Can Christians love nature?

[Philos]

Folks,

I am reading Jonothan Dimbleby’s book on Russia. In it he writes of the orthodox church.

“Orthodoxy was a powerful opiate that taught that life on earth was merely a transition towards either heaven or hell…..”

It seems reasonable to assume that such believers will not regard this world as home, and if we add in the poison of the ‘the fall’ with its claim of existential corruption of all living things from the moment of conception, the transition becomes even less attractive as a place to love and nurture.

Dimbleby is speaking of orthodoxy, but what Christian does not believe in this eschatology and the dogma of the fall? How can such a believer love nature or give it positive value?

A.

 

[Tigers!]

Christians can love nature because it was created by God. It si a gift from God.
We believe that we hold the world in stewardship from God. It belongs to him, not us. We are tenants, not owners, nor vandals.

I think it was Chesterton who noted that nature is our half-sister (same father), not out mother.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In my experience, generally speaking, christians love nature but not globally. By that I mean they enjoy seeing a deer in the back yard but don't grasp global warming. They will plant a pretty tree or bush and remark how pretty the butterflies are but don't really care about vanishing species or whether the last ancient redwoods are cut to make lawn chairs.

And I think it's because they don't need it to make their goal of getting to heaven. The health of future generations which depend on a mother earth is not important in their religion. My dad, for example was very organic in his gardening methods but didn't care if every square inch of countryside was raised to build more houses. He never went to a national park in his life because he could care less about those things. His world was very small and I think he felt very safe in that small world.

When my dad gardened organically he didn't do it because it was good for the environment. He hated environmentalists. He did it because it was healthier for his kids and his family. He was very much the farmer connected to the land and he was a good steward of his particular piece of land, but he didn't make a larger connection.

 

[funinspace]

Dimbleby is speaking of orthodoxy, but what Christian does not believe in this eschatology and the dogma of the fall? How can such a believer love nature or give it positive value?

Christians may be monotheists, but they are not monolithic in thought. While what you describe would fit most of the orthodox/evangelical/fundamentalist labeled theology/churches, it would not describe the thinking of most mainstream Protestants (or liberal churches if one wants) among others. The RCC is probably somewhere in the middle between the 2 camps. These other groups eschatology wouldn't tend to make 'original sin' as a significant part of their views. Some might give it a basic acknowledgement, but still not of high importance. So I don't think this later group has any issues with 'loving nature'.

Here is a long article that touches on original sin, along with good & evil, Pelagianism, Manicheanism, et.al.:
https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/810

[14] For Augustine, Adam and Eve's turning away from God is an historical event and constitutes the first sin or the "fall" from original perfection. Evil originates from a misuse of created good, namely, a defection of human freedom from divine order. After the fall, humankind is no longer oriented toward the genuine good or the divinely established order of creation, but rather has become disordered by sin. For Augustine, the disordering of human nature by sin means that there is now a universally binding bias toward evil that precedes and shapes all human choices (original sin). Thus, Augustine's classical theology interprets the fall as a punishment for human sin, a universal human bondage spread through human propagation.

[15] Augustine's influence on the history of Christian theology and practice is immense and his understanding of Adam and Eve's fall from original perfection continues to shape contemporary discourse regarding evil, particularly as it relates to gender roles. Indeed, feminist biblical scholar and theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether has described Augustine's theology as the prototype for patriarchal anthropology.5 Augustine's classic interpretation of the fall goes something like this: Because Eve gave the fruit to Adam, she is viewed as the one who caused the downfall of humanity, and he as the one who merely "went along" out of his affection for her. Adam was then placed as ruler over her (Genesis 3:16), and since "then" history has accorded her the status of the "weaker sex," and described her as "easily deceived" (1 Timothy 2:13-14). According to Augustine's interpretation, all human beings are corrupted after the fall, but somehow women are more disordered than men.

<snip>

[18] From a historical perspective, it is interesting to note that unlike Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity, evil and sin never obtained a technical and detailed creedal expression in early Christianity. A Christian understanding of evil emerged not from a positive formulation but from Augustine's repudiation of both Pelagianism and Manicheanism in the Patristic period. Against the Manicheans, Augustine maintains that God's creation of the world does not include an ongoing necessary and antagonistic struggle between dualistic cosmic forces of good and evil (metaphysical). Augustine rejects Manichean cosmic dualism that leads to the dualism of soul and body on the anthropological level, and to the ultimate dualism of God and a second principle or substance opposed to God. Augustine replaces the Manichean cosmic dualism with a theological monotheism. There is only one source to all created things (not two) and that one source is God. Human evil stems not from oppositional dualistic spiritual forces in a perpetual state of conflict but from the imperfection and corruptibility of human freedom after the fall.

 

[Philos]

In my experience, generally speaking, christians love nature but not globally. By that I mean they enjoy seeing a deer in the back yard but don't grasp global warming. They will plant a pretty tree or bush and remark how pretty the butterflies are but don't really care about vanishing species or whether the last ancient redwoods are cut to make lawn chairs.

And I think it's because they don't need it to make their goal of getting to heaven. The health of future generations which depend on a mother earth is not important in their religion. My dad, for example was very organic in his gardening methods but didn't care if every square inch of countryside was raised to build more houses. He never went to a national park in his life because he could care less about those things. His world was very small and I think he felt very safe in that small world.

When my dad gardened organically he didn't do it because it was good for the environment. He hated environmentalists. He did it because it was healthier for his kids and his family. He was very much the farmer connected to the land and he was a good steward of his particular piece of land, but he didn't make a larger connection.

Joedad,

Think I get and understand all of that. The hook for me is "...they don't need it..."

A.

 

[rousseau]

Speaking as someone who was once a believer for a short period of time, I'd think that Christians love nature for an eerily similar reason as those believing in any other ontology (including Atheism), but their interpretation is different.

It's hard not to look at the world around you, and the rest of the universe, and not be in awe, no matter what you believe. It's just that three hundred years ago this was more likely to be a sign of God's majesty, and now it's a little more likely to be a sign of the grand mystery.

 

[Philos]

Speaking as someone who was once a believer for a short period of time, I'd think that Christians love nature for an eerily similar reason as those believing in any other ontology (including Atheism), but their interpretation is different.

It's hard not to look at the world around you, and the rest of the universe, and not be in awe, no matter what you believe. It's just that three hundred years ago this was more likely to be a sign of God's majesty, and now it's a little more likely to be a sign of the grand mystery.

rousseau,

I'm with you on that. The great thing with plain mystery is you don't have to fit it in with a story.

A.

PS - I know some atheists who would give me short shrift on the 'ontology' front. I say they are in denial of having a theory.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In my experience, generally speaking, christians love nature but not globally. By that I mean they enjoy seeing a deer in the back yard but don't grasp global warming. They will plant a pretty tree or bush and remark how pretty the butterflies are but don't really care about vanishing species or whether the last ancient redwoods are cut to make lawn chairs.

And I think it's because they don't need it to make their goal of getting to heaven. The health of future generations which depend on a mother earth is not important in their religion. My dad, for example was very organic in his gardening methods but didn't care if every square inch of countryside was raised to build more houses. He never went to a national park in his life because he could care less about those things. His world was very small and I think he felt very safe in that small world.

When my dad gardened organically he didn't do it because it was good for the environment. He hated environmentalists. He did it because it was healthier for his kids and his family. He was very much the farmer connected to the land and he was a good steward of his particular piece of land, but he didn't make a larger connection.

Joedad,

Think I get and understand all of that. The hook for me is "...they don't need it..."

A.

Right. And I think it takes a curious intellect as well, which in my experience does not happen with folks who are focused on religious dogma. They've found their happy zone and that's all they want. They're kind of relieved that they don't have to be proactive or forward thinking, never get out of the comfort zone.

Natural selection marches on.

 

[sharon45]

Christians can love nature because it was created by God. It si a gift from God.

Uh, you do realize that you need to count all of nature, right?

 

[Tigers!]

Christians can love nature because it was created by God. It si a gift from God.

Uh, you do realize that you need to count all of nature, right?

I have missed your nuance here.

 

[sharon45]

Christians can love nature because it was created by God. It si a gift from God.

Uh, you do realize that you need to count all of nature, right?

I have missed your nuance here.

Because your god has given out lots of highly decorative packages full of angry wasps.

 

[Learner]

Not sure myself the nuance here but other gifts of free will and being sensible tells you: don't anger wasps!

 

[ronburgundy]

The fear-based obligation not to break sky-daddy's things (aka "nature") can motivate environmentalist concerns and behaviors but it isn't at all the same as "love" or respect for nature.

A fear based obligations means you only really care about getting caught (the sad basis of all theistic morality). So, religious environmental concerns will tend to be limited to the more obvious things like destruction of natural beauty. But something like Climate Change is long term and not obviously human's fault, unless you put in some effort to reason about it. IOW, it is something religious people can pretend we didn't do, so they don't care.
So, you'd expect religious people to be less excepting of human influenced climate change.

Well, that is what the data show. First, we need to point out that research shows that among whites in the US, strength of religious belief goes from strongest to weakest in the following order: Evangelicals, then mainline protestants and Catholics pretty close to each other, then "unaffiliated". This holds whether you measure everything from confidence in God's existence, to frequency of reading the Bible or going to church, or how important a person says their religion is to their daily life and decisions.

So, the theory that religious belief weakens acceptance of climate change predicts that same pattern.

This PEW study from 2015 shows exactly that.

Among US whites, only 28% of Evangelicals accept climate change, compared to 41% mainline protestants, 45% Catholics, and 63% "unaffiliated". Odds are extremely high that if we could divide the "unaffiliated" into those that are still theists versus non-theists, the non-theists would have notably higher acceptance of human influenced climate change.

[Note that study also shows that race is a big predictor, with blacks and Hispanics being more accepting of climate change.That's a separate issue likely related to those groups being trod-upon minorities who rightly fear that they will get the worst of any harmful impact of climate change.]

Another factor that complicates the religion-environmentalism relationship is that deeply religious people tend to look for excuses to attack and blame science for the world's problems. There is an inherent logical conflict between science and religion both in terms of directly opposing methodologies of reason vs. faith, and in terms of most core theological beliefs (e.g., the plausibility of an immaterial soul, afterlife, creator God, human specialness among animals, etc.). Thus religious people have a motive to find fault with science, so they can rationalize dismissing it in favor of their religious beliefs. Since most environmental harm is enabled by science-based technologies, being "environmental" is an excuse to attack science and the modern-secular world in general.

 

[Learner]

The fear-based obligation not to break sky-daddy's things (aka "nature") can motivate environmentalist concerns and behaviors but it isn't at all the same as "love" or respect for nature.

I'm sure you're right to some degree (to some believers) but I and like other believers no doubt, would be of both of the above; being concerned with ruining "Gods creation" (or nature itself), at the same time being in awe at the marvels of nature.

A fear based obligations means you only really care about getting caught (the sad basis of all theistic morality). So, religious environmental concerns will tend to be limited to the more obvious things like destruction of natural beauty. But something like Climate Change is long term and not obviously human's fault, unless you put in some effort to reason about it. IOW, it is something religious people can pretend we didn't do, so they don't care.
So, you'd expect religious people to be less excepting of human influenced climate change.

As previously mentioned in your quote above.You highlighted the fear-based-obligation (being that nature to theists is creation) therefore imo, religious people should be excepting human influence to some degree to affect climate change - depending on whats explained in detail....

Well, that is what the data show. First, we need to point out that research shows that among whites in the US, strength of religious belief goes from strongest to weakest in the following order: Evangelicals, then mainline protestants and Catholics pretty close to each other, then "unaffiliated". This holds whether you measure everything from confidence in God's existence, to frequency of reading the Bible or going to church, or how important a person says their religion is to their daily life and decisions.
So, the theory that religious belief weakens acceptance of climate change predicts that same pattern.

This PEW study from 2015 shows exactly that.

Among US whites, only 28% of Evangelicals accept climate change, compared to 41% mainline protestants, 45% Catholics, and 63% "unaffiliated". Odds are extremely high that if we could divide the "unaffiliated" into those that are still theists versus non-theists, the non-theists would have notably higher acceptance of human influenced climate change.

[Note that study also shows that race is a big predictor, with blacks and Hispanics being more accepting of climate change.That's a separate issue likely related to those groups being trod-upon minorities who rightly fear that they will get the worst of any harmful impact of climate change.

... for example: This PEW study needs to be updated. The early notion of "climate change" was commonly known as "Global warming" in which looking at the link , uses that term. I would expect today that even the non-religious would count themselves alongside the percentage with the religious in the PEW study , since we know much more today.

Is there a difference between global warming and climate change? I'd say perpectively yes ... in fact I would agree with the current conclusion - not denying "climate change" (as would other religious people too) but I would deny "global warming" so to speak. This of course doesn't contradict the notion that its getting warmer in some places ... and in other places its getting cooler as my understanding goes.

Another factor that complicates the religion-environmentalism relationship is that deeply religious people tend to look for excuses to attack and blame science for the world's problems. There is an inherent logical conflict between science and religion both in terms of directly opposing methodologies of reason vs. faith, and in terms of most core theological beliefs (e.g., the plausibility of an immaterial soul, afterlife, creator God, human specialness among animals, etc.). Thus religious people have a motive to find fault with science, so they can rationalize dismissing it in favor of their religious beliefs. Since most environmental harm is enabled by science-based technologies, being "environmental" is an excuse to attack science and the modern-secular world in general.

Yes there are many various types of people in religion who would find fault with science (or more today the interpretation of scientific data - Ken Ham came up with that.) but there are many religious people today who study and work as scientists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm sure you're right to some degree (to some believers) but I and like other believers no doubt, would be of both of the above; being concerned with ruining "Gods creation" (or nature itself), at the same time being in awe at the marvels of nature.




As previously mentioned in your quote above.You highlighted the fear-based-obligation (being that nature to theists is creation) therefore imo, religious people should be excepting human influence to some degree to affect climate change - depending on whats explained in detail....

Well, that is what the data show. First, we need to point out that research shows that among whites in the US, strength of religious belief goes from strongest to weakest in the following order: Evangelicals, then mainline protestants and Catholics pretty close to each other, then "unaffiliated". This holds whether you measure everything from confidence in God's existence, to frequency of reading the Bible or going to church, or how important a person says their religion is to their daily life and decisions.
So, the theory that religious belief weakens acceptance of climate change predicts that same pattern.

This PEW study from 2015 shows exactly that.

Among US whites, only 28% of Evangelicals accept climate change, compared to 41% mainline protestants, 45% Catholics, and 63% "unaffiliated". Odds are extremely high that if we could divide the "unaffiliated" into those that are still theists versus non-theists, the non-theists would have notably higher acceptance of human influenced climate change.

[Note that study also shows that race is a big predictor, with blacks and Hispanics being more accepting of climate change.That's a separate issue likely related to those groups being trod-upon minorities who rightly fear that they will get the worst of any harmful impact of climate change.

... for example: This PEW study needs to be updated. The early notion of "climate change" was commonly known as "Global warming" in which looking at the link , uses that term. I would expect today that even the non-religious would count themselves alongside the percentage with the religious in the PEW study , since we know much more today.

Is there a difference between global warming and climate change? I'd say perpectively yes ... in fact I would agree with the current conclusion - not denying "climate change" (as would other religious people too) but I would deny "global warming" so to speak. This of course doesn't contradict the notion that its getting warmer in some places ... and in other places its getting cooler as my understanding goes.

Another factor that complicates the religion-environmentalism relationship is that deeply religious people tend to look for excuses to attack and blame science for the world's problems. There is an inherent logical conflict between science and religion both in terms of directly opposing methodologies of reason vs. faith, and in terms of most core theological beliefs (e.g., the plausibility of an immaterial soul, afterlife, creator God, human specialness among animals, etc.). Thus religious people have a motive to find fault with science, so they can rationalize dismissing it in favor of their religious beliefs. Since most environmental harm is enabled by science-based technologies, being "environmental" is an excuse to attack science and the modern-secular world in general.

Yes there are many various types of people in religion who would find fault with science (or more today the interpretation of scientific data - Ken Ham came up with that.) but there are many religious people today who study and work as scientists.

That may all be accurate but in my experience the typical christian is not concerned about the future health of the planet as he is about his eternal reward.

I commend the pope for his stance on this issue but being raised christian I had to discover for myself the need to be environmentally minded. Destroying or damaging the environment were not and are not sinful, no need to bring them into the confessional or into conversations with one's maker.

It's not that your typical christian who has been commanded to "go forth and multiply" and been given dominion over all things according to their self declared sacred writings has decided to shit on the natural systems that give him life. Rather it is that he is unaware that he has a choice and a role to play. Denial of environmental impact is sadly still the norm whenever that awareness is raised.

 

[Philos]

That may all be accurate but in my experience the typical christian is not concerned about the future health of the planet as he is about his eternal reward.

I commend the pope for his stance on this issue but being raised christian I had to discover for myself the need to be environmentally minded. Destroying or damaging the environment were not and are not sinful, no need to bring them into the confessional or into conversations with one's maker.

It's not that your typical christian who has been commanded to "go forth and multiply" and been given dominion over all things according to their self declared sacred writings has decided to shit on the natural systems that give him life. Rather it is that he is unaware that he has a choice and a role to play. Denial of environmental impact is sadly still the norm whenever that awareness is raised.

Joedad,

The words that jump out to me are ..."dominion over all things...".

A.

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, "subdue the earth" and "dominion over all things"... Hmm... [Looks around at all European-American civilization, remembers the many posts by secularists about "technology rules, and so do humans!"]

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm sure you're right to some degree (to some believers) but I and like other believers no doubt, would be of both of the above; being concerned with ruining "Gods creation" (or nature itself), at the same time being in awe at the marvels of nature.

It's a qualitatively different thing when one views oneself as entirely within and stemming from nature and natural processes versus the theological view that nature is a temporary way-station apart from oneself and that one's most vital/defining aspect (i.e., soul and "breath of God") is above and beyond nature and headed for place superior to nature.

A fear based obligation means you only really care about getting caught (the sad basis of all theistic morality). So, religious environmental concerns will tend to be limited to the more obvious things like destruction of natural beauty. But something like Climate Change is long term and not obviously human's fault, unless you put in some effort to reason about it. IOW, it is something religious people can pretend we didn't do, so they don't care.
So, you'd expect religious people to be less excepting of human influenced climate change.

As previously mentioned in your quote above.You highlighted the fear-based-obligation (being that nature to theists is creation) therefore imo, religious people should be excepting human influence to some degree to affect climate change - depending on whats explained in detail....

No, because the fear is about being punished for wrong doing, and denying wrong doing to avoid punishment rather than wanting to know all your wrong doing because you don't want to do wrong regardless of punishment.
So, if theists can convince themselves that humans are not responsible for the harm, then they have no motive to accept climate change. Humans wiping out ecosystems, clear cutting land, mining beautiful landscapes are directly observable as human caused. But human's role in climate change is indirect and requires inferencing and reasoning from from evidence, which gives theist room to come up with excuses as to why they don't except it. Plus, many monotheists view the notion that humans could alter something as basic and global as climate cycles to be a kind of hubris challenging God's power.

Well, that is what the data show. First, we need to point out that research shows that among whites in the US, strength of religious belief goes from strongest to weakest in the following order: Evangelicals, then mainline protestants and Catholics pretty close to each other, then "unaffiliated". This holds whether you measure everything from confidence in God's existence, to frequency of reading the Bible or going to church, or how important a person says their religion is to their daily life and decisions.
So, the theory that religious belief weakens acceptance of climate change predicts that same pattern.

This PEW study from 2015 shows exactly that.

Among US whites, only 28% of Evangelicals accept climate change, compared to 41% mainline protestants, 45% Catholics, and 63% "unaffiliated". Odds are extremely high that if we could divide the "unaffiliated" into those that are still theists versus non-theists, the non-theists would have notably higher acceptance of human influenced climate change.

[Note that study also shows that race is a big predictor, with blacks and Hispanics being more accepting of climate change.That's a separate issue likely related to those groups being trod-upon minorities who rightly fear that they will get the worst of any harmful impact of climate change.

... for example: This PEW study needs to be updated. The early notion of "climate change" was commonly known as "Global warming" in which looking at the link , uses that term. I would expect today that even the non-religious would count themselves alongside the percentage with the religious in the PEW study , since we know much more today.

Is there a difference between global warming and climate change? I'd say perpectively yes ... in fact I would agree with the current conclusion - not denying "climate change" (as would other religious people too) but I would deny "global warming" so to speak. This of course doesn't contradict the notion that its getting warmer in some places ... and in other places its getting cooler as my understanding goes.

This has no bearing on the religious based rejection of human environmental impact that these data support. "Global warming" is simply a central aspect of the broader concept of "climate change", which includes consequences of that human caused warming (e.g., polar cap melting, sea levels rising, and how it all fits into non-human influenced cycles in the climate and how CO2 naturally cycles from various "sinks". IOW, you cannot accept Climate Change without accepting global warming, so your response only speaks to how Christians lie to themselves to rationalize their unreason and anti-science.

Another factor that complicates the religion-environmentalism relationship is that deeply religious people tend to look for excuses to attack and blame science for the world's problems. There is an inherent logical conflict between science and religion both in terms of directly opposing methodologies of reason vs. faith, and in terms of most core theological beliefs (e.g., the plausibility of an immaterial soul, afterlife, creator God, human specialness among animals, etc.). Thus religious people have a motive to find fault with science, so they can rationalize dismissing it in favor of their religious beliefs. Since most environmental harm is enabled by science-based technologies, being "environmental" is an excuse to attack science and the modern-secular world in general.

Yes there are many various types of people in religion who would find fault with science (or more today the interpretation of scientific data - Ken Ham came up with that.) but there are many religious people today who study and work as scientists.

The data are clear that theists are many times less likely to be scientists than non-theists, while theists are far more likely to hold generally antagonistic views toward science. Also, working on isolated scientific questions does not mean one is generally accepting of science. Look at "scientists" like Michael Behe and Francis Collins who conduct and understand specific aspects of research, yet are at a general level antagonistic to science and attack it's core intellectual principles in a dishonest effort to make their faith seem intellectually defensible.

Faith is the very definition of anti-science. The methods of science are designed to correct for the errors inherent to faith-based conclusions. It is logically impossible to believe that both faith and science are valid paths to knowledge. Plus, application of scientific principles of reasoning make belief in God impossible. Only by violating those principles is theism arrived at. This means there are 2 types of theistic scientists: 1) Those like Behe and Collins who use science in narrow specific ways but at a philosophical level go against science and contradict scientific principles; 2) Those that are internally consistent in keeping with scientific principles and thus are not actually theists, but just keep the labels and superficial trapping of religion because it serves some psychological or sociological purpose.

 

[sharon45]

Not sure myself the nuance here but other gifts of free will and being sensible tells you: don't anger wasps!

I specifically put in angry wasps to receive a so-called defense like this. The point is, how would people know the consequences way ahead of time, especially children? God is an irresponsible mother's kitchen with bottles of bleach in easy access. Kids die, and this cold god simply blames them for being so ignorant. What you call "free will" is the Bible god allowing us to live in the raw with scarcely any guidance for many years until he at least hands out the fairly lethargic Noahide Laws, which still don't tell people how to avoid drinking bleach.

 

[Learner]

I specifically put in angry wasps to receive a so-called defense like this.

Specifically appropiate for your wasp scenario, I thought.

The point is, how would people know the consequences way ahead of time, especially children? God is an irresponsible mother's kitchen with bottles of bleach in easy access. Kids die, and this cold god simply blames them for being so ignorant. What you call "free will" is the Bible god allowing us to live in the raw with scarcely any guidance for many years until he at least hands out the fairly lethargic Noahide Laws, which still don't tell people how to avoid drinking bleach.

Since you don't believe there is a God, do you then blame the parents e.g.. traditionally passing down or not - the do's and don't's to avoid drinking bleach? (would be interesting to hear pov)