problem (they are actually trying to pin this on "Climate Change" [a name change they conveniently made to sidestep the embarrassment of failed predictions]).  There is NO hint of anything ballooning out of control EXCEPT for mankind committing cultural suicide by ever increasing cascade of hedonism and violence.

The social engineers back in the seventies wanted to stoke hysteria about this dreadful weather prediction and demand onerous taxation to "conserve" precious resources (such as oil and natural gas that was claimed to be rapidly depleting).  In the current "Warming Hysteria" they have demonized CO2 and demanded onerous regulations to "control" the output of this gas (which happens to be a minuscule trace element, just 300 to 400 ppm) and to levy "Carbon Credits" to shift allocation of "production permits" in order to tamp down further the quality of life for everybody.

Either way, the social engineers knew there were no realistic chances of effecting warming or cooling.  Their real agenda was to impose the ultimate nanny state (globally) to "manage" the affairs of the human race.  That is the longview.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Recognizing that your climate change denial is junk science is a delusion is the first step. Congratulations!

Ha ha ha.  What a way to twist words.  The sad truth is that too many people have herd mentality.  Junk science has been used repeatedly to advocate for certain political changes or to increase the scope of government.   Carl Sagan was among the first to do it (review the "Nuclear Winter" hysteria).

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Speaking of stewing in our own juices, wait until the permafrost starts melting!

Permafrost hysteria can be almost as bad as polar ice cap hysteria.   

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the function of religion?

If it is to bring ideology, politics and economy together (I’m again thinking in terms of secret combinations and Zion as representative extremes) for an individual or a collective, -- and I think it is -- the recognized superhuman, controlling power could be nature, a god, a brand, or a community (corporation, nation, any kind of discipline).

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To do this, I think the respective religions must facilitate the humility and relatability of its adherents, which would be functions of the quality of the religion and the submissiveness of the adherents to it.

 

Right.   So no problem then right?? 

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If it is to bring ideology, politics and economy together (I’m again thinking in terms of secret combinations and Zion as representative extremes) for an individual or a collective, -- and I think it is -- the recognized superhuman, controlling power could be nature, a god, a brand, or a community (corporation, nation, any kind of discipline).

 

....and provide a belief system which supplies "good fruit" for its adherents.  Yep Agree

[snowflake]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am not the one who thought of secularism as a religion- secularists have.  THAT is the point I would really like to explore in this thread.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

"They express a conviction that the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it."

What i really want to explore is that "the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it."

The important point for us is that for them this is "REAL"

Now I think THAT is "religion"

MFB, You are absolutely correct in identifying that for them, this is "REAL", they 100% believe in it, and they think that anyone who doesn't believe in it is crazy, should be prosecuted, are flat earthers, are deniers, and the names go on and on. These believers are typically very militant about their knowledge of the truth and will judge you and try to shame you if you don't agree with their religion.  The problem I have with this religion is that they want to force on everyone!

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Right.   So no problem then right?? 

No problem  at all... Both the religion and the adherent need to be "true and living"

...which gets to your point of "good fruit!"

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

....and provide a belief system which supplies "good fruit" for its adherents.  Yep Agree

Edited January 24, 2018 by CV75

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes, according to them it IS getting hotter.... 

 

What do you think?

[Brother Bear]

Climate scientism is one of the state-sponsored religions that I am partial to. But I tend to agree with many of its high-priests who preach that we are playing out a tragedy of the commons and are past the point of no return. So I guess I’m a jack-climate-scientism-ist who puts little into his religion and only participates minimally for social reasons. 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Sky said:

Truth is truth.  One of the great things about Mormonism is that we can accept truth whatever source it may come from.  Science is one way to better understand the world around us and make our world a better place.  

As long as we understand the difference between science and scientists.

The mumblings and blatherings of scientists is not necessarily science.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What do you think?

I am an agnostic. 

On global warming that is.  Just don't know enough either way, but I am not sure if what I think on it makes a difference anyway.  You actually have to be a believer in a faith to act on it. 

[Atheist Mormon]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am an agnostic. 

On global warming that is.  Just don't know enough either way, but I am not sure if what I think on it makes a difference anyway.  You actually have to be a believer in a faith to act on it. 

To me has nothing to do with belief or faith...The facts of human made CO2 increase are out there...From my point of view it is too late to reverse damage....I hope I'm wrong.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, longview said:

That would be a noble and responsible sentiment and commitment.  However, like many movements, there are some frightful extremists.  A few that are actually advocating extermination of 80% of the world's population (in order to restore earth to its "pristine" state).

What was loony tunes the prediction that ALL polar ice would be completely gone during the nineties and ocean levels would rise by 40 feet.  A nice discussion of ice volume related to ocean volume is presented in http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html   To quote:

***

It is sheer hubris to think mankind can make anything more than a noticeable contribution to global temperatures.  99.999% is overwhelmingly controlled by geological forces and orbital positions and the state of the sun.

After reviewing the historical data, I am strongly inclined to agree with this. For instance N. Africa and Arabia experience a 20,000 yr cycle of wetness and dryness due to the tilt of the earth going through a 20,000 year cycle. About 4000 years ago they went into a dry phase, and what once had been vast lakes in the Sahara region dried up. Historically, we see apparent long - term cycles in solar activity which seem to correspond with ice ages and warmer times. On the historical chart we are approaching the time of a mini -ice age.

However, I don't believe it is hubris to believe mankind can affect climate change. I am no longer convinced CO2 is a the horrible boogey man it has been painted to be, but if we wanted we could produce other much more effective greenhouse gases than CO2. And I do believe certain chemicals were harming our ozone layer - a trend which I think we have reversed.

Quote

How can the die be cast?  They were predicting a new ice age back in the seventies.  Now there is concern it still could be a problem (they are actually trying to pin this on "Climate Change" [a name change they conveniently made to sidestep the embarrassment of failed predictions]).  There is NO hint of anything ballooning out of control EXCEPT for mankind committing cultural suicide by ever increasing cascade of hedonism and violence.

The social engineers back in the seventies wanted to stoke hysteria about this dreadful weather prediction and demand onerous taxation to "conserve" precious resources (such as oil and natural gas that was claimed to be rapidly depleting).  In the current "Warming Hysteria" they have demonized CO2 and demanded onerous regulations to "control" the output of this gas (which happens to be a minuscule trace element, just 300 to 400 ppm) and to levy "Carbon Credits" to shift allocation of "production permits" in order to tamp down further the quality of life for everybody.

Either way, the social engineers knew there were no realistic chances of effecting warming or cooling.  Their real agenda was to impose the ultimate nanny state (globally) to "manage" the affairs of the human race.  That is the longview.

I don't know about your "social engineers" (exactly who were these anyway), but I am sure there are governmental forces that would love to start receiving tax revenues based upon CO2 emissions. That is a horrible idea imho, because then what kind of incentive would government have to ensure lower CO2 emissions - its new cash cow? ....yeah, horrible idea. It would even provide incentive for government to work against new green technologies, and lots of dirty money to enter the picture. 

Whether, I agree with all this is not really too important imho. There are other very valid and good reasons to break our oil habit. It is the main cause of our trade deficit, which causes our nation to continually impoverish itself. It is also enriching countries which are using this money to export an unfriendly religion, and to fund terrorism. We would have much fewer worries about this if we stopped sending billions overseas for oil. With a new better technology, we could become an exporter of energy to help the rest of the world into a clean and efficient energy future. How can they really help themselves without affordable energy? Instead we are squandering this chance imho. And lastly, continued reliance on fossil fuels always seems to ignore the "hidden costs" of this outdated fuel such as the health problems the pollution causes, which can be an enormous cost, and other environmental impacts such as acid rain(although we have largely corrected the latter, other countries may not be so inclined ie China). 

So I do see this as a moral issue, and feel that currently we are not being wise stewards of what the Lord has given us. While I don't feel it really involves the realm of religion, which I really feel involves the worship of a god or gods, it is an issue of moral and philosophical import. I would hope for the reasons above Christians will support this moral philosophy - it is functioning like a religion in the sense that it is compelling people to change their lives and ways of thinking toward a goal of the betterment of all.

P.S. BTW the technology I have discussed in a prior post is not some pipe dream. Molten salts are being used to store heat in solar plants, so we know how to pump and mechanically manipulate at least some types of molten salts, and the government had a working model nuclear plant at Oakridge in the 50s and 60s. We really just haven't wanted to put the initial investment in the research to finish making thorium power a reality. So we are saddled with much less palatable and less efficient water cooled reactors we have now because that was the technology which was more amenable to building a nuclear arsenal. As a few accidents have proven, it is not a very good civil engineering choice for municipal electrical production, and leaves us saddled with nuclear waste issues we cannot foist upon developing countries. In contrast thorium power is a technology we could safely export.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

My senior year in high school way back in 1991, I was brainwashed by my Biology professor to believe that in 20 years Florida would be underwater and 1/2 the size it is today due to global warming and rising oceans......and that it was my fault because of my lifestyle (the american lifestyle). Complete BS. I was also indoctrinated to think that we had reached "Peak Oil production" and that society was soon to be thrown back to the stone age because we were running out of oil. More complete BS. My Pops said the same hysteria was going on in the 70's regarding global cooling. How can computer models that predict the future (20-50 years out) be in any way considered science?  

A few thoughts.

1. If you want to know scientific views, popular media is usually a horrible way to do it. Particularly TV news or news magazines like Time Magazine. So appealing to such sort of just undermines you're whole argument right off. By and large science reporting in most media outlets is horrible filled with distorting sensationalism.

2. Second computer models do a pretty good job predicting the locations of the planets 20-50 years out, so the claim that's inherently unreliable seems problematic right off.

3. The fact you can't predict all weather doesn't mean you can't predict components of climate. There are reasons to be skeptical of some climate models but overall they've done surprisingly well. Typically predictions come with error bounds. Almost always activists and critics will promote the high end of forecasts and neglect the low end predictions. Overall though the models have done quite well. The one exception was the so-called "pause" due to warming of deep oceans rather than surfaces that was unexpected. But even that was still mostly within predicted ranges. i.e. 

All of this is quite different from peak oil prediction which never was really scientific and was inherently tied to guesses about technology and unknown reserves.

If testing predictive power is what helps us see what scientific theories are strong, then climate change is a very solid theory.

Edited January 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are missing the point entirely.

The point is that it FUNCTIONS as a religion to the believers and therefore defines "religion" differently than you have previously seen it.  I didn't invent this idea, just google "secular religions" and see what I mean.

If we are to convert them, they must not see us as wackos but as folks who have a lot of similarities with them.

Think Paul and the "Unknown God".   Paul taught of the unkmown God- we can teach of the Human God as a paradigm for mankind.  The Man of Holiness.

Paul was referring to the state religion, not the common belief that the earth was flat.  Get over demonizing opponents with the argument that they have a false religion.  Climate change opposers, including scientists, don't attempt such a foolish thing.   

[Bob Crockett]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/

Right  The WashingtonTimes.  

I don't really give much of a hoot about whether climate change is real or not.  Except for one thing.  Just like pro-abortion laws are a conspiracy against minorities, so is climate change philosophy a conspiracy against emerging nations striving to come into a competitive par relationship with first world countries who didn't have to contend with climate change philosophy.  The rich and powerful smug white nations are using politically-correct philosophies to kick minorities from the table.  It may not be intentional, but it is Freudian.  The triumph of one's tribe by any means, subconscious or conscious. 

That doesn't necessarily mean that I disbelieve climate change theory.  I don't.  But who are we to tell Mexico and China how to curb environmental abuses?

Edited January 24, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

To me has nothing to do with belief or faith...The facts of human made CO2 increase are out there...From my point of view it is too late to reverse damage....I hope I'm wrong.

This is correct. Even if we stopped all CO2 output there's enough in the atmosphere for the process to continue for about 50 - 100 years. I suspect we'll reach the collapse point where Antartica and Greenland glaciers start melting leading to rapid change despite anything we can do. Honestly given that Asia is still industrializing and they don't have to do what the west wants, even leveling out CO2 production is pretty unrealistic. The best hope is geo-engineering but the fear of unintended consequences probably makes that a non-starter. So we're basically left with mitigating the consequences. Honestly most of the 1st world should be able to do that. Poorer countries will get hit hard though. There may also be some pluses such as the northwest passage opening up greatly changing the cost of shipping.

I do think technological advances will mitigate over the next few decades CO2 production. Although there were certainly things we could have done to make things go better. Things like not put a 30% tariff on solar panels or make it cost prohibitive to build nuclear power plants. I think we could have gotten a grand compromise in the US of say carbon taxes with offsets on corporate taxes. But the left wasn't interested in anything like that and the right became more anti-climate change as the left made it a litmus test. It was predictable due to identity politics. There for a time there was no shortage of Republicans who believed in climate change. However it became seen better as a wedge issue rather than working on it in a bipartisan way. Again understandable but a depressing aspect of US politics.

19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't know about your "social engineers" (exactly who were these anyway), but I am sure there are governmental forces that would love to start receiving tax revenues based upon CO2 emissions. That is a horrible idea imho, because then what kind of incentive would government have to ensure lower CO2 emissions - its new cash cow? ....yeah, horrible idea. It would even provide incentive for government to work against new green technologies, and lots of dirty money to enter the picture. 

I think it'd work different from that. It's not that I think taxing externalities can't lead to perverse incentives. (Look at say alcohol taxes) However such taxes had they been put in place 18 years ago (and it was possible then) would have pushed alternative power methods better. While we'll have to see how the new tariff affects things the reality is that solar had passed the cost of oil for power a year or two ago. At this stage even with a tariff the writing is on the wall. Alternative energy will dominate.

I

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

My senior year in high school way back in 1991, I was brainwashed by my Biology professor to believe that in 20 years Florida would be underwater and 1/2 the size it is today due to global warming and rising oceans......and that it was my fault because of my lifestyle (the american lifestyle). Complete BS. I was also indoctrinated to think that we had reached "Peak Oil production" and that society was soon to be thrown back to the stone age because we were running out of oil. More complete BS. My Pops said the same hysteria was going on in the 70's regarding global cooling. How can computer models that predict the future (20-50 years out) be in any way considered science?  

The fact that climate science had it wrong in the past does not mean it has itt wrong now; indeed, scientific theory teaches that scientific knowledge self-corrects to greater knowledge of truths as time goes by.    Your argument is like saying that you refuse to take your children to the doctor when they are complaining of head pains because doctors in George Washington's day would apply the leech and douse with cocaine.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[Brother Bear]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Paul was referring to the state religion, not the common belief that the earth was flat.  Get over demonizing opponents with the argument that they have a false religion.  Climate change opposers, including scientists, don't attempt such a foolish thing.   

Scientific arguments regarding the way things are require faith just as religious arguments for the way things are. Same goes for the resulting ethical arguments. The argument “CO2 emissions are warming the planet; therefore I ought to reduce my carbon footprint” requires the same type of faith required to argue “Jesus died for my sins; therefore, I ought to repent.” I would even argue that most people arrive at these arguments in much the same way (listening to and thinking about what others say about the matter). You need faith to make statements about “the way things are” and you need faith to take the is-ought problem for granted. It’s not a put-down to liken one’s approach to climate science to religion. When abstracted slightly they are the same thing. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Brother Bear

[strappinglad]

1. CO2 is not a pollutant. There are several pollutants that come from burning fossil fuels but CO2 is not one of them. Green houses often increase the levels of CO2 to increase plant growth . This up to 4 times the current outdoor levels. ( note: people will die from breathing just CO2 , so there is that )

2. The world has been warmer and colder in the past than now. I wonder which killed off more people/destroyed more crops ? .

3. We have been told that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2008, 2009, 2013, 2016 , now 2040. These predictions are about as good as looking at goat entrails.

4. One can view the current state of Greenland ice by checking out the DMI ( Danish Meteorological Institute )

5. I could get behind a tax to clean up the massive floating islands of plastic in the oceans. It would even save a few whales in the process.

6. The Sun has by far the greatest influence on the climate.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

Scientific arguments regarding the way things are require faith just as religious arguments for the way things are. Same goes for the resulting ethical arguments. The argument “CO2 emissions are warming the planet; therefore I ought to reduce my carbon footprint” requires the same type of faith required to argue “Jesus died for my sins; therefore, I ought to repent.” I would even argue that most people arrive at these arguments in much the same way (listening to and thinking about what others say about the matter). You need faith to make statements about “the way things are” and you need faith to take the is-ought problem for granted. It’s not a put-down to liken one’s approach to climate science to religion. When abstracted slightly they are the same thing. 

It is a put down.  It is demonization.  I'm a libertarian.  I really hate it when some right-wing Republican co-opts libertarianism and tells me what I should believe.   My libertarian beliefs are established on core Milton Friedman-esque values.  

Similarly, Mormons hate it when anti-Mormons tell us what we really believe, when we don't.   Atheists freak when evangelicals argue that atheism is a religion when, in fact, it is an anti-religious belief.  

So it is with this manifestly frivolous argument that climate change believers are a religion unto themselves.  Why not ask them?  Is it a religion to them?  When you, my friend, say it is a religion notwithstanding their protests, what you're really saying is that it is false religion, a cult, a devilish belief.  A demonization, in short.  Things that have nothing to do with a belief in God.  You turn what should be a peaceable discussion of the wonders of God into an argument based on hate. 

There's too much wrong with climate change theory to resort to such tactics. 

[longview]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

2. Second computer models do a pretty good job predicting the locations of the planets 20-50 years out, so the claim that's inherently unreliable seems problematic right off.

This is a confusing statement.  Location of Earth within the Solar System?  Or climate conditions on Earth over time?   There are precise mathematical equations for calculating positions of planets.  Whereas climate models are chock full of assumptions and projections.  Social Engineers refuse to allow anyone to examine the computer models (because it is full of hooey).

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There are reasons to be skeptical of some climate models but overall they've done surprisingly well.

Never heard of a good model.  Are you quoting somebody?

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If testing predictive power is what helps us see what scientific theories are strong, then climate change is a very solid theory.

Please specify one prediction made that had come to pass.   It has been nothing but hysteria and smoke and mirrors for the last 30 years.  Your reliance on IPCC, NOAA, NASA and the former executive Hansen is misguided.  They have demonstrated questionable and unethical behavior.  NOAA refuse to come before Congressional committees to answer on their inconsistencies and data collection methods.  There is NO real science.  Only "Deep State" manipulations.

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I saw this on our local PBS station here in LA and I was really impressed how devoted this family is to reducing their carbon footprint.

They have built their entire lifestyle on these principles and actually they reminded me a little of LDS people with their "peculiar lifestyles" and even the Amish.  These are two highly educated and intelligent scientists who have married.

Without belief in God, these folks have paralleled a "religious" lifestyle but based upon what they believe is a better world for all of us instead of religion.  They believe that we are one species among all other species, that we owe humanity to have a disciplined lifestyle as perhaps religious people believe they owe God a disciplined lifestyle.

Their children are clearly being raised in this "religion".

The point I would make is to illustrate the FUNCTION of religion in our lives- to live for some higher cause.   I think this is important for us to understand in discussions with secular folks regarding religion.  Just as we cannot prove that God "exists" their lifestyle is based on faith that they are doing the "right" thing that all humanity "should" be doing.  They find happiness in "going against the dominant culture" which they find is taking a wrong turn, and which they hope to preach to the world the rightness of their lifestyle in producing happiness as well as climate change.

What is important is that their lifestyle be "intrinsically fulfilling".  Alma might call that "good fruit" that is "sweet".

Their kids are included in the effort and really they are very devoted and devout people.   I thought the parallels were fascinating- the sacrifices they have made to live their "religion"

It's about a 7 minute video and I think you will find it fascinating to ponder the parallels here.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/energy-saving-family

 

The dominant culture is against reducing a carbon footprint? I have thought that I, who couldn't care less about my carbon footprint, was the one going against the tide. Glad to know that I am in the majority!