7.2: Religion and Ecology- Academic Field and Moral Force

Our attitudes toward nature have been consciously and unconsciously conditioned by our religious worldviews. Over 50 years ago the UCLA historian Lynn White Jr. observed this when he noted: “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny—that is, by religion.” White’s 1967 article in Science marked a watershed in contemporary reflection on how environmental attitudes are shaped by religious worldviews. He critiques Christianity for losing a sense of the sacredness of nature by banishing animism and elevating humans above nonhumans. He cites the Genesis passage (1:26) in which God gives humans dominion over nature and other species. Such dominion, he observes, led to overexploitation of the natural world and to anthropocentrism, or human-centered approaches to ethics and daily life. White calls for making St. Francis a patron saint of ecology for his love of nature and his kinship with all species, such as birds and wolves.

Christian theologians pushed back against White’s argument and began to develop forms of eco-theology, which emphasizes environmental ethics, stewardship, and creation care. Claremont theologian John Cobb helped to lead the way, publishing a book titled Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology in 1972. Among his many writings is a book with economist Herman Daly, For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Theologians such as Rosemary Ruether, Sallie McFague, and Catherine Keller took up ecofeminism, which links the exploitation of the Earth to the degrading treatment of women. These ecofeminist theologians called for a new understanding of the Earth as sacred, indeed as God’s body.

In the last two decades, other religious traditions were drawn into the search for a broader environmental ethics. Indeed, through the work of hundreds of scholars and theologians, a new field of religion and ecology has emerged within academia. Its rapid growth has been nothing less than remarkable, and its potential to affect change is significant because of the institutional dimensions of the world’s religions, which engage 85% of the world’s people. This field has undertaken serious reflection on views of nature from the different world religions. For example, John Grim and I organized a 3-year research project of ten conferences at the Harvard Center for the Study of World Religions (1996–1998), resulting in ten edited volumes. The project culminated in two conferences in 1998 in New York at the United Nations and the American Museum of Natural History, attended by over 1,000 people. The Forum on Religion and Ecology was born from these conferences, and we now direct it at Yale University

The assumption of the Harvard research project was that environmental attitudes and ethics are predominantly shaped by religious and cultural contexts. These are vastly different in China and India than in the West. Indeed, our initial impetus was in large measure to highlight the traditions of China and India, knowing that their rapid development and industrialization would change the face of the planet—as it is already doing. It was also important that we raise up the voices of Indigenous peoples in a conference and a volume. Our conviction was that understanding these varied cultural values and religious ethics will contribute to environmental solutions that include both humans and nature.

That is what the Forum on Religion and Ecology set out to do, beginning with a group of some 800 scholars and environmentalists. We now have a network and email list of some 12,000 people. We have also created a comprehensive website where we have collected the statements of many of the world’s religions and annotated the literature published in English on this topic: http://fore.yale.edu. One of our early projects was an issue of the academic journal Daedalus, titled “Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change?” (2001), which arose out of two conferences at Harvard. Our Forum website highlights various statements on climate change and grassroots projects to address it by the world’s religions.

The academic field of religion and ecology makes a number of assumptions, including these:

• Religion and ecology is a newly emerging academic field not more than 20 years old; environmental ethics, on the other hand, coming out of Western philosophy, is 40 years old. Scholars of religion and theologians have a great deal of work still to do.
• Religious and ethical perspectives have only recently been invited into the arena of “sustainability sciences” and sustainability forums, which are arenas within academia and, beyond that, are trying to respond to climate change and other environmental problems.
• While academia is somewhat comfortable with environmental ethics arising out of Western philosophy, it is perplexed by, or adverse to, the study of religion in universities. This is because it confuses religious studies and history of religions with theology that has been largely carried out within a framework of Christian confessional assumptions, beliefs, and practices.
• Religious studies and the history of religions are not theology. They are the study of the unfolding of various religious traditions, including changes and continuities over time. These studies are more indebted to history and the social sciences (especially the study of culture and anthropology) than theology, which has developed primarily at Christian seminaries. The history of religions identifies ethics within the context of world religions and cultures, not simply within a Western Christian framework. Until recently, Christian ethics has focused primarily on social ethics, not environmental ethics. But important contributions are now being made in this arena.
• As scholars, we do not assume that religions are unproblematic entities. We recognize the havoc they have caused, historically and at present. However, we are suggesting that they are necessary, although not sufficient, partners in seeking environmental solutions. Religions need to be in dialogue with science, policy, and economics. We hope this interdisciplinary dialogue gains further traction through efforts such as this book and course.