Religious people often assume we could solve the eco-crisis with ‘more God’, or by everyone recognising God as King, Jesus as Saviour, or Mohammed as God’s prime prophet. But these people rarely explore the issue of why it is that more recognition of God would necessarily guarantee sustainable behaviour, or whether it has in the past.
I’ve previously argued that God, or rather ‘holy books’, do not solve the problem of ethics. Indeed we may use our ethics to judge the behaviour attributed to God and wonder if such a God is ethically worthy, of being ‘the’ God. If the God is not judged worthy, then it is probable that belief declines, or the stories become symbols and allegories interpreted to save God from lack of ethics, rather than taken as events demonstrating the power and justice of God. While it is obvious that a desire to please God, or a love of God, can inspire people to do marvelous acts, it also seems correct that people often use God to justify unpleasant, or cruel, things they wish to do to others.
Some features attributed to God, may even (perhaps unintentionally) hinder an ethical relationship to the world:
- We might assume that God’s creation is eternal and we need do little to preserve it, as it will continue whatever we do.
- We might assume God put humans on this world to subdue it, or master it, rather than care for it.
- We might assume the world is something to be left behind (as trash?) as believers ascend to Heaven after death or after the last judgement.
- We might assume that we are saved by faith, or by performing the rituals, and our other actions are almost irrelevant, or that the ecology comes way down the list of important things we need to care about – such as purging non-believers, punishing sexual minorities, subduing women, making the law harmonious with the holy books and the interpretation of our favoured scholars, or whatever.
- We might assume that eco-destruction is part of God’s plan for the final judgement, and that working to stop this from happening, is working against God or evidence of the failing of pride or presumption.
- We might think that God models tyranny, and that leaders should be likewise and discipline everything that exists (including the natural world) without regard to the people or the ecology’s needs.
- A person might think that Humans are special in their connection to God, and non-human creation does not matter – certainly it may matter even less than caring for the present lives and comfort of heretics or infidels.
All of these views might derail attempts at preserving ecological functionality and sustainability. They might have that effect, even if people talk about how God commands us to keep balance, look after the land, or plant trees.
Another problem for me, is that I presume that people are currently influenced by their ethics and religion, and this has not prevented us from generating ecological problems. For example Evangelical Protestants and rightwing Catholics have supported Trump and thus have supported Trump’s lessening of environmental protections and pollution control rules; Islamic states have not curtailed the sale of their oil and the destruction that results from its use, or even supported the use of renewables until relatively recently, and they do not seem to take responsibility for the results of the use of that oil, any more than other non-religious oil companies do. Many Catholics seem to oppose Pope Francis because he does not continually praise capitalism and environmental destruction, even if they previously argued that obedience to the Holy Father was fundamental to Catholicism. Few major religious, or ethical, organisations are having great success challenging the crisis – although many are making the effort.
To effectively argue that we need more God to solve the problem, we would need to show that devout and religious countries have treated their environment better, and made it better and more sustainable, than countries that do not have a strong code of belief in God. If you then argue that the US, Italy, Brazil, Saudi Arabi, Iran, Afghanistan and so on, are not really devout enough, then you are probably going beyond human capacity into fantasy, or planning to use more violence to force people into devoutness, which probably means you will use more force on ecologies as well.
If there are God believing countries that have protected their ecology, and have not contributed to ecological destruction or climate change elsewhere in the world, then we need to explore what they have done, and how it ties in with their religion, and what is different in their practice to the practices of those with a similar religion.
Another step in the argument would be to ask what religions are most likely to encourage ecological relationship. We might suggest that some forms of Buddhism (with explicit compassion towards all beings) or non-ritual Taoism (with its efforts towards living in harmony with the flow and non-domination of the world) are promising. Unfortunately, the tendency of some kinds of Buddhism to leave relationship behind, and aim for non-suffering in ’emptiness’ or ‘nothingness’ may sabotage this possibility, and non-ritual Taoism is not really an official religion by its nature. Probably, the most effective religions of relationships and care are indigenous, in which natural beings are relatively equal and have to be respected, honoured, observed, talked to and cared for, and in which relationship with country is fundamental. But these people may not worship God as such, or they may be marginal to God religions, so they are not probably those being recognised by those who want more God.
Perhaps the call (unintendedly) suggests we need a new religion, one that hallows relationships with the natural world, one that situates humans in nature, one that does not promote violence against non-believers because they clearly sin against the true religion and hence deny God, one that does not have a God that lives entirely somewhere else or implies that good humans will leave the world behind, one that does not encourage consumption and wealth accumulation, one that encourages relationship and sympathy with all beings.
It could be logically possible to construct such a religion, but artificial religions rarely take hold. However, acknowledging the apparent failure of existing religions and knowing we could need such a religion, might set creativity, inspiration and discussion going. The New Age, whatever its obvious faults of positive thinking, prosperity by accumulation, or promotion of the idea that there is no reality beyond a person’s thoughts, may be a start in that direction – who can tell at this stage? It is even possible there could be a new reformation in Christianity, or a new understanding of Islam, which does not promote violence against nature and against non-believers.
The final problem is that I’m not even sure that people make decisions based on ethics, or moral instruction. There is the problem that people also seem to choose their ethics to justify what they, or people they identify with, have done or want to do. Although it is now a cliché, religious organisations might not have been expected to protect people in their organisations who were rapists while condemning their victims, if they were ethically concerned at all, but this process seems to have been quite normal and (presumably) ethically justified. We are even learning that despite the scandal, the same attitudes seem to be being taught at elite religious private schools.
While religion may promote morality, it does not guarantee universally valid morals.
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 
Leave a comment