Search for Meaning in the Anthropocene: A Dialogue Between Psychology and Theology

Background for the article: We have composed this article as a dialogue between a psychologist and a philosopher of religion. We believe that our various disciplines may contribute to a varied and nuanced understanding of what meaning entails in the context that the Anthropocene represents. Tatjana has done much research on meaning in life, whereas Jan-Olav is concerned with the meaning of religion in a contemporary context. We continue to discover that we have a lot of interests in common—also when it comes to dealing with the present state of planet Earth and our place in it as humans. Jan-Olav: The Anthropocene as a call to orientation and transformation Although the notion of the Anthropocene was rejected as a description of our present age by scientists in 2024, it is still worth employing to depict some of the main features that presently characterize the planet. When Paul Crutzen launched it in 2002 (Crutzen 2002, 2006), he pointed to some of the geological-scale changes human actions have caused, such as how between a third and a half of the planet's land surface has been transformed. Moreover, most of the world's major rivers have been dammed or diverted, and fisheries remove more than a third of the primary production of the ocean's coastal waters, and humans use more than half of the world's readily accessible freshwater runoff (Crutzen 2002, 23). Thus, “humans are not passive observers of Earth's functioning: To a large extent the future of the only place where life is known to exist is being determined by the actions of humans” (Lewis and Maslin 2015, 178). Thus, the far-reaching changes that human actions cause to “the life-supporting infrastructure of Earth that may well have increasing philosophical, social, economic, and political implications over the coming decades” (ibid., 178). The Anthropocene is characterized by the fact that “the human imprint on the global environment has now become so large and active that it rivals some of the great forces of Nature in its impact on the functioning of the Earth system” (Bonneuil and Fressoz 2017, 4). It points to human power over the fate of the planet. It does not mean, however, that we can fully control or hamper the developments, control the consequences of our actions, or foresee in detail all that will happen. This experience of lack of control may, in fact, contribute to deterioration in the experience of meaning. So, what happens with the sense of meaning in a situation like this one? Is the Anthropocene a testimony to the fact that it is humans alone that are the meaning-making species—those who create meaning on the planet by means of our activity, and also the loss of such when we face the threat of destruction and climate catastrophes? Or is the sense of meaning also something we have to detect and realize in other areas than those activities that have shaped the Anthropocene condition? Because it may be considered raising the question about meaning in life in a way not yet seen, Anthropocene may also have religious and spiritual consequences. The lack of preparedness and immediately accessible resources for dealing with the situation characterizes many religious traditions, including the Christian. The spiritual resources accessible are, for the most part, developed insufficiently.1 Nevertheless, moral and spiritual elements must be recognized as relevant to how we interpret and relate to the situation.2 existing theories are extremely underdeveloped in many of the relevant areas, including intergenerational ethics, international justice, scientific uncertainty, and the human relationship to animals and the rest of nature. This not only complicates the task of behaving well, but also renders us more vulnerable to the first two storms. Each of the three storms hampers the cause of ethical action, and threatens to blow it seriously off course. But taken together they are mutually reinforcing, and the challenge becomes profound. (ibid) Accordingly, we argue that the search for meaning in the Anthropocene is not only a question of understanding what we have done, but also a question about how we need to find meaning that not only will orient ourselves to the realities, but also actions that can transform the future to the better. Meaning is related to cognitive, emotional, and intentional elements that motivate human action. Thus, we also must ask if there are potential elements in the Christian tradition that can mediate action and practices that allow us to face the situation. Hence, a re-appropriation that leads to the development of practice-mediating symbols needs careful consideration of potential symbols and experiences with the environment. Such development needs to consider insights and critical lessons learned about the separation of humans from nature, and the realization about how there are other agents in nature than humans, who exist in their own right and whose interests we need to acknowledge for their own sake, and not only for the sake of our own survival. The fundamental tenet here is to understand humans as part of—and therefore participating in—the web of nature—with our capacity for making history. We do not exist separate from nature, but history and nature are weaved together in the totality that theology calls creation. Creation is about connecting and being connected, it is about participating in the sources of life and, therefore, also to participate in the sources of meaning. Tatjana: For the longest time, the cycles of day and night, the seasons of the year, and the habitat determined what humans could do and what they had to do to survive and thrive. Roles and responsibilities were inherited within communities. With industrialization, these relationships dissolved. More and more people moved to cities, breaking away from family and other traditional community structures. Electricity turned night into day, and transport and storage facilities reduced dependence on seasonal cycles of sowing and harvesting. This onset of human disconnection from natural and social contexts during industrialization also marked the beginning of the Anthropocene, as claimed by Crutzen (2006); an epoch characterized by the extreme impact of human activity on the Earth's geology, ecosystems, climate, etc. We see here a dialectic process of alienation and human self-empowerment. People's alienation from their labor made technological progress possible. Social alienation enabled individual autonomy and freedom; alienation from nature fueled its exploitation, as seen in the depletion of fossil fuels, factory farming, and the mass production of food at low prices. “Where is God gone?” he called out. “I mean to tell you! We have killed him—you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder?” (Nietzsche 2016, 125) The lament reflects the experience of humans in modernity: the frame of reference has been lost. There is no longer a universal understanding of up and down. To many, the meaning of life—if it exists—is no longer accessible. All meaning lost? From meaning of life to meaning in life This development did and does not necessarily lead to despair. Alongside the industrial revolution, we also witnessed a revolution in human self-understanding. The Enlightenment encouraged individuals to make use of their reason: Sapere aude (Kant 1784, 481–494). The idea of God became a postulate to be put into practice, as Kant (1788) suggested. What do we believe to be true, good, and meaningful? It shows in its implementation, in what we do, and how we live. Thus, the meaning of life manifests in meaning in life—meaning incarnate, if you will. Empirical research links the presence of meaning in life, also known as meaningfulness, with four specific elements of meaning: orientation, coherence, significance, and belonging (Schnell 2021). These existential experiences anchor us in life, provide existential grounding, and help us face life's challenges. Orientation stands for the direction I pursue in life. Like a compass, it is valuable for making decisions, committing myself, or setting boundaries. Coherence is present when my life makes sense to me: when I experience myself as having integrity with regard to my values and actions, my inner and outer self; when I can be myself and don't have to pretend or bend. Significance is the experience that I matter. I am not irrelevant; I count: I am recognized by others, I can make a difference, I find resonance. Belonging, in an existential sense, means having a place in this world, being part of something bigger than just myself (Schnell and Danbolt 2023). The four elements of meaning—orientation, coherence, significance, and belonging—can draw on very different sources of meaning. Sources of meaning are orientations that motivate me to act, my purpose. They represent what I experience as ultimately true and good, what I am committed to, and into what I invest time and energy (Leontiev 2007; Schnell 2021). This covers religiosity and spirituality, but also many other orientations that focus on conservation or development, on myself, on close relationships or on a wider context, such as social commitment, nature relatedness, or generativity. The fact that there are so many routes to meaning and that people in the contemporary West are free to choose their very own meaning in life contributes to autonomy and self-determination. At the same time, it poses a great challenge: How am I supposed to find out what is meaningful? As meaning presumably is something positive, we expect it to feel good. Yet, the pursuit of happiness is neither promising when it comes to achieving happiness, nor does it lead to meaning (Mauss et al. 2011; Schnell 2021). In contrast to happiness, meaning is not an emotion. Experiences of meaning are grounded in sensations and emotions, actions, and encounters—but they are fundamentally based on an evaluation: from a meta-perspective, given where I came from and where I want to go, where we came from, and where we want to go: What is important, significant, what really matters? Meaning in life requires reflection: who am I and who do I want to be—as an individual and as part of a community? What do I understand by a good, meaningful life—for myself and others? What can I contribute to making this a reality? These reflections demand self-honesty. They call for a critical view of ourselves and the world around us. However, this is something we humans like to avoid. To a certain extent, it is easier to go through the world with illusions. Psychology therefore refers to them as “positive illusions” (Taylor and Brown 1988), the assumption that I am perfect just the way I am—and actually even better than others (“above-average illusion”); that the world is fair (“just-world belief”); that we have everything under control (“illusion of control”); that everything will be fine, and change is not necessary (“unrealistic optimism”). Such assumptions strengthen our self-esteem; they allow us to take an optimistic view of the world and keep worry and fear at bay, at least in the medium term. In the long term, positive illusions prevent us from taking a realistic view of ourselves and the world. They thus keep us from acting This is in of where action is such as with regard to climate Moreover, positive illusions are only for those who can such that is people in the feel to a sense of and even as the the The consequences are face exploitation, social and the of climate change 2023). Nevertheless, the of “the world is and we is into the making challenge to these positive illusions feel like an meaning orientation for a positive yet we have for just this in a over the in the pursuit of and the that with What is the way from as a philosopher of Jan-Olav: I that where we find is in relationships and with something more than From a of that is not only a with but also with the rest of creation. from makes this experiences is of disconnection and the lack of orientation, with the that this also makes life we are on in life of meaning in relationships and This view makes that I has and research on meaning in life, of the meaning of life. I this on the life with all its and relationships the of of a more and The may therefore be considered if not to whereas the question about the meaning of my life in the here and its something that is relevant at and can be in detail and with reference to individual Thus, to for meaning in life may be a more when we about a meaningful life in the Moreover, when you to how meaning is related to orientation, that well with how I about religion in religion is about orientation and and not about in some is thus to experiences that provide for orientation and me these points by on what they may in of what and contemporary what is in of points of reference and orientation humans in and to God as an of he this as to the of humans no longer under control and by that reflects the However, it also entails that the fundamental for human orientation have There is no longer that as and The of the of to the human with no sense of no means of and if we see this as a the present the as the of God has not only positive implications for but entails and elements for more on this see thus into what is in of orientation when God is no longer part of what makes it for humans to relate and to others, and we could to nature. of meaning and This can also be in other as here meaning that the human being is only to or with How to such What and how can we it? To this we can to the to as an that and therefore loss of meaning. the of the Anthropocene, that is For the for the world is by what he calls experiences of resonance. The for such experiences are in how we can relate to nature, and religion. entails a more relationship with the world than what is when we only relate to it in of control and main is that is a of the of relationship to the world, the in experiences and with to the world, the of of the it is a upon life are different from and are different from or To at them you must go the of and to that sense of the whole as an or or or in some This sense of the world's as it does to our individual makes us or or or about life at and our and and half as it is the of all our to the is the of this in we The in this that how humans experience the world is by relationships that go our experiences in may be the cause for and the of what we as of understanding the world. However, the most here is that the fundamental relationship we have with the also our experiences of in what I that are to how we to experience ourselves as with a sense of in the world. I argue that to experience as a in this sense is the of relationships that and and world that can also be can be to be not only by other but also by and by and by challenges. The development of interests and with the experience of social and an to our and our to the world our of and The social of being in with the world not for and are elements that out of positive relationships with other human Hence, relationships with others our to be in with the world, and to experience it is a way where we feel with and with its can also of being more the world to than (ibid., We can now this notion by about a positive experience of that is grounded in elements and in also lead to a specific understanding of the world's It is on this that a of the world can be and provide means for orientation and relationship to the world be to the in or the of activities in but can be determined only of and experience of the world. or not a given to and of on his or emotional, and on the and of the of world in he or and, on the relationship between these two those of the world that to be to life, like and can under certain become of resonance. in the sense of a or relationship to the world, the of a social and that are to or an or lack of in the between a given and some of world. Experiences shaped by and are not based only on and As also relationships the world, or life as a whole that can be to the of these relationships are of for religious in of contexts of and In the is and as a totality that the In experiences of the world in a way its own The here is important, it to what happens in a world that has of in the sense of a or This loss has “the of and relationships to the in means that relationship to the world threatens to However, it does not that is of of in can of a relationship with the world. Such continue to and them are also of religiosity and The above to a lot of what you are in but it also out a more space for religion in the of meaning in life. I what you about the Tatjana: I fully with on the of and orientation for meaning. However, I believe they need and for and can have an us first take at the of of and Although it is to between a and an to the world, is more feel that from others, a the of other and question the of all people by or their own The “positive illusions” above are here in social The and more the of own own is the better it for many The of being in control is a and the need for This is relevant in like the makes humans and for and change et al. and It is not necessarily and for other that out of such in many it is and meaning. It and and and a sense of meaning in life and experiences during their Although is and et al. it can also be as as and significant, and belonging et al. and meaning can be in in and of on their we need to focus on the context of their an of the and what on the consequences of our action and the we when we upon the we These are existential reflections we are not to, that need to be can provide valuable a religion as you does not but orientation and that provide for orientation and As from so well these are not They are not but experiences that when we the of and to that sense of the whole as an if that has not much meaning for and of the of life, of the of of of what you take seriously in to do you must everything traditional that you have learned about even that can be a in the of a on the into the of our Schnell This is not or the same for It be and for who take it and the world illusions. They not only and but also and and (Schnell religion that is can a lot people with time, and in existential who have the of their the sources of their meaning and In this and they can on a to what is of and to this into into meaningful and actions, and that and the of Jan-Olav: I you to some very elements in two are called for in our of religion these and they may be even more the of the in the of the of religion must be is not necessarily a of positive practices but may also contribute to a that social as well as of the points I therefore want to is that religion must have a that and to and and this is to see in of religiosity that and what you the to go of of God that we have learned are to human This leads me to the We need to see the Christian something that be to its we understand it as a way to I see as a way to and as as a for This means that also must be seen in of how they contribute to orientations and that to be shaped in that can a for and also acknowledge our on the life of the rest of the planet. I this is the most challenge to Christian in the It is only by these points that a Christian search for meaning can continue to be a in the Tatjana: like to by a search for meaning that can be of religious the of an of what is or They keep a to and They from the of our social and in in and social have in to the of to their and question their they also need who are to in such a this as an process for all what is of the in this that the other be I our as such an to our own seriously We have committed to the of the Anthropocene, not only the we face but also the existential and moral that our in of experiences of meaning and meaningful action. In a process of and people in our part of the world have many meaningful We that a meaningful life from a with the world, as orientation, significance, coherence, and At the same time, we must acknowledge that these same experiences can also from or those as “the To prevent of and we need about our own with a preparedness to take orientations In this a can a if it and and the of and of it can its as a for