Is Christianity responsible for ecological catastrophe?

1. THE WHITE
THESIS
RELIGION AND
NATURE

2. RELIGION AND NATURE
HOLYROMAN NATURE
▸ When Rome became Christian after 380CE, “nature” took
on a new meaning:
▸ Nature was what God had created
▸ History became linear and
fi
nite (not cyclical, or in
fi
nite)
▸ Nature took on a moral dimension – it was either sinful
or something God made for us to use

3. RELIGION AND NATURE
THE WHITE THESIS er in 1967:
▸ Historian of Technology, Lynn White Jr, published a short
paper, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”, in Science
In the early Church,and always in the Greek East, nature was conceived
primarily as a symbolic system through which God speaks to men: the
ant is a sermon to sluggards; rising
fl
ames are the symbol of the soul's
aspiration.This view of nature was essentially artistic rather than scienti
fi
c.
…
However, in the Latin West by the early 13th century natural theology
was following a very different bent. It was ceasing to be the decoding
of the physical symbols of God's communication with man and was
becoming the effort to understand God's mind by discovering how his
creation operates.

4. RELIGION AND NATURE
Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as nonrepetitive and
linear but also a striking story of creation. … God planned all of this explicitly for
man’s bene
fi
t and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve
man's purposes. And, although man’s body is made of clay, he is not simply part of
nature: he is made in God's image.
… 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. …
By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a
mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. …
Our science and technology have grown out of Christian attitudes toward man’s
relation to nature which are almost universally held not only by Christians and neo-
Christians but also by those who fondly regard themselves as post-Christians. Despite
Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not,
in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of
it, willing to use it for our slightest whim. [Emphases added]
THE WHITE THESIS

5. RELIGION AND NATURE
CRITICISMS OF THE WHITE THESIS
▸ The non-Christian Stoics treated also nature that way (Chryssipus
in the 3rd century BCE)
▸ Hard to generalise over medieval Christianity as there were
many different views and traditions (e.g., Francis of Assisi)
▸ Arguable at best that the Christian worldview is responsible
for exploitative technology and science
▸ Ignores the role of the rise of capitalism in the 14th
century (contrary to Church teachings; e.g., usury)

6. RELIGION AND NATURE
CRITICISMS OF THE WHITE THESIS
▸ Treats nature as passive – the Annales historiographical
school holds that human ideas and institutions are
in
fl
uenced by ecological conditions
▸ But there remains a point: the early modern period did
see nature as there for human convenience and use – see:
▸ The wisdom of God manifested in the works of the
Creation, John Ray, 1691
▸ Was this Christian, or just Western?

7. RELIGION AND NATURE
SOME OTHERTHINGS
▸ Social environment – arguably we always adapted to that
foremost: “We are now and always have been in our
natural environment” [Wilkins’ Rule]
▸ Immanent powers/souls (animae)
▸ Essences (“what it is to be”)

8. RELIGION AND NATURE
HORIZONTAL AND
VERTICAL NATURE
▸ Lovejoy distinguished between
▸ “vertical” conceptions of nature (from molecule to
man, or rock to God)
▸ “horizontal” conceptions of nature (nature as a
web, or whole presented to us)
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/48921

9. RELIGION AND NATURE
GREAT CHAINS
OF BEING
Enlightenment
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bonnet_echelle_des_etres_17.png
Medieval
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being#/media/File:Great_Chain_of_Being_2.png
From Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1997, p6
Modern

10. RELIGION AND NATURE
DISCUSSION POINTS
‣ Do monotheistic outlooks harm the environment more than other
religions/spiritualities in history?
‣ How is the soul (psyche) related to nature in ancient Greek culture, and was
the concept of an escape to nature purely physical, or a spiritual escape
too?
‣ Do anthropocentric beliefs, such as Christianity, harm nature more than any
other beliefs?
‣ Are ideas or ecology itself the main driver of our ecological and nature
views? Which comes first?
‣ Did the Christian view of the soul affect how they viewed nature?

11. RELIGION AND NATURE
DISCUSSION POINTS
▸ Is something as vast and varied as “Christianity”
responsible for ecological exploitation? What about
capitalism? Is there a link?
▸ Did the ancient ideas of the Greeks and Romans have
something to do with it directly, or as the roots of our
intellectual traditions?
▸ Which conceptions of nature are horizontal or vertical?
Which are best?