Knektid.com

The Role of Religion in Environmental Ethics

November 7, 2008

What is the creator’s connection with earth and what is the role of humanity? These are the fundamental questions, posed in one form or another, that gave rise to religion and continue to drive modern spiritual discourse. These two questions provoke war and subjugation, defy scientific explanation, and dictate all manner of interaction within our species and with the world around us. As we search for answers, the tenets of our disparate faiths guide our actions.

Monotheistic religions are the overwhelmingly dominant faith traditions in the world today, and any discussion of a “creator” can be interpreted as implying a monotheistic framework. Within this framework, the three Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity traditionally represent a transcendent monotheistic perspective in which “God existed prior to the universe, created it, and rules over it”. This demarcation between God and earth lies in stark contrast to the pantheistic perspective, in which “God is everything and that everything collectively is God” (216).

The inherent messages of transcendent monotheistic faiths have been identified by some as the root cause of our current ecological crisis. Lynn White identifies the commonly held belief that the bible conveys man’s superiority over nature as having justified a lack of accountability for the destruction of our environment.

“Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient Paganism and Asia’s religions (except, perhaps, Zoroastrianism), not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends” (221)

Holmes Rolston lll, while not countering White’s argument that “Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen”, seeks a balance between the writings of the bible and our current scientific knowledge.

“Bible writers, though in a promised land, hardly knew they lived on Earth; they did not know earth was Earth. The twentieth century has been the century of seeing Earth whole, the home planet” (236)

Indeed, the growing study of environmental ethics has largely coincided with our rapidly developing understanding of the planet on which we live. The Torah, Qur’an, and Bible are unconstructive when interpreted literally, but are powerful ethical foundations when dynamically applied to a changing world.

Rabbi Lawrence Troster expands upon the idea of alleviating the perceived inflexibility between environmental ethics and the Abrahamic faith traditions through his analysis of modern Judaism and the Gaia theory. Troster agrees that “Judaism does have an anthropocentric view of the world, its relation to humanity and to God” and believes this frame of reference is misguided. He points to the work of British chemist James Lovelock who describes the earth as a “living, self-sustaining, and self-regulating organism” (226).

“… life itself created and sustained the atmosphere of earth… The earth is one living organism, says Lovelock, in which the various individual species are like the bodily organs of a larger evolving whole” (227)

Within this depiction, humanity simply acts as the “mind” of a massive and complex being. Troster argues that “our concepts of God lack the element of Gaia because of our alienation from the environment” (227). To preserve both our moral obligation to protect the earth and our traditional human ethical system, Troster advocates a panentheistic perspective.

“We should … think of God as both Being and Becoming – what is called a panentheistic deity. Panentheism assumes that the universe and everything in it is part of God, and that God is also more than the universe. ‘God is all reality but not all reality is God’. Gaia is part of God, but not all of God” (229)

The Gaia theory seeks to provide answers about both God’s connection with the earth and humanity’s role on the planet by reconciling fundamental monotheistic beliefs with principles of ecocentrism. This dualistic approach underscores the distinct importance of God and Earth, while highlighting the intrinsic link that humanity provides between the two.

While monotheism is the dominant religion in the Western Hemisphere there are many other faith traditions, many of which existed for thousands of years prior to Abraham. Winona LaDuke highlights the differences between indigenous people and the dominant society by explaining “indigenous thinking and ‘industrial thinking’” (247).

“From our perspective it means that when you take, you always give. This is about balance and equalness. We also say that when you take, you must only take what you need and leave the rest” (248)

LaDuke claims that this “indigenous thinking” is the antithesis of “industrial thinking” in which “humans are entitled to full domination over nature”. Western society has “changed things from being animate, alive and having spirit to being inanimate, mere objects and commodities of society” (249). LaDuke contrasts the Anishinabag tradition of offering asemah, or tobacco, to appease the spirits when consuming resources, with “industrial thinking” in which consumption is accompanied by little contemplation or thoughts of consequence.

Buddhism expands on these indigenous beliefs and teaches that, rather than simply appeasing the spirits of other beings, we must recognize that all beings and objects are of the same origin, and differ only in form. The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh explains that “we have to discard all distinctions between self and non-self” and recognize that “we are continually arising from Mother Earth, being nurtured by her, and then returning to her” (256). In this sense, environmental degradation neither harms ourselves nor harms the planet. In reality, there is no self and there is no planet, there is only one. “… the Buddha teaches that to protect the non-human elements is to protect humans, and to protect humans is to protect non-human elements” (257).

Buddhist teachings are perhaps the utmost manifestation of our basal desire for connection. Humanity’s interpretation of God’s form and intent shapes our perceived role in His creation, and is fundamental to our relationship with the natural world.  Our divergent religious beliefs largely dictate our responsibility to care for the earth and its creatures and, in turn, how we care for one another. Throughout, we are left with more questions than answers. Faith is merely a fledgling attempt to explain that which is unknowable, and through devotion, a means to assuage the absence of truth.

Filed under: Perspectives on the Environment