The Rise of the Nones

[sun rise]

I think, almost exclusively a Christian problem,

Not all. For example

Creation Care

In Jesus, God so loved the whole world. We follow Jesus, so we love the world God loves. Concerned for the global climate emergency, drawing on diverse approaches for our […]

www.episcopalchurch.org

The Evangelical Environmental Network

The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) is a ministry that educates, inspires, and mobilizes Christians in their effort to care for God's creation.

creationcare.org

What is creation care?

Creation care is an essential part of seeking peace and justice as we deeply value our interactions with the natural environment God created.

www.ambs.edu

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why call them "The Nones"? I'm not sure I care much for that name. They ought to think of something else. Lest anyone get the idea that we're "nuns." Not that I have a problem with nuns, but I just don't want to be one.

Maybe the nones couldn’t break the habit?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

This is, I think, almost exclusively a Christian problem, even Islam largely places environmentalism as a non-optional divine test of stewardship.

I not so sure.
As you indicated:

So I would agree with the statement that 'most religious people' rather than 'most religions.'

From:

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.702

“Despite the fact that many of the regions where most Muslims live are highly vulnerable to climate change and that Islam often assumes a great societal relevancy in these regions, only few social science studies have addressed the relationship between Islam and climate change (Hancock, 2018, p. 3). This review aims to bring the existing but scattered knowledge together. Thus, it provides insights into the potentials of Muslim communities to facilitate (or block) climate change mitigation in different world regions. The review distinguishes between “Islam” as an abstract religious knowledge system and “Muslims” as individual and collective actors (e.g., organizations) who identify with Islam. These actors may interpret the religious knowledge system in different ways. As this review shows, there is no uniform interpretation of climate change among Muslims. Based on their interpretations of Islam, Muslims have generated different approaches to climate change.”

“Apart from regional differences regarding the concern about climate change, differences also become apparent in the ways in which Muslims interpret climate change. Research drawing on case studies and smaller interview samples shows that interpretations can be broadly summarized into three types (Table 2): (1) climate change as caused by humans, (2) spiritual causes, and (3) skepticism in terms of its existence. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive given that Muslims may also regard human and spiritual causes as jointly producing climate change.”

TABLE 2. Interpretations of climate change among muslims

Interpretation type	Interpretation of climate change	For example, visible among…
Human causes	Outcome of economic system and western lifestyles	Muslim leaders and scholars
Spiritual causes	God's punishment for immoral behavior or fulfilment of end-of-times prophecy	Local populations in Sub-Saharan Africa
Skepticism	Western invention to weaken development of Muslim world	Political Islamists, farmers in Bangladesh

“The aforementioned interpretations show no general differences from those of Christians, which also cover (a) narratives of human activity causing climate change (Pope Francis, 2015; World Council of Churches, 2014), (b) spiritual views attributing climate change to God (Artur & Hilhorst, 2012) (Barker & Bearce, 2013; Leahy, 2013), and (c) climate change skepticism (Carr et al., 2012; Ecklund et al., 2017; Zaleha & Szasz, 2015). Particular interpretations of climate change appear to be prevalent in specific regions among Christians and Muslims, such as its interpretation as a divinely orchestrated phenomenon in Sub-Saharan Africa (Abegunde, 2017; Chérif & Greenberg, 2014; Cuni-Sanchez et al., 2019; Golo & Awetori Yaro, 2013; Makame & Shackleton, 2019; Nche, 2020; Sanganyado et al., 2018).”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From this agnostic atheist and humanist's perspective, organized, politicized religion does great societal harm with its bigotries, irrational prohibitions, and its praise of faith over reason. These are antithetical to humanist principles, which promote exactly the opposite - tolerance, opportunity, and reason.

So, naturally, I find the rise of the nones encouraging. Many or most would not call themselves atheists, although I would if they have no god belief. Some of these people prefer euphemisms like skeptic and freethinker, or say that they're not atheist, but agnostic or unsure.

But many more are theists that just don't want to be with people that preach hellfire and homophobia and conservative politics most Sundays any more, and some identify as "spiritual but not religious" and others as pagans.

It's all good from my perspective. I don't ask for people to give up their god beliefs. I just want them to be manipulated less by organized religions with anti-humanist agendas, and any degree of separation from that influence is a change for the better. Every none is one less member of organized religion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I not so sure.
As you indicated:

From:

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.702

“Despite the fact that many of the regions where most Muslims live are highly vulnerable to climate change and that Islam often assumes a great societal relevancy in these regions, only few social science studies have addressed the relationship between Islam and climate change (Hancock, 2018, p. 3). This review aims to bring the existing but scattered knowledge together. Thus, it provides insights into the potentials of Muslim communities to facilitate (or block) climate change mitigation in different world regions. The review distinguishes between “Islam” as an abstract religious knowledge system and “Muslims” as individual and collective actors (e.g., organizations) who identify with Islam. These actors may interpret the religious knowledge system in different ways. As this review shows, there is no uniform interpretation of climate change among Muslims. Based on their interpretations of Islam, Muslims have generated different approaches to climate change.”

“Apart from regional differences regarding the concern about climate change, differences also become apparent in the ways in which Muslims interpret climate change. Research drawing on case studies and smaller interview samples shows that interpretations can be broadly summarized into three types (Table 2): (1) climate change as caused by humans, (2) spiritual causes, and (3) skepticism in terms of its existence. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive given that Muslims may also regard human and spiritual causes as jointly producing climate change.”

TABLE 2. Interpretations of climate change among muslims

Interpretation type	Interpretation of climate change	For example, visible among…
Human causes	Outcome of economic system and western lifestyles	Muslim leaders and scholars
Spiritual causes	God's punishment for immoral behavior or fulfilment of end-of-times prophecy	Local populations in Sub-Saharan Africa
Skepticism	Western invention to weaken development of Muslim world	Political Islamists, farmers in Bangladesh

“The aforementioned interpretations show no general differences from those of Christians, which also cover (a) narratives of human activity causing climate change (Pope Francis, 2015; World Council of Churches, 2014), (b) spiritual views attributing climate change to God (Artur & Hilhorst, 2012) (Barker & Bearce, 2013; Leahy, 2013), and (c) climate change skepticism (Carr et al., 2012; Ecklund et al., 2017; Zaleha & Szasz, 2015). Particular interpretations of climate change appear to be prevalent in specific regions among Christians and Muslims, such as its interpretation as a divinely orchestrated phenomenon in Sub-Saharan Africa (Abegunde, 2017; Chérif & Greenberg, 2014; Cuni-Sanchez et al., 2019; Golo & Awetori Yaro, 2013; Makame & Shackleton, 2019; Nche, 2020; Sanganyado et al., 2018).”

I don't think this changes my point. Of course there's going to be variations within, there's variations within all demographics. Climate denial is not uncommon in certain right libertarian groups which tend to be irreligious atheist, due to a proliferation of greed and one-man-islandism in some of the philosophies within that demographic.

My point is more 'some or even most Christians + Some or even most Muslims =/= most religions, just most religious people.'

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I don't think this changes my point.

I took your comment at face value.

This is, I think, almost exclusively a Christian problem, even Islam largely places environmentalism as a non-optional divine test of stewardship.

This reads as though in your view Christians are the main problem and that Muslims tend to take stewardship of the environment more earnestly, which didn’t ring true to me……
Thus I investigated.

So I would agree with the statement that 'most religious people' rather than 'most religions.

This was my point.
It’s the attitude of the majority of the individual people as opposed to the lip service of the religious institutions.
It’s that majority that has “faith” that their god has ultimate control over the fate of this world and, since they have abdicated that responsibility to that god, feel little effort is needed on their part to rectify the situation beyond what they conceive as showing fidelity to that god since it’s ultimately all part of the grand plan.
This leaves, in their minds, doubt that change of the habits of mere mortal beings could have an impact and therefore little incentive to demand that change from their political leaders.
All while leaning on their “faith” that they will ultimately come out OK because their fidelity to their god will shield them and many are willing to accept the “collateral damage” to the heretics who refuse to “see the light”.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

There was a thread I started that did not get much attention on this topic Church for ‘nones’: Meet the anti-dogma spiritual collectives emerging across the US

Sounds very similar to a UU church.

 

[Copernicus]

Religion is based on reward/punishment whether it be heaven/hell or karma. It also has a lot of rituals which might be beautiful but seem increasingly hollow to many.

An alternative is spiritual communities that help people cope. These communities don't need to be based on formal rituals dictated by a religion.

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that they mostly are based on religious doctrines of one sort or another. Many atheists I am acquainted with who join communities of that sort usually become members of UU churches or some other "big tent" religious movement for a network of support.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe the nones couldn’t break the habit?

Religion is really just all about the hats, isn't it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe the nones couldn’t break the habit?

Religion is really just all about the hats, isn't it?

 

[Copernicus]

I would posit that religion (though definitely not exclusively) is contributing in preventing people from doing anything significant about the issues currently and find it hard to imagine that will change in the foreseeable future.
There appears to be a very strong correlation with religiosity and climate change denial or at least apathy.

I think that the correlation is between religion and conservatism and that conservatives by definition tend to be opposed to change. So I think that you are looking at a correlation rather than causation.

Since significant action would require a massive public outcry for that action in order to overcome the economic and therefore political incentives preventing said action.
The fact that a majority of people are convinced that reality is trumped by a “higher power” that would have the ability to prevent catastrophic occurrences and with sufficient prayers, incantations or reliance on an “all loving god” protecting his flock is in no small part protecting the powers that be from facing public demand for said action.

Again, I don't think that belief in a higher power has much of anything to do with opposition to change of lifestyles or change in waste pollution control or fossil fuel policies.

As for religion functioning as a powerful coping mechanism;
I would contend that it’s main method of coping is offering seemingly plausible denial of reality as a salve for uncomfortable acknowledgment of their lack of control in this world which often prevents work towards taking a modicum of actual control and preventing continuing or worsening conditions.
Kind of like “thoughts and prayers” after mass shootings.

The "thoughts and prayers" response is a coping response when people are faced with some devastating event in their lives. It is just a formulaic attempt to comfort the people who are suffering--sort of like saying "Sorry for your loss" in response to a death. As I have been saying, religion has an important function as a coping mechanism. The "thoughts and prayers" response doesn't work as well with atheists for obvious reasons, but it helps people to feel that they are being helpful to the sufferer.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Concerning “thoughts and prayers”

It is just a formulaic attempt to comfort the people who are suffering

While I’m not saying there is a lack of empathy and believe they wish to help others suffering, I suspect that it is as much if not more a coping mechanism for their own conscience.
As I previously stated….

I would contend that it’s main method of coping is offering seemingly plausible denial of reality as a salve for uncomfortable acknowledgment of their lack of control in this world which often prevents work towards taking a modicum of actual control and preventing continuing or worsening conditions.

In other words since they are stymied on any constructive action they are capable of undertaking, they take solace in their faith that their god will handle it.
The offering of the “thoughts” is a show of their solidarity of sympathy.
The offering of the “prayers” is the limit of their solution, which in the case of a one-off event is understandable (not being able to rectify what has already taken place).
However, in the case of a continuing pattern of events (climate change, mass shootings etc.)
the “prayers” is what they seem to perceive as taking action. In their minds it seems the passing it along to their god, who they believe has the power to rectify the situation, is their solution to preventing further events. And having done so put their conscience at ease as having done their part and confidently (or at least seemingly) put it “in God’s hands”.
(the salve previously mentioned)

I think that the correlation is between religion and conservatism and that conservatives by definition tend to be opposed to change. So I think that you are looking at a correlation rather than causation.

Of course there is a strong correlation between religiosity and conservatism.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

And it is the political conservatism that is preventing much of the necessary action to help mitigate climate change.
Which religiosity walks and in hand with, so to speak.

Again, I don't think that belief in a higher power has much of anything to do with opposition to change of lifestyles or change in waste pollution control or fossil fuel policies.

As I said

I would posit that religion (though definitely not exclusively) is contributing in preventing people from doing anything significant about the issues currently and find it hard to imagine that will change in the foreseeable future.

in order to overcome the economic and therefore political incentives preventing said action.

I believe it is a contributing factor and stipulated that and included the caveat of “though definitely not exclusively”.
I am convinced that many Christians (particularly conservative) coddle their consciences with religion In order to bolster the denial of the situation and/or apathy towards it.

The review of studies I linked in post# 43 seems to reflect similar tendencies among Muslims.

Since Christians and Muslims constitute a majority of the population, particularly in the industrialized countries of the world where the leadership would necessarily come from if climate change were to be mitigated, that to me would indicate a problem.

I’ve come to this conclusion as result of many conversations with deniers, far right wing adherents and more moderate yet not particularly engaged people on several occasions over the years who have related their faith that “god will sort it out”.
While I concede that this would be considered a very localized and small sampling…..
and unfortunately there aren’t many (at least as far as I’ve been able to detect) actual studies to be able to consult.
Those that I’ve seen don’t directly address it, but do show the strong correlation among the religious and conservatism that we discussed.

Should I find any that counter my conclusion, I might of course reconsider.

 

[Copernicus]

Concerning “thoughts and prayers”

While I’m not saying there is a lack of empathy and believe they wish to help others suffering, I suspect that it is as much if not more a coping mechanism for their own conscience.
As I previously stated….

In other words since they are stymied on any constructive action they are capable of undertaking, they take solace in their faith that their god will handle it.
The offering of the “thoughts” is a show of their solidarity of sympathy.
The offering of the “prayers” is the limit of their solution, which in the case of a one-off event is understandable (not being able to rectify what has already taken place).
However, in the case of a continuing pattern of events (climate change, mass shootings etc.)
the “prayers” is what they seem to perceive as taking action. In their minds it seems the passing it along to their god, who they believe has the power to rectify the situation, is their solution to preventing further events. And having done so put their conscience at ease as having done their part and confidently (or at least seemingly) put it “in God’s hands”.
(the salve previously mentioned)



Of course there is a strong correlation between religiosity and conservatism.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

And it is the political conservatism that is preventing much of the necessary action to help mitigate climate change.
Which religiosity walks and in hand with, so to speak.


As I said



I believe it is a contributing factor and stipulated that and included the caveat of “though definitely not exclusively”.
I am convinced that many Christians (particularly conservative) coddle their consciences with religion In order to bolster the denial of the situation and/or apathy towards it.

The review of studies I linked in post# 43 seems to reflect similar tendencies among Muslims.

Since Christians and Muslims constitute a majority of the population, particularly in the industrialized countries of the world where the leadership would necessarily come from if climate change were to be mitigated, that to me would indicate a problem.

I’ve come to this conclusion as result of many conversations with deniers, far right wing adherents and more moderate yet not particularly engaged people on several occasions over the years who have related their faith that “god will sort it out”.
While I concede that this would be considered a very localized and small sampling…..
and unfortunately there aren’t many (at least as far as I’ve been able to detect) actual studies to be able to consult.
Those that I’ve seen don’t directly address it, but do show the strong correlation among the religious and conservatism that we discussed.

Should I find any that counter my conclusion, I might of course reconsider.

That's your call. I'm just saying that I disagree with your view that religion is somehow a significant factor in our climate change problem, if that is your point. Rather, I think that people who are conservative tend to resist change. It seems reasonable to me that conservatives would be more inclined to preserve religious traditions and traditional lifestyles that have contributed to our environmental problems. There are, of course, a lot of people who are both religious and concerned about the burning of fossil fuels. I just don't really think that there is a strong case for blaming global warming on people who worship gods.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I just don't really think that there is a strong case for blaming global warming on people who worship gods.

I did not suggest that was the case.

I blame global warming predominantly on the emissions of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution, through manufacturing, transportation, agriculture etc.
Whether the people engaged in the activities that have driven those emissions worshiped gods has nothing to do with why they engaged in those activities.
So no, I don’t blame global warming on people who worship gods.

The original comment I was referring to was your comment in Post # 20

I think that the trend is an interesting phenomenon to watch. I suspect that more people will turn back to religion in coming decades as catastrophic climate change starts to cause more widespread suffering around the world. IMO, religion is first and foremost a coping mechanism, and people will be more desperate for ways to cope with the unprecedented disruptions.

To which @Evangelicalhumanist replied in
post # 29

However, turning back to religion and prayer to help fix the catastrophic problems we may face could well have people paying less attention to actually doing something about the issues. Sounds like it could be counter-productive.

Your reply in post # 33 was

My prediction about religion coming back was based on my belief that religion functions as a powerful coping mechanism. Faced with catastrophic events caused by climate change, people will need to find ways to cope. I don't think religion will prevent people from doing anything significant about the issues, nor will it help.

It was this comment I referred to in Post # 38

I would posit that religion (though definitely not exclusively) is contributing in preventing people from doing anything significant about the issues currently and find it hard to imagine that will change in the foreseeable future.
There appears to be a very strong correlation with religiosity and climate change denial or at least apathy.

Since significant action would require a massive public outcry for that action in order to overcome the economic and therefore political incentives preventing said action.

That religiosity contributes to, as @Evangelicalhumanist put it; “turning back to religion and prayer to help fix the catastrophic problems we may face could well have people paying less attention to actually doing something about the issues.”

In other words religiosity in some cases is the reason some people do not trust science and deny that global warming even exists.
In some cases, while not denying that it is happening fail to concede that it is a human driven phenomenon and claim it is “natural” and under God’s control not mans.

In some cases religiosity is a factor in their political ideology of conservatism putting them in the camp of it being a “left wing hoax” hell bent on destroying the economy.
Or prioritizing religious agendas
(i.e. abortion, gay rights etc.) assuring they vote for conservative leaders who oppose action on climate change.

In some cases since, they feel unable
(or unwilling) to make any changes to their lifestyle, lean on prayer as an effort to implore God to protect the environment in place of actually making an effort to do anything meaningful.

As I explained in Post # 52

I believe it is a contributing factor and stipulated that and included the caveat of “though definitely not exclusively”.
I am convinced that many Christians (particularly conservative) coddle their consciences with religion In order to bolster the denial of the situation and/or apathy towards it.

I'm just saying that I disagree with your view that religion is somehow a significant factor in our climate change problem, if that is your point.

Whether it is a significant factor is not what I said.

However, for what I believe is a sizable amount of those people that support the status quo of current political under-action, I maintain it is
(as stated previously) a contributing factor.

As to how much it contributes; that of course is determined on an individual basis, for some it is significant.

 

[Copernicus]

...I'm just saying that I disagree with your view that religion is somehow a significant factor in our climate change problem, if that is your point.

Whether it is a significant factor is not what I said.

However, for what I believe is a sizable amount of those people that support the status quo of current political under-action, I maintain it is
(as stated previously) a contributing factor.

As to how much it contributes; that of course is determined on an individual basis, for some it is significant.

Thanks for the clarification. I consider religion to be a rather insignificant contributing factor in the sense that it is not going to matter one way or the other. Atheists pollute just as much as believers, especially those atheists who live in the high-pollution countries such as China, India, and the US. Religion is far more likely to have a significant "contributing factor" in matters that religious doctrines actually take a stand on--for example, abortion, contraception, end of life care, and other health care issues.

Nevertheless, my point is that when the catastrophes hit, they won't really be reversible. So it won't matter whether churches, temples, and synagogues start telling people that they are morally obliged to do something. What people will need is some way to cope with the disasters. Religions traditionally supply people with a way to cope, so it seems reasonable to me that more and more people will become more interested in religion than they were when they weren't facing imminent existential threats.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Nevertheless, my point is that when the catastrophes hit, they won't really be reversible. So it won't matter whether churches, temples, and synagogues start telling people that they are morally obliged to do something. What people will need is some way to cope with the disasters. Religions traditionally supply people with a way to cope, so it seems reasonable to me that more and more people will become more interested in religion than they were when they weren't facing imminent existential threats.

Well, the catastrophes are already starting to hit, yet as you indicated in the OP the “Nones” are on the rise.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, the catastrophes are already starting to hit, yet as you indicated in the OP the “Nones” are on the rise.

Yes, although it varies with countries. I would say that we aren't facing anything like the level of catastrophes that will be upon us in the coming decades. Rising sea levels seem to be happening a lot more quickly than scientists had hoped, and that is very worrying, especially for the eastern coast of the US.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I would say that we aren't facing anything like the level of catastrophes that will be upon us in the coming decades.

I agree.
It’s already started and can no longer be prevented from happening.

There are opportunities to mitigate how fast and far the the causes of these future events are permitted to continue, in order to minimize as much as is possible the frequency and severity of those events.

However, the severity of and frequency of these events in the future is predicted on the actions of people.
In order to improve the future outcomes by lessening the speed and duration of those causes requires that people;
• Understand and accept what those causes are.
• Not relying on a “higher being” to intercede.
• Are compelled enough by that understanding to take personal action and support political leaders who are willing to implement governmental actions to ensure compliance with governmental scale measures.
• Prioritize possible short term sacrifices and inconveniences (which are debatable), in order to ensure long term solutions over current behavior which has been documented as exacerbating those events.

Which religiosity is contributing to preventing, and showing little or no indication of changing.