• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

EcoTypes: Exploring Environmental Ideas

  • Home
  • About
    • About EcoTypes
    • Ideas Matter
    • When Ideas Differ
    • About the EcoTypes Site
  • Survey
    • Discover Your EcoTypes!
    • Quick Themes Survey
    • Interpreting Your Report
    • Participating Institutions
    • General Results >
      • Survey Dashboard
      • Background Results
      • Your Polarity Score
      • Grid-Group Scores
  • Axes
    • Axes Overview
    • Aesthetics
    • Change
    • Diversity
    • Domain
    • Ecosystems
    • Ethics
    • Future
    • Nature
    • Science
    • Social Scale
    • Society
    • Spatial Scale
    • Spirituality
    • Technology
    • Time
  • Themes
    • Themes Overview
    • Exploring Themes
    • Finding Patterns
      • Axis Correlations
      • Axis Network
    • Place (Nonhuman/Human)
    • Knowledge (Old/New)
    • Action (Small/Big)
  • Topics
    • Topics Overview
    • Activism
    • Climate
    • Conservation
    • Food
    • Health
    • Sustainability
  • For Instructors
    • Instructor Overview
    • EcoTypes Google Group
    • Topic-Axis-Theme Connections
    • Receiving Your Institution’s Data
    • Environmental Typologies*
    • Related Presentations
    • References
      • Curriculum References
      • All References
  • JP.us Home

Spirituality

FIRST PUBLISHED December 31, 2016

Spirituality

Is it best to approach environmental issues from a sacred perspective or a secular perspective?

Related main theme: Knowledge (Old/New)

 

Survey Items
Survey Results
Deep Dive
We often think of environmentalism as grounded in scientific facts and rationality, but for many people it is also grounded in spiritual values. The EcoTypes Spirituality axis considers the interplay of these two important traditions in the context of environmental issues.

Survey Items

EcoTypesAxisArrow-GreenNoVert

Sacred Pole

  • Nature has an important spiritual dimension that we must not neglect in coming to terms with our environment.
  • Nature is inherently sacred; this makes it all the more important that we take environmental problems seriously.

Secular Pole

  • People who look for spiritual dimensions of environmental problems and solutions are wasting their time.
  • Rationality, not spirituality, is what we need to solve environmental problems.

Survey Results

This histogram shows the overall distribution of averaged responses, from fall 2018 to now, to the survey statements above. Which side are most responses on? Is there general agreement or disagreement among responses so far?

How do your own responses compare with these overall results? To answer this question, find the personal report you received by email and compare your average response to this axis.

Do most respondents agree with you? Disagree with you? Are most responses to the right or the left of you? What does this say about your responses as compared with overall responses?

Deep Dive

Extended Overview Cited References
Extended Overview

The prevalent story of environmentalism is that it is grounded in the facts of environmental degradation as revealed by science. But there is a different way to understand environmental concerns, as arising more from religious and spiritual sentiment than from scientific fact (Proctor 2009a; 2009b). Indeed, the history of North American environmentalism involves  religious and spiritual as well as scientific roots (Albanese 1991; Worster 1994; Taylor 2010). The EcoTypes spirituality axis explores these potential connections in greater depth.

First, a clarification: spirituality is popularly regarded as separable from religion, being more individualized, authentic, and less institutionalized. Scholars, however, do not generally make such a clear distinction, in part due to the influence of functional approaches that identify religious dimensions in a broad realm of personal and social practices, versus substantive approaches in which religion is defined by particular beliefs and practices (e.g., theism or holy day worship; see Proctor 2006a; 2006b). Here the term spirituality will include, but move beyond, institutional religion.

Scholarly discussions around spirituality and environment are often grounded in the classic thesis of Lynn White (1967), in which he argued that responsibility for environmental degradation lay squarely in western Judeo-Christian religious traditions. White’s thesis put into motion a long period of scholarly reflection as to whether religion and spirituality have played, or can play, positive or negative ecological roles (e.g., Dubos 1980; Taylor et al. 2016). At the level of individual attitudes and values, the role of religion and spirituality in environmental beliefs and behaviors is complicated by a host of related social and demographic factors; in brief, religious belief does not necessarily detract from environmental concern  (e.g., Kanagy and Nelson 1995; Proctor and Berry 2005; Morrison et al. 2015).

The EcoTypes Spirituality axis is grounded in the reality that, for many people, the nonhuman world is understood in spiritual, sacred terms (cf. Eliade 1959). The two poles, sacred vs. secular, summarize a complex history of interaction between religion and science, one in which conflict between the two was never the full story but also amply evident (Proctor 2005). Statistical evidence suggests that, even though religion in general does not necessarily correlate positively or negatively with environmental concern, a belief in the sacredness of nature (whether inherently sacred, or because it was created by God) is in fact a strong predictor of environmental concern (Proctor and Berry 2005; Proctor 2009).

It would appear at first glance that adding a spiritual dimension to nature may assist by grounding environmentalism in more than just science; i.e., nature spirituality could be seen as a good thing. But there are several reasons for concern, and thus to support the secular pole of the EcoTypes spirituality axis. As but one example, nature spirituality may work well for environmental issues such as old-growth forest protection, where ancient forests can readily be seen as sacred, but what about the many other environmental issues where notions of pure nature, often assumed in nature sacredness, are less applicable (Proctor 2009; see also nature axis summary)? Others may be concerned that nature spirituality detracts from science and rationality (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1996), or that vague idealism, or on the other hand, apocalyptic tendencies, may result (Pepper 2005; Shellenberger & Nordhaus 2011; Swyngedouw 2013; cf. Albanese 1993; Proctor and Berry 2011).

Whether you support the sacred or secular pole on the EcoTypes spirituality axis, it may thus be important to consider how religion and spirituality affect the environmental ideas we and others have, and what may be the proper role of these spiritual impulses in guiding our environmental beliefs and practices.

Cited References

371577 spirituality items 1 author asc https://jimproctor.us/ecotypes/wp-content/plugins/zotpress/
Albanese, Catherine L. 1991. Nature Religion in America: From the Algonkian Indians to the New Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dubos, René J. 1980. The Wooing of Earth. New York: Scribner.
Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1996. Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Kanagy, Conrad L., and Hart M. Nelsen. 1995. “Religion and Environmental Concern: Challenging the Dominant Assumptions.” Review of Religious Research 37 (1): 33–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/3512069.
Eliade, Mircea. 1959. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. 1st American edition. Harvest Book 144. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Morrison, Mark, Roderick Duncan, and Kevin Parton. 2015. “Religion Does Matter for Climate Change Attitudes and Behavior” 10 (8): e0134868. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134868.
Pepper, David. 2005. “Utopianism and Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics 14 (1): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000310150.
Pew Research Center. 2015. “Religion and Science.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/science-and-religion/.
Proctor, James D. 2009. “Introduction: Visions of Nature, Science, and Religion.” In Envisioning Nature, Science, and Religion, edited by James D. Proctor, 3–35. West Conshohocken, Penn: Templeton Press.
Proctor, James. 2006. “Introduction: Theorizing and Studying Religion.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (1): 165–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00504.x.
Proctor, James D. 2005. “Introduction: Rethinking Science and Religion.” In Science, Religion, and the Human Experience, edited by James D. Proctor, 3–23. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195175328.001.0001/acprof-9780195175325-chapter-2.
Proctor, James. 2006. “Religion as Trust in Authority: Theocracy and Ecology in the United States.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (1): 188–196. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00508.x.
Proctor, James D. 2009. “Old Growth and a New Nature: The Ambivalence of Science and Religion.” In Old Growth in a New World: A Pacific Northwest Icon Reexamined, edited by Thomas Allen Spies and Sally L. Duncan, 104–15. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Proctor, James D., and Evan Berry. 2011. “Ecotopian Exceptionalism.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 5 (2): 145–63. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v5i2.145.
Proctor, James D., and Evan Berry. 2005. “Social Science on Religion and Nature.” In Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, edited by Bron Taylor, 1571–77. London: Thoemmes Continuum.
Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus. 2011. “Evolve: The Case for Modernization as the Road to Salvation.” In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene, edited by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. Oakland, CA: Breakthrough Institute. http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Monsters-Postenvironmentalism-ebook/dp/B006FKUJY6.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 2013. “Apocalypse Now! Fear and Doomsday Pleasures.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 24 (1): 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2012.759252.
Taylor, Bron Raymond. 2010. Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Taylor, Bron, Gretel Van Wieren, and Bernard Daley Zaleha. 2016. “Lynn White Jr. and the Greening-of-Religion Hypothesis.” Conservation Biology 30 (5): 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12735.
White, Lynn. 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155 (3767): 1203–7.
Worster, Donald. 1994. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Footer

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

This site and all content © 2019 Jim Proctor | Built on WordPress using Genesis Framework | Log in