Subscribe to RSS.
Become a Fan on Facebook
Follow on Twitter (Named #1 in US 4 Green)
Subscribe to Free Weekly E-Newsletter
Get on Elephant
Religion ≠ Sustainability?
Your politics & religion are my concern.
Religion’s getting a bad rap these days – and with good reason. Between the Jihadi’s, the Israelis and the fundies on their compounds, the world is increasingly looking like something out of Dante’s Inferno (and yes, I did just have a crack at Israel – and no that doesn’t make me anti-Semitic; just as criticising the USA doesn’t make one ‘anti-American’).
Of course, the arguments are that the conflicts in Palestine, the Middle East and just about anywhere outside North America where the US military is stationed are purely political (or related to energy security).
Yet wherever you have Presidents, Kings, Sheiks, Prime Ministers and various other political leaders invoking their god(s), praying in Parliament or printing scripture on their currency, there is a case to be made for asserting that there is absolutely no separation between church and state.
And if that’s true, a rigorous analysis of the dominant religions and the part they play in shaping policy is essential for determining whether consumer sentiment or political activism really stands a chance of shifting us away from a path of almost certain self-destruction and onto a path of survival.
Many wiser and more erudite people than me have discussed this already, and the point of this post is not to seek to restate their positions, but to bring a particular focus to it in the hope of continuing to stimulate debate and enquiry.
Sam Harris in The End of Faith makes a compelling case for the dangers of faith-based religion, whilst The Ranting Gryphon makes a far more impassioned (and amusing to some) case through his two minute video on Global Warming. And then there’s Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and a plethora of others asking similar and equally valid questions about whether religion has a future in humanity’s future – or if humanity even has a future as long as religion does.
In a recent post I commented:
It’s time for discussions about politics, religion and consumerism to take centre stage, for all of us to call into question the irrational and dangerous beliefs that have brought us to the precipice. It’s time to wage war on superstition and unsubstantiated belief and embrace reason.
Your lifestyle choice is my concern – your diet is my concern, your means of transportation is my concern, your politics are my concern, your religion is my concern.
We all know that thought precedes action. I often hear discussions about the ‘lack of thoughtful action’ when it comes to addressing global sustainability concerns – yet I’m pretty sure that it’s the quality of the thinking, and not its absence that is the primary problem.
We’re so busy hammering away at a culture of consumerism – and blaming that for the problems that beset us – that we’ve failed to recognise that each of the three largest monotheistic religious groups have spread their influence throughout politics, the courts, economics, science, philanthropy and education; due in no small part to our unwillingness to really discuss their place in our societies. Our imam’s, rabbi’s and priests are the original thought-police – not only telling us what we are permitted to believe, but threatening to ostracize us from our communities if we either fail to agree or, heaven forbid, exercise our own intelligence in contradiction to what they teach.
… and now they’re supported either covertly or explicitly by government policy, tax concessions and grants.
The time for religious tolerance is long past. And by saying this I’m not agitating for racial or cultural intolerance.
Religious tolerance seems to pretty much equate to “you leave me alone to believe what I want, and I’ll leave you alone to believe what you want”.
Yet when our beliefs, collectively, appear to represent a significant threat to our capacity to survive as a species, is this really a reasonable basis for continuing?
What it seems we need is an intolerance for foolishness. An intolerance for irrationality. An intolerance for the beliefs that have not only ‘brought us to the precipice’ but now threaten to tip us over the edge.
What I really want to know is, why, in our quest to save ourselves from self-induced extinction, is everything else up for discussion but God?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cameron Burgess is a recent Australian addition to the Boulderverse.
He is the CEO of a group of companies incorporating uncompromise, icologi & wellnessconnect that provide commercialization, strategic development, marketing & digital services purely to the health and sustainability market.
Cameron is also a core-team member of w1sd0m – a global network that helps organize the flow of intellectual, social, human, & financial capital to strengthen Global Social Enterprise.
A speaker, workshop facilitator and agent provocateur, Cameron can be found on twitter @uncompromise
God is up for discussion on the Huffington post – their religion section has been up for about 2 weeks now. There are great voices from all the different religions – the goal is to open up the discussion to different voices in the religious spectrum. There are some beautiful voices out there that are often drowned out by the loud extremists (like Jerry Fallwell) who have co-opted, cherry-picked, and flat-out twisted the lessons of some great teachers. Religious principles can be used to argue sustainability – that this beautiful world of ours is a gift to be treasured, to love our enemies. Speaking specifically about Christianity, Jesus spoke often about how we need to take care of the poor and one of his last acts was to protest the moneychangers in the temple. Check it out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/religion/
Amen, Amen, Amen
Amen to that.
Caution is advised. The rants of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and others reflect more their biases and misunderstandings than any in-depth knowledge of religion.
One can find in the life of St. Francis of Assisi, for example, models that parallel your views. And it is a very short leap from Francis to Buddhism, a short leap from Christ to Buddha, as Thich Nhat Hahn has expressed in Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers.
The assumption Dawkins et al push re the essence of man — that the sum total of Man is a biological organism devoid of soul or spirit – is directly contradicted by the empirical observation and firsthand practice of Buddhism.
In such practice, one comes to know consciousness and the reality of continuity of consciousness. This is a subject totally unknown to the Dawkins of the world who rant not only from personal prejudice but from the mud of ignorance (in a Buddhist sense).
Thus, bring on the dialogue, but do not cede the moderator's chair to Dawkins or Falwell but rather to Merton and Trungpa and those who have undergone spiritual formation. One would not retire to the local pre-school sandbox for a discussion on economics, neither should one leap into the sandbox of fundamentalist materialism for a discussion on religion.
**Stepping down off the soap box.**
Sure there are a few superheroes at the peak of every religion. The problem is, they're so remote that us poor shlubs know there's really no point in trying to emulate them. So we don't. We just take our egocircus on the holy road.
My view of the main problem with monotheism is its exclusivity. As soon as you declare that there is one god only you have given yourself a huge problem: what about everybody who disagrees with you? Believers are saved (as long as they toe the line) and everybody else is damned. This self-righteous ego-fluffing (see "fluffer" in Wikipedia if the usage is obscure) utterly contradicts the potential working of compassion. This change needs to happen fast, because it's reasonably predicted there will be 9 billion of us trying to live on sad this planet within 40 years. http://tinyurl.com/y9y9qa6. So what to do with all those damned? You can enslave them (even though, or maybe because) you just stopped being slaves yourselves. You can convert them. When that fails, you can exterminate them. When that fails, you can force them out of land you want. When that fails you can force them to pretend they believe in Our God. When that fails we you force them into exile, those who survive your torture. When that fails you can withdraw from all contact with them (like, say the Amish or haredi Jews).
No matter how this works out, it can't be good for anyone involved. And it can't ever end, as long as monotheism retains its exclusive claim on the sacred.
We have monotheism to thank for the insane narcissism that puts us at the top, not just of the food chain–a perch that's increasingly perilous, by the way, since we get eaten alive or otherwise pretty frequently now–but of the moral "hierarchy" as well, as though life couldn't possibly contrive anything nobler or cuter than us. That's about one of the most destructive dogmas the monotheisms have contrived. A pox on it.
The religion you describe is an iconic religion – a religion of symbol. Its feet are rooted in the mundane, not the spiritual realm.
It is not the religion one gains through spiritual formation in which we find unity rather than division. Bad religion is easy to critique but one must be cautious not to stamp out valid religion, based on essential truths open to anyone to discover.
When one closes the door on religion in reaction to those who turn it into an iconic method of assigning exclusion one also risks tossing out the path to harmony.
Too often we take up the crusade against religion based on the objections (and falsehoods) of those who support the religion of materialism. We fail to see the fate that awaits us when the worship of materialism reaches its zenith.
The view that humans are merely egotistical cattle leads to much greater harm.
It'd be nice if they didn't behave like that. Check out Nigeria, for just one example. The US Congress for another.
parkstep had a good point that spirituality and religion are not necessarily the same thing. One is humans trying to control each other and the other is a direct connection , wether we call it God or something else. I became a buddhist as an escape from lifeless monotheism but recently re-integrated my Judasim and it is clear to me that the problem is not monotheism, but people. Could write more but for time. Waylon maybe I could do an article or two for you sometime. My original profession was journalism and II miss writing.
You bring up a very valid point. Hope you do have the chance to write for Waylon.
So True Cameron…But the Spiritual aspect to of of this is not Religious..Not from man made Beliefs…Which as we know ,are more design to control and manipulate than enlighten…and it is all not Political either ..Politics has the same motive currently..to control and apease those who "believe" they are in Power….I don't Believe they are…Naive I may be..But something tells me the Veil is being lifted..and like the Na Vi in Avatar…who Believe that the forces of Life will prevail in the end…I do Believe this…..Great article…. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/18b4eb4ce326faeb43...
Yo, Cameron! Breathe. I didn't attack religion. I pointed out the huge flaw in monotheism. That's not the only choice.
Sorry, I meant Greg.
Breathing. Just pointing out the iconic and idolatrous version of religion that causes confusion.
Greg: Glad to hear it. That i&i stuff is pretty pervasive, though. Seems almost as intrinsic to religion as politics. That's another issue that I think must be faced. "Religion isn't politics" I seem to hear somebody think. Well, if there's a religion that makes no rules, I will accept the point where that one's concerned, but otherwise religion is absolutely in the business of allocating, exercising, and abusing power (especially the latter) and that is what politics is.
Once that's generally accepted and we can drop the piety porn about innocence & purity then maybe we can drop the idiot compassion and address the narcissism inherent in denying the lethal importance of sustainability and its fast-approaching opposite.
am fascinated to note that the comments on this post focus almost exclusively on the matter of religion, and not upon the issue it raises – that of sustainability and what place it has, or can hope to have, in the face of religion …
Guess one has to get to what one means by religion before one can assess sustainability.
People love arguing religion and politics! People are bored to death by the notion of caring for our earth for future generations!
Certain forms of Christianity (e.g. apocalyptic oriented fundamentalism) are indeed problematic for sustainability. If one thinks that Jesus is about to return soon, there is little incentive to take care of the earth. However, such forms of Christianity should NOT be equated to faith-based religion in general. Indeed progressive, mainline, Christianity, and even emergent evangelical Christianity are strong proponents of environmentalism and sustainability.
Unless what you mean by "Jesus is about to return soon" is something like "we must reconcile ourselves to each other and to nature."
Is there a basis for religion other than faith?
Moreover, one could just as easily make a case that non-faith based religions are problematic for sustainability. Buddhist cosmology suggests that the earth/universe is in a repeatedly perpetual cycle of birth, blooming, rusting, etc. Hence, one might be inclined to not tend to the earth as "things will take care of themselves, we're merely in a stage of rust." Granted, I don't know any Buddhists who think in such a way, I'm merely pointing out that they could.
http://www.facebook.com/elephantjournal
Tim
I grew up in a city about 90 minutes south of Boulder there that's filled to the brim with fundie types, one of whom told me specifically he didn't recycle because it was all coming to an end soon anyway.
elephantjournal.com
Roger, you yourself are an outstanding, heartbreaking living example of faith-based religion being founded on joy and compassion. Any time you want to write on ele, you're invited.
Jillaurie
Roger – agree with the first part many faith based are about care of others and the planet. Buddhism is too – it's called the middle way between nihilism and eternalism so both absolute reality – what most people see of buddhism and relative reality – our physical world are considered equally important. Many great dharma teachers are very big on ecology – google The Karmapa
Nathan
I like Roger's point. @Tim, the claim that "some religious people use their religious faith to justify absurd, environmentally destructive behavior" and the claim that "religion is essentially or fundamentally opposed to sustainability" are leagues apart. It's like saying "some people are taller than 6 ft. tall" implies that "the essence of being a… See More person is to be taller than 6 ft." It's just not sound reasoning. And there are countervailing movements within Christianity, Islam, and Judaism that see environmental stewardship as an essential element in the exercise of faith.
a point of distinction on the use of the word 'sustainability'; i'm NOT talking about the environment, solely, i AM talking about 3BL – people, planet, profit (or social, environmental and financial sustainability)
environmental stewardship is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's not exactly comprehensive – nor does it speak to the bulk of this article's conerns ….
It seems like Cameron is saying that in a world where our beliefs effect our actions and our actions have global consequences, we cannot simply section off certain beliefs as "outside the realm" of criticism. In other words, it's the untouchable, "faith-based" element that makes some strands of religion problematic for sustainability. The natural response would seem to be that what we need is a more reason-based or experience-based (in the sense of spiritual practice, meditation, etc.) religion. Which is what I hear others advocating as well.
There is nothing essential to religions that make them contrary to sustainability. In fact, many people see it as part of their faith to act as responsible "stewards" of the environment.
I think the thorn in Cameron's side could really be identified with the idea of a "shibboleth," a linguistic mark or symbol that sets a person, place, or set of beliefs aside as sacred. The shibboleth of "faith" can be used in many ways as a kind of mask or shield to hide any number of potentially destructive motivations and actions.
"What I really want to know is, why, in our quest to save ourselves from self-induced extinction, is everything else up for discussion but God?"
This is the entire point of this post; we are willing to talk about politics and consumerism, and to dig into them endlessly, we are willing to dive into social dynamics and psychological patterns, yet the one thing we NEVER talk about it is our beliefs about god.
My point is that it if we're not willing to discuss it, how can we possibly say that it doesn't have any bearing? Citing exceptions to the rule – this church, that imam etc – is not an adequate response to these questions. As Harris argues – quite convincingly i might add – the problem with religious moderates is that they support religious extremists by not forcing a rewrite of scripture and doctrine.
The issue with most religions (and i have to admit, i'm pretty certain that most western buddhists at least would not view buddhism as a religion … just saying) is that they brook no argument of their basic tenets; any system of thought that incorporates a belief that 'salvation can be found in the afterlife (or even in the 'next' life)' presents a pretty significant concern to those of us who are attempting to ensure that THIS life is the one in which we find salvation.
… and if war – either sanctioned by or invoked in the name of god – is not an issue of sustainability, i don't know what is ….
I see what you mean. I don't think my characterization of your position was unfair, but you push a slightly different angle here.
So, I'm curious, what do you want from religion (fine, I'll grant that Buddhism is not a religion–though it sure looks like one)? Do you want a proof of the existence of God? A defense of faith?
I, for one, am a religious person, but have no interest whatsoever in proving God's existence (I don't think it can be done) or in rationally justifying my faith (that's like asking someone to justify a feeling). I have faith. I don't know why. Sometimes I wholeheartedly believe God exists. Sometimes I don't.
Manly, I see much of my identity, my history, and my sense of moral obligation rooted in my religious practice. But I don't think religion is necessary for any of these things and I would like to distance myself as much as possible from people who claim that it is.
As for the afterlife, I have no idea. I hear people talk about living for the afterlife. I think this is insane. But I don't fear death.
Religion is a practice of interpretation. Of scripture, belief, and life. There are a number of ways to interpret talk of an afterlife, not all of which involve a negation of this one.
In Mendel-speak, war does diminish the burden on the ecosystem, in its reduction of numbers of consumers. It also creates jobs via its infrastructure removal, once it's over. If it ever is. Who knows?
BTW, to the extent Buddhism behaves like religion I avoid it. FWIW. Thich Nhat Hanh's Old Path White Clouds quotes the B-man saying, approximately, there ain't no god and prayer is pointless.
And I'm delighted to discuss G*d (apologies for the cussword). He's (it's?) a tribal troglodyte we need to be rid of. Yay pantheism.
Religion is the major force against birth control and in favor of large families in the world today. And that's not even mentioning the fundamentalists who are against the environmental movement because they see it as worshipping the earth, or couldn't care less about environmental degredation or nuclear war since they're sure to be raptured before things get really ugly…or the general rejection of "worldly concerns."
That's not to say that religion, even fundamentalist religion, is inherently anti-sustainablility, but it does tend to be inherently conservative, in the sense of taking the side of holy texts against the modern science that says we're consuming our way out of a happy home.
YogaforCynics, That's a bit overstated in my opinion. Reformed Judaism and mainline Protestant and progressive Christianity don't encourage either large families nor taking the side of texts over against science. I can't speak about Buddhism or Hinduism re: birth control, but it is my understanding that not all forms of those religions side with sacred texts over science.
interestingly, 'don't talk about religion and politics with friends and family' applies only to US, where both religion and politics are about – either you are with me or against me! god and devil. democrats and republican. black and white. no other choice.
the separate of state and church is also a boon of christianity, when church didn't know how to keep their affairs only to god stuff. this has brought about far reaching changes in all society all over the world. in reaction, open societies became closed – take for example the africas, americas, europe, and the history of force conversions.
in contrast, there was no need to separate them in ancient societies like e.g. india. since they never trampled each other, no matter what outsider may think based on internet articles. the indian scene changed as well, when assaulted from outside 'religions', which are god-guise to political interests. metaphors are misunderstood, and misused, followers are abused.
instead of focusing forever on the past, it is time to start taking the good of all, and live personally responsible lives, where salvation doesn't depend who is hanging on the stake for who, but on what you do to others and the earth.
You opened a hornet's nest here, as is predictable with such posts. This is a mind-boggling and complex subject matter. Religion, of course, is not evil unless evil people run with it. Since at least some measure of goodness may be found in religious teachings, the real problem is not with scriptures, but with twisted minds using scriptures as an excuse to injure other people. A simple, zealous mind can easily take all the evil within a religious teaching and go to town with it. Hence the Jihad, colonialism of the ultra Orthodox in Israel, the Inquisition of the Catholic Church, the Islamic massacres in Darfur, suppression of freedom in Iran, abortion clinic bombers and so on. The past, present and future are the stages for religion-based insanity, inhumanity and mass murder.
Regarding Sam Harris, of whom I am a fan, I find his statements bold yet often misinterpreted. He has studied major religions and practiced meditation with gurus. He appreciates the crossover between mind and body, which will probably someday become more apparent, even to skeptics like myself, once the application of science and logic are applied.
If I'm reading Harris correctly, he's arguing that religious extremists are given credibility and carte blanche by religious moderates who defend their rights. The words of hate, exclusion, prejudice, fear and terror are in black and white in the biblical literature. It's the execution of such words that we have to be worried about.
The Israeli-Arab conflict is much to complex to identify in the confines of this reply or even an article. Anti-Semitism (a religious invention) was the driving force behind the founding of Israel, but looking deeper into the issue, to the turn of the 18th-19th century, the politics of oil was already shaping Middle East politics, fueling Arab antiSemitism all the way through and during WWII to the present. This is not a religious issue, but one that uses religion as a tool for economic and political leveraging. A careful separation needs to be made between being anti-Israel versus being anti-religious-extremism regarding that country.
Would the world be better off without religion? Maybe, but it will never happen. Human beings are social creatures whose active minds make them cling to (and invent) certain ideas, no matter how illogical or absurd, that promise to save them from harm and make their lives easier. Religious teachings don't have to be logical, factual, historically based or fair as long as they provide some sort of comfort or promise of a better life.
Perhaps Harris is inept at making his point. He comes off as intolerant and uneducated in a way that makes it appear his Buddhism is in name only.
His attack on faith would have been much more effective if he clearly identified his target as extremism in any form — and then proceeded to provide specific examples. Instead, it appeared as though he was an extremist on the warpath.
I have made the same mistake myself so I am not speaking from a "holier than thou" position, nonetheless, his work is problematic and I was disappointed to find that by implication he associated Buddhism with his intolerance.
yes, that is a far healthier interpretation of what that phrase really means. (I was employing the, sadly, common, way of using those words).
Well, I definitely wouldn't classify Harris as uneducated. He's obviously erudite and well-versed in philosophy, logic and neuroscience. I can't speak to his views on Buddhism, because I'm not familiar with them. I feel, though, that he is grouped with Dawkins and Hitchins, though his views are quite different. He's the only one of the group whom I've heard express views that gives credence to meditative practice and the possible existence of a non-physical or other-physical dimension. I think his attack on faith, as you put it, has more to do with the tolerance and acceptance religious belief is afforded in our society when it comes to policy-making, laws, preferential treatment, tax benefits, etc.
i'm with vic on this – especially his closing sentence which was, as indicated elsewhere in response to this trail of comments, the entire thrust of this post
Vic, sure, there's some measure of goodness to be found in any scripture. That's probably true of porn and Mein Kampf, which, come to think of it, is a scripture. But the Bible, for a familiar example, is loaded with vicious violent power-mad commandments, like "thou shalt own slaves" (Leviticus 25:44). There's a relatively complete list at http://thethinkingatheist.com/bible_atrocities.ht... Sure that's a place with an axe to grind, but most if not all of the citations listed are accurate. Okay, so the Bible was written by people with a pretty unenlightened world view, to put it as kindly as possible. The problem is that their foulness "justifies" crimes against humanity, and their "holiness" demands a free ride, which, for the most part, these abominarians get. Enough apologies. We need to hold some feet to the fire. Maybe literally.
Leviticus 25:44 says "Slaves…you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among neighboring nations." It puts limits on slavery, which was a common practice in nearly every classical culture. The Bible does not command it.
Well, if you want to look at the neutered version, I suppose it might say something like that. In the KJV, pre-PC as it was, the text reads "[b]oth thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen…" That "which thou shalt have" is a command. The lord doesn't fool around with shalts and shalt nots. And he's real sensitive too, issuing this instruction to people he's just spent 37 chapters and some highly imaginative showmanship (should that be showgodship?) liberating from…wait for it…slavery.
Yup. God invented compassion. No two ways about it.
i should clarify – i wasn't taking exception with your response, i was agreeing with it (mostly); as always, i appreciate your feedback
It seems from the comment boxes, the author has been "preaching to the choir," but I, on the other hand, don't buy the argument. To start, there is no record of Washington either uttering or writing the attributed phrase. Ever. (It's lifted and shortened from the Treaty of Tripoli). But let's just say he did say these words, just for the sake of argument. That doesn't necessarily mean Falwell is a "liar." I'd agree the United States was not founded as a "Christian nation," but was (at the very least, in part) founded upon the Judeo-Christian value system. If I'm wrong, then please tell me upon which value system(s) the United States was founded upon. Enlightenment values? Ok, but Peter Gay argues the Enlightenment never fully permeated American culture because it was, at its foundations, far too religious. And by religious he means overwhelmingly Christian. That said, I'm not sure what the quotes have to do with sustainability.
So maybe I'm merely quibbling here, but I think not. The whole "religion threatens environmental sustainability" argument holds no water. It's a non sequitur. It provides no evidence that religion, writ large, is attacking sustainability. As an example, Pope Benedict XVI, to the chagrin of conservatives, has openly pointed that environmental activism is an integral part of a Christian life.
Likewise, the argument that war is waged by the religious for religious reasons is unsubstantiated. If it were not for Christianity at the close of the 10th century, Europe would have devolved into utter chaos and consumed itself in war. The Church placed limits on warfare (which is waged for one of three reasons: land, resources, or both), thus protecting society's most vulnerable from an out-of-control warrior class. The so called European wars of religion were fought over the papal office once it was made political. Religious people, following the teachings of organized religion, have been among the most vocal proponents of human rights, peace, and social justice, not to mention sustainable land stewardship.
Man has practiced religion for millennia and seems to have averted extinction. I'm not sure what's changed about religion that makes it such a threat now.
[...] has recently pondered the possibility that there is something essentially anti-sustainability about apocalyptic, mainstream Christianity. In no way does Rev. Billy represent mainstream [...]
I like the basic question of the blog — why can't we question religion? Why can't we openly question the tenants that have arguably contributed to really bad practices? However, I think it IS possible for religious communities to change (contrary to popular opinion!). It's not clear to me that, once we criticize religion, the only logical conclusion is that it all has to be thrown out. Certain PARTS of certain religions, probably (and parts of ALL religions for sure). But there are, to use my own progressive Protestant community as an example, those who are religious AND working for environmental sustainability, safety, tolerance, etc. But, if I had to choose, I'd give up my religion in order to save the planet. I'm just not convinced that is the only option.
Christian Embroidery and Motifs:
We are the professional craftsman and running this art since last five generations. Popularity of this art is from the Mughal period and still this art have a unique identity for craft lovers. We are still running with thread and needle. We produce and supply all sorts of Hand Embroidered articles made out of bullion of metallic wires and Silk Thread.
Regards
Tanu's Crafting
http://www.tanuscraft.com/homecraft/index.php?mai...