This very welcome book explores the interconnections between science, belief and society. In this Foreword, I want to emphasize the urgency of this question (or, more accurately, questions), with reference to a particular example: the publication in 2015 of Pope Francis's second encyclical, ‘Laudato Si’ : on care for our common home’ (Francis, 2015).

It is clear to all those engaged in the debate surrounding climate change that Laudato Si’ has been a game-changer, and for two reasons. First, it has vastly extended the range of participants, and, second, it has drawn on established scientific research to deliver a powerful ethical message: that deprived communities are likely to suffer most from climate change as currently experienced.

An opinion piece in The Guardian puts it thus: ‘Pope Francis's encyclical on climate change, Laudato Si’, is the most astonishing and perhaps the most ambitious papal document of the past 100 years, since it is addressed not just to Catholics, or Christians, but to everyone on earth’ ( The Guardian, 2015). The following sentence goes further still: it argues that the encyclical sets out a programme for change that is rooted in human needs but makes ‘the radical claim that these needs are not primarily greedy and selfish ones’ ( The Guardian, 2015). Rather, we need nature just as we need each other. Thus, the care for nature and the care for the poor are two sides of the same coin. The environment, in the Pope's understanding of the term, captures the underlying connectedness of the world and all those who inhabit it. It is this relationship – the indissoluble link between nature and human beings – that lies at the heart of the document.

Even more striking is the editorial in Nature, a prestigious and widely cited scientific journal. Here, the encyclical is warmly commended for the accuracy of the science. However, even more arresting is the awareness that the moral authority and popularity of the Pope will ensure a readership that scientific papers can only dream of; the Catholic Church, moreover, ‘has a superb means of spreading the word every Sunday’ (Nature, 2015). This is not the phraseology that one expects from a scientific journal of this standing.

In total, the following 34 researchers were included in the WaVE project. Below, the senior scholars are named first with their respective institutional affiliations at the time of the project, followed by the junior researchers. The project was coordinated by the Faculty of Theology, Uppsala University.

Project direction

Anders Bäckström, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala University

Grace Davie, Department of Sociology and Philosophy, University of Exeter

Effie Fokas, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala University

Per Petterson, Service Research Centre, Karlstad University; Faculty of Theology, Uppsala University

Ninna Edgardh, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala University

Northern Europe

Sweden

Anders Bäckström, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala University

Ninna Edgardh, Researcher for the Swedish case study

Per Pettersson, Researcher for the Swedish case study

Norway

Pal Repstad, Institute of Religion, Philosophy and History, Agder University

Olav Helge Angell, Researcher for the Norwegian case study

Finland

Eila Helander, Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki

Anne Birgitta Pessi, Researcher for the Finnish case study

Henrietta Grönlund, Assistant Researcher

Elina Juntunen, Assistant Researcher

Western and southern Europe

England

Douglas Davies, Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University

Martha Middlemiss Lé Mon, Researcher for the English case study

Germany, Reutlingen

Heinz Schmidt, Diakoniewissenschaftliches Institut, Heidelberg University

Annette Leis-Peters, Researcher for the German case study of Reutlingen

Anika Albert, Researcher for the German case study of Reutlingen

Germany, Schweinfurt

Hans-Georg Ziebertz, Institute of Practical Theology, University of Wurzburg

Ilona Biendarra, Researcher for the German case study of Schweinfurt

France

Danièle Hervieu-Léger, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris

Corinne Valasik, Researcher for the French case study

Italy

Chantal Saint-Blancat, Department of Sociology, University of Padua

Annalisa Frisina, Researcher for the Italian case study

Valentina Longo, Researcher for the Italian case study

Adriano Cancellieri, Researcher for the Italian case study

Greece

Nikos Kokosalakis, Centre for Social Policy, Panteion University

Effie Fokas, Researcher for the Greek case study

Eastern Europe

Latvia

Zaneta Ozolina, Department of Political Science, University of Latvia

Raimonds Graudins, Researcher for the Latvian case study

Poland

Irene Borowik, Institute for the Scientific Study of Religion, Jagellonian University

Agnieszka Dyczewska, Research for the Polish case study

Eliza Litak, Researcher for the Polish case study

Revisiting the material from the Welfare and Values in Europe: Transitions Related to Religion, Minorities and Gender (WaVE) project in the months following Brexit is a sobering experience. WaVE ‘took off’ in 2006, two years after the most significant enlargement in the history of the EU, which was followed in 2007 by further expansion. These were days of optimism, confidence and growth both for the EU as a whole and for its constituent nations, sentiments expressed in economic, political and cultural life. A decade later, a very different picture is emerging in which the supposed dominance of Brussels is increasingly resented, where nationalist parties are becoming stronger almost by the day, and where migration is not only considered ‘out of control’, but also a security threat. As Effie Fokas has reminded us (p 261), right across Europe we have seen welfare systems build thick and exclusionary walls and value systems implode. The aspirations of WaVE – not to mention the values that it sought to unpack – are, it seems, in peril.

The contrast appears sharp, but the cracks were showing well before the end of the research period (2006-09); they were epitomised in the global financial crisis of 2008 that eroded almost overnight the confidence of previous decades. Austerity followed, more so in some places than others, bringing with it not only economic recession but also sharp reductions in welfare measures just when they were needed most. The debates surrounding the Greek case were particularly intense, as Grexit (the withdrawal of Greece from the Eurozone) became a real possibility. The full story lies beyond the scope of this Afterword, but its essence can be captured as follows, noting that perceptions count for as much as facts in these vignettes. From the Greek point of view, an over-mighty ‘Europe’ imposed stringent conditions on Greece in return for loans, without which the Greek economy could no longer function. That said, it could barely function anyway as unemployment soared, especially among the young. The population turned back to the family for support, often beyond what was reasonable, as meagre pensions were stretched to support several generations.