EDITORIAL Environmental theology In this space some 18 months ago, James Lodge treated us to a delightful discourse on the limits of science and technology in resolving controversies about permissible pollution levels. Dr. Lodge deplored the total absence of theological consensus as one of our leading national characteristics. This subject is worth the time invested for modern scientists, as it impacts both the limits of our contribution and the present tendencies i n science/policy decisions affecting development, production, and pollution control. T h e historical roots of our value structure have received considerable attention from intellectuals. Lynn White (Science, 1967) heavily influenced scholarly thought (and the earth day environmentalists) with his essay on the historical roots of our ecologic crisis. According to White, what people do about their “ecology” is determined by how they see themselves in relation to nature. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by ‘‘. . , the victory of Christianity over paganism . . . the greatest psychic revolution of our culture.” Contrary to earlier (Greco-Roman) or parallel (Oriental) Man-Earth philosophies, Christianity established “a dualism of man and nature and insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature.” This notion has had particularly devastating consequences in the western world, where action has been more valued than contemplation and where fusion in the 19th century of aristocratic science and empirical action-oriented technology has “asserted a functional unity of brain and hand.” Gabriel Fackre (Religion and Life, Vol. 40, 197 1, p. 210) counters White’s claim that the western form of Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen. The doctrine of creation on one hand refutes the divination of nature but on the other gives nature and man a “derived dignity” by definition. Genesis can be seen as an allegory of man’s attempts to contest nature with no regard for the harmonies of God’s created order. Rene Dubos (“A God Within,”
C. Scribner’s Sons, 1972) is also suspicious of White’s historical interpretation, citing many examples of p r e i n d us t r i a I en v i ro n menta I m ism an age m e n t and noting that there is little reason to believe “that Oriental civilizations have been more respectful of nature than Judeo-Christian civilizations.” Dubos feels that the pilaging of nature has been a continuous human tendency due to a relative ignorance of consequences and valuation of immediate advantage over long-range goals. In his view, modern problems seem worse simply because there are more of us with more powerful tools a t our disposal. Lewis Moncrief (Science, 1970) calls our attention to other influential experiences of the western world’s democratization, which began with the French revolution and created new channels of social mobility and the marriage of science and technology, which founded our productive capacity. These influences must be a t least as great as any attributable to our religious heritage. Therefore, it is clearly simplistic and possibly erroneous to relate our present material appetites to our Judeo-Christian past. Moreover, it may be irrelevant to search for relationships between present attitudes and religious dogma if morality is a biological necessity--a kind of behavioral code necessary to survival. I f this is true, then religion, a t least institutionally, flows from morality and not the other way around, as enunciated by Joan Robinson (“Economic Philosophy,” Doubleday, 1962). This must be the essence of environmental theology: the construction of our behavioral codes in the interest of survival. In this context, the relationship of federal environmental agencies to a national environmental conscience is analogous to that of churches to the human morality.
Volume 14, Number 11, November 1980
1271
