As the young evangelicals grow older, many of them may catch on. I am not young; I will hit 74 next month. I was an adult during the late '70s, when the noise was not about global warming--it was about a coming Ice Age. We were seeing temps of 25 below 0 in Cincinnati, OH, which is NOT the far north. Eventually the focus changed to global warming. And one thing I noticed was that the proposed solutions were nearly identical--more government control over everything! I grew up in Boy Scouts--hiking, camping, canoeing. We were taught conservation--we always left our campsites cleaner than we found them. But the environmental movement has gone far beyond conservation. In his book, "Pollution and the Death of Man," Francis A. Schaeffer noted that the environmental movement had been taken over by the far left (published in 1970!)
For over 40 years, the left has been spouting predictions of environmental disaster. And they have not been coming true. It is also worth noting that many wealthy politicians do not adjust their actions to suit their claims; Barack Obama is a prime example. If he really believed sea levels were going to rise dramatically, why would he buy ocean-front properties in both Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii?
I am also a lifelong student of history. There have been warm and cool periods in the past. There was a warm period during the first few centuries of the Roman Empire. There was another in the early Middle Ages, called the"Medieval Warm Period. There was also the Little Ice Age, from the 1300s to the 1800s. The warm periods were eras of great prosperity, not disaster. It was the cold periods that brought poverty and disease.
As a lay preacher with the Presbyterian church, I often discuss climate change in my sermons. It is self evidently a problem (last 7 years in a row are the warmest years in 125,000 years, and globally, every month since last may is the warmest of that month ever recorded (last may was the warmest may ever, last June was the warmest June, last July the warmest July etc etc etc).
Christians have language to understand this - it is sin. The primary sin is greed - the greed of the big oil corporations who are making excessive profits while ignoring the problem their products create, but there is also sloth - people today take the easy options instead of doing things properly - to they want a cheap petrol car that spews pollution so they can drive to the superstore and buy cheap junk food that rots their stomachs and their brains. There’s other sin we entwined in this too, but Christianity, and evangelical Christianity in particular have abandoned the idea that man is inherently sinful - even though we pay lip service to it by highlighting “other peoples” sin (which is why as Christian’s we nitpick about other peoples private sin -like sexual sin - instead of our own gargantuan sin in destroying God’s green and pleasant world).
As Rev 11:18 tell us, “God will destroy those who destroy the earth.” but unfortunately, most of my fellow Christian’s refuse to see their own sin and repent of their own role in this.
Ryan, you're only now seeing the link between climate change to religion?
Look, almost everyone cares about the environment. It's the world we live in, so how could we not? The thing with Democratic atheists is that without religion, they've turned politics into their new religion. Two journalists and substackers, Michael Shellenberger (a San Francisco liberal) and Abigail Shrier (a moderate Republican) have looked deeper into the cultural shift on the left and came to this conclusion already a while back:
Racism is the Original Sin
Climate Change is The New Apocalypse
Gender Identity is the Soul
It's obvious now a lot of people need religion and spiritual fulfillment. When we do away with religion, we don't collectively rise to a higher level of enlightenment with science and logic. Some people will inevitably seek to fill that religious void. And "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
We should care about the environment and climate change. But to some of these atheist folks is no longer about that. It's become a religious tool to instill fear of Apocalypse.
"Ryan, you're only now seeing the link between climate change to religion?"
I am not. I began writing on this topic for an academic audience about a decade ago. And there's a rich line of scholarship in the area of the environment and religion.
But it's the first time I've written about it on my Substack.
I am a Democratic atheist. None of this is remotely close to true for me or most atheists that I know. I draw conclusions based off of evidence, not based off of anything else. If new evidence appears that contradicts the conclusions I have drawn, I will reevaluate.
It is not obvious that people need religion or spiritual fulfillment and I would actually argue the opposite. I am a much happier, more rational person since I left religion and I don’t have any desire to go back.
I want to push back on the comparisons you made of racism, climate change, and gender identity to religious ideas as well. Why do I think racism, climate change, and gender identity are important? A combination of evidence, critical thinking, and humanist values. I look at the facts surrounding each issue, I think about how these issues impact others, and I draw on my humanist values to decide what the best approach to solving these problems is. The three religious items you compared these issues to have one thing in common: they all lack evidence to support them. There is no evidence that we are born inherently sinful, there is no evidence that the apocalypse will ever happen (and I mean seriously, there have been so many incorrect doomsday predictions), and there is no evidence of humans having a soul.
In the future, when you are attempting to understand why atheists (or any group you are not a member of) hold certain views, I HIGHLY encourage you to reach out to members of that group rather than trying to draw your own conclusions. There are a couple of call in shows that I occasionally listen to (Talk Heathen and The Atheist Experience) that you might consider calling into to argue your point if you’re interested.
To clarify, I didn't say all Democratic atheists are seeking to fill the religious void. I know plenty who are happy and fine without religion including my own spouse, and are just like you. I'm referring to a farther left group of activists. Democratic atheists are not a monolith. But there are a significant number of them on the far left, enough of them that journalists are now reporting about them and even other liberal atheists are pushing back against them.
I do know atheists. I was one myself. I know where you're coming from. In return I highly encourage you to take a look at Michael Shellenberger's Substack "The Public", or Andrew Sullivan's The Weekly Dish substack. They are liberal atheists, although the very people on the far left I'm describing have been branding Andrew Sullivan as conservative.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think we'll convince each other either way. You've stated your thoughts, and so did I. Other readers who see our comments can decide for themselves.
As for Shellenberger and Sullivan, I don't know what sources you looked into. I hope it's not Wikipedia because that has not always been the most reliable source, but now is politically compromised. Even its own original founder says so. Anyone who follows Shellenberger's writing would hardly ever even think he's a practicing religious person. He is most definitely liberal, but like me and many others who consider ourselves classic liberals, we no longer align with the current progressive far left and many of us politically homeless heterodox people have found a haven here on Substack where we can finally see voices that resonate with us. That's why to you his views are all over the place. Shellenberger in fact began his journal career as a climate change activist. He came to the conclusion that the apocalyptic mindset is not a productive solution based on science. If you want, you can find his books on this matter on Amazon. I doubt you'll like what he has to say though. Nonetheless, he cares deeply about the environment. He's currently the only one raising alarm on the rapid increase of f whale deaths resulting from wind farms in the ocean. His reports on this topic are all in his Substack.
Andrew Sullivan was formerly one of the most prominent writers on the Atlantic who was pushed out by the far left, as was Bari Weiss from the NYT. He's a gay man and a gay rights activist. If he was at one point a Catholic, it must have been quite a long time ago and probably he had the same experience as many gay men had with the Catholic church, although I haven't looked into that background of his so I can't speak on that. I first became aware of him when he was one of the loudest voices against Sarah Palin.
I don't want to wrongly describe you as I don't know you. But to the far left group I'm thinking of, people like Shellenberger, Andrew Sullivan, as well as Matt Taibbi who used to write for the Rolling Stones, Bari Weiss, John McWhorter and Jesse Singal, all of whom are most definitely not conservative but are some of the biggest voices in heterodox spaces right now, along with their subscribers like me, we'd be called "right wing" anyway. We're reached the point where we no longer care.
I suppose none of this matters, really. I respect that we have different opinions, and we'll have to leave it at that. I mention these people only because it has become modus operandi for the far left activists to brand everyone they disagree with or even voice doubts about anything they say as "right wing" so they can automatically cast any opinions different than theirs as heretical, and to put a stigma on any liberals who dare to take a look at what others might have to say to control the narrative. The truth is, it is not only those in the "right wing" who diverge from the far left after assessing what we've been told by every side.
Also, you're telling me you must screen out things you read to ensure what you read comes only from liberal voices. To some of us, the unwavering certainty that only our own side is correct is not in fact critical thinking. But again, we'll have to agree to disagree. And I wish you a good weekend.
Looked into both of them and it doesn’t appear as if either of them are liberal atheists.
Shellenbarger described himself as a Protestant and his views seem all over the place. He definitely has some liberal viewpoints but he also likes to focus on conservative talking points about “woke” and “CRT”. Then he’s got some fun conspiracy theory rabbit holes that he seems to have jumped down as well.
I can’t see much of Andrew Sullivan’s substack since I’m not subscribed and a lot is paywalled, but from what I found it seems he is a Catholic and former member of the Republican Party. He seems to hold some liberal views, but he still calls himself a conservative.
This was all just a quick google search into them, so if I’m wrong on any of it, feel free to correct me.
I’m pushing back hard on this because I think climate change is a very pressing issue and I probably fit the far left group you are describing. But I think that your description is inaccurate. The comparison of liberal politics to religion is flimsy at best and runs completely contrary to how atheists tend to view the world. If you want to make claims about how atheists seek to fill their “religious void” then ask them rather than pretending you know what or how they think.
Was with you right up until you said that we should care about climate change. The environment, of course. Exporting rubbish that ends up in the oceans? Appalling.
But we know that climate change is a hoax because of the hockey stick graph massaging out the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Let me know if you want the data on that.
Look, I do care, and I have no gripe with anyone as far as "caring" goes. I suspect you and I have different definitions of "care" on this subject. For me, it's being aware of what's going on in the world including the environment, and being a responsible civilian doing my best and do not harm based on common sense. However, I'm not interested in being involved with the politics of this subject. I'm going to be very honest here. The fact is, I'm not a climate scientist. I'm a scientist of any kind. Climate and environmental science is a expert field to which I will honestly admit I don't know much about and wouldn't know much about even if I read a lot about it. I do not know how or whether the climate is changing, or what are the causes if it is changing. I also know a majority of the people who are not climate scientists don't really know either. I'm not even convinced the climate scientists themselves have sufficient knowledge or tools to be certain one way or the other. Human knowledge about our world is in fact still very limited. And I will honestly admit that even if I read a study or two, or even more, it won't be enough for me to determine for certain what is happening. I'm a lay person with neither the knowledge nor the time to research and investigate or understand at an expert level where I can have an opinion that could have any kind of legitimacy. So yes, I care, but I also don't make any claims that I'm right or wrong about anything. So I won't take a political side and say the world is ending or climate change is a hoax. If people are willing to be honest, they ought to admit that they really don't know either.
As for "The Science", or data, there are info out there to support one side or the other, just like all scientific subjects. Anyone can always find info to support what they believe.
But for me, it doesn't really matter what the science is. I don't have to know what info or data is correct to doubt a lot of what the climate change activists demand. I'm not and never have been on board with the climate change movement, or the environmental movement that preceded it, because I have never seen a political movement more schizophrenic, nonsensical, illogical in its applications and execution, inward looking and small minded, elitist, willfully ignorant, and trend chasing. Over the decades, I've watched the leaders of various environmental campaigns command ordinary little people to perform whatever they decide is the "save the world" ritual of the moment, only to see them lose interest and suddenly what was supposed to bring about the end days is all but forgotten. Nobody talks about it anymore in their circles as they move on to the next big thing. They disrupt and reorganize the ways we little people live, then drop everything and walk away and give us no answer why we had to move heaven and earth as they commanded, without them ever giving us any follow up. They're not even curious to find out the destructions and harms caused by their campaigns and rituals, as long as they made ordinary people go through the motions of what they demand. As a result, the masses are unaware of many devastations they've caused around the world to create the facade of an environmentally virtuous society at our first world home.
And while they make us ordinary people go around like herds chasing the wind, they're oddly accepting of giant corporations wrecking havoc with all sorts of environmental harms. They're so much more vindictive against ordinary little people, but rarely go after big corporations with the same fervor. Also, they're oddly lacking in curiosity of how much corporate vultures are lying in the wait to grift and profit hugely on all the green initiatives they insist will be our salvation, and they're content to let the environmental industrial complex suck billions of tax dollars with no restraints or accountability. How much has any of these benefited us? Maybe some. No one ever give us an account. We're just told to accept everything on blind faith that This. Does .Work. Most of them time, one solution just lead to another problem. So now we got to deal with the new problem they created.
Meanwhile, I've see more than my share of corporate money grabbers diving in onto the next environmental innovation gravy train. They're grifters. These aren't grifters salivating in the wings. I've had to pleasure of seeing them work in action. They're mercenaries and they know an opportunity when they see one. The activists are just useful idiots for them. It is truly amazing to me how the granola hippie activists can so willfully turn a blind eye to these grifters in suits and buy what these snake oil people sell with no questions, as long as the corporate projects are supposed to save the earth.
So yes, I care. I think we all should do our best to not pollute and ruin the environment irresponsibly. I don't know that you'd disagree with that. I won't go out and dump chemicals into the lake or river. To the extent I can help it, I won't produce more garbage than necessary. I will read about the subject as a lay person to the extent I ought to stay informed as a responsible citizen. If a new technology comes along that's truly helpful and doesn't cause great harm, I'll keep an open mind. Or society adapts to the new thing anyway and I'm just the clog in the wheel that moves along with no choice or say.
That said, I don't think badly of all activists. Some of them really mean well. Even if they're true converts, many just really want to do good. And I don't discount that sometimes, they have done good. Like all things, it's not black and white, and either or. Our machines have advanced over the years and decades, and are much more environmentally friendly than 50, 60 years ago. But I'm not on board with their movement for all the problems I described above. By the same token, I don't see those who think climate change is a hoax are demons either. I think they see through a lot of the smokescreens, and their reasonable questions and doubts are not answered with any kind of due respect. That's where another religious aspect of this movement comes in. Anyone who doubt is deemed a heretic. You must submit to everything they say on faith. They'll say it's not faith, it's science. But it's not true. Even if theoretically their data as to causes of climate change is true, they don't allow doubts and reasonable objections to their unproven proposed solutions. They demand we submit to all their proposed solutions, all the time, as if they could do no wrong. If you question at all, you're everything abominable.
“1) God gave human beings the right to use animals, plants, and all the resources of the planet for human benefit. [what we refer to as ‘Dominion’]
“(2) God gave human beings the task of living responsibly with the animals, plants, and the resources of the planet, which are not just for human benefit. [‘Stewardship’]”
Christian ethos in a rights-based culture may focus on responsible use of rights, making these two sides of the same coin.
Quoting Michael Foster, “Guilt is seriously underrated. Guilt and shame keep people from murdering each other… If we can't feel guilt or shame about what we're doing and learn how to do something else, it was over a long time ago.”
There are many opportunities to avoid murder, fewer opportunities to avoid automobiles in the US while otherwise leading an average productive life, and no way short of death for humans to avoid breathing. Guilt is most constructive when you don’t feel it yet — when you avoid misdeeds because you imagine you would feel guilty if you did them. (Maybe you imagine this because you did them in the past and learned from your guilt; maybe you didn’t have to learn by doing.) The less control you have over something, the less helpful it is to feel guilty about it.
“The overall impression you get from this data is that pastors aren’t putting the environment front and center when it comes to their sermon preparation.”
My congregation has an active “green” ministry. The people running it are well-meaning and exceptionally well educated, and even they have difficulty distinguishing high-priority environmental tips from wishcasting and greenwashing.
“When pastors don’t talk about it, something else has to fill that void.”
We might turn to our pastors for counsel on how to live with dignity in the face of medical problems, or if treatment raises some gnarly bioethics, but not typically for medical expertise itself. The planet is at least as complex and less under our control than our already-unruly individual bodies. Giving appropriate environmental advice from the pulpit sounds tough!
Hal Lindsay invented the "climate change" religion/hoax in 1968. The CIA stole his idea and governmentalized it in 1975. Now most evangelicals are on the factual side of this issue. If CIA had wanted full public adoption of the religion, they should have left it in the hands of the evangelicals, who know better how to market this particular type of hoax.
While I am here, my piece is now up, and also, and linked within it, a recent AP piece notes that Democrats' climate denialism/minimalism on its seriousness has **increased** in the past few years, which would also knock the props out from Burge ultimately attempting to frame things in a political angle. https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2024/01/democratic-climate-change-deniers.html
To offer another point which isn't inside Burge's framing?
By degree of difference, on the "extremely serious," the separation between atheists and either "nones" or "world religions" is GREATER than that between evangelicals and non-evangelicals.
Again, I think looking at this through an ultimately political angle isn't the best framing.
I don't think that's good framing to run religiosity through the filter of political parties. More to the point, I don't think it's "fair" framing. This uses "independent" to cover anything not D or R, first. Second, he doesn't do a by party (plus independents, even if separating them by political stance) breakout of religiosity.
As an atheist who is outside the duopoly and not centrist but well left, first, and as one with a graduate theological degree, second, and as a member of the media, third, I speak from a mix of informed professional and personal background.
I had already teed up a post of my own about Democrats and climate minimalization; I'll be pivoting more to the religion angle with this.
I think you're right about politics, more than religion, explains a lot of the numbers. But why would there be such a disparity between Democrats accepting the science of global heating and Republicans being the party of delay and denial? I think this probably explains it:
The folks at Pew connect politics with evangelical Protestants’ doubts about climate change. Since the late seventies, the GOP has fostered conservative Christians, particularly Evangelicals, as a voter base. Ronald Reagan and the GOP fostered abortion as a political issue, while Evangelical religious leaders, such as Jerry Falwell, developed it as a religious issue in the early eighties.1 This political/religious alignment has, over the years, incorporated other issues that appeal to religious conservatives, such as book banning. This alignment is probably stronger than it was in the eighties.
Fossil fuel companies support the GOP. Coal companies give 95 percent of their campaign funds to the GOP; oil and gas companies give 87 percent of their campaign monies to the GOP as well. The Party of Lincoln has thus become the party of climate denial and delay. Pew says the climate denial of the political party cross pollinates to evangelical Protestants.
There is more to it than this, and I go into it in my posting this week.
Questions related to having read both your post and all Comments up to this one:
1. What is the correlation between being an R or D and having visited other parts of the world? I ask cuz if you have seen how other people live you have the opportunity to grow in empathy: whether one does or not (+ other life experiences), is up to the individual.
2. Do Republicans (and, by extrapolation, most evangelicals) seem to care (beyond those they know personally) about others. I ask cuz my (middle-of-the-road, highly educated D) take on both is along the lines of "I got mine (worldly goods and/or the promise being raptured...or BOTH) too bad for you."
3. Do more R have financial "interests" (in an investment, employment/business sense) in the activities directly related to global climate change? I ask because I live in a county where wealth/stature/political affiliation seems to correlate CLOSELY with extractive activities ( mining or drilling for minerals, gas, oil, etc) and/or agriculture (a mix of "domination" and "stewardship" of the earth).
4. What role do you think the last 40+years of teaching about the environment at the K-12 level in schools has played/is playing on how those under 40 think about the environment. I ask because I'm a former environmentally aware social studies teacher....and taught some of those under-40s.
Ryan, I agree that politics, not theology is driving this conversation. But it is also true that Evangelicalism is less and less about religion, as they have just become the militant base of the far-right wing of the Republican party. So in a sense, politics is driving religion, not just climate change. Would love to see the data cut by educational attainment as well - my hypothesis would be that education seems to lead to less religion, more Democratic views, and care for the stewardship of our planet.
Higher levels of education lead to folks being LESS likely to say they are atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. And folks with higher levels of education are the most likely to be attending houses of worship weekly.
It might be worth a post looking at how Republican correlates with religion, religion correlates with education and education correlates with Democrat (if all those three are correct). You've talked about them all before put putting them together could be interesting.
"Mike’s response illustrates how both ends of the political spectrum can employ the same mantra: the ends justify the means."
I honestly don't have strong beliefs on global warming one way or the other, but strongly agree with Ryan on this example.
My most deeply held political belief is that you shouldn't let politics or some grand utopian vision be a reason for personal cruelty and ruthlessness. Towards your own children, no less! Many such cases. For a recent example on the right, Jim Bob Duggar comes to mind.
As the young evangelicals grow older, many of them may catch on. I am not young; I will hit 74 next month. I was an adult during the late '70s, when the noise was not about global warming--it was about a coming Ice Age. We were seeing temps of 25 below 0 in Cincinnati, OH, which is NOT the far north. Eventually the focus changed to global warming. And one thing I noticed was that the proposed solutions were nearly identical--more government control over everything! I grew up in Boy Scouts--hiking, camping, canoeing. We were taught conservation--we always left our campsites cleaner than we found them. But the environmental movement has gone far beyond conservation. In his book, "Pollution and the Death of Man," Francis A. Schaeffer noted that the environmental movement had been taken over by the far left (published in 1970!)
For over 40 years, the left has been spouting predictions of environmental disaster. And they have not been coming true. It is also worth noting that many wealthy politicians do not adjust their actions to suit their claims; Barack Obama is a prime example. If he really believed sea levels were going to rise dramatically, why would he buy ocean-front properties in both Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii?
I am also a lifelong student of history. There have been warm and cool periods in the past. There was a warm period during the first few centuries of the Roman Empire. There was another in the early Middle Ages, called the"Medieval Warm Period. There was also the Little Ice Age, from the 1300s to the 1800s. The warm periods were eras of great prosperity, not disaster. It was the cold periods that brought poverty and disease.
As a lay preacher with the Presbyterian church, I often discuss climate change in my sermons. It is self evidently a problem (last 7 years in a row are the warmest years in 125,000 years, and globally, every month since last may is the warmest of that month ever recorded (last may was the warmest may ever, last June was the warmest June, last July the warmest July etc etc etc).
Christians have language to understand this - it is sin. The primary sin is greed - the greed of the big oil corporations who are making excessive profits while ignoring the problem their products create, but there is also sloth - people today take the easy options instead of doing things properly - to they want a cheap petrol car that spews pollution so they can drive to the superstore and buy cheap junk food that rots their stomachs and their brains. There’s other sin we entwined in this too, but Christianity, and evangelical Christianity in particular have abandoned the idea that man is inherently sinful - even though we pay lip service to it by highlighting “other peoples” sin (which is why as Christian’s we nitpick about other peoples private sin -like sexual sin - instead of our own gargantuan sin in destroying God’s green and pleasant world).
As Rev 11:18 tell us, “God will destroy those who destroy the earth.” but unfortunately, most of my fellow Christian’s refuse to see their own sin and repent of their own role in this.
Absolutely right. So refreshing to read a sane comment on this subject. Thank you!
Ryan, you're only now seeing the link between climate change to religion?
Look, almost everyone cares about the environment. It's the world we live in, so how could we not? The thing with Democratic atheists is that without religion, they've turned politics into their new religion. Two journalists and substackers, Michael Shellenberger (a San Francisco liberal) and Abigail Shrier (a moderate Republican) have looked deeper into the cultural shift on the left and came to this conclusion already a while back:
Racism is the Original Sin
Climate Change is The New Apocalypse
Gender Identity is the Soul
It's obvious now a lot of people need religion and spiritual fulfillment. When we do away with religion, we don't collectively rise to a higher level of enlightenment with science and logic. Some people will inevitably seek to fill that religious void. And "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
We should care about the environment and climate change. But to some of these atheist folks is no longer about that. It's become a religious tool to instill fear of Apocalypse.
"Ryan, you're only now seeing the link between climate change to religion?"
I am not. I began writing on this topic for an academic audience about a decade ago. And there's a rich line of scholarship in the area of the environment and religion.
But it's the first time I've written about it on my Substack.
I am a Democratic atheist. None of this is remotely close to true for me or most atheists that I know. I draw conclusions based off of evidence, not based off of anything else. If new evidence appears that contradicts the conclusions I have drawn, I will reevaluate.
It is not obvious that people need religion or spiritual fulfillment and I would actually argue the opposite. I am a much happier, more rational person since I left religion and I don’t have any desire to go back.
I want to push back on the comparisons you made of racism, climate change, and gender identity to religious ideas as well. Why do I think racism, climate change, and gender identity are important? A combination of evidence, critical thinking, and humanist values. I look at the facts surrounding each issue, I think about how these issues impact others, and I draw on my humanist values to decide what the best approach to solving these problems is. The three religious items you compared these issues to have one thing in common: they all lack evidence to support them. There is no evidence that we are born inherently sinful, there is no evidence that the apocalypse will ever happen (and I mean seriously, there have been so many incorrect doomsday predictions), and there is no evidence of humans having a soul.
In the future, when you are attempting to understand why atheists (or any group you are not a member of) hold certain views, I HIGHLY encourage you to reach out to members of that group rather than trying to draw your own conclusions. There are a couple of call in shows that I occasionally listen to (Talk Heathen and The Atheist Experience) that you might consider calling into to argue your point if you’re interested.
To clarify, I didn't say all Democratic atheists are seeking to fill the religious void. I know plenty who are happy and fine without religion including my own spouse, and are just like you. I'm referring to a farther left group of activists. Democratic atheists are not a monolith. But there are a significant number of them on the far left, enough of them that journalists are now reporting about them and even other liberal atheists are pushing back against them.
I do know atheists. I was one myself. I know where you're coming from. In return I highly encourage you to take a look at Michael Shellenberger's Substack "The Public", or Andrew Sullivan's The Weekly Dish substack. They are liberal atheists, although the very people on the far left I'm describing have been branding Andrew Sullivan as conservative.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think we'll convince each other either way. You've stated your thoughts, and so did I. Other readers who see our comments can decide for themselves.
As for Shellenberger and Sullivan, I don't know what sources you looked into. I hope it's not Wikipedia because that has not always been the most reliable source, but now is politically compromised. Even its own original founder says so. Anyone who follows Shellenberger's writing would hardly ever even think he's a practicing religious person. He is most definitely liberal, but like me and many others who consider ourselves classic liberals, we no longer align with the current progressive far left and many of us politically homeless heterodox people have found a haven here on Substack where we can finally see voices that resonate with us. That's why to you his views are all over the place. Shellenberger in fact began his journal career as a climate change activist. He came to the conclusion that the apocalyptic mindset is not a productive solution based on science. If you want, you can find his books on this matter on Amazon. I doubt you'll like what he has to say though. Nonetheless, he cares deeply about the environment. He's currently the only one raising alarm on the rapid increase of f whale deaths resulting from wind farms in the ocean. His reports on this topic are all in his Substack.
Andrew Sullivan was formerly one of the most prominent writers on the Atlantic who was pushed out by the far left, as was Bari Weiss from the NYT. He's a gay man and a gay rights activist. If he was at one point a Catholic, it must have been quite a long time ago and probably he had the same experience as many gay men had with the Catholic church, although I haven't looked into that background of his so I can't speak on that. I first became aware of him when he was one of the loudest voices against Sarah Palin.
I don't want to wrongly describe you as I don't know you. But to the far left group I'm thinking of, people like Shellenberger, Andrew Sullivan, as well as Matt Taibbi who used to write for the Rolling Stones, Bari Weiss, John McWhorter and Jesse Singal, all of whom are most definitely not conservative but are some of the biggest voices in heterodox spaces right now, along with their subscribers like me, we'd be called "right wing" anyway. We're reached the point where we no longer care.
I suppose none of this matters, really. I respect that we have different opinions, and we'll have to leave it at that. I mention these people only because it has become modus operandi for the far left activists to brand everyone they disagree with or even voice doubts about anything they say as "right wing" so they can automatically cast any opinions different than theirs as heretical, and to put a stigma on any liberals who dare to take a look at what others might have to say to control the narrative. The truth is, it is not only those in the "right wing" who diverge from the far left after assessing what we've been told by every side.
Also, you're telling me you must screen out things you read to ensure what you read comes only from liberal voices. To some of us, the unwavering certainty that only our own side is correct is not in fact critical thinking. But again, we'll have to agree to disagree. And I wish you a good weekend.
Looked into both of them and it doesn’t appear as if either of them are liberal atheists.
Shellenbarger described himself as a Protestant and his views seem all over the place. He definitely has some liberal viewpoints but he also likes to focus on conservative talking points about “woke” and “CRT”. Then he’s got some fun conspiracy theory rabbit holes that he seems to have jumped down as well.
I can’t see much of Andrew Sullivan’s substack since I’m not subscribed and a lot is paywalled, but from what I found it seems he is a Catholic and former member of the Republican Party. He seems to hold some liberal views, but he still calls himself a conservative.
This was all just a quick google search into them, so if I’m wrong on any of it, feel free to correct me.
I’m pushing back hard on this because I think climate change is a very pressing issue and I probably fit the far left group you are describing. But I think that your description is inaccurate. The comparison of liberal politics to religion is flimsy at best and runs completely contrary to how atheists tend to view the world. If you want to make claims about how atheists seek to fill their “religious void” then ask them rather than pretending you know what or how they think.
I'm a non-duopoly leftist atheist. I second this and go beyond it, saying that Burge has bad framing on this issue to ultimately try to reduce it to politics. https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2024/01/democratic-climate-change-deniers.html
Was with you right up until you said that we should care about climate change. The environment, of course. Exporting rubbish that ends up in the oceans? Appalling.
But we know that climate change is a hoax because of the hockey stick graph massaging out the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Let me know if you want the data on that.
Look, I do care, and I have no gripe with anyone as far as "caring" goes. I suspect you and I have different definitions of "care" on this subject. For me, it's being aware of what's going on in the world including the environment, and being a responsible civilian doing my best and do not harm based on common sense. However, I'm not interested in being involved with the politics of this subject. I'm going to be very honest here. The fact is, I'm not a climate scientist. I'm a scientist of any kind. Climate and environmental science is a expert field to which I will honestly admit I don't know much about and wouldn't know much about even if I read a lot about it. I do not know how or whether the climate is changing, or what are the causes if it is changing. I also know a majority of the people who are not climate scientists don't really know either. I'm not even convinced the climate scientists themselves have sufficient knowledge or tools to be certain one way or the other. Human knowledge about our world is in fact still very limited. And I will honestly admit that even if I read a study or two, or even more, it won't be enough for me to determine for certain what is happening. I'm a lay person with neither the knowledge nor the time to research and investigate or understand at an expert level where I can have an opinion that could have any kind of legitimacy. So yes, I care, but I also don't make any claims that I'm right or wrong about anything. So I won't take a political side and say the world is ending or climate change is a hoax. If people are willing to be honest, they ought to admit that they really don't know either.
As for "The Science", or data, there are info out there to support one side or the other, just like all scientific subjects. Anyone can always find info to support what they believe.
But for me, it doesn't really matter what the science is. I don't have to know what info or data is correct to doubt a lot of what the climate change activists demand. I'm not and never have been on board with the climate change movement, or the environmental movement that preceded it, because I have never seen a political movement more schizophrenic, nonsensical, illogical in its applications and execution, inward looking and small minded, elitist, willfully ignorant, and trend chasing. Over the decades, I've watched the leaders of various environmental campaigns command ordinary little people to perform whatever they decide is the "save the world" ritual of the moment, only to see them lose interest and suddenly what was supposed to bring about the end days is all but forgotten. Nobody talks about it anymore in their circles as they move on to the next big thing. They disrupt and reorganize the ways we little people live, then drop everything and walk away and give us no answer why we had to move heaven and earth as they commanded, without them ever giving us any follow up. They're not even curious to find out the destructions and harms caused by their campaigns and rituals, as long as they made ordinary people go through the motions of what they demand. As a result, the masses are unaware of many devastations they've caused around the world to create the facade of an environmentally virtuous society at our first world home.
And while they make us ordinary people go around like herds chasing the wind, they're oddly accepting of giant corporations wrecking havoc with all sorts of environmental harms. They're so much more vindictive against ordinary little people, but rarely go after big corporations with the same fervor. Also, they're oddly lacking in curiosity of how much corporate vultures are lying in the wait to grift and profit hugely on all the green initiatives they insist will be our salvation, and they're content to let the environmental industrial complex suck billions of tax dollars with no restraints or accountability. How much has any of these benefited us? Maybe some. No one ever give us an account. We're just told to accept everything on blind faith that This. Does .Work. Most of them time, one solution just lead to another problem. So now we got to deal with the new problem they created.
Meanwhile, I've see more than my share of corporate money grabbers diving in onto the next environmental innovation gravy train. They're grifters. These aren't grifters salivating in the wings. I've had to pleasure of seeing them work in action. They're mercenaries and they know an opportunity when they see one. The activists are just useful idiots for them. It is truly amazing to me how the granola hippie activists can so willfully turn a blind eye to these grifters in suits and buy what these snake oil people sell with no questions, as long as the corporate projects are supposed to save the earth.
So yes, I care. I think we all should do our best to not pollute and ruin the environment irresponsibly. I don't know that you'd disagree with that. I won't go out and dump chemicals into the lake or river. To the extent I can help it, I won't produce more garbage than necessary. I will read about the subject as a lay person to the extent I ought to stay informed as a responsible citizen. If a new technology comes along that's truly helpful and doesn't cause great harm, I'll keep an open mind. Or society adapts to the new thing anyway and I'm just the clog in the wheel that moves along with no choice or say.
That said, I don't think badly of all activists. Some of them really mean well. Even if they're true converts, many just really want to do good. And I don't discount that sometimes, they have done good. Like all things, it's not black and white, and either or. Our machines have advanced over the years and decades, and are much more environmentally friendly than 50, 60 years ago. But I'm not on board with their movement for all the problems I described above. By the same token, I don't see those who think climate change is a hoax are demons either. I think they see through a lot of the smokescreens, and their reasonable questions and doubts are not answered with any kind of due respect. That's where another religious aspect of this movement comes in. Anyone who doubt is deemed a heretic. You must submit to everything they say on faith. They'll say it's not faith, it's science. But it's not true. Even if theoretically their data as to causes of climate change is true, they don't allow doubts and reasonable objections to their unproven proposed solutions. They demand we submit to all their proposed solutions, all the time, as if they could do no wrong. If you question at all, you're everything abominable.
I'm sorry but I'm not on board with that either.
"As is probably becoming pretty evident now - this is a story where politics is really taking the lead and religion is in the backseat."
Ain't that 1000% the truth on just about any issue.
“1) God gave human beings the right to use animals, plants, and all the resources of the planet for human benefit. [what we refer to as ‘Dominion’]
“(2) God gave human beings the task of living responsibly with the animals, plants, and the resources of the planet, which are not just for human benefit. [‘Stewardship’]”
Christian ethos in a rights-based culture may focus on responsible use of rights, making these two sides of the same coin.
Quoting Michael Foster, “Guilt is seriously underrated. Guilt and shame keep people from murdering each other… If we can't feel guilt or shame about what we're doing and learn how to do something else, it was over a long time ago.”
There are many opportunities to avoid murder, fewer opportunities to avoid automobiles in the US while otherwise leading an average productive life, and no way short of death for humans to avoid breathing. Guilt is most constructive when you don’t feel it yet — when you avoid misdeeds because you imagine you would feel guilty if you did them. (Maybe you imagine this because you did them in the past and learned from your guilt; maybe you didn’t have to learn by doing.) The less control you have over something, the less helpful it is to feel guilty about it.
“The overall impression you get from this data is that pastors aren’t putting the environment front and center when it comes to their sermon preparation.”
My congregation has an active “green” ministry. The people running it are well-meaning and exceptionally well educated, and even they have difficulty distinguishing high-priority environmental tips from wishcasting and greenwashing.
Perhaps their most engaging work is in native plant conservation, which is a local, concrete matter (though affected by wider forces) — hence more actionable for non-experts. You don’t have to, say, understand the complex engineering and social trade-offs of building nuclear power plants ( https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/democracy-and-the-nuclear-stalemate ) or the environmental impact of natural vs synthetic fibers ( https://earth911.com/how-and-buy/good-better-best-shopping-for-natural-fibers/ ) to volunteer to de-litter meadows or plant some milkweed.
“When pastors don’t talk about it, something else has to fill that void.”
We might turn to our pastors for counsel on how to live with dignity in the face of medical problems, or if treatment raises some gnarly bioethics, but not typically for medical expertise itself. The planet is at least as complex and less under our control than our already-unruly individual bodies. Giving appropriate environmental advice from the pulpit sounds tough!
Hal Lindsay invented the "climate change" religion/hoax in 1968. The CIA stole his idea and governmentalized it in 1975. Now most evangelicals are on the factual side of this issue. If CIA had wanted full public adoption of the religion, they should have left it in the hands of the evangelicals, who know better how to market this particular type of hoax.
While I am here, my piece is now up, and also, and linked within it, a recent AP piece notes that Democrats' climate denialism/minimalism on its seriousness has **increased** in the past few years, which would also knock the props out from Burge ultimately attempting to frame things in a political angle. https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2024/01/democratic-climate-change-deniers.html
To offer another point which isn't inside Burge's framing?
By degree of difference, on the "extremely serious," the separation between atheists and either "nones" or "world religions" is GREATER than that between evangelicals and non-evangelicals.
Again, I think looking at this through an ultimately political angle isn't the best framing.
I don't think that's good framing to run religiosity through the filter of political parties. More to the point, I don't think it's "fair" framing. This uses "independent" to cover anything not D or R, first. Second, he doesn't do a by party (plus independents, even if separating them by political stance) breakout of religiosity.
As an atheist who is outside the duopoly and not centrist but well left, first, and as one with a graduate theological degree, second, and as a member of the media, third, I speak from a mix of informed professional and personal background.
I had already teed up a post of my own about Democrats and climate minimalization; I'll be pivoting more to the religion angle with this.
Ryan, Terrific look at these numbers. I really appreciated your post. By chance, I wound up writing about the very same survey for my Substack this week: https://greendispatch.substack.com/p/religious-affiliation-and-climate
I think you're right about politics, more than religion, explains a lot of the numbers. But why would there be such a disparity between Democrats accepting the science of global heating and Republicans being the party of delay and denial? I think this probably explains it:
The folks at Pew connect politics with evangelical Protestants’ doubts about climate change. Since the late seventies, the GOP has fostered conservative Christians, particularly Evangelicals, as a voter base. Ronald Reagan and the GOP fostered abortion as a political issue, while Evangelical religious leaders, such as Jerry Falwell, developed it as a religious issue in the early eighties.1 This political/religious alignment has, over the years, incorporated other issues that appeal to religious conservatives, such as book banning. This alignment is probably stronger than it was in the eighties.
Fossil fuel companies support the GOP. Coal companies give 95 percent of their campaign funds to the GOP; oil and gas companies give 87 percent of their campaign monies to the GOP as well. The Party of Lincoln has thus become the party of climate denial and delay. Pew says the climate denial of the political party cross pollinates to evangelical Protestants.
There is more to it than this, and I go into it in my posting this week.
One day after your post
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/opinion/maga-evangelicals-iowa.html
Dr. Burge,
Questions related to having read both your post and all Comments up to this one:
1. What is the correlation between being an R or D and having visited other parts of the world? I ask cuz if you have seen how other people live you have the opportunity to grow in empathy: whether one does or not (+ other life experiences), is up to the individual.
2. Do Republicans (and, by extrapolation, most evangelicals) seem to care (beyond those they know personally) about others. I ask cuz my (middle-of-the-road, highly educated D) take on both is along the lines of "I got mine (worldly goods and/or the promise being raptured...or BOTH) too bad for you."
3. Do more R have financial "interests" (in an investment, employment/business sense) in the activities directly related to global climate change? I ask because I live in a county where wealth/stature/political affiliation seems to correlate CLOSELY with extractive activities ( mining or drilling for minerals, gas, oil, etc) and/or agriculture (a mix of "domination" and "stewardship" of the earth).
4. What role do you think the last 40+years of teaching about the environment at the K-12 level in schools has played/is playing on how those under 40 think about the environment. I ask because I'm a former environmentally aware social studies teacher....and taught some of those under-40s.
Ryan, I agree that politics, not theology is driving this conversation. But it is also true that Evangelicalism is less and less about religion, as they have just become the militant base of the far-right wing of the Republican party. So in a sense, politics is driving religion, not just climate change. Would love to see the data cut by educational attainment as well - my hypothesis would be that education seems to lead to less religion, more Democratic views, and care for the stewardship of our planet.
Higher levels of education lead to folks being LESS likely to say they are atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. And folks with higher levels of education are the most likely to be attending houses of worship weekly.
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/religion-has-become-a-luxury-good
It might be worth a post looking at how Republican correlates with religion, religion correlates with education and education correlates with Democrat (if all those three are correct). You've talked about them all before put putting them together could be interesting.
Would love to see trends since 2016, since evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump and Trump voters have markedly lower educational attainment.
"Mike’s response illustrates how both ends of the political spectrum can employ the same mantra: the ends justify the means."
I honestly don't have strong beliefs on global warming one way or the other, but strongly agree with Ryan on this example.
My most deeply held political belief is that you shouldn't let politics or some grand utopian vision be a reason for personal cruelty and ruthlessness. Towards your own children, no less! Many such cases. For a recent example on the right, Jim Bob Duggar comes to mind.