As we saw in my previous post, Pope Francis lays out a plan for action in his letter to all people of goodwill, Laudate Deum, prepared as a motivational resource for participants in the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) at the end of next month.
As we approach this conference it becomes obvious some perspectives on humanity's relationship with Nature miss the mark.
One such is that of scientific researcher Neil Theise, whose new book presents a theory of complexity that comes down to a Buddhism-inspired pantheism. He also states his ideas clearly here:
So we don’t live in the universe. The universe isn’t an empty box; it’s not a place in which we reside. We are, in fact, the universe: emanating from its substance, within itself.
...because everything is just you. We’re nothing but walking and talking Earth.
Such a thesis is a materialist's attempt to wrap the order and beauty of creation in a thin garment woven from a Buddhist spirituality. But why is the nature of things such that he feels compelled to argue for the inherent compassion of a self-organising universe? In particular, why is the universe self-organising and not utter chaos? Why does the complex entity of the universe seem to display a self-healing compassion rather than a complexity that is totally red in tooth and claw?
Theise is pursuing in another form the line taken by stalwarts of the Gaia era of late last century who presented the entire planet as more than a symbiotic system, as one behaving as a unified organism.
But from a Catholic perspective, he is singing "Laudato si'"—"Praise be"—to the proofs for the existence of God from order and beauty, describing but failing to define the essential character of this complex system, our common home.
For sure, the relationship between human beings and nature is a close one. But humankind, in reality, has a role as the "summit of the Creator’s work".
In 2019, the Catholic Church in Singapore responded to the confusion surrounding solutions to the unravelling of the relationship between humans and nature.
The Singaporean reflection states that is essential to distinguish between metaphysical appraches or ideologies that miss the mark and those beliefs accurately identifying humanity’s relationship to the natural world because the stance taken will affect the solutions we propose. The statement continues:
Nature (or the Universe) is not God
One popular idea is that God and Nature are one and the same: that to be “close to nature” or “in union with the cosmos” is to be holy.
But it is wrong.
St. Francis, the patron saint of ecology, differentiated between God and Nature clearly: “His response to nature was to praise its Creator and love the creatures… they are not, as is the Eucharist, identified with God himself” (Francis of Assisi: A New Biography by Fr. Augustine Thompson OP).
It is tempting to praise the Earth as “sacred”, since it nurtures our bodies and – unlike the God of Christianity – makes no uncomfortable moral demands of us. But this ideology, called pantheism, can result in a rejection of human activity and the benefits of science and technology, which include the ability to sustain far more people than if the Earth reverted to an idealised “natural state”.
Humanity is not just one organism amongst many
A secular version of pantheism is deep ecology, the idea that the natural world exists in perfect balance and that humanity has “no right” to interfere with it. We are simply one species out of millions, no more special than birds or bacteria. Deep ecologists reject the Church’s teaching that there is a hierarchy of Creation and that “Man is the summit of the Creator’s work” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 343) with stewardship over all.
Since humanity has no intrinsic right to exist, their solution to the ecological crisis is to curb the human population. Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess has proposed reducing the population to 100 million people, while militant environmentalist David Foreman has said that people in the Third World should just be left to starve to death.
The idea that some should die or be stopped from reproducing so others can maintain their standard of living barely cloaks a racist or eugenic mentality, as the peoples of the developing world – who consume the fewest resources and are most vulnerable to climate change – are most often fingered for reduction.
As Pope Francis pointed out in Laudato Si’, “To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.” Decisions about family size must be left to married couples themselves. The implementation of coercive national strategies in this regard is a fundamental affront to human dignity. (Populorum Progressio, 37)
“Natural” is not always good; “Artificial” is not always bad
Deep ecology has led to “deep green environmentalism”, the idea that human activity is bad because it disturbs the balance of an otherwise perfectly harmonious world. Its proponents reject urbanisation, industrialisation and even agriculture, which they believe damage and exploit the Earth.
But the Catholic Church recognises that human activity is good! It is a collaboration with God in perfecting the visible Creation (Catechism, 378). Jesus himself never shunned technology. He worked with carpentry tools and sailed in boats (though he could walk on water!). He told his disciples to follow God by “keeping My word” (John 14:23), not by going back to Nature.
The Second Vatican Council reminds us that “far from thinking that works produced by man’s own talent and energy are in opposition to God’s power, and that the rational creature exists as a kind of rival to the Creator, Christians are convinced that the triumphs of the human race are a sign of God’s grace and the flowering of His own mysterious design” (Gaudium et Spes, 34).
It is morally right, then, to use our God-given abilities to develop technologies to ameliorate the effects of climate change, to curb our reliance on fossil fuels, and recycle better. This is just as we have devised technology over the centuries to feed and to heal, to build and to educate, and to enable people with disabilities to live with dignity.
Technology is not our saviour
It is tempting to hold out technological progress as a silver bullet which can save us from the effects of man-made climate change. But even though new technologies may be under development – and it will be years, if ever, before solutions can be mass-produced and rolled out on a global scale – we must consciously choose more environmentally-friendly ways of living lest we squander any benefits that new technology might bring.
And as stewards of Creation, we bear in mind that “the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure” (Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 48). Technological improvements must respect the “grammar” that God has made evident in Creation, and not treat it as an obstacle to be overcome.
The fallen state of Creation means that every possible solution comes with pros and cons. We must use our prudential judgement to evaluate the likely effects – not just on the natural environment, but on the economy and on human societies, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.
Just as Moses reminded the Israelites to “Choose life; that you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19), the current ecological crisis is an invitation “to a serious review of [our] lifestyle, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism... What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new lifestyles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices” (Caritas in Veritate, 51).
Solutions to the environmental crisis
Authentic solutions to the environmental crisis must proceed can only come from the correct understanding of our relationship to God, humanity, and nature. Over-spiritualising Creation can result in measures which devalue the human person and the person's integral development. On the flip side, reliance on technological solutions in place of social and ethical change is a missed opportunity for us to grow in love of neighbour and of God’s Creation.
Let's see what world leaders at COP28 come up with as a pathway toward resolution of the challenges facing our suffering planet. Also, let's pray that ordinary people around the world will accept the need to adopt new lifestyles, and that the business giants, especially those producing fossil fuels, will rein in their impulse to secure maximum profits, and instead foster the common good of all people and planet. By applying the principle of subsidiarity, each of us can exercise stewardship of our common home in our own way, "since every family ought to realize that the future of their children is at stake".
Ω Leave a comment and, if you
like this blog, go to my Peace
and Truth newsletter on
Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new
post is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment