animism and ecology

[wigginhall]

I was reading an interview with Anne Proulx, in which she quoted another writer, saying that pagan animism was the only defender of ecology, or ecological balance, and that Christianity had helped destroy both.   I sat up bolt upright in my chair.   Well, I have heard this view before, but it is quite shocking.   I wonder what other people think.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/05/annie-proulx-ive-had-a-life-i-see-how-slippery-things-can-be

[Shaker]

She has more than a point. Paganism - broadly - is characterised I should say by a collective feeling of immersion in and continuity with the natural world, whereas the Judaeo-Christian worldview has been one of dominion, where man (or Man) is set apart and set over. There are attempts to soften this of course, invariably by rebranding dominion as 'stewardship' - not that that changes the positioning in any way. Guess who the stewards are?

[wigginhall]

She has more than a point. Paganism - broadly - is characterised I should say by a collective feeling of immersion in and continuity with the natural world, whereas the Judaeo-Christian worldview has been one of dominion, where man (or Man) is set apart and set over. There are attempts to soften this of course, invariably by rebranding dominion as 'stewardship' - not that that changes the positioning in any way. Guess who the stewards are?

I think that's the main thrust of the argument.   Of course, it's very complicated, for example, once capitalism and industrialism come along, the natural world is in danger immediately, and basically, has been ravaged.   However, Christianity destroyed animism in some countries, and has supported capitalism in others, for example, the US, and as you say, preached dominion.    It's an ugly picture.

[Nearly Sane]

Dominionism has different interpretations. Some of those interpretations have involved many Christians in ecology movements.

[Rhiannon]

I don't think anyone can say that paganism was the 'only defender'. What I do think happened though is that Christianity changed the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation - probably forever. We stopped thinking of ourselves in relation to nature, stopped thinking of the trees, creatures and rocks as our cousins. We decided that we were the only things truly alive and the only ones that count in God's eyes (see Alan Burns and his ideas about animal suffering or why flowers exist); believing that a forest is dead wood in waiting and its inhabitants unthinking and unfeeling makes it a heck of a lot easier to destroy it, and them.

[Shaker]

Dominionism has different interpretations. Some of those interpretations have involved many Christians in ecology movements.

Rather late in the day, historically, and surely influenced from outside by ecological movements that have their roots outwith Christianity.

[Nearly Sane]

Rather late in the day, historically, and surely influenced from outside by ecological movements that have their roots outwith Christianity.

Wgat's the definition of late? The first Green politicians I knew in the late 70s were Christians?

[wigginhall]

I agree with NS that contemporary Christians are involved in green movements.   However, the destruction of animist religions happened a long time ago, and was surely aided and abetted by Christians, who thought that they were satanic or something bad.

Rhiannon - good points.   It's still going on.  After all, isn't Sarah Palin born again?  Yet she was enthusing for drilling for oil in Alaska. 

“Oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations.”

Or the shorter version: drill, baby, drill. 

[Shaker]

Wgat's the definition of late? The first Green politicians I knew in the late 70s were Christians?

Late, as in the last forty years as opposed to the preceding two thousand

[Rhiannon]

There were some Christians who had a close relationship to nature - from what we know of early Celtic Christianity they didn't move far from pagan understanding of nature , and then of course there was St Francis. But I don't think it can be denied that Christianity allows the industrial revolution to happen. The Christian ecology movement is a response to put that right. It didn't exist to prevent it happening in the first place, although some such as Blake spoke out against it.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think anyone can say that paganism was the 'only defender'. What I do think happened though is that Christianity changed the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation - probably forever. We stopped thinking of ourselves in relation to nature, stopped thinking of the trees, creatures and rocks as our cousins. We decided that we were the only things truly alive and the only ones that count in God's eyes (see Alan Burns and his ideas about animal suffering or why flowers exist); believing that a forest is dead wood in waiting and its inhabitants unthinking and unfeeling makes it a heck of a lot easier to destroy it, and them.

Apart from being a strawman and not backed up by history, this is one of those approaches to stuff that only had black and white ( and irrationally sees what you don't agree with as being externally caused with no justification)

It reads a bit like Sassy on paganism

[Nearly Sane]

There were some Christians who had a close relationship to nature - from what we know of early Celtic Christianity they didn't move far from pagan understanding of nature , and then of course there was St Francis. But I don't think it can be denied that Christianity allows the industrial revolution to happen. The Christian ecology movement is a response to put that right. It didn't exist to prevent it happening in the first place, although some such as Blake spoke out against it.

Ah yes the industrial revolution, which has saved (and killed) billions of life's, is a bad thing that w obviously should have stopped. Those people who died of smallpox, all good. And the only reason the bad thing which gave us cars, the Internet and MRIs is Christianity 'allowed' it because worrying about it all being evil would be better.

[Rhiannon]

I didn't realise vaccination was discovered by industry? I thought it was medicine. What do I know.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't realise vaccination was discovered by industry? I thought it was medicine. What do I know.

Technology advances, medicine or others, work on the same principle. Do only want nice advances? P
How do you get that? What's the process that would control this? Should we have gone, Jenner good, Tull bad?

[Rhiannon]

Technology advances, medicine or others, work on the same principle. Do only want nice advances? P
How do you get that? What's the process that would control this? Should we have gone, Jenner good, Tull bad?

You'd made an assumption that I thought the IR was a bad thing. Why didn't you just ask before your last post?

Mixed blessing would be my verdict. The lack of stewardship (including of human beings who happened to be poor, let's not forget) made its growth indiscriminate. It still is, all too often, as Wiggs says.

Whatever, the Christian ecology movement is reacting to that screw up. I used to be very involved in it and my experience is that it's on the fringes and wasn't of any real interest to the majority of Christians that I knew. Any attempt I made to get its policies into the local churches here (renewables, recycled paper etc) were ignored.

Maybe things have improved.

[Nearly Sane]

You'd made an assumption that I thought the IR was a bad thing. Why didn't you just ask before your last post?

Mixed blessing would be my verdict. The lack of stewardship (including of human beings who happened to be poor, let's not forget) made its growth indiscriminate. It still is, all too often, as Wiggs says.

Whatever, the Christian ecology movement is reacting to that screw up. I used to be very involved in it and my experience is that it's on the fringes and wasn't of any real interest to the majority of Christians that I knew. Any attempt I made to get its policies into the local churches here (renewables, recycled paper etc) were ignored.

Maybe things have improved.

No, you described it as being allowed by Christianity, which creates a blame idea. And you are even here talking about to reacting to something that is screwed up i.e. something bad. I think you seem very confused on what you are trying to say here.

[Rhiannon]

No, you described it as being allowed by Christianity, which creates a blame idea. And you are even here talking about to reacting to something that is screwed up i.e. something bad. I think you seem very confused on what you are trying to say here.

I think you are confused in your understanding of what I said. You also assumed I'd come up with a 'blame idea'. Why not ask if that was what I meant? It was allowed by Christianity; it was allowed unchecked, for far too long. Or are you seriously saying that the industrialists displayed good stewardship, not least towards their workers?

So you don't think the modern ecology movement has to react to the indiscriminate way industry has behaved in the past and is still behaving? You don't think there's been a screw-up?

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are confused in your understanding of what I said. You also assumed I'd come up with a 'blame idea'. Why not ask if that was what I meant? It was allowed by Christianity; it was allowed unchecked, for far too long. Or are you seriously saying that the industrialists displayed good stewardship, not least towards their workers?

So you don't think the modern ecology movement has to react to the indiscriminate way industry has behaved in the past and is still behaving? You don't think there's been a screw-up?

So when you said Christianity allowed something, (an historically illiterate idea) you meant it allowed something that isn't the IR happen for too long in too much of an indiscriminate way. And it was up to me to ask you what you meant in case you qualified the illiterate idea in a way that while complex, added nothing to its idiocy?

[Rhiannon]

So when you said Christianity allowed something, (an historically illiterate idea) you meant it allowed something that isn't the IR happen for too long in too much of an indiscriminate way. And it was up to me to ask you what you meant in case you qualified the illiterate idea in a way that while complex, added nothing to its idiocy?

Feel free to feel it's idiotic and illiterate. I don't agree, but there we are.

[Nearly Sane]

Feel free to feel it's idiotic and illiterate. I don't agree, but there we are.

In which case, there really is no post in discusdion here because you aren't willing to deal with it.

Are you Vlad?

[Rhiannon]

I've not seen Vlad agree to disagree.

[Owlswing]

Who, outside Paganism, disagreed with the description of Pagans as "lunatic tree-huggers"? Not many that I can think of.

As Rhi has said in more than one occasion, her pagan path is, different from mine, deeply rooted in the natural world. If she has any deity at all it IS the natural world.

Christians have their God who (they say) created the world, including the nature upon it, who then sat back and watched his son's followers systemtically destroy almost entirely almost all the religions that held nature, in one way or another, to be sacred. Hereticy! Only their God and his son can be sacred!

As always God allows things to be done by man but He must not take any responsibility for his negligence.   

[Hope]

I was reading an interview with Anne Proulx, in which she quoted another writer, saying that pagan animism was the only defender of ecology, or ecological balance, and that Christianity had helped destroy both.   I sat up bolt upright in my chair.   Well, I have heard this view before, but it is quite shocking.   I wonder what other people think.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/05/annie-proulx-ive-had-a-life-i-see-how-slippery-things-can-be

I would agree that certain individuals within Christianity have acted in ways that have damaged ecological balance, but then they haven't been the only ones - including many who have been taught (as Christianity does) the importance of looking after the world and the creation.

I can think of some pagans (I've worked with several) who have acted in ways that were no less deletorious to the world's ecology than anyone else's.

As such, I'd suggest that this is a human trait rather than a religious one.

[Hope]

She has more than a point. Paganism - broadly - is characterised I should say by a collective feeling of immersion in and continuity with the natural world, whereas the Judaeo-Christian worldview has been one of dominion, where man (or Man) is set apart and set over. There are attempts to soften this of course, invariably by rebranding dominion as 'stewardship' - not that that changes the positioning in any way. Guess who the stewards are?

Oddly enough, Shakes, the 'softening' you refer to is actually getting back to the roots of Judeo-Christian thinking, since the Hebrew word that the early English translators translated as 'dominion' was actually far closer to 'stewardship and protection of creation'.  So, the process isn't 'softening' anything.

[Hope]

I don't think anyone can say that paganism was the 'only defender'. What I do think happened though is that Christianity changed the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation - probably forever. We stopped thinking of ourselves in relation to nature, stopped thinking of the trees, creatures and rocks as our cousins. ...

I'm not sure that this came about with Christianity; after all - as wiggi points out - this change in 'relationship' largely came about with the Industrial Revolution - suggesting that the idea is external to Christianity.

I would, however, accept that human attitudes to other humans existed long before the IR, but also long before the appearance of Judaism, let alone Christianity.