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

The study addresses why many Americans remain skeptical of climate science and related policies, beyond partisan and ideological polarization, misinformation, and media dynamics. The authors propose that specific theological beliefs—namely, belief in divine versus human control over Earth’s climate—shape perceptions of climate change threat and policy support. If citizens believe Earth's environmental future is in God's hands, they may doubt claims that human behavior can cause environmental catastrophe and thus show less concern and policy support. Given strong correlations between religious and partisan identities in the U.S., the authors seek not only correlational patterns but causal evidence linking belief in divine control to climate attitudes. They pre-registered three hypotheses: H1 (Threat): relative to a humans-in-control belief, a God-in-control belief reduces concern about climate change; H2 (Policy): a God-in-control belief reduces support for climate policies and politicians prioritizing climate action; H3 (Information): a God-in-control belief reduces willingness to request climate information.

Prior research links religious factors to environmental attitudes, often via correlational associations with conservative Christian identity, biblical literalism, and religiosity. Studies of eschatological beliefs (e.g., premillennial/dispensational "End-Times" theology) show lower support for environmental protection, arguing such beliefs diminish the perceived importance of preserving a world destined for divine destruction. Work on representations of God (authoritative/benevolent vs. mystical force) also connects to lower support for sustainability, while seeing the environment as sacred can reduce perceived environmental risks. The dominion-versus-stewardship framework suggests that believing God granted humans dominion over nature predicts lower environmental concern, whereas stewardship beliefs predict higher concern; experiments priming stewardship can increase climate belief among Christians. However, some scholars argue that for conservative evangelicals, climate skepticism may be driven more by political identity and norms than theology per se, with dominion beliefs mattering less among evangelicals. Much of the evidence is cross-sectional and potentially confounded by partisan sorting and media cues. The present study shifts from normative beliefs about how humans should act (dominion/stewardship) to descriptive beliefs about who actually controls Earth’s climate (God vs. humans), building on evidence that stronger belief in divine control correlates with lower attribution of climate change to human activity.

The research comprises two studies. Study 1 (Observational PRRI analysis): The authors analyze nationally representative 2023 PRRI survey data (total n=5,540; analytic n ~5,300 after exclusions). Key independent variable: agreement that "God would not allow humans to destroy the Earth" (4-point scale, later rescaled 0–1). Dependent variables: (1) Climate change concern (4-point scale from "not a problem" to "crisis," and a dichotomized crisis indicator), (2) belief that climate change is mostly caused by human activity (binary), and (3) support for climate-related policies (additive scale from six policy items; strong internal consistency, Cronbach’s α=0.9). All variables rescaled 0–1. Models: OLS for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for binary outcomes, with controls for race/ethnicity, gender, education, income, age, party identification, ideology, religious identification, and religiosity. Robustness: models re-estimated adding dominion and stewardship beliefs (modest correlations with the key predictor); results substantively unchanged. Study 2 (Pre-registered survey experiment): Fielded via Lucid Theorem (March 9–12, 2024; N=3,345) with national quotas for gender, race/ethnicity, age, and region. Random assignment: 80% to one of two vignette conditions; fictitious news articles described religious scholars concluding either that humans will decide Earth’s climate (Humans in Control) or that God will decide (God in Control). The remaining 20% were assigned to a pure control (no vignette) to assess baseline levels. Outcomes (all rescaled 0–1): Concern (4-point severity), Crisis (binary: major problem/crisis vs. not), Action (5-point need for immediate action), policy support for Renewables and Emissions, support for a climate-priority Candidate, and Information (binary request for NOAA climate information link). Manipulation checks: two 6-point agreement items measuring belief that God ultimately controls what happens to Earth’s climate and that God would not allow humans to have a big impact on the climate; both increased significantly in the God-in-Control condition. Estimation: OLS for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for binary outcomes; effects also re-estimated with demographic and political covariates yielding similar results. Randomization check showed balance across key covariates. One-tailed p-values were used given directional hypotheses. Heterogeneous effects were explored by Born-Again/Evangelical status, religiosity, and party identification; attentiveness was measured pre-treatment and used in subgroup analyses.

Study 1 (PRRI observational): Greater agreement that "God would not allow humans to destroy the Earth" significantly predicted lower climate concern and skepticism about human causation, even controlling for extensive covariates. Moving from complete disagreement to complete agreement (across the 4-point scale) corresponded to: (1) a 6 percentage-point decline in the concern scale (p<0.001); (2) a 7.4 percentage-point decrease in the probability of identifying climate change as a crisis (p<0.001); (3) a nearly 10 percentage-point decrease in the probability of believing climate change is mostly caused by humans (p<0.001); and (4) a smaller 2.3 percentage-point decrease in support for climate policies (p=0.02). Results were robust to inclusion of dominion and stewardship beliefs. Study 2 (Experiment): Assigning respondents to the God-in-Control vignette (vs. Humans-in-Control) significantly reduced: Concern by ~4 percentage points (p<0.01), Crisis by ~5 points (p<0.01), and Action by ~3 points (p<0.01), and lowered demand for NOAA climate information by ~3 points (p<0.05). These effect sizes were comparable to shifting one point toward conservatism on a 7-point ideology scale. Effects persisted with covariate adjustment and were stronger among the most attentive respondents (e.g., Information reduction nearly 5 points; Emissions support −3.2 points with p<0.05 among the most attentive). No overall statistically significant effects were detected on policy measures or candidate support in the full sample. Manipulation checks confirmed increased belief in divine control in the treated group. Exploratory moderation showed weaker (but not significantly different) effects among Born-Again/Evangelicals and more religious respondents; no consistent differences by party ID.

The findings indicate that a specific theological belief—divine (vs. human) control over Earth’s climate—reduces perceived climate threat, belief in human causation, and demand for information, and can modestly reduce policy support. The experimental evidence establishes a causal link, complementing and extending correlational work. The results help explain why certain eschatological or dominion-oriented perspectives correlate with climate skepticism: a more fundamental belief that God controls Earth’s future may lead individuals to feel protected and less threatened, dampening concern and urgency. Despite strong interrelations between religion and partisan identity, this belief exerts effects that can cut across party lines, even if partisan influences remain substantial overall. The study suggests that religious messaging emphasizing human responsibility for Earth’s climate could increase concern and information seeking, though effects may be weaker among Born-Again/Evangelicals whose theological beliefs may be more anchored.

This paper demonstrates that belief in divine, rather than human, control over Earth’s climate lowers perceived climate threat, human-causation beliefs, and information seeking, with weaker and less consistent effects on policy support. Contributions include: (1) identifying a specific, generalizable religious belief that shapes climate attitudes; (2) providing causal evidence via a pre-registered experiment; and (3) clarifying how non-normative (descriptive) theological beliefs influence perceptions of risk and urgency. Future research should examine how beliefs about divine control are communicated within and across religious communities, test generalizability beyond the U.S., and investigate why shifts in perceived severity may not translate into stronger policy support—e.g., whether skepticism about policy efficacy or understanding mediates this gap.

Effects on concrete policy attitudes and candidate support were relatively weak or non-significant in the full experimental sample, suggesting challenges in shifting policy preferences. Manipulation effects and treatment impacts appeared weaker among Born-Again/Evangelicals, indicating potential anchoring of theological beliefs and climate views in some groups. Although the experiment establishes causality for the belief manipulation, observational PRRI analyses remain correlational despite controls. Samples are U.S.-based online surveys, which may limit generalizability across cultures and contexts (though the authors argue effects likely generalize).