Belief in divine (versus human) control of earth affects perceived threat of climate change

Americans' persistent skepticism toward climate science is a critical concern, given the country's size and global influence. While factors like partisan polarization, misinformation, and media echo chambers play significant roles, religious characteristics may exert a unique influence. This study focuses on specific theological beliefs concerning God's versus humanity's control over Earth's climate. The researchers hypothesize that believing in divine control will lead to skepticism towards scientific claims about human-induced climate change, resulting in lower concern about climate change and weaker support for climate-related policies. The study's importance lies in understanding how deeply ingrained religious beliefs can shape perceptions of a pressing global issue and potentially influence public engagement with climate action.

Existing research suggests a complex relationship between religious beliefs and environmental attitudes. Studies have linked specific eschatological beliefs (e.g., premillennialism) to opposition towards environmental policies, suggesting that beliefs about the end times might diminish the perceived importance of environmental preservation. Other studies have explored the impact of 'dominion' versus 'stewardship' beliefs, finding that 'dominion' beliefs—emphasizing human control over nature—are negatively associated with environmental concern. However, the relationship is complex, and research findings have varied, with some suggesting that evangelical theological beliefs might be intertwined with broader conservative political norms, making it challenging to isolate the effect of theological beliefs themselves. This study aims to clarify this complexity by focusing on the fundamental belief in divine versus human control over Earth's climate, rather than indirect measures or moral beliefs about human behavior toward the environment.

The study employs a two-pronged approach: (1) analysis of nationally representative survey data from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) (N=5321) and (2) a pre-registered survey experiment (N=3345) fielded through Lucid Theorem. **Study 1 (PRRI data):** This study used data from the 2023 PRRI survey. The key independent variable was agreement with the statement "God would not allow humans to destroy the Earth." Dependent variables included measures of climate change concern, belief in human-caused climate change, and support for climate-related government policies. Multiple regression analyses controlled for demographic, political, and religious factors. **Study 2 (Survey Experiment):** This study randomly assigned participants to read one of two fictitious news articles, purportedly from an independent news site, featuring religious scholars' conclusions about climate control. One condition emphasized human control, while the other emphasized God's control. Outcome measures included climate change concern, support for climate action, and willingness to request climate information from NOAA. Manipulation checks assessed the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation. Analyses explored heterogeneous treatment effects based on religious and political factors.

**Study 1:** Across all models, greater agreement with the statement "God would not allow humans to destroy the Earth" was associated with: (1) lower concern about climate change, (2) lower probability of identifying climate change as a crisis, (3) lower belief that humans are causing climate change, and (4) less support for climate-related legislation. The effects were substantial, exceeding the effect of changing one full point on the seven-point party identification scale. The inclusion of 'dominion' and 'stewardship' beliefs did not alter the findings. **Study 2:** The experimental manipulation successfully influenced beliefs about divine versus human control over the climate. The 'God in control' condition led to: (1) significantly lower climate change concern, (2) lower probability of considering climate change a major problem, (3) reduced agreement that climate change requires immediate action, and (4) significantly lower willingness to request climate-related information from NOAA. These effects were comparable to shifting one point to the political right on an ideology scale. While effects on policy-related outcomes were not statistically significant overall, they were consistent with the hypotheses among participants who were most attentive to the experimental material. Heterogeneity analysis revealed weaker treatment effects for Born-Again/Evangelical Christians and those higher in religiosity, suggesting that pre-existing strong beliefs might limit the impact of the manipulation.

This study provides strong evidence for the causal impact of beliefs about divine versus human control on climate change attitudes. The findings demonstrate how a specific religious belief can shape perceptions of threat, the perceived need for action, and information-seeking behavior. This belief operates independently of existing partisan polarization, illustrating the unique role of religion in influencing climate change views. The results offer insights into why 'End Times' beliefs might correlate with lower environmental concern; the underlying mechanism might be a belief in ultimate divine control. The findings have implications for communication strategies, suggesting that religious leaders could play a role in promoting greater concern by emphasizing humanity's responsibility for Earth's future, although this may be more challenging among Born-Again/Evangelical Christians.

This study identifies a causal link between a specific religious belief—belief in divine control of Earth's climate—and climate change attitudes. Both observational and experimental data show that believing in divine control is associated with lower climate change concern and less support for mitigation policies. Future research could explore how religious leaders communicate this belief and investigate the reasons why changes in perceived severity do not always translate into increased support for specific policies. Understanding these complex dynamics is crucial for effective climate change communication and policy-making.

The study focuses on the US context, and the generalizability to other cultures and contexts needs further investigation. The relatively weak effects on policy attitudes suggest a need for further research into the factors linking perceptions of threat and policy support. The experimental manipulation used fictitious news articles, which may not perfectly replicate real-world information exposure. Finally, the findings suggest that effects of the manipulation may be weaker among Born Again/Evangelical Christians, highlighting the need for tailored communication strategies targeting this group.