Is Climate Denial ‘Bad Religion’?

"Climate change demands intellectual adaptation by scholars of all disciplines, religious studies included," writes Evan Berry in response to our interview with Robin Veldman on evangelical opposition to climate action.

the cover art for Robin Veldman's book.
By Evan Berry

Evan Berry is Assistant Professor of Environmental Humanities in Arizona State University’s School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies. Berry is the author of Devoted to Nature: The Religious Roots of American Environmentalism (University of California Press, 2015) and editor of the forthcoming Climate Politics and the Power of Religion (Indiana University Press, 2022). He also serves as the President of the International Society for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture.
Twitter: @ecothought

Evan Berry

Evan Berry is Assistant Professor of Environmental Humanities in Arizona State University’s School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies. Berry is the author of Devoted to Nature: The Religious Roots of American Environmentalism (University of California Press, 2015) and editor of the forthcoming Climate Politics and the Power of Religion (Indiana University Press, 2022). He also serves as the President of the International Society for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture.
Twitter: @ecothought

In response to:

Understanding Evangelical Opposition to Climate Action

Evangelicals don't oppose climate activism for the reasons you think. Listen to expert Robin Veldman and find out why "embattlement" matters more than eschatology when it comes to rejecting climate science.

A Response to Robin Veldman’s “Understanding Evangelical Opposition to Climate Action,” by Evan Berry, Arizona State University

What is the impetus for scholarly research about religiously-inflected climate denial? It seems obvious that there is value in understanding how and why religion is and has been an obstacle to meaningful action to address climate change. But what is that value, exactly? Understanding the complex interface of religious life and climate politics is an important scholarly undertaking, one in which I, like Professor Veldman, have invested significant intellectual energy. Acknowledging the explicitly normative orientation of scholarship on religious climate denial raises many thorny questions about the ethics of ethnographic research, the impossibility of objectivity in religious studies, and, perhaps more interestingly, about how to elaborate modes of religion research that aim to be publicly impactful and socially transformative.

These questions are treated very directly in the outset of this episode of The Religious Studies Project. David McConeghy frames Robin Veldman’s work as “really informative for trying to understand how we can work with Evangelicals in the ways that they do think about the environment in order to enact the major changes that are going to be needed going forward… I think we all agree here at the RSP that climate change is a really big issue and that understanding the different factors that go into evangelical opposition to climate change are going to be really important to building coalitions and cooperations in the future.” Breann Fallon concurs, stating that “it’s only by understanding other points of view that we’re going to be able to tackle climate change from all directions.”

These are honest statements that closely parallel sentiments I frequently encounter among peers. Claims like these suggest a constellation of motives and assumptions animating scholarship on religious climate denial, which might be articulated as follows:

  1. there are religious histories that have contributed to the intractability of climate politics in the United States, and that documenting these histories is a necessary step toward creating political conditions more favorable for sustainability;
  2. there is so-called ‘common ground’ between ‘religious conservatives’ and ‘environmental progressives’ that are worth clarifying, perhaps as the means to achieve political consensus on narrow areas of environmental policy;
  3. that understanding the specific discursive contours of religiously-inflected climate denial can enable climate persuasion and coalition building (see, e.g. the work of Katherine Hayhoe); and lastly
  4. that courting white Evangelicals and other groups on the Religious Right is necessary and appropriate given the urgency and scope of the climate crisis.

There is also a converse, yet largely unspoken, set of motives and assumptions that operate in parallel to these more transparent calls for climate-related efforts to advance the “public understanding of religion.” My attunement to these tacit features of scholarship on religious climate denial are indebted to recent publications by Erin Wilson (i.e. her forthcoming chapter on “Secular Climate Fear”) and Anna Gade (i.e. her sharp critique of environmental studies in the introductory chapter of Muslim Environmentalisms). These include the axioms that:

  1. Climate change is “true” and claims otherwise are irrational, dangerous, and backwards;
  2. Religious studies scholars have the potential to shape public debates about ecological issues, and this potential has yet to be fully realized; and
  3. Religious studies scholarship on environmental issues like climate change are likely to have the kind of public salience that researchers imagine.

As a scholar who works in this area, spelling this all out explicitly brings into focus the theoretical and methodological quagmire that is religion and environment research. Speaking candidly, the climate crisis has become for me such an urgent, omnipresent matter that it calls into question my adherence to the norms that constitute the academic study of religion: from conference travel to the topics for introductory level undergraduate classes, from social taboo against collaboration between scholars and governments to the genteel conventions around ‘taking religion seriously.’ What good is it to play by the informal rules of institutions that are quite literally on fire? Crises precipitate change. Climate change is not just a problem to be solved, but a condition that we will live with for a very long time; and climate change demands intellectual adaptation by scholars of all disciplines, religious studies included. What does climate change portend for theory and method in our field?

First, as the work of decolonial scholars becomes more widely appreciated, our theories and methods increasingly acknowledge that the academic category ‘religion’ has never been neutral or objective. ‘Religion’ is a normative term, and we share with the discipline’s forebearers the temptation to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ religiosities. What distinguishes our challenge today is a commitment to global justice and a strategic de-centering of North Atlantic Christianities. Rather than retreat into a comfortable discourse of scholarly objectivity, research on religion and climate change should compel us to articulate and defend the normative impulses guiding our work.

Second, we should take greater pains to elaborate the public dimensions of scholarship on religion and climate change. Research methodologies are the subject of extensive consideration, but the ‘public impact’ of research in the humanities and social sciences is a less developed area for theoretical reflection. Broader coalitions are quite often politically advantageous, but the work of broadening coalitions for climate action may require scaling back from the ambition necessary to secure the well-being of future generations. Work that engages white Evangelicals (or other groups that may oppose mitigation and adaptation policies) is tactical, not strategic. Seeking collaboration and cooperation is appropriate in some situations, but the broader strategic aim for work on religion and climate change should be explicitly stated: decarbonizing the economies of all the nations of the world in an economically equitable, and ecologically sustainable way and doing so rapidly enough to protect the maximal possible degree of well-being among living things, human or otherwise. Knowledge about religiously-inflected climate obstructionism can serve the purpose of coalition building, but it can also serve the purpose of pressuring, de-platforming, and delegitimization. This line of analysis may make many scholars of religion uncomfortable, but in this brave new world, we have little choice but to wrestle honestly with what it means to study religion as it intersects with a moral crisis.

 Fund the RSP while you shop! Use an Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.ca, or Amazon.com affiliate link whenever you make a purchase. There’s no additional cost to you, but every bit helps us stay on the air! 

We need your support!

Want to support us directly? Become a monthly Patron or consider giving us a one-time donation through PayPal

Other EPISODES YOU MIGHT ENJOY

Religion, Neoliberalism and Consumer Culture

Podcast

According to Gauthier, it is important to note is that religious activity of the day is not haphazard or random pick-and-choose at all. Instead, it is following a new kind of logic, that of consumerism. Marketization and commodification among other phenomena are affecting the field of religion - and vice versa. Listen and find out more!
Jesuits, Mormons, and American Religion in the World

Podcast

My conversation with Maffly-Kipp begins with McGreevy's book, expands to include her work on Mormonism in contrast to Catholicism, and ends with a discussion of evangelical historian Mark Noll, in whose honor Notre Dame was originally going to host a conference, but was cancelled at the last minute.
How Religious Freedom Makes Religion

Podcast

Tisa Wenger tells David Robertson how local, national, and international regimes of religious freedom have produced and reproduced the category 'religion' and its others in the modern world.
Discourse! March 2020 with Theo Wildcroft, Dan Gorman, & Vivian Asimos

Podcast

In this month's episode of Discourse!, Theo Wildcroft, Dan Gorman and special emergency guest Vivian Asimos discuss the US Supreme Court's relationship to Christianity, how the Independent dealt with criticism of a review of a book critical of paganism, and religion, abuse and the idea of a ‘witch hunt’ in yoga and academia. Oh and something called coronavirus?
“Would You Still Call Yourself an Asianist?”

Podcast

Over the course of Ramey's career he has gradually and smoothly made a significant shift. Of course he still studies material relevant to his earlier training, but a shift in research focus from inter-religious cooperation to diaspora religion, eventually studying south Asian communities in the U.S.
See you in the next life? Cognitive foundations of reincarnation beliefs

Podcast

Human reincarnation: Same person, different body, another life. While conceptual scaffolding surrounding the idea of reincarnation can vary widely from culture to culture, in this podcast Claire White draws on some of her recent research pointing out that many similarities exist in how individuals reason about and discern the pre-rebirth identities of the reincarnated.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

The views expressed in podcasts, features and responses are the views of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Religious Studies Project or our sponsors. The Religious Studies Project is produced by the Religious Studies Project Association (SCIO), a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (charity number SC047750).