Christianity and Views on the Environment

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 14 May 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	14 May 2003
Hi all, I have another question arising from my exam revision. I am revising the module on Environmental Ethics, and the main text we are studying is 'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer, an Australian ethicist who's views have caused much controversy in the recent past. (Though in his defense, they were all misinterpreted) Anywho... I'm reading through one of the chapters, where Singer basically blames Christianity and the Bible for the current views of the environment. This is what he says: Quote: The biblical story of creation, in Genesis, makes clear the Hebrew view of the special place of human beings in the divine plan: "And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and said upon them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Today Christians debate the meaning of this grant of 'dominion'; and those concerned about the environment claim that it should be regarded not as a license to do as we will with other living things, but rather as a directive to look after them, on God's behalf, and be answerable to God for the way in which we treat them. There is, however, little justification in the text itself for such an interpretation; and given the example God set when he drowned almost every living animal on earth in order to punish human beings for their wickedness, it is no wonder that people should think that flooding a single river valley is nothing worth worrying about. After the flood there is repetition of the grant of dominion in more ominous language: "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes in the sea; into your hands they are delivered." The implication is clear: to act in a way that causes fear and dread to everything that moves on the earth is not improper; it is, in fact, in accordance with a God-given decree. He then goes on to site the passage where Jesus destroys a fig tree and drowns a heard of pigs, and bits from St Paul's writings. My lecturer insists that Singer has it all wrong about the Bible and Christianity being the cause of such views (In 'Christianity' we include people like Aquinas and Aristotle, who also thought humans were above animals in God's eyes) and says that it was the Industrial Revolution that caused it. But I'm not too sure about this... There is no denying the anthropocentric views propounded in the Bible and early Christianity. And there must have bene something in the first place to spark off the industrial revolution, so there must have bene some views of anthropocentrism floating around out there before that... So my question is... What do you guys think? Do we blame Western religions for the ruthless view of the environment? If not, where is the real source of this view of the environment? Kiama

Astraea	14 May 2003
I think that the ways of being, beliefs and philosophies which we commonly refer to as Eastern and Western reflect the basic dualism of life on Earth, and the friction that brought it into being. Each contains the seed of the other (which is the essential idea behind the yin-yang symbol), but is primarily a strong distillate of a particular mode of understanding. Western views, as presented in the Bible, were influenced by Eastern ideas, but basically represent an emphasis on the external, action-oriented, single-pointed focus which developed into anthropocentrism wherever it appears (not only in the Bible, or in the West); the Eastern viewpoint evolves out of a more internal, holistic, inclusive understanding, which in time seeks expression through outer forms. Both Western and Eastern modalities are essential to the unfolding and development of life, but their cruder forms are toxic -- in the case of the Western mindset, leading to the denial of the value of other forms of life, and their negative exploitation (and even extinguishment). Peter Singer is someone I respect tremendously, and while his views on anthropocentrism might be considered overly simplified, in essence I believe that they are correct. What we need to understand is that the Bible is an expression of humanity's understanding, and as such it is not so much a cause, as an effect (which later became causal, in itself); the Bible represents a viewpoint, and a problem, that existed before it appeared, and which actually molded the form it eventually took (and continues to express).

DeLani	14 May 2003
You are on the right track, Kiama. But remember that the Hebrews were not the first anti-woman, anti-earth religions. (Isn't it interesting how those two seem to always come together? hmmm...) Anyway, it goes much further back. I highly recommend you read "The Chalice & the Blade" by Riane Eisler. To briefly paraphrase her thesis, there are essentially 2 ways people/societies can exist: as either partnership societies, or dominator societies. Our earliest settlements were based on partnership models, where neither gender was placed above another, and the sacred connection between humans and the enviornment was acknowledged and honored. Most (not all) agriculturalists grew from these first partnership societies. On the other hand, the pastoralists (those who raise animals for their sustinance, as opposed to growing crops) were by necessity more hardened to killing and the destruction of the environment. There is no way to raise herds of animals in an environmentally friendly way, so the herders must continually claim new grazing lands. The pastoralists knew about reproduction, and used the female animals' abilities for their own benefit. Therefore, pastoralists were socialized to see the earth, and females, as things for them to dominate and exploit. Unfortunately, since dominator cultures devote so much energy to developing better ways to kill, those cultures have eventually wiped out nearly all the more peaceful partnership cultures. The Hebrews/Jews/Christians/Muslims are just the newest strain on a very old stock of dominator pastoralists. I highly recommend reading her book, and the sequel, "Sacred Pleasure." You would probably really like it. Blessings!

Minderwiz	15 May 2003
As a non-christian I find it a little difficult to put in a defence of their stance but here are some points. Destruction of the environment (assuming we accept that it is happening) is something that has really happened over the last century - perhaps century and a half. There is really little evidence of much serious destruction before then. Christianity has existed in some form or other for around two thousand years, so we either take the view that Christians are destructive but never had the means to really let loose till comparitively recently or that some other factors are involved. One clearly is the industrial revolution and another is the related rise in population. Now again it is possible to link capitalism with Calvinism and the Protestant work ethic but this is not really mainstream Christianity (despite the wishes of Northern Europe and the USA). Now Chrisitianity does not seem to have been at the forefront of the environmental movement so perhaps at best we can describe it as neutral. However much of the arguments of those who despoil is not so much that God urges them to do it but that it is profitable to do it. The justification is based on Adam Smith rather than Adam and Eve. JC does seem to have had a reasonably good track record on the profit motive, even if some of his followers have let him down. There are some ethical theories, put forward by such people as Milton Friedman, the economist, who says that basically the only ethic of business is that of rewarding the shareholders and Albert Carr who argued that business was rather like a game of Poker and the only ethics were those of the gambler - businesses are expected to bluff and give out false signals (lie and cheat). Neither of these two tried to relate rampant capitalism to Christian ethics. Also just because the Bible does not give the defence of duty of care to the dominion over the beasts of the field, fowl of the air and fish of the sea (and whatesoever passes through the sea) does not remove this as a Christian argument. The Bible (OT) is Hebrew not Christian and also religions are not static, never changing ideas - they do develop, even if only to address issues that did not exist before.

littleneptune	15 May 2003
I agree with Minderwiz that the profit motive is behind much of the environmental destruction we see, in both Christian and non-Christian countries. Looking at the early history in Canada where I live, we see the arrival of European settlers to a pristine native-run landscape. "Trading posts" were set up by white settlers, which encouraged the natives to kill for profit. This had been unheard of before the Europeans arrival, as the natives worshipped the land and the animal spirits around them. Eventually, the natives were conquered by the white settlers, their land was taken from them, and the rest is history. However, it should also be said that the white settlers, upon conquering the natives, insisted that they abandon their culture, language and religion, and adopt Christianity. Perhaps religion is simply used as a tool to gain one's own ends (profit) in the name of some 'higher power'.

The Christianity and Views on the Environment thread was originally posted on 14 May 2003 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.