Nature and religion revisited Contemporary Paganism as a case study

Kaarina Aitamurto
Aleksanter i Institute, University of Helsinki

In this paper I discuss some lines of development regarding the relationship between nature and modern religiosity. As a case study of contemporary nature religion I examine modern European Paganism. While ecological concerns undoubtedly are one of the crucial reasons why nature has in recent decades become such an important topic in interreligious discussions, I am suggesting that this development is also closely linked with more general sociological tendencies in modern society and religiosity. 
In academic discussions the credit of coining the term «nature religion» is usually bestowed to Catharine Albanese, whose seminal «Nature religions in America», was published in 1990. In this book Albanese analyses some old and new American religions and forms of spirituality which, according to her, share a common feature of placing nature at the core of their values. As Albanese herself notes, the term «nature religion» is a modern invention and many of the religions she discusses would hardly have characterized themselves in such a way. [1] This does not mean that nature would not have been central issue or point of reference in earlier religiosity. Quite the contrary, indigenous religions usually base on close connection with nature and often sacralize their living environment. However, the analytical term “nature religion” came up only as a part of comparative study of religion and of interreligious dialogues. It could even be argued that the need of such a term implies that nature, which earlier was often taken as granted, is now seen more as an separate issue and therefore, in need to be addressed separately. 
Given that nature has come to the fore in discussions of religions in recent decades, it seems logical to conclude that some important changes have happened both in the way people perceive nature, and in their relationship with it. One of the most obvious reasons for this development are the new ecological problems and impending crisis’s. Since the first reports of the Roman club, recognition of environmental threats has relatively rapidly spread into general discussions. As we have been compelled to re-evaluate our behavior and attitudes towards nature, also religions have been drawn into the discussions. 
One of the most important launchers of the discussion about the relationship between religion and nature was Lynn White’s article «The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis», published in 1967. [2] In this polemic article White Jr. claimed the Judeo-Christian tradition, and especially Western Christianity, to be blamed of modern environmental problems. According to White Jr., Christianity represents unparalleled anthropocentrism, and, according to him, it is this anthropocentrism which has allowed men to exploit and destroy nature. White Jr. argued that the so called «steward-ethic» of Bible, which places human being above the nature, has allowed people to see natural environment as a mere reservoir of resources, available for human exploitation. White Jr’s article received, as one could expect, a mass of furious responses. However, it did not arouse just outright denouncement, but also launch several fruitful discussions within Christianity about its relationship to nature. In the spirit of anthropocentric ecological thinking, some writers have stressed the positive and environmentally responsible aspects of the Biblical steward-ethic. Others have lifted from the Christian heritage more ecocentric aspects and points of views. 
White Jr’s argumentation reflects a division between anthropocentric and ecocentric thinking. According to anthropocentric ecological thinking human beings are able to solve ecological problems with their reason and technology. Ecocentrism on the other hand stresses humanity as equal part of the nature, not in any way more valuable than other forms of life. While anthropocentric ecological thinking underlies the utilitarian ends in the protection of environment: that it is of vital importance if the human race wants to survive, ecocentrists emphasize the value of all living organisms as such. One of the most notable fractions of ecocentrism is «deep ecology», a doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism, developed by Norwegian philosopher Naess. [3]
Ecologically oriented culture critics usually agree that there is something fundamentally wrong in the way nature is perceived in contemporary society. Christianity is not, however, the only quarter suffered from this criticism. Other scholars have proposed that the problematic aspects of modern peoples attitudes toward nature do not derive so much from Western religious tradition as from the mechanist thinking which emerged in the 17th century. According to this line of argumentation, it was the paradigm shift at the dawn of the modern sciences which made nature as soulless, senseless object. As an object, it had no other purposes besides of being studied analytically, conquered and used for some utility purposes. An extreme example of this stance is the often quoted history of Descartes, whipping dogs to demonstrate that their cries were not caused by pain, but by a machine-like mechanism, which is designed to function in a certain way after a certain stimulus. English biologist Sheldrake points out one important consequence of the mechanist thinking: If we see nature as a mere automatic machine, there is no need to show any gratitude to it of all of its gifts. In his hopes to foster more balanced attitude towards nature, Sheldrake invests his hopes on religion: According to him, all religions have their own ways for saying «thank you» to nature. [4] Similar statements have actually been made by a number of writers: given that religion is one of the central factors influencing the way people conceive the world, religion also is central domain to begin with if we want to make some profound changes in our attitudes toward nature. 
Although there is, as mentioned earlier, ecological thinking and ecologically oriented movements within Christianity, ecocriticism targeted against Christianity has caused many people in Europe and America to turn to some other religions in their search of spirituality which would better coincide with their ecological conviction. For example, Buddhism is often presented as an example of non-dualistic approach to world, as well as of an example of a world view acknowledging the value of all forms of life. Beside the older religions, some new spiritual movements, as for example Jim Nollman’s spiritual ecology has also been created namely to meet this need. [5] However, it seems that during the recent decades various Pagan religions have especially gathered wide support among ecologically oriented spiritual seekers, and Pagans have also been very active in various Green organizations. Pagans themselves often define Paganism as «nature religion», and have in fact used the term already before it was coined to the academic discussions in the nineties. [6] Immanent sacred is one of the central features of Pagan religiosity. Many Pagan religions can be defined as, at lest partially, animist religions, and virtually all of them conceive the earth as sacred. Pagan gods are usually not placed into transcendence, but they may also manifest in nature and in the forces of nature. Thunder god is, for example, an archetype, found in practically all European Pagan religions. 
Although nature holds such a central position in various Pagan religions, the way it is conceived varies. Even more so, remedies offered for ecological problems vary. An example of a more radical form of ecological thinking represents Dobroslav, one of the most well known Russian Rodnovers. According to Dobroslav, religion and peoples attitude toward nature took a wrong path the day they started to carve statues of gods, made of dead wood and metal, instead of revering living trees. [6] Not all Rodnovers share this radical stance. Carved statues of gods (rodovoi stolb, chur) are probably made by a majority of Rodnoverie communities. Rodnovers, as European and American contemporary Pagans in general, usually are not against technology or technological development per se. What they do reject, is an uncritical usage of technology and the so called consumer culture. Various contemporary Paganisms include both more radical and more practical approaches to environmental question and thus it has been able to attract adherents holding a wide variety of green convictions.
In recent decades, several studies have noted Paganism to be one of the most rapidly growing religions in Europe, America and Australia. While several reasons can be found for this development, green thinking usually is among the most often presented explanations. In surveys exploring the reasons why Pagans have chosen their religion, common explanation of the believers is a desire to find forms of spirituality that would better coincide with an ecological consciousness as well as render feelings of being connected with nature. 
Ecological concerns are undoubtedly an important part of the rising of «nature religions». However, what I am suggesting here is that the kind of attitude toward nature Paganisms represent can also be seen as reflecting a paradigm shift in modern religiosity, connected to other societal changes. 
Religion as indicator and locomotive of societal change was strongly present already in the theories of classical sociologists of the ninetieth century. Although sociologists seem to agree upon the fact that modernity has significantly changed traditional religiosity, there are several theoretical approaches on what kind of changes we are talking about, or what the characteristic features of modern society are. In fact, it has even been suggested that contemporary world has already moved beyond the state which in classical sociological theories was described as modern, and thus it should be described as post-modern. While postmodernist theories have lately received rather serious criticism, the postmodernist slogan of the «death of big narratives» does capture a feature, which can be found in one form or another in most of the theories on modern world. This «inflation of authorities» is noticed, for example, in the writings of such scholars as Giddens, Lasch, Beck. Concerning the environment it could be said that we are living in a «risk society» were the existence of various global risks is generally acknowledged, but there’s not single authority that could provide the solution. Instead, people are left to evaluate competing and controversial claims of various experts’ on basis of their own reason and experience. 
This «crisis of authority» has also had its effects on religions. Such hegemonic frames of interpretations as Christianity was during a long time in European history, cannot any more be established in modern society. In modern society, people are living amidst multiple alternative frames of interpretations and value-orientations. Within national cultures there are several subcultures with their own value-orientations. On the other hand, various subcultures may form global networks. Instead of being inherited traditions, religions have become more of a matter of personal choice. According to Giddens, in modern society even old «traditions» have to go through a «filter of reflexivity» before they are appropriated by individuals. [7] In consequence, religions have to take more attentively into account their «audience». There are two significant ways this line of development has changed modern religiosity. 
First, religions seem to be less successful if they buttress their message merely with authority of the tradition. Instead they are compelled to design their teachings to be more in line with the values of modern society. Very symptomatic example of this happened in March of 2007, when a speech made by the Pope of Rome, confirming the existence of hell was considered as a piece of news, worthy of broadcasting in global media. It was considered as a piece of news, because hell is one of the issues which many modern people found rather problematic, and which has therefore lately in the rhetoric of Western Christianity been seldom mentioned. This adjustment of religious teachings does not mean only an adjustment to the modern values and discoveries of science. It can be argued that in order to found adherents, religious teachings must also be able to meet and coincide with the sensual experience of individual people. 
Second, it has been suggested that in the process of relativisation the questions people expect religions to provide meaningful answers have changed. Religions are no longer expected to present big cosmological explanations, but rather to aid people in their very personal moral dilemmas. [8] Thus religions have shifted from universal categories into a very personal and intimate domain. The individualization and personalization of religion can be also discerned in the way spirituality in modern world is often linked to the bodily existence. For example, in New Age religiosity body is often referred as «temple» of the soul and the concern over health and physical well-being a major component of the spirituality. 
Yet another often mentioned feature of modernity is its tendency to disconnect people, not only from nature, but from their local community, tradition and heritage. However, at the same time as the global intrudes into our life, we are witnessing locality gaining new importance. This is the interplay which Giddens portrays as «disembedding» and «embedding» tradition, or which is referred to as “glocality”. As Sheldrake saw religions as means to reconnect people with the nature, sociologist Hervieu-Léger claims religion to be invested with the advantage of being capable to reconnect people with tradition. According to Hervieu-Léger, the «imperative of change» and the «imperative of present» have in modern society caused societies to suffer from collective «amnesia». This amnesia she sees as being «cured» by the religions which provide the feeling of being a part of tradition, and thus giving people back the lost memory. [9]
Despite some points of disagreement and some differences in their emphasis, all of these theories encompass some common themes. Of particular interest here is that several of these characterizations of «modern religiosity» also characterize very well some essential features of contemporary Pagan religiosity. Pagans often conceive dogmatism to be incompatible with the essence of Paganism. Many Pagans stress the freedom of thought and believe that t there are «many different paths to gods». Since Pagans see the world and the nature as sacred, they also conceive human bodies to be part of the same sacredness. Consequently, divinity and spiritual truths are also sought from bodily experiences. In Pagan ritual the participants communicate with the gods or the sacred, but also get connected with natural and spiritual environment in order to understand it more profoundly. With its emphasis on sacred immanence Paganism seems to be answering to the need of re-connection with the nature and the land, and with its emphasis on local tradition, to the need of re-connecting with tradition.
In Paganism, ecologically oriented spirituality meets and blends into a religion, well suited for modern society. Paganism offers an intriguing case study exemplifying why and how nature has become so central in modern religiosity. What I am suggesting is that this development is not solely a reaction to impending ecological catastrophe, but also a signal of a more general shift in religiosity. What I mean by this shift can be outlined by examining where believers «turn their eyes into» in their search of the sacred and the truth. If we think for example Christianity, its ultimate mission is to escalate people above the nature, to see the spiritual dimension: in humans as a soul, in mundane society as a congregation of God. Therefore, in certain sense it (as also for example Buddhism) teaches irrelevance of the physical world around us. However, what Paganism seems to be doing is quite the opposite: its aim is to connect people more closely and profoundly with the nature and the physical sensual world. This does not mean that Paganism would represent materialism. Some Pagans do accept such description, but for many it is exactly the spiritual dimension within the nature and soil that is important. 
If in earlier times, in the developmental phase of a modern society, a trend existed when man tried to conquer the world, to be able to control it put it in use, to rise above it and see beyond it, people in late modern society seem to be aiming rather at conquering alienation, to release from «virtual» world and to grasp something concretely meaningful and true. The same «yearning» can also be seen outside the domain of religion. A good example of this is one of the most successful cinemas of the recent decade, the «Matrix». The heroes of the movie are engaged in a mission of liberating humanity from unreal virtual «Matrix». In completing this task, they are living in crammed small vessels underground, eating the same dish every day and ignoring all personal comfort. Occasionally they make some rescue operations in the «matrix», in the virtual world where everything seems much more glamorous and the heroes, fighting in their shining, fashionable leather suits seem to be having no physical limitations. Although the «real life» is presented as more scarce, dirty and harsh, the real existence is in the movie considered as self evidently more valuable than the comfortable illusion. In my opinion, the «Matrix» expresses an essential feature of modern existential agony: It seems that the modern existential agony is much more involved with the fear of getting trapped into some virtual delusion than with fears of not being able to rise above the natural world of existence. 

Библиографический список
1. Albanese, C. Nature Religion in America. From Algonkian Indians to the New Age. The University of Chicago Press. – Chicago & London., 1990. – P. 7–8.
2. White, Jr, Lynn Townsend. The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis. – http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/lwhite.htm.
3. Naess, Arne. Ecology, community and lifestyle. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
4. Sheldrake, Rupert The Rebirth of Nature. The Greening of Science and God. Park Streer Press, Rochester, Vermont, 1994. – Р. 35–37.
5. Nollman, Jim. Spiritual Ecology. A Guide to Reconnecting with the Nature. – New York: Bentham Books, 1990.
6. Of Paganism as a nature religion, see Pearson J. & et. al. Nature Religion Today: Paganism in the Modern World. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1998.
7. Dobroslav. Yazychestvo kak vol’shebstvo. – Moscow: Form-Profi, 2005. – Р. 178–179. 
8. Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. – Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991. – S. 38/
9. Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elemens of Sociological Theory of Religion. – New York, Doubleday, 1967.
10. Hervieu-Léger, Danièle. Daniele Secularization, Tradition and New Forms of Religiosity: Some Theoretical Proposals. In: New Religions and New Religiosity. Eds. Barker, Eileen & Warburg, Margit Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, 1998. – Р. 28–44.