**6. Theistic religion vs. indigenous religion in the exploitation of nature: what is the empirical evidence?**

The idea that indigenous religion is non-exploitative of the environment and theistic religion is has been thoroughly debated. I have attempted to summarize this debate [10] and support the argument that there is "voluminous ethnographic literature filled with carefully detailed examples of conservation practices, land stewardship, and religiously based environmental ethics among traditional peoples all over the world" ([11], p. lxii). This does not mean that indigenous communities are faultless when it comes to environmental care. All human communities exploit nature to one extent or another. It is only a question of how much and with what effects. One of the theories that have emerged concerning indigenous exploitation is what has been called "Pleistocene Overkill" in which Native Americans allegedly brought about widespread mammalian extinction. The theory seems to be highly contested and rubbished by some scholars [12]. A counter argument maintains that the norms and regulations that establish responsible harvesting levels, discourage waste, and prevent ecological damage prevail among these communities and are common to most of them. The reason for this, in Africa at least, is likely to do with taboos around the enchanted nature of the environment put forward in the White argument. Blasu, for example, argues that what he calls "eco-virtuous" character is a lifelong experience in primal (read "indigenous") African communities. This is based on the vulnerability to spiritual entities other than God in the precarious ecosystems and is, according to him, "the main reason why our ancestors establish both elaborate religious procedures (eg rituals) to manipulate the spirit forces and ethical rules (eg taboos) for prohibiting and inhibiting human conduct in the holistic eco-community" ([12], p. 107).

Romantic notions of harmony between humans and nature in indigenous worldviews largely miss this element. Attentiveness toward the environment that grows out of an esthetic or spiritual appreciation is one thing, that based on a mixture of "numinous dread," respect, and a sense of profound dependence on it is another altogether. Such a view of the environment has little or nothing to do with the romantic notions of nature held by some of the more famous lovers of nature in the West such as Thoreau, Muir, and Leopold, who argued that nature met the spiritual needs of humankind which modernity had robbed it of.4 Indigenous people go much further than this as they "try to understand nature exactly as how it is so they can figure out how to survive and prosper within its changeable actions" ([12], p. 6). Catherine Tucker's observation nicely summarizes the reason for the pro-environment position of Indigenous cultures.

*Traditional peoples live within animate worlds of mutual obligations with spirits or nonhuman beings, and their beliefs constrain the behavior of members of the communities, ideally limiting their environmentally destructive behavior. Modernization processes, on the other hand, disenchant and despiritualize those worlds to enable life without the constraints and obligations ([13], p. 14).*

The idea that modern, theistic forms of religion are prone toward environmental destruction and pre-modern forms is not was further interrogated in a research project in which I participated as principal researcher in 2017 on the topic of African spirituality [14]. Two hundred and fifty (250) people from a cross section of the

<sup>4</sup> See David Kinsley [9] for a good summary of the Romanticist position on the environment.

population and a diversity of religions, including African Religion, Christianity, and Islam, in five African countries, were interviewed on a wide range of topics, including the issue of the sacred environment. The countries where the research took place were Ghana, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Burkina-Faso, and Zimbabwe. The informants were distributed throughout the religious, denominational, educational, and age spectrums. Topics included marriage, customary tradition, relationships with spiritual beings, dreams, spirit possession, gender, success and failure in business, and corruption. The particular question relating to environmental care was: "If you or someone else wanted to cut down a tree (e.g. on your property) that was considered sacred, what would you do?" All of the respondents who were adherents of indigenous religions said they would not cut it down except one who said that it depended on whether or not the land itself was sacred. Most of the Christian respondents, on the other hand, said that they would cut it down, although they would have been afraid to before their conversion to Christianity. The following response from one person was typical of many of the Christian respondents.

*I will have it cut down. In fact, there were two such trees in the garden of my parents. A diviner said that they were not to cut them lest bad things would happen to the family. I had it cut down after I came to Christ as a teenager. My mother and grandmother feared for my life, but nothing happened. These things are from the devil [Female 35–44, Married, University / Tertiary, Christian, Charismatic] ([14], p. 30).*

While the evidence is clear from this particular piece of research that the disenchantment thesis is at play in the contemporary African scene, there are also indications that there continues to exist a measure of mitigating restraint in the attitude of many of the respondents. A number of them did not believe they had *carte blanche* to do whatever they pleased with the environment. For example, they would pray about cutting the tree down, or they would consult others before they did so.
