animism and ecology

[Hope]

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

I was brought up as a child to appreciate and work for ecological protection.  I was also brought up to understand that this was a Biblical teaching - long before I became a life member of the RSPB, or the Greens came onto the scene.  My father had been taught it at school and theological college as far back as the years immediately following the 2nd World War. 

As such, I would argue that Annie Proulx's view is of limited value in this respect.

[Hope]

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.

Wiggi, I think the reference to the destruction being 'surely aided and abetted by Christians' is a valid criticism, but then a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/atheist/... can act in ways that disagree with the underlying beliefs of the faith they claim to adhere to.

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.”

Is this a religious comment or a political/economic one?

[Hope]

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.

I wonder where we would have been if the IR hadn't taken place?  I would also suggest that there were previous industrial revolutions that had less serious impacts on the environment.

[Hope]

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!

The idea hat there is a divide between the sacred and the secular is not actually a Christian idea.  It has been assimilated, to a degree, by both Christians and non-Christians alike, even Pagans. 

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

Actually, God requires us to take responsibility for our actions, rather than simply blaming other beings.

[Owlswing]

I was brought up as a child to appreciate and work for ecological protection.  I was also brought up to understand that this was a Biblical teaching - long before I became a life member of the RSPB, or the Greens came onto the scene.  My father had been taught it at school and theological college as far back as the years immediately following the 2nd World War. 

As such, I would argue that Annie Proulx's view is of limited value in this respect.

Oh gawd - yet another area of expertise and endeavour in which Hope is a full-on expert!

No surprise there.

[Owlswing]

The idea hat there is a divide between the sacred and the secular is not actually a Christian idea.  It has been assimilated, to a degree, by both Christians and non-Christians alike, even Pagans. 
Actually, God requires us to take responsibility for our actions, rather than simply blaming other beings.

Shame that so few adhere to that requirement, ain't it?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

I find the quote later. It’s taken from a 1967 essay written by the historian Lynn Townsend White Jr in which he put forward the idea that Christianity was the root of the ecological crisis: “By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.”

Now that got the grey cells turning, my immediate thought was John Wayne bringing civilisation to the red skins, and yes as I type this Christianity has to hold its hand up and say guilty your honour.

But then no, to easy, mans attempt to tame nature predates Christianity, farming and exploiting nature was around long before Christianity, but Christianity is in the mix, it is a very human focused religion all about saving your very human soul, Christians don't believe in tree's or plants other animals having a soul.

Was Christianity responsible for our losing respect for Mother Nature, I think we have to say yes, or maybe it has been used as a tool for mans greed, we will rape your landscape but will give you civilisation in return, oh and here is a good book to read, chapter one tells you it's all ours, well when I say ours I mean mine, have some shiny beads and bottle of fire water.

For me it does pose the question, what is really important, we look at a beautiful mountain and it touches our soul but some unthinking numpty will say, ah yes but do you see those minerals in that rock, you get the land rights and I will move in the heavy mining gear   Mans greed oh and a healthy dose of stupidity.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

'Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way;
Yet simple Nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topp'd hill, a humbler heav'n;
Some safer world in depth of woods embrac'd,
Some happier island in the wat'ry waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold!
To be, contents his natural desire;
He asks no angel's wing, no seraph's fire:
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.'

[Bramble]

Dear Wigs,

Now that got the grey cells turning, my immediate thought was John Wayne bringing civilisation to the red skins, and yes as I type this Christianity has to hold its hand up and say guilty your honour.

But then no, to easy, mans attempt to tame nature predates Christianity, farming and exploiting nature was around long before Christianity, but Christianity is in the mix, it is a very human focused religion all about saving your very human soul, Christians don't believe in tree's or plants other animals having a soul.

Was Christianity responsible for our losing respect for Mother Nature, I think we have to say yes, or maybe it has been used as a tool for mans greed, we will rape your landscape but will give you civilisation in return, oh and here is a good book to read, chapter one tells you it's all ours, well when I say ours I mean mine, have some shiny beads and bottle of fire water.

For me it does pose the question, what is really important, we look at a beautiful mountain and it touches our soul but some unthinking numpty will say, ah yes but do you see those minerals in that rock, you get the land rights and I will move in the heavy mining gear   Mans greed oh and a healthy dose of stupidity.

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonnagle,

I've been composing a lengthy contribution to this topic but you've distilled the essence of it better than I could have done. We've been waging war on nature for a lot longer than the Bible's been around and didn't need Genesis to rubber stamp our rapacious ambitions, though no doubt that has helped salve human consciences. I think the greatest cultural rift with nature occurred not with the IR but during the Neolithic transition, when we came into a fundamentally new kind of relationship with the planet. Farming brought with it the concept of land ownership and made possible what we call civilisation. Now the earth belonged to us and everything non-human on it could be seen as resources, ripe for human exploitation. The rest is history.

[Owlswing]

'Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way;
Yet simple Nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topp'd hill, a humbler heav'n;
Some safer world in depth of woods embrac'd,
Some happier island in the wat'ry waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold!
To be, contents his natural desire;
He asks no angel's wing, no seraph's fire:
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.'

As good a statement of Pagan belief as I have yet seen.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Bramble,

Blame The Wigginhall he has a habit of sending your mind down so many avenues, when I first read the link and the quote, I thought, bugger another weight around Christianities neck, say it ain't so, but when you think more about, mans greed and his total stupidity comes into play, but then I remember that we are looking at all the evidence through 21st century eye's, we condemn our ancestors because we are a little more knowledgeable.

I have to say I quite like this animism, not a bad way of viewing life, everything has a soul or spirit, giving nature the respect it deserves, us, mankind is a blip on the map, nature has been at it, well since the dawn of time, the Big Bang or how ever it started, that's nature, right! right.

From a Christian perspective or any of the big main religions it has to give you pause for thought, what is really important, saving the planet or saving souls, God has the soul business in hand, maybe we should give this little Earth a soul, it certainly needs saving.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing,

Yes I have to thank old Sane for that poem, it is a keeper, just been reading about the guy who wrote it, Alexander Pope, a bit out there with the fairies but in a very wonderful way out there with the fairies

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Yes, thanks to NS for that poem, never seen it before.

Thanks also to Gonners and Bramble for your points.  I didn't think that Proulx was saying that Christianity started the split between man and nature, I agree that that predates Christianity, and is also something fairly unconscious.  I mean, humans didn't wake up one day and think, hello, I'm separate from that tree, let's cut it down.  They had to cut trees down really. 

Anyway, I thought that Proulx was suggesting that Christianity helped in the physical destruction of pagan people, and their religions.    The obvious example is Native Americans, but there is also the Baltic crusades, which seemed to destroy pagan culture in places round the Baltic, e.g. Lithuania.

But even here, it is a fuzzy idea.  You could argue that colonialism goes around around destroying such tribal cultures, as in the Amazon today, and while Christianity provided a rationale for this, I don't know if it was the main driving force.   But then again, I don't know much about this part of history;  you hear that in S. America, the priest baptized the pagans, just before they were slaughtered by soldiers.  Or is this a myth?

[Owlswing]

Yes, thanks to NS for that poem, never seen it before.

Thanks also to Gonners and Bramble for your points.  I didn't think that Proulx was saying that Christianity started the split between man and nature, I agree that that predates Christianity, and is also something fairly unconscious.  I mean, humans didn't wake up one day and think, hello, I'm separate from that tree, let's cut it down.  They had to cut trees down really. 

Anyway, I thought that Proulx was suggesting that Christianity helped in the physical destruction of pagan people, and their religions.    The obvious example is Native Americans, but there is also the Baltic crusades, which seemed to destroy pagan culture in places round the Baltic, e.g. Lithuania.

But even here, it is a fuzzy idea.  You could argue that colonialism goes around around destroying such tribal cultures, as in the Amazon today, and while Christianity provided a rationale for this, I don't know if it was the main driving force.   But then again, I don't know much about this part of history;  you hear that in S. America, the priest baptized the pagans, just before they were slaughtered by soldiers.  Or is this a myth?

The difference is, I think, that primitive, pre-Christian, man was not as numerous and so what he took from and the damage he inflicted upon nature was minimal compared to what happened as the human race multiplied - exponentially.

At least part of this was, of course, as a result of the early Christian, mainly Catholic, doctrine of the Sin of Onan, the only reason for sex was to produce more Catholics - extended to the decree that if you married a Catholic you had to agree to bring your children up Catholic regardless of what your faith might be.

China had the right idea with it's "one couple - one child rule"!

It has taken far too long for man as a species to even talk about the irreversable damage that is being done to the natural world. The most devastating for humans is, of course, deforestation, the loss of the natural means of turning carbon dioxide into oxygen. Proof of this is the rapid increase of all kinds of bronchial diseases.

The question that needs to be addressed and the answer dealt with is "When do we reach the tipping point beyond which the natural world will be terminally unable to recover and how long after that does man become extinct?" Or, possibly even worse "Have we already passed the tipping point?"

[Hope]

The difference is, I think, that primitive, pre-Christian, man was not as numerous and so what he took from and damage  inflicted upon nature was minimal compared to what happened as the human race multiplied - exponentially.

At least part of this was, of course, as a result of the early Christian, mainly Catholic, doctrine of the Sin of Onan, the only reason for sex was to produce more Catholics - extended to the decree that if you married a Catholic you had to agree to bring your children up Catholic regardless of what your faith might be.

I hadn't realised that the population of the world had grown above 1 billion as early as the 'early Christian' period, Owl.  The world's population was only about 300 million as late as the end of the first millennium AD, and about 460 million by 1500.  (https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth).  It only passed 1 billion as recently as the first half of the 19th century.  By this stage, of course, there were many Christian groups other than the catholics, let alone many other groups well outside of the Christian context.  Remember, too, that the largest population growth have been in the non-Christian areas of the world!!

The question that needs to be addressed and the answer dealt with is "When do we reach the tipping point beyond which the natural world will be terminally unable to recover and how long after that does man become extinct?" Or, possibly even worse "Have we already passed the tipping point?"

Some have suggested that we have already reched the tipping point - in which case, the question is moot.

[Owlswing]

I hadn't realised that the population of the world had grown above 1 billion as early as the 'early Christian' period, Owl.  The world's population was only about 300 million as late as the end of the first millennium AD, and about 460 million by 1500.  (https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth).  It only passed 1 billion as recently as the first half of the 19th century.  By this stage, of course, there were many Christian groups other than the catholics, let alone many other groups well outside of the Christian context.  Remember, too, that the largest population growth have been in the non-Christian areas of the world!!
Some have suggested that we have already reched the tipping point - in which case, the question is moot.

You are quoting figures not me! Do not try to use what I have said to push your own agenda, i e discrediting a Pagan point of view, I have never seen a Pagan path that states that sex is only for procreation or banning the use of contraception.

As to the question of whether we have already passed the tipping point - you are the genius who knows everything about everything - you answer the qusetion, moot or otherwise. And who, precisely, nanmes and checkable references please, of who are those who "have suggested that we have already re(a)ched the tipping point".

Incidentally a "Moot" to some Pagans, including all the ones that I know, is a social gathering to talk and drink convivially! 

[Jack Knave]

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

Are you Vlad?

I generally agree with Rhi here. The ethos and mind set of Christianity, and perhaps especially the protestant one, allowed those of that era to do as they did and think or care no further. The work ethic which preordained the phrase "Work will make you free" and what we see in American now of it being given to man by God and all that.

It also allowed the abuse of those they saw as 'fallen' as in Ireland where women who had children out of wedlock were treated less than cattle. The nuns etc. did that because the mind set given to them by their faith and so cut off their humanity to the vey evil deeds they were perpetrating.

[Jack Knave]

The difference is, I think, that primitive, pre-Christian, man was not as numerous and so what he took from and the damage he inflicted upon nature was minimal compared to what happened as the human race multiplied - exponentially.

At least part of this was, of course, as a result of the early Christian, mainly Catholic, doctrine of the Sin of Onan, the only reason for sex was to produce more Catholics - extended to the decree that if you married a Catholic you had to agree to bring your children up Catholic regardless of what your faith might be.

China had the right idea with it's "one couple - one child rule"!

It has taken far too long for man as a species to even talk about the irreversable damage that is being done to the natural world. The most devastating for humans is, of course, deforestation, the loss of the natural means of turning carbon dioxide into oxygen. Proof of this is the rapid increase of all kinds of bronchial diseases.

The question that needs to be addressed and the answer dealt with is "When do we reach the tipping point beyond which the natural world will be terminally unable to recover and how long after that does man become extinct?" Or, possibly even worse "Have we already passed the tipping point?"

We've past that point. I forget the figures but to sustain a European lifestyle you need two earths and an American one three earths; or something like that. We are heading for a massive crash where billions will die off. Planet Earth's cupboard is pretty bare.

[Owlswing]

We've past that point. I forget the figures but to sustain a European lifestyle you need two earths and an American one three earths; or something like that. We are heading for a massive crash where billions will die off. Planet Earth's cupboard is pretty bare.

When I posted what this quote is a reply to I was seriously afraid that someone would respond as you have done.

I have had this sneaking suspicion that you are right for some time and it would appear that America, Russia and China are the main culprits in the matter of excessivie consumption of the world's resources and of ignoring the soaring levels of all kinds of pollution of those resources, including the atmosphere, upon which human life depends.

Shall we say out goodbyes to each other now, while we still can or shall we wait until the last possible moment before we admit that we need to say those goodbyes.

If, of course, we get the chance to do so, if Trump is elected President, before he starts a nuclear war by nuking IS/Daesh.

[Jack Knave]

When I posted what this quote is a reply to I was seriously afraid that someone would respond as you have done.

I have had this sneaking suspicion that you are right for some time and it would appear that America, Russia and China are the main culprits in the matter of excessivie consumption of the world's resources and of ignoring the soaring levels of all kinds of pollution of those resources, including the atmosphere, upon which human life depends.

Shall we say out goodbyes to each other now, while we still can or shall we wait until the last possible moment before we admit that we need to say those goodbyes.

If, of course, we get the chance to do so, if Trump is elected President, before he starts a nuclear war by nuking IS/Daesh.

I wasn't expecting it in my life time but who knows when the perfect storm will brew up(?).

I do expect some choppy waters in my life time and by the looks of things fairly soon; we've talking perhaps a year or two or so. Perhaps we can all start a forum in heaven and carry on where we left off...

[Owlswing]

I wasn't expecting it in my life time but who knows when the perfect storm will brew up(?).

I do expect some choppy waters in my life time and by the looks of things fairly soon; we've talking perhaps a year or two or so. Perhaps we can all start a forum in heaven and carry on where we left off...

I don't know about heaven but I will go with the Summerlands for sure.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing and Jack,

Relax, we have at least another fifty years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html

Or, for another point of view.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth

Both make valid points, are we on the highway to hell, or will mankind finally wake up and smell the ozone, I am not a possibilist like Rosling, I am a optimist, but we have to change our way of thinking, share the wealth, share the resources, I am alright Jack ( no offence Jack ) is no way to treat our children's future.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Richard Dawkins opposed the work of Lovelock in the Seventies.

[Owlswing]

Dear Owlswing and Jack,

. . . I am a optimist, but we have to change our way of thinking, share the wealth, share the resources, I am alright Jack ( no offence Jack ) is no way to treat our children's future.

Gonnagle.

I would disagree with the above but only in the detail. Not necessarily share the wealth and resources but to use them differently to benefit a far greater number than at present, i e the elites of  the U S, Russia and China mainly but also virtually everywhere else. 

[Owlswing]

Richard Dawkins opposed the work of Lovelock in the Seventies.

And where did Rhiannon mention either Dawkins or Lovelock? Neither of whom are Pagan as far as I know.