**8. Religions and modernisation**

In his 1981 Geary Lecture, Sociology Professor Peter Berger (1929–2017) defined modernisation as a revolution in the human experience of time. Convincingly, he claims that the two institutional processes that factor modernisation are technology and bureaucracy [31]. As already mentioned, the increasingly complicated rules and regulations of administrative procedure were argued by Max Weber as the correlate if not the cause of the modern sense of disenchantment. This raises the question of the possibility of a divide between the modernisation associated with the development of modernity and the supernatural understandings of traditional religions. An irony appears in that our word if not the concept itself for technology is formed from the

<sup>33</sup> York [7].

Greek *techne* signifying 'magic; magical art'. <sup>34</sup> According to Berger, the application of rational measures to the world when considered as functioning exclusively by rational means is the operating assumption of modernity. As a consequence, religion becomes a private matter for the individual as it is driven out of the public sphere. For the sociologist, the process by which religious institutions and religious symbols lose their former importance is known as secularisation. As Berger explains, 'Generally speaking, modernisation means that options are multiplied in human life'. In the resultant pluralisms of modern-day societies, choice has come to predominate over traditional resignations to the idea of fate. But for someone like the Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, the Enlightenment concept, 'which put individuals in charge of deciding for themselves what was right and wrong, rendered moral language meaningless'. As a result, 'Western civilization [has] lost its ability to think coherently about moral life'. 35

The secular response to traditional religion in such spiritual, non-spiritual or quasispiritual developments as humanism, communism, naturalism, positivism, etc. have adapted perhaps the most to the conditions of modern secularity in rejecting the assumptions of orthodox and conventional religions. They may be seen as direct legacies of modernisation and may also be seen as inimical to the counter-measures necessary for curtailing climate change inasmuch as nature becomes assessed as without having intrinsic value. Instead, the rights of self- and technological-development become paramount. When modern secularism is wedded foremost either to capitalism as an economy or to communism as politics, its contribution to the amelioration of climate change becomes at best secondary when and if it exists at all. When religiosity is pushed into being something private rather than public, individual secularists themselves can be unimpeded in their concern with and efforts for land conservation, habitat restoration and political advocacy. Certainly with the growing obviousness of fundamental alterations in global and regional climate patterns, secularists are at least capable of recognising the extrinsic value of nature and humanity's, if not also universal life's, dependence on maintaining or restoring natural balance despite the processes of modernisation. American cosmologist Carl Sagan (1934–1996) referred to the distant image of the earth as a tiny point of light captured by Voyager 1 on 14 February 1990. For him,

*it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known. … In our obscurity, in all this vastness [of the great, enveloping cosmic dark], there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.<sup>36</sup>*

Nevertheless, while 'our contemporary faith in progress [is] a Christian inheritance', <sup>37</sup> the very notion of humanity's continual advance through technology, civil ministries, moral development, the promotion of universal values and the assertion of human exceptionalism is integrally at home with the present-day belief in modernisation.<sup>38</sup> Karl Marx (1818–1883), along with the anthropologist James George Frazer

<sup>34</sup> Davis [32].

<sup>35</sup> Rothman ([33], p. 50).

<sup>36</sup> Sagan [34].

<sup>37</sup> Beha [35].

<sup>38</sup> Ibid.

#### *Religion and the Environmental Crisis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104002*

(1854–1941), 'theorized human evolution as a gradual disentangling from nature'. <sup>39</sup> In contrast to such modernist and secular convictions, secular faith itself 'recognises the finitude and fragility of our lives' and counters the Christian belief that 'nothing we do on Earth today can matter except as preparation for salvation'. <sup>40</sup> The very notion of eternity vis-à-vis a sanctity for the here and now has emerged as 'an irreducible conflict between orthodox Christianity and political liberalism', <sup>41</sup> but the emergence of secular environmentalism, 'in which concerns about human responsibility for degraded planetary conditions are highlighted, [is generating] renewed moral purpose for addressing the global ecological crisis'. <sup>42</sup> Consequently, despite 'the nihilism of secular capitalism [and] the spiritual impoverishment of modernity', <sup>43</sup> the various secularisms may be judged as at least potentially capable of handling modernisation in consideration of the environment. In short, the institutions of spirituality or nonspirituality associated with the effects of secularisation are those that adapt as far as possible to the conditions of modern secularity.

The abrahamic positions are equally as complex if not even more so. Regarding planetary well-being, evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and theologically conservative Muslims are among the most who are both counter-modernisation and least involved with inter-religious missions promoting ecological awareness.<sup>44</sup> Overall, if religion articulates meaning and value concerning the possibilities of the world, humanity and the supernatural, when the world is considered an illusion (Hinduism), valueless (Buddhism) or secondary (Abrahamic), then modernisation has little impact either for or against towards promoting climate change. This stance is perhaps strongest with Protestant evangelical and/or fundamentalist conviction operating under the edict of the Genesis mandate—one in which environmental activism is argued to be contrary to the will of God. The anti-modern reality of the Islamic State is expressed by Sadiq Khan, London's Muslim mayor, who claims that the philosophy of Isis insists 'that it is incompatible to have western liberal values and to practice the faith of Islam'. <sup>45</sup> But, likewise, in a counter-modern position, Adi Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta, the predominant form of Hinduism, also regressively separates humanity from nature and consequently renders any contemporary effort for the protection and improvement of the environment to be a distraction from the true goal of life.

While the secular traditions have little alternative to placing significance in humanity and worldly/physical realities alone, it appears that the pagan religiosities are the most centred on 'Gaia spirituality', the sacredness of nature and the integral interconnection of the human and the natural. With contemporary paganisms in particular, there appears to be no intrinsic opposition to modernisation but rather its acceptance as a positive that within the all-embracing framework of reality offers pragmatic and protective environmental change. Nevertheless, one can witness within some secular orientations a resistance to modernisation as being inimical, dangerous and/or unhealthy (e.g., pesticides, plastics, vaccinations, nuclear energy, 4G/Fourth Generation Cellular Networks, etc.), and likewise within pagan religiosity there is the

<sup>39</sup> Joerstad [36].

<sup>40</sup> Thomson [37].

<sup>41</sup> Rothman [33].

<sup>42</sup> Vivanco [38].

<sup>43</sup> Rothman [33].

<sup>44</sup> Baugh [39].

<sup>45</sup> Cited in Rifkind [40].

possibility of a luddite opposition to technical progress. For the secularist, a reversion to the traditional may emerge as a desire to avoid the contaminations and pollutions of modern advance.

However, with paganism, the traditional is often recognised as the core of indigenous culture and awareness—but here there is also the recognition of indigenous people's own recognition of the importance and necessity for working with and within the natural environment rather than against it. Indigenous activism, according to Anishinaabe scholar-activist Winona LaDuke, is rooted in a deep connection to the land.

*As the Earth has become increasingly threatened by population pressures, extractive capitalism, and a global political order hostile to ecological and social justice, a parallel rise in social movement resistance has taken place on a local, regional, and global scale.<sup>46</sup>*

Contemporary and indigenous paganisms are increasingly part of this social movement of resistance to ecological hostility. Besides LaDuke [42], other scholarly presentations of eco-spiritual dynamics include those of Margot Adler [43], Starhawk [44], Frédérique Apffel-Marglin [45], David Pellow [46] and Sarah Pike (2017).<sup>47</sup> Among some of the other major discussions of the intersections between religion and ecology, there are the works of Bron Taylor [47] and, especially (2010), Roger Gottlieb [48], Whitney Bauman [49] and Willis Jenkins et al. [50]48.

Consequently, with regard to climate change, there is to be seen pros and cons across the full spectrum of the world's religions with both the traditional and the modern and no easily discernible or unifying course of choice between them [51]. As Bron Taylor summarises, 'Where there is cultural traction is in the 'dark green' spiritualities, some indigenous traditions (more than 'world religions') and possibly some pagan traditions (although there are problems there too)'. 49

SWOT analysis of the relationships between religions, nature and modernisation


<sup>46</sup> Crews ([41], p. 339).

<sup>47</sup> Ibid. p. 363.

<sup>48</sup> Ibid. p. 345.

<sup>49</sup> Personal communication on 13 February 2022.


## **9. Conclusion**

Nature does not need mankind, but humanity needs nature and the liveability it has provided for life on earth—an equilibrium with us as part of the equation. The term 'sanctity' used in the previous sections may well have a religious origin, but it has become more broadly part of the secular ethic.<sup>50</sup> While all religions appear to retain the notion of ultimate importance as sacred, it is this secular adoption that extends the concept into the trans-religious and as something valuable and applicable to everyone despite different individual persuasions. The dynamic of holiness in this context becomes a universal around which virtually all religions might hopefully agree to work together in maintaining the earth's natural ecosystems. There becomes a need to balance or negotiate between big picture systems theory as well as other animistic Gaian ways of thinking that favour management of the larger environment, on the one side, and allowing or encouraging the spontaneous building of the macro by the micro, on the other.

Concerning modern culture's obsession with hyper-autonomy and consumerism, it is clear that '[climate change] has obvious practical implications. It will kill millions of people, wipe out thousands of species, and so on'. <sup>51</sup> This last observation relates ultimately to astronomy professor Brian Cox's contention that the advancing rate of science and engineering in any civilisation might eclipse the development of political institutions capable of managing them.

<sup>50</sup> Singer [21].

<sup>51</sup> Mulgan *apud* Perry [52].

It may be that the growth of science and engineering inevitably outstrips the development of political expertise, leading to disaster. We could be approaching that position.<sup>52</sup>

Whether religion could play a role towards mitigating intelligent life destroying itself remains an open question. However, for the negativity of religious thinking itself that leads to the exploitation of nature rather than its reverence as integral to our very being, the blame has been placed on the Genesis Mandate and the Zoroastrian tradition, with its similar dualism between humanity and nature.<sup>53</sup> Dharmic religiosity presents a comparable dichotomy by which the human is separate from either nature or physicality, but nevertheless Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism reveal the potential of spirituality to counter any established framework that has not been conducive to ecological sustainability. To the degree that the full range of the world's religions might collectively address the future well-being of the global environment and 'the promise of a more viable human coexistence with the Earth', <sup>54</sup> the issue becomes in part theological and calls for a penetrating re-examination of divine-human relations without the suffocation of hierarchical restrictions. On the other front, there is the need for praxis and an agreed-upon way of living that is commensurate with the collective good and the planet as intrinsically sacred. In the dharmic contributions mentioned above, along with paganism, we already have some established examples. The task now is to recognise the potential that all religions have for the protection and extension of earthly symbiotic life and to advance the positive spiritual models that do exist in ways that become universally acceptable and commensurate to the endeavour that confronts humanity.

<sup>52</sup> Cited in Leake ([53], p. 15).

<sup>53</sup> Clough *apud* Perry [52].

<sup>54</sup> Ivakhiv [54].

*Religion and the Environmental Crisis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104002*
