"Except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance." ~ T.S. Eliot in "Burnt Norton"

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Sins Against the Planet: Is Theology Responsible for the Consequences of Science?

Photo: An abandoned church in a mining town
 in Oregon that was deserted after the mine closed.


According to Lynn White in her article, “The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis,” the word ecology did not appear in the English language until 1873.  This was during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which introduced a litany of new issues and questions into society that are still being addressed today.  At the core of these issues, we must challenge the conception that humanity has sovereignty over the Earth. According to both of the class readings, theological belief may have part in humanity’s lackadaisical attitude toward the environment. While Christianity may have encouraged a dominion of humanity on Earth I don’t think it’s accurate at say, as White does that Christianity is at the helm of the ecological crisis.  I don’t deny either that there is something to the attitude of entitlement that surrounds the ecological crisis that seems latent in some aspects of religion.  As White points out, Pagan traditions were more outright considerate of the environment while Christianity seems to put the Earth completely at man’s disposal.  That said, I think it’s important to raise the following question: Is the attitude of human dominion that theological belief (consider Catholicism especially) has encouraged responsible for the ecological crisis?  To what extent has science teamed with this aspect of theological belief in its pursuit of industrial and technological advancement?  Also consider the opposite—are scientists who are searching for ways to help the environment operating under theological ideals or are they following a moral compass devoid of religious influence? Does science need some aspects of theological belief be motivated to save the planet?

14 comments:

  1. I agree with Kaitlyn that I think it’s inaccurate to say that Christianity should be held responsible for the ecologic crisis as White said. I believe that Christian tradition stands for human responsibility with nature. I think the best way to see how humans have a responsibility to care for the earth is to reexamine Christianity, specifically Scripture.

    People who read the Bible often come away the notion that humans are to “subdue” the earth and have “dominion” over all living things. This is taken from Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    By reexamining this passage and the story of creation, we can take a different perspective other than believing God to be a tyrant with complete control over all of creation. Pushing past this belief, we can see a relationship between God, humans, and the earth. This relationship involves a distribution of power between God and humans, and it involves God not only demonstrating power over creation, but also taking a step back so that humans can step up as co-creators with responsibility for the earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you brought up scripture. It does seem clear that God did not mean for us to destroy the Earth at our own convenience. In any case don't think the attitude of human dominion is limited to religion. I'd argue that it is societal as well. Oil companies, for example, aren't run exclusively by religious groups and yet they are ecologically harmful. Is it fair to say religion encouraged them? Couldn't it easily be some other external factor like money?

      Delete
    2. the problem comes, in my opinion, with the most basic concept... that of human nature. human beings, since the beginning, are flawed by their very nature and are given a choice in every aspect of life. some times we may make the better choice, and sometimes we may not. unfortunately often times, man will make the choice that most benefits him. by his nature, he is inclined to better his own life. and why not? if god tells us to have dominion over the earth and sea, then we aren't really doing anything wrong.

      but, as we discussed in class, what does it really mean to have dominion over the earth and sea? In Genesis 2, we see that, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." While this image is not nearly as descriptive as that of Genesis I, we see a few key words. God tells us to WORK the land and to take CARE of it. Maybe there is something more to what we hear in Genesis I, as Colleen said. Maybe having dominion implies some sort of care for and nurturing of.

      Delete
    3. I have always heard that passage interpreted, as Patrick suggested, to mean we are to be stewards of the earth and take care of it, rather than destroy it. I feel that, yes, Christians are human beings, just as human as everyone else, but if anything, there should be a drive by Christian (and Jewish people as well) to care for the earth and environment, to keep it beautiful. Unfortunately, we have all done a rather poor job; humans in general are much better at thinking about their own tiny little world than what is right for the good of all humanity.

      Delete
  2. In regards to the question pertaining to scientists helping the environment they don't really need to have a theological modivation to do so. They are helping the environment because they want to preserve the earth so that their children and their children's children will have a place to live and thrive once they are gone. In respect to the last question, science doesn't need theological motivation to save the planet. All science needs is a desire to help. Scientists that are working to save the planet are doing so because they are following a moral compass that is pointing them in that direction

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with what Bob said about science. "All science needs is a desire to help." I don't think scientists needs theology to be motivated to save the planet. It is possible that it is an aid, but I do not think it is the motivator. I think our imaginations and our intelligence is what motivates us. I think that scientists are are searching for a way to save the planet because it is the right thing to do. We are only here for a short amount of time, so we need to respect the earth so it is safe for future generations. With the knowledge scientists have today about global warming, for example, they are beginning to see and predict what will happen to our planet if we do not work to preserve it. I think science is mostly driven by morals. Scientists want to save the earth. They also want to find cures for diseases, as well as carry out other experiments because they know it is the right thing to do. Just because someone has cancer doesn't mean we should just let them suffer and die. Scientists are working hard to find a cure to save these people. That being said, they are also doing the same thing for the planet. They are trying to "find a cure" so to speak, to save it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The reason the environment is in such poor health today is because of the capitalist and monetary ideals of human beings throughout history, rather than religious teachings of dominionism. Wealth is the driving factor behind the industrial revolution (think of the impact that Carnegie and his steel factories had on the environment), which began a downward spiral of pollution and misuse of the land. However, our modern world wouldn’t be what it is today without the influence of money and new technologies, the health of the environment is a cost to the advantages of modern society.

    I would say that people who are trying to help the environment are not doing so under the guidance of religious ideas. They are pursuing eco-minded practices in order to save the future of the Earth. Similar to the ideas expressed by RAulis where they stated that science “is mostly driven by morals,” I feel that scientists want the Earth to survive the environmental turmoil that we have, and still continue to put it [the Earth] through.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm going to echo the discussion of the last three posts, and assert that there needs to be a sense of morality in today's society. This does not necessarily need to be countered by Religion, as long as morals are observed in regards to ecology. In today's society, this is beginning to take effect as evidenced in fiction movies like: Day After Tomorrow, Sunshine, and non fiction movies like: An Inconvenient Truth. Grant it that these are only movies, however, for me this indicates a changing mindset of the culture. This can also be seen in Universities in their pursuit to become 'green accredited.'

    Science is playing a role with this moral dialogue as well. Without science where would we be in our attempt to understand our ecosystems and try to save them? There is obviously more work that needs to be done, however, if science is becoming driven by morals, and I believe it is, then we can see a renewed hope for this world. I argue that we are not as doomed as the news media leads us to believe. Yes, if we don't continue to improve MPG ratings on cars, or reduce fossil fuel consumption, then earth might succumb to human pollution. But I don't believe this is the case. I think we are on the right track.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Bible tells us over and over again to do what we believe is morally right. Although, it does not say to save the planet directly, preserving the Earth for generations to come is the right thing to do. Also one must take into account when the Bible was written. Over 2,000 years ago, pollution from cars, factories, boats etc. did not exist. Neither did extreme deforestation, landfills, or reliance on fossil fuels. The bible did not include saving the planet, because at that point in time, it did not need to be saved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Riley makes a very good point, in that our relationship with the earth has changed significantly since biblical times. As far as I can tell, the earth is a limited resource, and we should always treat it as such. As hard as that is to see during biblical times, given that there are not nearly as many factors playing into the degradation of the earth, it is still the proper thing to do.

      It seems to me as though, while Christianity is not completely to blame, it could definitely have had a much bigger presence in advocating for stewardship over the earth. Christianity should advocate for the life of the earth just as she does for the life of a child.

      Delete
  7. The argument for Christianity as a major factor in the ecologic crisis is has little basis in fact and a great deal in loose and nonacademic conjecture. To praise the nature worship of pagan religions is one thing, but to jump from that point to the industrial revolution is to overlook thousands of years of history wherein an entire Christian civilization persisted with the same basic agrarian and industrial practices as the primitive pagan cultures, having little impact on the environment. The main factor for change in this dynamic was not the Christian theological idea of dominion of the earth, but the technological advances, demographic surplus and domestic political stability that enabled societies to transfer from agrarian life to urban industrial development. Indeed, Social Darwinism had a much larger impact on industrial practices such as labor organization and treatment of the working classes than Christianity had on the industrial revolution. Indeed, Japan provides a potent counterargument. A Shinto-Buddhist country, Japan initiated an industrial revolution as soon as conditions were right, and is still suffering the effects of poor pollution control today. The continuing effects of pollution were not understood for some time, and once they were Christianity and the Church were some of the earliest advocates for responsible stewardship of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don’t think we can pinpoint to one thing and say Christianity is to blame for the ecological crisis. There are certainly many factors that were at fault. Genesis 1 can be interpreted in two different ways. Either humans were created in the image of God as caretakers of Earth or take the word “dominion” in a literal sense by exploiting nature. Like most criticizers of Lynn White, the word “dominion” was the wrong translation for “stewardship,” which would mean humans have the responsibility to care for the Earth. The current human relationship with Earth makes us reflect our ethics. . Humans having the sense of superiority over all other beings, we forget that while pursuing our happiness, we disregard nature. Without thinking of the consequences of development and advancement, often it is too late to reverse the damage.

    I think most environmental scientists are truly doing what is morally right by findings ways to be environmentally friendly. I also believe that for selfish reasons, we know we are dependent on Earth to survive. With the help of mass media, many people are getting involved and spreading awareness; hot topics like global warming and climate change are constantly in the news. Not only are scientists and theologians promoting biocentrism but politicians have brought up the issue of ecological crisis in the past decade. To me, the debate of whether or not to take action because there might be a global warming conspiracy theory is ridiculous. That to me is more anthropocentric than Christianity. Since we depend on Earth to survive, we should have the moral responsibility to take care of it regardless of its state.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a fascinating inquiry. It cannot be denied that there is a more than probable link between our attitudes in our belief system and the way we treat our surrounding environment. I wouldn't say that it is soley responsible for it however, but it definetly linked, and I wouldn't pin it on Christianity alone. For instance, the Romans were not the best to their surrounding environment and for a greater portion of their existance they were considered Pagan. I think it is not a question of theology, but science with morals, and theology usually comes into play because it is usualy the root of many societal moral practices. Science without any moral backing is responsible for crisis then, as its pursuits usually go unchecked by any conscious thought. Logically, if theology includes moral beliefs though, science could benefit from some inclusion of it, as it would add something of a compass to the progression of the discoveries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey guys, sorry for the really late post but I have been having many issues in regards to logging in to blogger. Anyways, here is my opinion on some of the questions asked: To start off, I think many scientists completely deny the existence of any god especially the "Christian God". However, I do think if theology includes morality, as Devon said, then scientists are theologically obliged to help save the planet. During the Industrial Revolution, tons of pollution was flooded into the environment and there is no doubt that humans have left a "carbon footprint" on this earth. Scientists now have seen the damage we have caused and are looking for ways to reverse this. In my opinion, scientists do this more for selfish reasons like saving themselves, getting rich in the process, and being famous. Obviously I do think they care about the environment, but seeing as how money, fame, and saving your loved ones comes along with this...I think it is fair to say many of these scientists are not in it for just the moral aspects.

    ReplyDelete