Religion and Ecological Responsibility

Frank 013 · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject:

I have several questions about this…

If it is religion’s responsibility to clean up and protect the planet, and 95+ percent of the planet’s population is religious, why is nothing noteworthy being done?

If the tenants of the old scriptures truly say that we must protect and clean up the planet, how did we get to this point to begin with?

The quotes of the above religious leaders seem very persuasive but I suspect that they are singular voices in a mass of hypocritical and greedy men. The quote from the Koran for instance seems progressive and responsible but it is buried beneath some 600 pages of hateful, destructive descriptions of what must be done to infidels, this single passage and its message is clearly lost being overwhelmed by the other more negative messages in the Koran.

Many religions preach that man would have dominion over the earth and its creatures. This suggests that we could do what we want and that it was ok because god commanded it; despite the more modern interpretations this one is the most literal.

Why is it that these believers are not involved?

Is this question even debated between factions or are those people simply left out?

If a religion preaches that Armageddon is close at hand (and many do) what is the point of the clean up from their point of view?

Are we expecting these people to help, or should we just count them out too?

Despite the effort being made by some religions cleaning up the planet is clearly not a priority to many, or we should have seen some truly impressive improvements in this area in our recent history.

Just as I have said in the past, the tribal nature and core belief differences cannot allow many religions to work together with common interest, because their interests are not always common… even in the event of a world crisis.

This is the best example of why religions are so dangerous, In this case religious beliefs are keeping us from uniting when the entire world is at stake what could be more dangerous than that?

Later

Grim · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject:

As an evolutionist I feel that it is objectionable to bring up a debate that cannot be proven, and is false.

There is no pollution only organisms evolving in an interchanging environment, you are wrong to think such things.

I don't feel you have the right to influence my opinion that the earth is, or as the case obviously shows, is not increasingly degraded and depleted. You are trying to undo the truth that I have put in my community.

I take personal offense to the notion, you are not a good person to make me feel this way when you are obviously wrong. I am reporting you to the book master who is in charge of the forum, your actions will be restricted by his laws.

STOP WHAT YOU ARE THINKING Evil or Very Mad

Dissident Heart · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject:

IFrank: if it is religion’s responsibility to clean up and protect the planet, and 95+ percent of the planet’s population is religious, why is nothing noteworthy being done?

I should hope it were everyone's responsibility, religious or not. I think there are many noteworthy examples of large and small religious communities all over the planet making efforts as described in the above quotes. One book that captures a great deal of this very important and extremely valuable movement is Roger Gottlieb's A Greener Faith
Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet's Future http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Spir ituality/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NjQ4Mw== . I've recommended it for the next non-fiction selection. I suggest we read it and see if the examples do exist, and decide if they are worthy.

Frank: If the tenants of the old scriptures truly say that we must protect and clean up the planet, how did we get to this point to begin with?

Religious scriptures from around the world provide ample examples of what can reasonably be called a kind of "creation care" ethic and morality of environmental stewardship. They also contain every other capacity for human virtue and vice: demands for social justice and expressions of gross intolerance are interlaced throughout the texts. Like all of human history, they capture the shadow and the light...their value, as I see it, do not lie in their supposed inerrancy or imagined perfection...they lie in something that endures and bridges the ages...something that continues to inspire and heal and fill with hope and moves many to love and care for themselves, each other and the planet.

How we got into this mess (and what a mess it is!) is something worth exploring, no doubt. Reasons abound, and probably most, if not all of us, have played a part in the tragedy. I think the quotations above point to how some religious communities are working to take responsibility for the damage they have done, and to commit to a change of direction and new commitment to forgotten, ancient truths about themselves and the world they live in. I hope the scientific community can also participate in this kind of 'repentance' for the terrible deeds committed by technology throughout the ages...and especially those modern scientists who have seen nature as nothing more than stuff to be manipulated and used at will...stuff to be poisoned, evicerated, decimated and nuclear annihilated. We've all got some 'splainin' to do...and lots to clean up.

Frank: The quotes of the above religious leaders seem very persuasive but I suspect that they are singular voices in a mass of hypocritical and greedy men.

I think they are persuasive, and they reflect much more than just a few leaders...although leadership is important. In reality, there is a large movement where religious inidividuals and communities and whole traditions are awakening to the devastation they have been waging, confessing to these terrible deeds, working to repair the damage, and move toward a much different future. The mass of hypocritical and greedy men are legion, no doubt....and, again, we all could use a serious look in the mirror about all of this mess...but I think the movement described in these quotes reflect genuine efforts to expose the greed and corruption and take responsibility for its consequences. And, again, the greedy men are hardly limited to religious communities...the corporate leaders and their managers are guilty in many ways that have nothing to do with any particular religious system...as are the many mindless consumers...and don't forget the terrible environmental devastation unleashed in times of war or by testing required to build war machines and other weapons of mass destruction. It is a complex web we have woven....and we are all stuck in it.

Frank: If a religion preaches that Armageddon is close at hand (and many do) what is the point of the clean up from their point of view?

The same question should be asked to all of us, especially if we take seriously the best of recent science...science that tells us that it may be too late already...we have gone too far and there really is no turning back the clock...our efforts are really, factually, and truly futile. Why should any of us work to change the course of environmental devastation, especially when it seems very clear that the nails are already in the coffin? For the religious quotations above, the need to care for creation is not determined by how succesful our attempts may be. In other words, turn back the devastation or not, caring for creation is fundamental to loving God. Why do you choose to turn the tide of ecological disaster...knowing that your deeds will probably do very little to make any actual, lasting difference? Why not surrender to a very real and inevitable 'armageddon'...especially when the best of scientific evidence points in that dark and terrible direction.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:17 am Post subject:

Here are a few valuable resources for understanding some of the ways that Religion and Ecological Responsibility converge:

Frank 013 · Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject:

DH,

It boggles my mind how you could write all of the above material and not answer a single question I put forth; I will however address yours.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject:

Frank,

Hang in there. I've tried to address your post as time and energy permitted.

Frank: There is no doubt that some small number of religious people are attempting to begin the cleanup, but if all of the major religions were truly uniting and mobilizing their resources to combat these problems I think we would be seeing far more progress on this front.

I don't know where I've ever claimed that "all the major religions were truly uniting..."...nor do the quotes or organizations I've provided claim that. What they do show is something contrary to what you deny quite strongly: sometimes, some religions and some religious people, are able to put aside some differences, in order to address common crises, working together to find common solutions to common problems...in this case, the common problem of environmental devastation. I wish we were seeing more progress on this crucial front. I think we could see even more progess if ardent atheists (like yourself perhaps) would take the time to recognize the efforts and value of religious environmentalism, and make common cause with them. Instead, the kind of tribal atheism that simply will not accept that something positive, meaningful, and truthful can arise from the variety of religious tribes across the planet...becomes part of the problem. The problem involves all of us...and so will the solution.

Frank: Maybe they are all praying for god to do the work for them?

Prayer is certainly part of the equation...and different traditions approach it in different ways...as does the particular setting and issue shape how each prayer is utilized. I don't think they are waiting for God to do the work...on the contrary, they are doing everything they can to change their own behavior, the way their congregations are run, confronting misuse in their larger corporate structures, and challenging industry and policy making to be more environmentally responsible...I think prayer is an important element in mobilizing their efforts in that direction.

Frank: It seems to me more like they are still trying to convince the bulk of their peers that this is a project worth undertaking.

It seems there are lots of people, religious and otherwise, who need to be convinced of the necessity of ecological sustainability. Educating and informing individuals, communities and entire polities of the issues is a difficult task...especially when there are powerful ideological, industrial and economic forces that are unwilling to change direction. I think we should applaud anyone who makes these kinds of efforts.

Frank: If this is indeed the case just how entrenched is this “stewards of the earth” belief?

Creation care, earth stewardship, green faith...as I've stated and shown so far on this thread, can be shown to have deep roots in theology, scripture, ethics, tradition and worship. It is a prominent thread in many religious traditions, that has been tragically and sadly neglected...but, not entirely forgotten. Since the environmental crisis is relatively new in the scope of world and religious history, this thread of religious environmentalism has not been called upon until relatively recently. I think it has been neglected because of economic and industrial demands that simply could not tolerate these values. Creation care has been sacrificed to an industrial and economic idolatry: a false god and idol to which we have handed over our children, animal and plant species and perhaps the entire biosphere.

Frank: And it still does not address the less than eco friendly beliefs that many religions hold. We clearly cannot count on those people’s help, does this concern you even a little?

Obviously it concerns me, as it should concern everyone. Which is really the thrust of my concern: if you are concerned about ecological sustainability, then you need to be concerned about the large number of humans for whom religion plays a prominent role in directing their behavior. If you want to change their behavior, then utilizing their religious beliefs and traditions will be crucial. Highlighting where their faith traditions are indeed green and demanding a care for and love of creation will be integral to any solution. Lifting up those scriptures and traditions that reflect a green faith will probably not mobilize ardent atheists to change their behavior...but it has a very good chance of getting religious folk to think and act more environmentally responsible. Furthermore, deriding religious folk as deluded and ridiculous will surely prove counterproductive.

Frank: Does the belief that the earth’s destruction is inevitable, and that the end of times means their physical ascension to heaven strike you as counter productive here?

It depends on what practical, ethical and political conclusions people draw from these various beliefs. It can be counter-productive. But it doesnt need to be. The transitory nature of creation and the consummation of humanity and all life in heaven does not mean earth and the biosphere are to be denigrated. It can also mean that true consummation requires active love and care and actual stewardship...that to expect participation in the world to come requires loving the world right now...that to denigrate and poison creation is not how to get to heaven...it is how to turn this world into a genuine hell.

Frank: I do not doubt their sincerity, but I do not see this as a widespread belief among Christians as many eagerly await the apocalypse; nor do I hear these beliefs being spoken from the average Muslim, in contrast the word “Jihad” is well associated with them.

I would work to show those Christians and Muslims that their Scriptures and the long history and traditions of prayer and worship that they call upon DO NOT support a denigration of creation...ON THE CONTRARY, true faith and love of God requires care and support for Creation. I think, again, if you explore the many examples I have provided...that you will see lots of examples of Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. who offer a very compelling and inspirational challenge to those who degrade Creation within their traditions.

And, let's be clear, the "average" anybody is facing a massive economic and industrial system (regardless of religion) that is just as opposed to ecological sustainability, and working tirelessly to oppose serious, lasting change. I think it is a grave mistake if you leave this out of our equation.

Because unlike religious text science never claims flawlessness, there may be variables that we are missing, technologies that could be developed or ecological safeguards that we are ignorant of. Science admits there is much we are still unaware of regarding the working of our planet, so even when some scientists claim doomsday is at hand some doubt is still prudent. Besides, it has never been shown conclusively that it is too late.

I think the evidence is in regarding the impending catastrophes we are facing- even if we find the wherewithal to engage in wide reaching, substantial and radical industrial and economic change...and the evidence is not good. The kind of variables you describe above require a great deal of faith...faith that the massive engine of fossil fuel based global industrial economies will fundamentally restructure themselves...and give up their power, wealth and domination in order to decrease their consumption and emissions and allow smaller, localized, participatory economic models to take root and grow......I happen to think this can happen- but not without the help of religious people around the world, doing everything in their power to change the hearts and minds of producers and consumers: helping them to "kick the habit" and find the courage to face what are simply awesome odds.

Here is one, I think, very important scientific resource for this discussion...assembled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf

And, I think listening to the wisdom of Nasa physicist James Hansen http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ is well worth our efforts here: Climate Catastrophe http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_2.pdf

Frank 013 · Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject:

DWill · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:50 am Post subject:

I haven't read through all of your discussion, but find it interesting. My interruption is just to note a couple of things: that to be motivated to change one's life in the interest of lessening impact on the environment requires no religious beliefs whatsoever. Many do this out of belief and concerns that have no religious categorization. The question your discussion raises is what is the most effective way of mobilizing people to act, and who is showing the best results. DH says that religious groups are leading major intitiatives, presumably having some effect on the level of the behavior of their adherents. Is there some advantage conferred by the very quality of being religious? Looking at the matter dispassionately, I can see how this might be. After all, to get away from
the way of life that has caused a large part of our environmental problem, requires us to separate ourselves from our consumerist economy to an extent. Religious people, by a combination of belief and group solidarity, might be better suited to the task than the average secular person in this country. Note that I say "in this country." The success of, say, Denmark, a non-religious society, depends on social factors that don't exist here in sufficient degree.

I do not think that there is much significance in the fact that the bible, in one section, welcomes the end of the world. This does not automatically mean that the idea has a grip on any particular Christian or even an entire denomination.

DWill

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:25 am Post subject:

Frank: It is not a direct claim, but from reading the above material it appears that you are making the attempt to show the unity and productiveness that religions breed. This is an affront to religion’s historical record both past and current.

I think the above material shows how many different religions can find common ground towards ecological sustainability...this common ground provides space for collaboration and cooperation to make positive substantial environmental change in personal, congregational, industrial and political arenas....and this collaboration is a valuable and important part of contemporary life- something that should be encouraged and supported by anyone committed to turning the tide of ecological devastation. I think this puts a substantial kink in your thesis, offering a real alternative to understanding the value and importance of religion.

Frank: I never claimed that some religions cannot sometimes unite for a common purpose; I do however doubt that that unification can be universal or sustaining because of the tribal nature of religions and their varied core beliefs.

Well, you do make strong claims that very little positive, useful, meaningful, beautiful or true can arise from religion...I think religious environmentalism shows something very different from your arguably one-sided argument. I think it can be lasting and sustainable and the voices and examples I've provided show that...at least, show the possibility. I am fairly certain that your approach will not get religious folk to change their environmental habits...thus, not sustainable.

Frank: No doubt, but if as you say, environmentalism is a core concept of religious belief why is it so absent from the common believer?

You like to refer to the "average" or "common" believer, as though you have some real knowledge about what they think or believe. I don't think anyone knows what the "average" believer thinks about any one thing at any one time. Especially when that involves, well, over a billion persons on different continents, speaking many different languages and living within different variances of particular religious traditions. I think religious environmentalism can show that different religious traditions have been pushed away from their care of creation by industrial and economic interests NOT determined by religious beliefs.

Frank: Was it neglected, or were the manuscripts interpreted differently in the past? If the latter is the case, who is to say that those interpretations were not the actual intent of the original writers?

In rural populations, those closely connected to the earth and the cycles of the seasons for their farms and crops...the care and love of creation has probably never really left their theological universe. It is in the urban centers, and suburban surroundings, where nature is kept apart and nicely carved, cut, packaged and contained...that the care of creation has been pushed to the margins...if not entirely forgotten. I think the various scriptures abound in the narratives of joy, appreciation, affirmation and deep love for creation. I know that modern industrial economic systems provide ample tools for poisoning and destroying creation.

Frank: The difference as I see it is that you would use religion to manipulate a person’s behavior, I say rid th


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT