Monotheism, Polytheism and Environmentalism

[wynn]

I doubt it.

I don't.

Irrelevant.

Why?

In particular, they do not convince many strong adherents of the major Abrahamic religions. Neither does anyone else, with any other reasons.

Which leaves a majority of, say, the US public, more or less immune - apparently in some manner correlated with their religion - to the necessary levels of comprehensions or understandings of the non-human world.

Well, at least now you have someone to blame for the deterioration of the environment!!

 

[swarm]

I prefer the secular humanist view. The earth is the only home humans have and we must be responsible for taking care of our home.

Dang, you beat me to it.

 

[Doreen]

I prefer the secular humanist view. The earth is the only home humans have and we must be responsible for taking care of our home.

secular humanism would consider it simply our current home, one that can be replaced. Any feelings of connection are merely feelings. It is one organization of matter, amongst others, just as our bodies are. So if we replace earth - and garbage it up in the process - with colonies on a terraformed Mars or Venus, that's fine. If we replace and improve our bodies with cybernetic implants or genetic modification, that's fine, too. If it is done well, of course.

But if you actually feel down to your vulva or balls that this is your home, with all that entails, secular humanism comes off as rather limited and cold and mental and disconnected and part of the problem. Certainly not all of it. Many religious people also see the earth as mere matter to be dominated, with some support, absolutely, in their texts. But the choices are wider than these two.

 

[iceaura]

A week in the wilderness without utilities and indoor plumbing, where your food does not come in sterlie packaging that conceals the evidence of sentient life that went into it, will be an eye opener for any "nature lover" of the modern age.

Don't be silly - that's a common experience for the nature lovers of the modern age. For a lot of them, it's how they got to be nature lovers in the first place.

secular humanism would consider it simply our current home, one that can be replaced.

? Not a common attitude, among the "secular humanists" I know.

Irrelevant.
”
Why?

Because the topic is avoiding the degradation of the natural world, and none of those words factor in reliably.

Well, at least now you have someone to blame for the deterioration of the environment!!

If you were looking to blame some group of people, the major group of the uncomprehending and aggressively oblivious would be the obvious first group to look at.

We were discussing the influence of various kinds of belief structures, though.

 

[earth]

Many religious people also see the earth as mere matter to be dominated, with some support, absolutely, in their texts. But the choices are wider than these two.

Many religious people see the earth and their lives as transitional while waiting for their next life in the hereafter. This planet and its inhabitants are thought of as insignificant by them.

We don't know if anyone can survive on the moon or mars for any extended length of time. Most of your post is faith based.

 

[S.A.M.]

Don't be silly - that's a common experience for the nature lovers of the modern age. For a lot of them, it's how they got to be nature lovers in the first place.

Yeah, how many days in a year? They give birth in the wild too?

 

[iceaura]

Yeah, how many days in a year?

I believe you specified a week.

Usually these kinds of vacations or trips last a couple of weeks to a month or so. They are the common experience of all of my friends and most of my acquaintances - two or three times a year, several years running in important phases of their childhoods.

I sometimes wonder if that's the central problem with the Abrahamic folks - their agrarian based and city amplified religions are all deeply deficient in nature mysticism, the One God having supplanted all those tree spirits without filling in for them. People are their world, spiritually and physically, and that's insular in several important ways.

But that kind of speculation seems a bit empty.

 

[S.A.M.]

People are their world, spiritually and physically, and that's insular in several important ways.
...But that kind of speculation seems a bit empty.

Yes it does. Especially once you see the results of lack of religion.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yeah, how many days in a year?

I personally spend about a week or two in the wilderness each year, spread over 2-3 trips. The main passtime (besides hiking) is fishing for dinner, which involves snaring, killing and cleaning sentient animals, then stuffing them with fresh-picked wild onions and cooking them over a fire. Another major consideration is food storage and handling, lest one wake up to find that one has become dinner for one of the larger sentient animals.

 

[iceaura]

..But that kind of speculation seems a bit empty.
”
Yes it does. Especially once you see the results of lack of religion.

Not as empty as that kind of speculation, I grant you.

 

[S.A.M.]

Randomly I'd say, the more "advanced" a society, the bigger its consumption of resources. I'd say the lack of religion is directly correlated with materialistic tendencies and as we can see in the west, a very much disposable and wasteful culture. Just the daily garbage alone is shocking in extreme.

 

[quadraphonics]

Randomly I'd say, the more "advanced" a society, the bigger its consumption of resources.

Do you have some definition of social advancement in mind, apart from increased consumption?

I'd say the lack of religion is directly correlated with materialistic tendencies and as we can see in the west, a very much disposable and wasteful culture.

Except that the least wasteful parts of the West (San Francisco, Scandanavia, etc.) tend to also be the least religious. Meanwhile, the most wasteful parts (Texas, for example) tend to be the most religious. At a higher level, the US is both more wasteful and more religious than other parts of the West.

So I'm not seeing the purporting correlation.

 

[iceaura]

Randomly I'd say, the more "advanced" a society, the bigger its consumption of resources. I'd say the lack of religion is directly correlated with materialistic tendencies and as we can see in the west, a very much disposable and wasteful culture.

The most religious advanced Western society is the US, so apparently you expect the US to be the least wasteful and materialistic of them.

Or maybe not, eh?

We weren't talking about materialism, but environmental degradation. It is quite possible to severely degrade one's environment without producing extraordinary amounts of resources for wasteful consumption - as the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean region shows us, with its numerous examples of millennia-degraded landscapes and impoverished people, and as in recorded history we can observe in Europe and the British Isles.

A more reasonable correlation would be between agriculture (with its famous "surplus production" ) and materialism - unfortunately, the positive correlation of agriculture and religion is quite strong, and that means the correlation of religion and materialism is positive. Even worse, the correlation between agriculture and degraded environments is basically 100%, so far - with some possible exceptions in I believe Korea and maybe South America recently vanished - and all these entrained correlations confuse the attribution of cause and effect.

Meanwhile, the environmental movement in the US (or in Europe) is very thinly (if at all) supported by any religion, and no strongly religious state I know of has a strong environmental movement. AFAIK we have no obvious example of an environmental movement given political power through support from one of the powerful Abrahamic religions.

So - - -

 

[Hapsburg]

There's no causal relationship between one's religion and one's degree of environmentalism. Both polytheism and monotheism consider the world to be the creation of, or personified by, a deity of some kind. Both see the environment as a divine work. However, I know more polytheists that are environmentalists than monotheists that are environmentalists.

Though I am a polytheist and not really that much of an environmentalist.

 

[Doreen]

Randomly I'd say, the more "advanced" a society, the bigger its consumption of resources. I'd say the lack of religion is directly correlated with materialistic tendencies and as we can see in the west, a very much disposable and wasteful culture. Just the daily garbage alone is shocking in extreme.

You'd need to do a lot of statistical work to eliminate other factors. The top four countries go from the relatively religious free Scandanavian ones to the USA which is vastly more religious than the Scandanavian garbage makers. What they share in common however is standard of living and technological levels and so on.

As far as I can tell everyone is trying to catch up with those garbage levels. I have seen islands, a number, that while maintaining the same % or religous belief change in their techological base and income - bang, pollution goes radically up.

Last does 'the West' include China? They are doing remarkably well, despite being in the East, especially where there is a lot of technology and high standard of living.

 

[Doreen]

? Not a common attitude, among the "secular humanists" I know.

Then they have a, to some degree, religous relationship with the earth, because in scientific terms, a terraformed world elsewhere would be no less home. And notice also how much nature can be replaced by pseudo nature - mono crops, rows of pines for lumber in the future, etc. - and this is still counted as nature. Certaintly there are secular humanists who fight to protect nature/the earth, but in the end the philosophy leaves them with only a practical base. If offered the equivalent elsewhere, what possible objection could they have: nostaligia, a feeling of home - these are just irrational qualia.

 

[Doreen]

Many religious people see the earth and their lives as transitional while waiting for their next life in the hereafter. This planet and its inhabitants are thought of as insignificant by them.

Sure, I already mentioned that some religious people have a 'does not really matter' attitude toward the earth. It is something we were given dominion over and is somehow base, in any case. I don't have to like either secular humanism or the religions that see the earth as secondary or of little importance long term.

We don't know if anyone can survive on the moon or mars for any extended length of time. Most of your post is faith based.

Then a lot of scientists share this 'faith'. And since I am basing my remarks on their ideas, not my own, it is their faith you have a problem with. (while many talk about setting up a moon base, I think most think of actual settlement where there is an atmosphere)

 

[iceaura]

Then they have a, to some degree, religous relationship with the earth, because in scientific terms, a terraformed world elsewhere would be no less home

? There is no such world, and no reason to consider the remote possibility as affecting current relations, and no reason to denigrate affection for one's home and landscape.

Meanwhile, there is no "scientific reason" to treat the natural world as being some kind of simplistic, mechanical, clockwork writ large. It is as complex, as profound, as the humans who ponder it - maybe more.

And notice also how much nature can be replaced by pseudo nature - mono crops, rows of pines for lumber in the future, etc. - and this is still counted as nature.

By whom?

Secular is not a synonym for idiot.

 

[Doreen]

There is no such world, and no reason to consider the remote possibility as affecting current relations,

There are quite a number of people considering, even assuming it is the likely part of the expansion of homo sapians.

and no reason to denigrate affection for one's home and landscape.

There is no reason to denigrate that affection, but no reason to take it seriously.

Meanwhile, there is no "scientific reason" to treat the natural world as being some kind of simplistic, mechanical, clockwork writ large.

I agree. But I think that assumption is made by those who are leaping into the genetic modification of foods, for example. They seem to think they are tinkering with a machine simple enough to preclude missing a wide array of effects. The people who are doing this tinkering know, or at least should know, that they are a part of organizations - corporations - that control their own governmental oversight to a degree that is more than mildly conflict of interest, especially after two Bushes, one Reagan and yes, even one Clinton. I see their confidence as precisely lacking the 'scientific reason' - all connotations intended - that you mention, and nevertheless I am quite sure I would be considered a Cassandra or irrational if I were to open a thread in this forum critical of GM foods and other gm, even if my criticism was in the same spirit as your dismissal of the clockwork image.

I see this as a threat to my home. Slack oversight on nanotechnology also strikes me this way, precisely because the world is being treated as very simple, an idea implicit in the confidence of these organizations.

Secular is not a synonym for idiot.

No, of course not. Some of my best friends are secular - and not idiots - through and through. (pardon, but I couldn't resist the irony of that sentence construction). But at root a secular humanism that accepts only knowledge via peer reviewed scientific research (positively reviewed, that is), has its hands tied when it comes to issues like 'home.'

 

[iceaura]

There is no reason to denigrate that affection, but no reason to take it seriously.

Beg to differ. Few aspects of human comprehension are more worthy of being taken seriously - even if your only goal is minor behavioral prediction of individuals.

I see this as a threat to my home. Slack oversight on nanotechnology also strikes me this way, precisely because the world is being treated as very simple, an idea implicit in the confidence of these organizations.

Are you implying that the industrial corporation is a secular humanist creation? Or staffed and operated by secular humanists in particular?

The clockwork delusion is at least as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions as it is of any "secular humanism" - it's why they need miracles, their only means of escape.

But at root a secular humanism that accepts only knowledge via peer reviewed scientific research (positively reviewed, that is), has its hands tied when it comes to issues like 'home.'

So why would any secular humanist adopt any such nonsensical approach?