Perhaps the most striking, and perhaps the one that sums up the message of the relationship between Ecology and Theology best is from the Oxford handbook where it states:
Environmental well being refers here to the good of the earth as a whole, as the setting of life. Ecological well-being refers to the good of the species living interdependent and interrelated lives in the ecosystem, particular earth places characterized by the integration of specific species...Development of Catholic thought will be considered in three stages: caring for the common good...concern for creation in crisis...and creation concern and community commitment.
This three-pronged summation of Catholic thought looks to explain our relationship within the broader creation, and our role as stewards. If we are to say that we are for "life" how far must that extend to the entire spectrum of an ecosystem?
If we are to believe in a respect for all creation, must this extend to all forms of life on earth as well? As White points out, "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them."
So in short, here are the questions we raise. If we know that an environment is in crisis and this crisis affects life, do we have a MORAL obligation to respond? If we are truly to care about the common good, creation in crisis and community commitment, how far must we go to act? Is that same moral responsibility left open for those who are not religious?
The readings for this week provided a good overview of the history of the relationship between ecology and theology. I especially found the overview of different voices (pp. 79-82, 'Religion and Ecology') in the debate surrounding ecological responsibility interesting - they presented so many different angles. To touch on the questions above:
ReplyDeleteI would argue that we do have a moral argument to respond. Although I can't say definitively how far we should go to act, it seems like the kind of thing that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. To answer whether this responsibility extends to non-religious people as well, I'm not sure that that question can be answered from the text. It seemed to me that the concerns in the text primarily looked at responsibility from a Christian worldview. From a Catholic perspective, I would argue that morality, if it really is morality, applies to everyone, but I'm not sure an agnostic, Deist or atheist reading the same text would find the arguments for responsibility compelling, although they may agree that we have a responsibility from some other basis of understanding. Maybe someone could offer some insight to help me on this one.
In my opinion, the well being of the earth only benefits us as humankind as we thrive off of what is around us. If we do not take care of the earth, we will have nothing to benefit from anymore. Humans are made in the Image of God, as was repeated several times in each text, but I think that makes us even more responsible for the well being of the earth over what we can control. Despite religion, I see taking care of the earth and nature as a responsibility that humans have developed as a sign of our importance in the world; we can acknowledge that other creatures need help and we can offer it, and somewhat control what happens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 26murphy. It is our duty to preserve the earth. God gave man dominion over the earth and the current environmental state of the earth proves that man has not been taking care of the earth so well. I feel the same moral obligation of taking care of the earth applies to religious and nonreligious people because taking care of the earth is man's responsibility; also, the well being of the earth will benefit future mankind as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 26murphy. It is our duty to preserve the earth. God gave man dominion over the earth and the current environmental state of the earth proves that man has not been taking care of the earth so well. I feel the same moral obligation of taking care of the earth applies to religious and nonreligious people because taking care of the earth is man's responsibility; also, the well being of the earth will benefit future mankind as well.
ReplyDelete---Michael Beatson
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe questions that John raised here were:
ReplyDelete1. Do we have a moral obligation to respond? If we are truly to care about the common good, creation in crisis and community commitment?
2.How far must we go to act?
3.Is that same moral responsibility left open for those who are not religious?
In a christian view as well as most other religions, the answer would be
1. Yes, there is clearly a moral responsibility to take care of our environment.
2. How far we must act to assume that responsibility would be depending on the issue on hand as well as the specific religious beliefs of each person.
3. In my opinion, this moral responsibility also falls on non-religious individuals. Everything we do in our environment has ramifications that eventually affect us as whole and is the basic reason why we develop legislations to live by in order to create order and stability in our world. Moral responsibility isn't just linked to faith, its a way for us as humans to co-exist in our world. I think the extents of this responsibility is probably where people will differ based on their personal beliefs.
I don't think you need religion at all to know you need to take care of the earth. I find nature much more real and pure than religion. I say that because nature has no opinions, it is what it is. Organized religion certainly is not that. I don't understand it when I hear someone say well I don't do this because of religion and I do this because of religion. I can find purpose in my life without religion. I can definitely feel the need to take care of the earth without religion.
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly a responsibility to take care of the envirnment we live in. How far we can go with that depends on our physical capabilities, geographical situation, and our education regarding what can be changed. This responsibility definitely applies to non-religious individuals because they consume just as much of the enviorment as anyone else does, relatively speaking. Wether or no they choose to make a difference depends on their morals, however.
ReplyDeleteI can most certainly agree with what Mike is saying. I think many spiritual people look to a 'mother earth' figure if you will in the absence of organized religion and that has an effect as well. However, environmentalism can exist independent of either, same as it can exist within either.
ReplyDelete