Climate Change as a Secular Religion

[hope_for_things]

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 parallels are very interesting.  We’ve evolved to make meaning in these similar ways.  Until something drastic changes our brains way of relating to the world religions in one form or another will continue to exist.  

I do think it’s important to note there are also many differences between their environmental zeal and an organized religion like Mormonism.  

Its also interesting to note that you can have a religion without a belief in God.  I think that many religions in the future won’t contain an explicit concept for God.  

[Brother Bear]

38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

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. 

It’s so crazy how right you are about what I was saying. When I said that beliefs based on science are a matter of faith, secretly what I meant was that climate science is a false, demonic, counterfeit religion, led by Satan himself. It’s purpose is to enslave people’s minds, turn them gay, and make them hate peaceable discussions. It’s all part of the plan of the devil’s secret combination. He already used the Federal Reserve Church to take control of the currency of the world’s most powerful country, now he’s using climate change to finish the job. Just promise not to tell people what I really mean when I write posts....the climate scientists might try to track me down and sacrifice my children to their climate change god.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

It’s so crazy how right you are about what I was saying. When I said that beliefs based on science are a matter of faith, secretly what I meant was that climate science is a false, demonic, counterfeit religion, led by Satan himself. It’s purpose is to enslave people’s minds, turn them gay, and make them hate peaceable discussions. It’s all part of the plan of the devil’s secret combination. He already used the Federal Reserve Church to take control of the currency of the world’s most powerful country, now he’s using climate change to finish the job. Just promise not to tell people what I really mean when I write posts....the climate scientists might try to track me down and sacrifice my children to their climate change god.

You have made my point well.  Thx. 

[Gray]

9 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?  

That's a hoax. This is the real cover, from 2007:

 

http://time.com/4778937/fake-time-cover-ice-age/

 

[mfbukowski]

5 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.   

I don't know where you are getting this .....s....tuff.  I said nothing about a flat earth or false religion.  There are senses in which religion can be "true" as Alma 32 teaches because it gives us positive results in our lives, but religions cannot be "false" because they are always non-falsifiable.

Three sentences and three wrongs all based on what you are projecting, and none on what I said.  Nothing about the earth being flat, nothing about false religion, and I really don't care what climate changers oppose OR are in favor of.

If you actually read the thread you will see that all I have said is that climate change believers and religious believers have something important in common.

I don't know where  you pulled that other stuff from.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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. 

Again you do not read but see what you want

Many secularists see their beliefs as a religion.   I have already linked to some,

You want others?

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-future-of-religion/9780231134941

https://www.npr.org/2014/01/07/260184473/sunday-assembly-a-church-for-the-godless-picks-up-steam

http://www.theexaminer.org/volume1/number6/secular.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/oasis-secular-groups/499148/

Quote

 

For Korey Peters, deconverting from Christianity to atheism opened a new set of doors - the doors to Calgary's first atheist church.

The unusual idea that grew into Calgary's atheist congregation came to the former Christian when he realized he longed for the sense of community and guidance that comes from being part of a church. But what he didn't miss was all the "the horror, ignorance and superstition," wrote Peters in a guest blog for thinkbig.com.

In 2006, Peters was in the process of leaving behind his fundamentalist Christian beliefs when he moved to the U.K. with his wife. He made good on an off-the-cuff promise he had previously vowed to her -- if they moved overseas he would join her in singing in a church choir.

"We were quickly integrated into the most lovely group of people you'd ever want to meet. I'd never had such an enjoyable time at church! When we returned home (Calgary), we began attending a local Anglican church and singing in the choir there. Here I was, a recent atheist now attending church more than I had when I was a Christian."

All of this got Peters thinking: Why couldn't atheists have a church, too?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/30/calgary-secular-church-first-atheist-church-alberta_n_2583930.html

That's just a start.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

It’s so crazy how right you are about what I was saying. When I said that beliefs based on science are a matter of faith, secretly what I meant was that climate science is a false, demonic, counterfeit religion, led by Satan himself. It’s purpose is to enslave people’s minds, turn them gay, and make them hate peaceable discussions. It’s all part of the plan of the devil’s secret combination. He already used the Federal Reserve Church to take control of the currency of the world’s most powerful country, now he’s using climate change to finish the job. Just promise not to tell people what I really mean when I write posts....the climate scientists might try to track me down and sacrifice my children to their climate change god.

Dang

Why didn't I just do it that way? 

 

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, longview said:

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

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.

So you exclude any data that could prove models correct. At that point isn't your view unfalsifiable? 

I long ago found such conspiracy thinking is impossible to dislodge so I'll just not go down that rat hole. I'll just say that it's useful to avoid getting trapped in unfalsifiable conspiracy theories to ask what would convince you the opposite was true if it was true. If you can't think of anything reasonable then you're probably in a bad place.

4 hours ago, longview said:

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).

Speaking as a physicist, physics of all kinds are chock full of assumptions. Newton's laws of gravitation are no different. The issue isn't whether there are assumptions but whether the predictions test out. As for examining the models, there actually was a physicist who was a skeptic who not only checked them out but created his own model. Richard Muller found that they were pretty accurate and changed his views. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/converted-contrarian-argues-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change/

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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

Issue isn't the warmth it's the rapidity of the change. Do it over tens of thousands or millions of years and evolution has time to adapt. Do it over a century and things are liable to get uncomfortable.

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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.

This is the problem of activists frequently yelling about the top end of predictions rather than the middle or even low end. However to say that the predictions are therefore bunk seems rather dubious. It's like someone shooting at you five times and coming close but not hitting you. If you then say expecting to get hit is bunk, well, good luck.

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017

You can read the graphs there and their explanation. (2017 was high due to a hurricane increasing ice - but over time it's melting)

[Bob Crockett]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

That's a hoax. This is the real cover, from 2007:

 

http://time.com/4778937/fake-time-cover-ice-age/

 

 

 

Inexcusable. Why do I even bother participating here. Fake news.  Calling global climate change science a religion so as to demonize it rather than address the merits. I should start a thread on the Shroud of Turin. 

 

[snowflake]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Climate models have done suprisingly well? Wow. I have been lied to about this issue for over 20 years! Al Gore's doomsday clock came and went. No sea level rise.....wait 1mm in 25 years, well withing the range of normal!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again

How long should I continue to believe we're all going to die from Global warming...? cough...cough.....I mean clime change! Should I continue for another 26 years?

Here are the biggest lie's i've been told since I was in high school. We are all going to be underwater from global warming. Peak Oil is going to throw us into a stone age and we'll all die. Y2K, all the computers will crash and economic catastrophe will soon follow. Saddam had WMD's. The republicans are for smaller Gov'ment. Obamacare will make my premiums cheaper.  Don't you get it Clark, they are full of S*&t!!!!! and just want your money.  CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.  

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Climate models have done suprisingly well? Wow. I have been lied to about this issue for over 20 years!

Yes, that's true. Look at the hoax you uncritically posted yesterday. Your favorite "news" sources keep misleading you.

[snowflake]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's true. Look at the hoax you uncritically posted yesterday. Your favorite "news" sources keep misleading you.

My point is that I've been told the world is going to be beyond recovery, massive deaths, Florida underwater, we are all going to die for 26 years.....I decided about 10 years ago to stop listening to the boy crying wolf.  

The whole movement is based on computer models, and a demonization of plant food (CO2).

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, snowflake said:

My point is that I've been told the world is going to be beyond recovery, massive deaths, Florida underwater, we are all going to die for 26 years.....I decided about 10 years ago to stop listening to the boy crying wolf.  

I think you were only half listening to begin with.

 

9 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The whole movement is based on computer models, and a demonization of plant food (CO2).

Yup, only half listening.

[ldsatty]

I've been lurking here for a long time but just registered so I could say that the Time Magazine Ice Age cover is a fake.  This is the kind of stuff that gets thrown out there to dispute climate change.  And it just keeps getting recycled.  And the fact that science changes with additional evidence is actually a good thing.  It's the nature of science.  Of course there are corrections in science when more or other evidence becomes available.  That's one way that it's different than religion.  

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

[Brother Bear]

9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

You have made my point well.  Thx. 

Bob, the funny thing is that I actually believe much of what the scientific community is saying about climate change. Years ago I studied environmental economics and came away rather settled on the idea that climate change is occurring due to man’s actions and  that we’re making a mess. But I admit that I only believe these things. I don’t possess any special knowledge that those who oppose climate change theories don’t possess. It’s the same thing with the ideas that I hold that are classified as religious. The contempt you accuse me of having towards believers of climate science is nonsense. 

[snowflake]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's true. Look at the hoax you uncritically posted yesterday. Your favorite "news" sources keep misleading you.

Where do you suggest I look to find the "real" news?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Where do you suggest I look to find the "real" news?

Start with news sources that aren't youtube videos, dank memes or entertainment news.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Gray

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, ldsatty said:

I've been lurking here for a long time but just registered so I could say that the Time Magazine Ice Age cover is a fake.  This is the kind of stuff that gets thrown out there to dispute climate change.  And it just keeps getting recycled.  And the fact that science changes with additional evidence is actually a good thing.  It's the nature of science.  Of course there are corrections in science when more or other evidence becomes available.  That's one way that it's different than religion.  

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

I think that is one way it is just like religion, and not only correction (D&C 1:25) but discovery (D&C 1:26), improvement (D&C 1;27) and advancement (D&C 1:28; 19-23)!

[snowflake]

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

You are catching on Rev, it is a moral issue (or feelings issue). The good news Rev is that it sounds like you are ready to confess your sin of (being an American and living like an American), and you can atone for this horrible sin, ( by believing in Climate change) and become a soldier for Gaya (preach the truth of climate change) and change your life (buy a prius, vote Democrat and feel like you are saving the world!!!  which is what you are doing when you believe in this movement!).

[Bob Crockett]

30 minutes ago, ldsatty said:

I've been lurking here for a long time but just registered so I could say that the Time Magazine Ice Age cover is a fake.  This is the kind of stuff that gets thrown out there to dispute climate change.  And it just keeps getting recycled.  And the fact that science changes with additional evidence is actually a good thing.  It's the nature of science.  Of course there are corrections in science when more or other evidence becomes available.  That's one way that it's different than religion.  

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

Tell it. 

I am not convinced with climate change theories. But the Right's attempt to discredit it on non-merits grounds, like calling it a religion, is crazy politics.  

[Bob Crockett]

15 minutes ago, snowflake said:

You are catching on Rev, it is a moral issue (or feelings issue). The good news Rev is that it sounds like you are ready to confess your sin of (being an American and living like an American), and you can atone for this horrible sin, ( by believing in Climate change) and become a soldier for Gaya (preach the truth of climate change) and change your life (buy a prius, vote Democrat and feel like you are saving the world!!!  which is what you are doing when you believe in this movement!).

Climate change is not a morals issue nor one based on feelings.  The Right opposes climate change science so as to advance the interests of big smokestack businesses.  The Left promotes climate change science to beat down emerging nations and eliminate them, really.  Nut jobs and fruitcakes deliver us conspiracy theories on both sides.  It's a mess.  

[MiserereNobis]

Pope Francis has weighed in on this issue, and other environmental issues, quite frequently. Here's a quick blurb about his encyclical "Laudato Si":

 

Quote

Pope Francis has written the first papal encyclical focused solely on the environment, attempting to reframe care of the earth as a moral and spiritual concern, and not just a matter of politics, science and economics. In the document, “Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home,” he argues that the environment is in crisis – cities to oceans, forests to farmland. He emphasizes that the poor are most affected by damage from what he describes as economic systems that favor the wealthy, and political systems that lack the courage to look beyond short-term rewards. But the encyclical is addressed to everyone on the planet. Its 184 pages are an urgent, accessible call to action, making a case that all is interconnected, including the solutions to the grave environmental crisis.

 

[snowflake]

32 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Climate change is not a morals issue nor one based on feelings.  The Right opposes climate change science so as to advance the interests of big smokestack businesses.  The Left promotes climate change science to beat down emerging nations and eliminate them, really.  Nut jobs and fruitcakes deliver us conspiracy theories on both sides.  It's a mess.  

I like your take, it is a mess!  I just don't much "science" in climate change. If it's hot out....climate change.....freezing winters.....climate change.... bad influenza year....climate change.....everything can be linked to this hysteria! (And I'm not kidding about the flu!!!!)

https://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-and-the-flu-warm-winters-followed-by-severe-flu-seasons-cb6e3f1b626/

See....

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Start with news sources that aren't youtube videos, dank memes or entertainment news.

It's OK, give me your top 5 or 10 news sources, I won't laugh. (even If it is Alex Jones or Politico)

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, snowflake said:

It's OK, give me your top 5 or 10 news sources, I won't laugh. (even If it is Alex Jones or Politico)

For just general news? Washington Post, BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS. Responsible news outlets that take journalistic standards seriously.