christian fundamentalism dampens environmental concern

ch.2, ec-p.26 – why the association of religion with environmentalism is more complex than reducing it to a single measure of religiosity such as dominion or biblical literalism religious beliefs…

“In response to the still ambiguous evidence for the association of religion with environmentalism, some attribute the dampening effect of dominion belief and biblical literalism on environmental concern to a more encompassing fundamentalist orientation with both religious and non-religious cultural foundations. In this view, “Dominion Theology” has no scriptural basis and its associated environmental attitudes are not biblically based (Eckberg and Blocker 1996). This approach “would account for the ubiquitous Fundamentalism effect and could leave room for the positive effect of religious participation…[and] explain why we find independent effects of fundamentalist affiliation that do not clearly flow from the [Lynn White] Dominion hypothesis and why Bible belief has no independent effects [on environmental concern]” (Eckberg and Blocker 1996).”

 

 

biblical literalism poor predictor of environmentalism

ch.2, ec-p.25 – extending the point of the previous paragraph…

“Others seek more certain ground for religion’s role in environmentalism by focusing on conservative Protestant fundamentalism. But again, despite some evidence confirming its suspected negative association, the findings overall are not consistent. Although Christian “religious fundamentalism negatively predicted individual environmentalism”, other religious factors still do foster “individual environmental behaviors when fundamentalism and political variables are controlled” (Woodrum and Wolkomir 1997). Although used repeatedly as a religiosity measure in quantitative studies, the importance of singling out biblical literalism for its association with environmental concern is not certain. Its influence on environmental views appears enmeshed within a larger array of religious beliefs distinct to conservative dispensational theology (Guth, Green, Kellstedt, and Smidt 1995). Although initially strongly associated together, the effect of biblical literalism on congregants’ environmental attitudes dissipates or vanishes after accounting for the influence of social sources of information in their churches (Djupe and Hunt 2009).”

 

 

biblical literalism’s role unclear in environmental concern

ch.2, ec-p.24 – empirical evidence is weak or lacking for the association of biblical literalism with various measures for different forms of expressing environmental concern…

“The role of biblical literalism also varies relative to comparisons with environmental beliefs, attitudes, intentions, or more ecological actions. When observed it does correspond with less concern in the way White claims Christianity reduces it, but the “effect was never strong” (Eckberg and Blocker 1989). Others find believer’s “high” view of scripture shows no direct influence on adherents’ environmental concern, concluding that the assumed or perceived association between them is spurious (Wolkomir, Futreal, Woodrum, and Hoban 1997). Even conceptualizing biblical literalism as agreement that “The story of Creation as written in the Bible is true” does not correspond with variations in denominational environmentalism (Wolkomir, Woodrum, Futreal, and Hoban 1997). More unexpectedly, biblical literalism and other typical expressions of individual’s conservative Protestant religiosity are not significantly associated with dominion beliefs (Woodrum and Hoban 1994). After finding biblical literalism and stronger belief in God (both cognitive belief religiosity measures) corresponds with weaker support for environmental protection spending, while frequent prayer (a religious behavior measure) was associated with those more willing to do so, Boyd (1999) concluded religious factors held little promise for understanding US environmentalism better.”

 

 

stronger fundamentalism, weaker environmentalism

ch.2, ec-p.18 – relationship between measures of religious conservative protestant fundamentalism with people’s environmental and economic policy preferences, and hints of the influence of political factors on the role of religion in environmental concern…

“People more strongly affirming traditional or orthodox Christian doctrines more frequently indicate fewer environmental preferences (Guth, Kellstedt, Smidt, and Green 1993). Moral and political conservatism is a distinctive of “Fundamentalists” and those concerned with “maintaining moral standards as a high priority are less environmentally-minded” (Guth, Kellstedt, Smidt, and Green 1993). They “dismiss environmental concern as part of a liberal political agenda that they reject” (Greeley 1993). Rather than specific theological beliefs, stronger religious sectarianism better accounts for when people judge economic growth more important than the environment (Eckberg and Blocker 1996). Given this negative association of fundamentalism with environmental concern, some conclude that focusing on “the complex of ideas in dispensational theology and not just biblical literalism” is necessary because the “better the measure we have of this theology, the stronger the correlations with environmental attitudes” such as those tapped by the NEP questions (Guth, Green, Kellstedt, and Smidt 1995).”

christian fundamentalists oppose environmental policy

ch.2, ec-p.17 – the pattern of empirical findings about the relationship among measures of protestant christian fundamentalism and of environmental concern, especially expressions of support for public policy improving environmental quality and increased protection of ecosystems…

“Although usually weak, when a negative association appears between religion and environmentalism it occurs with a measure of conservative Protestant fundamentalism (Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano 1998). “Fundamentalism”, sometimes labeled theological conservatism or biblical literalism, is conceptualized in many ways: “literal belief in the Bible, preoccupation with eschatology, denominational association, political ideology, and a variety of behavioral indicators, such as personal religious experience and listening to gospel music” (Ridgeway 2008). Members of more fundamentalist Christian denominations, who also hold stronger belief in God and express greater biblical literalism, weakly or significantly oppose US government spending on environmental protection (Boyd 1999; Kanagy, Humphrey, and Firebaugh 1994). Membership in fundamentalist churches also corresponds with individual’s aversion to political environmental actions Rather than specific theological beliefs, stronger religious sectarianism better accounts for when people judge economic growth more important than the environment (Eckberg and Blocker 1996).”

 

 

biblical literalism, inerrancy, & environmentalism

ch.2, ec-p.16 – how measures of people’s religious beliefs about the bible correspond with different expressions of environmental concern…

“For other analysts, biblical literalism and inerrancy stands as a proxy for dominion beliefs. These entail quantitative measures of people’s agreement that the Bible “is the inspired actual word of God”, “must be taken literally word for word”, or “is without error in its original writings”. In the US, those with more literal biblical views express less willingness to “spend money on the environment” (Greeley 1993). Conservative Protestants and biblical literalists are “significantly less apt to report political or private environmental behaviors” (Sherkat and Ellison 2007). Those with stronger biblical literalism beliefs do hold more anthropocentric views toward nature, but their regard for scripture does not correspond with their self-reported pro-environmental behavior (Schultz, Zelezny, and Dalrymple 2000).”

 

 

English: The Bible (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Texas Congressman Cites Noah’s Ark As Evidence Against Climate Change (motherjones.com)
• US congressman cites biblical flood to dispute human link to climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• GOP Rep. Barton Cites Biblical ‘Great Flood’ As Evidence That Climate Change Isn’t Necessarily Man-Made (mediaite.com)