The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

A) Con argues "Someone who is religious would conform to a religious mantra. ... There is no such doctrine that applies to environmentalism." Con supports his argument by claiming that all Catholics oppose abortion, what differs is the measures they would espouse to oppose it. It is simply not true that all Catholics oppose abortion -- as with any religion, a person may consider himself a part of the religion so long as he agrees with he considers to be the most important matters of doctrine. The common thread in environmental activism is a type of pantheism that presumes that nature has interests that conflict with and supersede those of mankind. "Pantheism ... is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent." http://en.wikipedia.org... Environmental activists do not usually acknowledge their believes as religious because religion is now out of favor, in their circles, as proper motivation for action. However, they frequently reference the clearly pantheistic Gaia concept as relevant and compelling. The Gaia hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org..., that biological systems interact in the environment, is mainly sound. The religious aspect enters when believers move to irrational acts performed to please Gaia, when in fact there is no significant cause-and-effect relationship. ï¿½1000 for actions symbolic of scaring swans, without actually scaring them? This is clearly irrational. Yet it fits perfectly with the pattern of environmentalism as religion, with efforts to please Gaia in the abstract. I am in favor of rational measures that improve the environment, so in that sense I'm an environmentalist. I agree with Catholics on many issues too, though I'm an atheist. This debate deals with identifying a pattern of irrational beliefs that holds nature-worship in common. B) Con argues that if environmental activists were basing actions on religion, they would self-identify as being religiously motivated. The error in that argument is that the definition of religion does not include any requirement for self-identification as being religious. It only requires that there be a pattern of actions based upon faith relative to a concern with "ultimate power." That test is clearly met, even though the participants do not acknowledge their religious faith. I am sure they do not believe it to be a matter of faith, but think it completely logical to ban flood gates and treat dissenters as heretics. Nonetheless, the pattern of wildly irrational behavior and the common theme is unmistakable. C) Con claims "there are some theories that are so obviously correct, ... Therefore, dissenters to these theories deserve to be held up to wholesale public criticism." C.1 CO2 Theory is clearly not in the category of being "obviously correct." A recent poll of scientists http://stats.org... "Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure." But, be careful, "A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not 'within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.' " Even skeptics like Lindzen grant that CO2 may be having some effect, but the split on whether it is scientifically verified is only 75/25. When the question is posed if observed temperature various are beyond what might be expected from natural fluctuations, it is 54/46. Compare that to the level of consensus on the Theory of Evolution, where agreement is 99.86%. CO2 theory is favored, but by no means "obviously correct." Con presents no evidence whatsoever in support of that contention. C.2 If CO2 were "obviously correct," good science demands that skeptics not be treated as heretics. The peer review process should be allowed to function normally. When Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, he was a minority of one in believing that Newtonian Mechanics was incorrect. Nonetheless, he was allowed to publish, evidence accumulated, and his new theory prevailed. The theory of "the ether" propagating light was accepted nearly universally at one point, but dissent was allowed and the contrary data prevailed. Suppressing scientific dissent is simply wrong on any level. Turning to the individual issues presented as examples, I believe that we have agreed that (1) banning establishments that provide clean air for non-smokers, (2) claiming non-existent health costs as real, (3) demanding water conservation when there is no water shortage, (See http://www.waterfootprint.org...), (5) prohibiting local carbon in favor of foreign carbon, and (10) banning flood gates to avoid inconvenience to endangered fish are all examples of irrational environmental extremism. The question remains as to whether these are just occasional random excesses of fringe fanatics, or whether they are derivative from a religious belief in the supremacy of nature over mankind. All of the agreed-upon gross irrationalities where adopted by legislatures as matters of public policy. They were debated with arguments and logical counter-arguments, yet irrationality prevailed. Moreover, these were major issues, not insignificant things that fanatics slipped by without notice. One might compare it to adopting Prohibition or putting religious slogans on coins. Adopting irrational measures as public policy requires not just a tiny minority of fanatics, it requires broad consensus. It is accurately described as religious fervor. On other specific issues: 4) Con claimed that Lindzen altered his research because he was paid to do so. You provided no evidence to support that belief. I showed (1) oil company support is negligible, (2) the scientific review process effectively prevents falsified research, and (3) pro-CO2 theory receives mush greater financial support from ideological believers of that cause. Con had no rebuttal. Lindzen is a tenured professor whose salary in no way varies with what he publishes. Con should show evidence or abandon the contention. 6) Of course some bottles are recycled, but because it is mandated, not because there are rational economic reasons. To recycle, the bottle must be sorted out from other trash, sorted by color, cleaned of labels and metal caps, and then processed. Sand is, um, dirt cheap and requires none of that expensive processing. Recycling of bottles makes no economic sense, it is done because it is "a good thing," i.e., in conformance with belief in pantheism. 7) Let's suppose the national electrical system is at capacity and needs to be expanded, so 100 megawatts of solar power are added. If no extra conventional capacity is added, then at night the system will be short by 100 megawatts and there will be power outages. This could be avoided if the grid extended 12,000 miles around the earth to always have sun, but (a) it doesn't and (b) it is not practical, due to transmission losses, to send power more than five hundred miles. The situation is worse for wind power that is even less reliable. Therefore, failure to count the costs is irrational. 8) Yes, and if we put a large tax on non-Kosher food, then Kosher food would become cheaper. Same thing with transit systems. It is nonetheless irrational. In highly congested areas, mass transit makes sense. But it is promoted as "good" where it makes no sense. 9) Since light is 100% converted to heat, there is absolutely no energy-related reason not to use lights for heat. Light is an advantage in winter when the days are short. Yet people are irrationally taught to shut off lights in winter to be "good." There is a clear pattern to all this nonsense, and it is not just a few fanatics. It is to please