#54. We Take Care of What We Value

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ARCHIVE. For a list of all my published posts: 

http://www.sammackintosh.blogspot.com/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

The main point of my previous post is that neither scientific reasoning about how things work nor our religious interpretations of scientific facts can provide us with what we need for dealing with the global environmental crisis.

There's something else-- a third thing-- that's needed: our personal experience of the intelligible patterns of nature.

In that previous post (#53. Bridging the Gap), I described the understanding of Dr. Jakob Wolf, Lutheran pastor and professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen, who calls our personal experience "the phenomenological apprehension of nature's intelligent design."

It's important to note that he's using "intelligent design" in the European sense, not with meaning given to it by Christian fundamentalists in the United States. He says it would be a tragedy if we were to lose the idea of intelligent design. Why? Because we treat things in accordance with how we value them. It's from our personal experience of nature's intelligible patterns that we get the "ethics" we need to help in healing of the Earth.

===

The best thing I know that deals with the question of how we value and treat the natural world is an essay which appeared in 2004 in a French-English journal, Sciences Pastorales, by Dr. Heather Eaton of Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Canada. It's called "This Sacred Earth: At the Nexus of Religion, Ecology and Politics."

I saw a reference to her essay in a footnote to an article about attitudes toward nature which I'd been reading; I wanted to read her essay, but I couldn't locate the journal anywhere. So I contacted Dr. Eaton and she graciously sent me a copy.

This post is about some of the main ideas in Dr. Eaton's essay. As she describes it, her primary aim is to "clarify, and suggest, frameworks for the inter-connections between religion, ecology and politics," with the hope that "religion will be a greater force for social change and ecological sustainability."

===

Dr. Eaton begins by describing the four principal attitudes to our environmental problems found among religious people, and offers practical examples of how each "approach," as she calls them, deals with the issue of climate change.

She names the four approaches stewardship, eco-justice, the eco-feminine and cosmology and describes each in the order of how challenging they are to contemporary society.

Stewardship, she says, is the least challenging. Here, the ecological crisis is understood mostly in terms of its physical manifestations: things like pollution, global warming, changing weather patterns and species extinction.

In religious terms, stewardship means caring for God’s creation. But, she says, the idea of stewardship "offers little challenge to the fundamental precepts and orientation of Christianity or mainstream society." It is an "anthropocentric" view which does not give any intrinsic value to the natural world.

Eco-justice is a more challenging approach. Here, the focus is that of political and liberation theology. It "addresses the issues of equitable access to and distribution of the earth’s resources." But this eco-justice approach also "remains an anthropocentric view" in that it, too, "sees little innate value attached to the world of nature."

Eco-feminism, the third approach, is even more challenging: it joins significant feminist perspectives with ecological concerns. It's challenging to mainstream society because of what Dr. Eaton calls the "disturbing historical connection between women and nature, and their associated oppression." She adds that it's "the religious traditions themselves that are most limiting" due to "their historically embedded misogynist orientations."

I've described this "misogynist orientation"-- the alienation of the masculine from the feminine-- in several previous posts: #35 (Aspects of the Immense Transition, Parts 1 & 2), #41 (The Four-fold Mind), and especially #50 (The End of Patriarchy). As readers with a Jungian background know, it comes from patriarchal culture's fear of the feminine which is due to the unconscious identification of women with the world of matter.

===

Cosmology is the fourth approach to the environmental crisis named by Dr. Eaton. The word refers both to a culture's understanding of the material universe and to the human community's understanding of "our place in the scheme of things."

She is, of course, referring to the perspectives of the New Cosmology," which were given to us by 20th-century research scientists in areas such as astrophysics, quantum theory and molecular biology, and by pioneering religious thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Berry and Ewert Cousins. This new story of humanity and its place in the physical universe is now available to everyone in the world.

Dr. Eaton's main point in describing these four approaches to ecology is that neither stewardship, eco-justice nor the eco-feminine perspectives are adequate for the task of saving the Earth in this time of global environmental crisis. Only the cosmological approach is sufficient because, as she says, only the new cosmology brings together humanity's age-old religious consciousness with the evolutionary world view of modern science.

In Dr. Eaton's words, "Only the history of the universe, understood as the primary religious story, is suitable to prepare us to face the order of magnitude of the transition."

It's important that we hear what she's saying: that if we are to heal the Earth, we need to bring together our religious understanding and our scientific understanding. The very practical issues involved in dealing with the present environmental crisis depend on our understanding of the convergence of science and religion.

(You can see why I like Dr. Eaton's paper!)

===

I've talked about the Immense Transition in a number of posts, especially the two (#35 and #36) called "Aspects of the Immense Transition." But the focus of this entire blog, from its start in late 2006, has been to share my thoughts with anyone interested about the convergence of science and religion.

Dr. Eaton takes it one more step.

We are not just in a transition from a static to a dynamic worldview thanks to 20th-century science. She says it's also a time of great turning for the world's religions themselves. She describes the times we live in as nothing less than a "new religious moment" in the history of the world.

(Can anyone doubt that we live in "Exciting Times"?)

In our contemporary environmental crisis, it is neither science nor religion in themselves but their convergence-- the coming together of the new evolutionary cosmology and this new religious moment in the history of the world-- that is what we need if we are to heal the Earth.

For an excellent example of this convergence see "Quakers and the New Story-- Essays on Science & Spirituality" on the Quaker EarthCare Witness website. First find "Recent postings and special announcements," then look for "Download the booklet, Quakers and the New Story."

===

With regard to the New Cosmology, Dr. Eaton notes that it is "an enormous threat" to the contemporary and long-held static worldview. 

"The Christian tradition has not been able to deal effectively with evolution," she says.

With regard to the new religious moment in the history of the world, she notes that "what the religious traditions of the West are faced with is the task of allowing their theological understanding to be transformed."

The key insight for this transformation, she says, is that the earth is our home. And this, she adds, is "an enormous challenge to our ecologically dysfunctional patriarchal religious traditions."

While some effort has been made, via the stewardship approach, to say that God’s creation should be respected and cared for, there has been, as Dr. Eaton observes, "little analysis of how we got into such a mess."

She lists two major aspects of Christianity which contribute to the mess. They are the "anthropocentric orientation" of the Christian tradition and "the apathy it has induced in its members" for the task of taking care of the world.

She does not hesitate to say explicitly, "The Christian faith has belittled the earth as a religious reality," and that its "excessive concern for the redemptive process has concealed the realization that the disintegration of the natural world is also the destruction of the primordial manifestation of the divine."

For many who grew up in the 20th century, it probably comes as news that Christianity is concerned about anything other than the redemptive process.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, for example, recently carried a story about a Catholic priest in Pacoima, California, one of the nation's hardest-hit towns in the foreclosure crisis, who is helping people to avoid foreclosure on their homes.

The article begins, "LOS ANGELES. A priest's typical mission is saving souls, but the Rev. John Lasseigne has a more down-to-earth goal: saving homes."

Note that it was considered newsworthy by the media that a Christian pastor was concerned with helping people save their homes. (And that he even "knew how to read contracts" because he had "graduated from law school before joining the seminary.")

Obviously, taking care of the world is not considered a typical part of the Christian mission; not, at least, by media journalists and newspaper editors.

Far less obvious-- and for all of western society-- is the fact that the disintegration of the natural world also is, in Dr. Eaton words, "the destruction of the primordial manifestation of the divine."

"Much rethinking and reformulating are needed," she concludes, with regard to the exploitation of the earth promoted by "our ecologically dysfunctional" religious traditions.

===

She also makes a point of great significance not just for western society but for the all humanity with regard to the world's religions. When we shift our framework to the insight that "the earth is our home," we see that "religious consciousness is itself an emerging process within the larger evolutionary processes of the earth."

She means that the evolution of the universe includes not just the emergence of planets or of life on Earth and the emergence of individual persons and human communities, but the emergence of religious awareness, too. The very existence of the world's religions is also part of the cosmic evolutionary process.

Personally, I do not know of any other theologian who makes this point as explicitly as Dr. Eaton does. (Did I mention that I really like what she has to say?)

For the healing of the Earth, the great significance of the fact that "religious consciousness arises from the universe processes itself" is that "the era of disparate and divided religious traditions needs to be over."

While each of the world religions has some distinct contributions to make, "common ground is necessary for the world to face such a global and intertwined crisis."

===

Dr. Eaton notes that our efforts "to appreciate each religious tradition as offering specific insights and teachings within a tapestry of revelations" has already begun. And that, with regard to ecological issues, several characteristics to the process are already becoming clear.

There is a shift, for example, away "from studying the histories, texts, doctrines" to a "calling forth the spiritual resources of the world’s religions;" this allows them to become "a political force for an ecological sustainable future."

Dr. Eaton also notes that there is "a resurgence of interest and research" into the nature of religion itself, "both as an anthropological constant and quest of the human spirit."

She says that while it is "deeply unsettling for some to understand each religion as part of a tapestry of revelations," what's required now is a "religious worldview in which the natural world is sacred and not secondary." "Anything less," she says bluntly, "will be inadequate."

===

In this new religious moment in the history of the world-- when "the era of disparate and divided religious traditions needs to be over" as we search for the "common ground" that's "necessary for the world to face such a global and intertwined crisis"-- we need to identify the "transformative and prophetic insights of each tradition."

The central task of this process is, as Dr. Eaton says, "to align religious efforts, and the spectrum of cosmologies, symbols, rituals, values and ethical orientations, within the rhythms and limits of the natural world."

It's that last sentence-- her description of "the central task" of the world's religions at this new moment in the world's religious history-- which was in the footnote that caught my attention and led me, as I mentioned above, to seek out Dr. Eaton's essay.

And it was the following sentence-- where she describes another characteristic of the process which has already begun in humanity's effort "to appreciate the specific insights and teachings of each religious tradition with regard to ecological issues--which led me to link her views with those of Pastor Jakob Wolf described in the previous post.

Dr. Eaton says that the new religious consciousness is, first of all, a "calling forth of ethics rather than dogma." You may remember that Dr. Wolf also talks about the environmental situation in terms of ethics. Theories have practical consequences, he says; the fundamental connection between theory and ethics is that "we take care of what we value."

Both of these growing edge thinkers agree.

===

In this time of environmental crisis, it's our experience of nature that makes all the difference.

Dr. Wolf says that it would be a tragedy for us to lose the experience of nature's intelligibility.

Dr. Eaton says that "it is pressing for all religious traditions to rediscover their roots in the world of awe and wonder."

Whether we call it by more traditional names, such as "reverence," "contemplation" or "mysticism," or we give it Professor Wolf's philosophical name, "the phenomenological apprehension of intelligent design," the experience of awe and wonder, says Dr. Eaton, "is what we need to heal the Earth."

sam@macspeno.com

+++

PS-1. Dr. Eaton's essay isn't readily available in print form, but she gave me an OK to share it with friends. If you would like a copy and are willing to "befriend" me (sounds like Facebook!), send me a note. (Address above.)

+++

PS-2. I was asked by a reader if I would compose some questions about Dr. Eaton's article for a group discussion and to "give a definition of evolutionary cosmology in case someone does recognize the centrality of it but not by that name."

I'm passing on my response, for other groups and individuals who might like to make use of it.

As I see it, there’s really just one main question. Assuming the group is educated and concerned about the global environmental crisis, where do they see themselves and those around them with regard to Dr. Eaton’s four categories of concern: Stewardship, Eco-justice, Eco-feminism and Cosmology. (And, of course, “none of the above”).

Stewardship = taking care of God’s creation.

Eco-justice = making sure everyone has enough food, shelter, clean water, medical care, etc.

Eco-feminism =doing one or both of the above within the mental framework of moving beyond patriarchy.

Cosmology = doing any/all of the above within the mental framework of contemporary scientific information about humanity’s place in the physical universe.

Feedback welcome from groups and individuals!

+++

PS-3. Added 10 Sept 09. When I sent a Sierra Club service trip leader a copy of Heather Eaton's essay, I added a note saying "I'd be interested in knowing where you think most of your Sierra Club contacts are on her list of four 'approaches'." Excerpts from the leader's response follow.

I think most people on the Sierra Club trips are in the Ecojustice mode. At first I thought most people operated in Stewardship mode, because people do talk about use of resources and many people, when asked why they came on the trip, say they want to “give back” because they have received so much from parks and from nature which fits the description of Stewardship.

However, I think everyone I have met on a trip would not see humans as the pinnacle of creation or say the world’s value is in relation to how people can use it, which seems to be the underlying characteristic of Stewardship. I think everyone I have met on the trips sees creation as having intrinsic value. Also most people see the ecological crisis as entangled with economics and globalization, which is in the Ecojustice mode, so that is where I would put most people.

I still have to think about whether anyone has been in the Ecofeminism mode.

I have not had a deep enough discussion with any participant to know if anyone falls into the Cosmology mode, seeing the history of the universe as the primary religious story. One of the leaders I have worked with and will again in 2010 is thinking through his belief system and we have had interesting talks. For all I know, many participants are in this mode-- I think we have a share of people identified with fairly standard churches and people who profess no religion at all. Still, this alone does not tell you what people really think.

It is interesting that the author specifically mentions the Sierra Club of Canada as connecting ecospiriutality with their events. I’d like to check into how they do this. The one time I even came close on a trip is when I read Mary Oliver’s The Summer Day on the rafting trip around the evening fire after the boatmen had guided us through a particularly big rapids. “I don’t know exactly what a prayer is. I do know how to pay attention.”

Several of the boatmen responded by reading from their journals. It was a magic moment.

Eaton talks about religions becoming a political force in order to create an ecologically sustainable future. I guess she means a political force in a large sense of attempting to change how people view their relationship to the earth-- from steward to cosmology.

Hmm, I have done a fair share of work in the political arena mostly to no avail-- maybe because many developers do see the earth as subservient to humans and to be used. I think it is almost hopeless to get the new laws required for a sustainable earth until more people can take on the new cosmology. This is a new insight for me from the article-- it is almost entirely impossible to get the changes in laws we need as long as people are in a stewardship mode, if they are even that far. I need to think of the implications of this for our political initiatives.

It surprised me a little that her call to action is only for political action and not for practical action steps-- like pulling out invasive species as we do on service trips. That is what feeds my thoughts to come to a more cosmology view and what gives me energy to keep on attempting larger change. Maybe the people doing this kind of thinking would like to get their hands dirty?

Thanks for sending Heather's article. It is fun to read and think about.

+++

To send a comment: use "Click here to send a comment" (below) or click on "Post a Comment" (at the bottom).

To email a link to this post to a friend, with your own message, click on the little envelope with an arrow (below).

If you would like to be notified when I publish a new post, let me know; I'll put you on the list.

+++

ARCHIVE TECHNICAL PROBLEM: Since I started this new series of posts, each time I publish one, an earlier one vanishes from my Archives list; they're still there, just not visible. Until tech support can deal with this, I'm putting links to those "missing" posts here.

#4. The "Biogenetic" Perspective

#3. High School 50th-Anniversary Report

#2. Spirituality Research Symposium

#1. On Recent Developments in Science and Religion

#53. Bridging the Gap

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ARCHIVE. For a list of all my published posts: 

http://www.sammackintosh.blogspot.com/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

One of the reasons why the word "convergence" in my blog title sound so strange is because many people still think science and religion are opposed to one another.

They're not. Obviously they are two very different things.

But while most of us assume that we know what the difference is, it's not easy to put that difference into words. What this post is about is an attempt to state the difference between science and religion clearly and to spell out the practical importance of bridging the gap between them.

I think the effort is worth it because once we're clear about the difference, we can have a much better understanding of their relationship and also of their surprisingly important practical consequences for our current environmental crisis.

===

As a start, history helps a lot in getting that difference clear. From the evidence of archeology and anthropology, religion seems to be as old as humanity itself-- several million years. Science, on the other hand, began only recently-- about 500 years ago.

Even if we think of science as having begun back in the time of ancient Greeks and Babylonians, it's still recent in comparison with the several million years of human history.

Five hundred years out of two million years is a very small fraction: 500/2,000,000ths. It looks even smaller as a decimal: 0.0025. As a human enterprise, science has been around only ¼ of one percent as long as religion.

And yet, in that short time our misuse of science has totally transformed our existence and even the very Earth itself. That our home planet has become inhospitable is what we mean by "the environmental crisis." So whether we care about religion or not, it's obviously important that we understand just what science is, if we are to be part of the healing of the Earth.

===

The best thing I've seen dealing with the difference between science and religion is a recent talk given at the annual conference of the Metanexus Institute held this year in Phoenix, Arizona, in July.

If you're unfamiliar with Metanexus, it's a Philadelphia-based global endeavor dealing with science and religion. I mentioned it in post #39 (Hebrew Thought); it has an excellent e-publication which you might like to check out: The Global Spiral.

This year, several of the conference's major addresses were made available on line prior to the beginning of the conference. It seems Metanexus thinks along the same lines as the journalist-author David Crumm. I quoted him in post #51 (A New Series of Posts).

He says that five hundred years ago, "global change came through movable type and pamphleteering. Today, it's the Internet and blogs." To effect social change in our day, Crumm says, we need to "publish quickly and often."

So, a word of congratulations and thanks to Metanexus for having such a fine collection of topics and speakers, and for making their papers available on line-- even before they were officially presented at the conference!

===

The talk dealing with the difference between science and religion was given by Dr. Jakob Wolf, a Lutheran pastor and professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen.

His paper is one of the most enjoyable essays I've read in a long time. It's intelligent, honest, and free of the ponderous academic style that is so deadly for easy understanding and delight. I'm planning to give a summary in this post of a few of his main ideas.

Dr. Wolf makes two especially significant points. One is about our critical need for a clear understanding of how science and religion are related. The second is that, in order to have that understanding, we also need a clear description of what is known in modern philosophy as "phenomenology."

"Phenomenology," needless to say, isn't an everyday word. But it's a necessary concept if we are to understand how science and religion differ and why that difference is important.

Professor Wolf's basic point is explicit: science by definition is a search for causes and explanations of how things work, while religion has to do with our valuing of things.

If you are thinking, "Well, OK, but that's not anything new," I agree. 

Hang in there! One of the things that's so valuable about Dr. Wolf's presentation is that he spells out just what it means to say that "science intentionally reduces things to the simplest explanations of how things work." In our day, that's an especially important concept.

===

He begins by noting that science is a human project. It wasn't accidental; it was deliberately invented by earlier thinkers as a way to understand the world that didn't depend on the pre-scientific view that whatever happens in human life is the result of the whims of the gods.

A familiar example of events being determined by the gods' arbitrary whims is the story of the wanderings of Odysseus. You may remember how, in the Odyssey, the god Poseidon causes the wind to blow Odysseus off course on his way home from the Trojan war. It took Odysseus 20 years to get back home simply because he had displeased Poseidon.

In that pre-scientific perspective, there were no clear patterns to the way things worked. The Greeks of antiquity, however, developed “a radical new idea, that the phenomena in nature do not occur as a result of the free decisions made by the gods."

Since its beginning science has been defined by this restriction: only the mechanical laws of nature and chance occurrences are considered valid scientific explanations. The ideal of science is still the same today: to understand how specific causes, without outside interference, results in specific effects. Science is intentionally and deliberately mechanistic in its perspective.

Scientific researchers work hard to figure out how things work and to make use of that understanding to make things work better. An example familiar to everyone of the good use of our understanding of the working of things is the miracle of modern dentistry.

===

Religion, obviously, is something very different from this mechanistic view of how the world works. Religion simply is not about trying to understand the mechanical results of specific causes.

However-- and this is a key idea-- the very basis of science is the assumption that specific causes produce specific results, and that, when we work at it, we humans can figure out (at least some of) the patterns to how things work. Another way to say that is that the designs which we see in the world's workings are humanly understandable patterns.

Although it has taken a great deal of effort, over the last five centuries scientific researchers have been able to figure out how some of those intelligible patterns work: how stars are formed, how living things reproduce, how language is learned by young children.

But it's important to see that the human enterprise we call science assumes the intelligibility of nature. While research scientists try to figure out the cause-and-effect details in the patterns found in things like planetary formation, embryological growth, and speech development, that fact that those patterns are intelligible isn't science. 

It's something else.

===

In Europe, the understanding that there are intelligible patterns to how things in nature work is referred to as "intelligent design." But, as Dr. Wolf says, in the United States, the term has been taken over by Christian fundamentalists to promote their creationist views.

That's a problem, he says, because "intelligent design" is a very positive idea. It's a deep and rich concept and "it would be a tragedy to lose it."

But while it's obviously not a scientific concept, he also insists that neither is it a religious concept. It's something else, a completely different aspect of our human attempts to make sense of the world. The study of that "something else" is known as "phenomenology."

Because phenomenology is so important for an understanding of the difference between religion and science, I am going make a probably-foolish attempt to explain just what "phenomenology" means as I understand it. Bear with me. I think it's worth it.

===

Phenomenology is a branch of modern philosophy that has to do with how we understand things. It is our attempt to "understand understanding," as the biogenetic structuralists like to say. Readers of earlier posts know that I wrote about Biogenetic Structuralism in many of them; if it's new to you, you might want to check out a few, for example: #8 (Background to Biogenetic Structuralism) or #10 (Overview of Biogenetic Structuralism).

In everyday speech, the word "phenomenon" refers to something which is unique or special. If a cow gives birth to a two-headed calf or weather conditions result in snow with a bluish tint, those events are said to be "phenomena." But we're more familiar with the word being used as an adjective-- as when we say of something really special, "It was phenomenal!"

In the philosophical sense, in contrast, a "phenomenon" is anything we can observe-- any object, event, person or process that we can be aware of. So in this technical sense, every observable thing is "phenomenal."

It's important to note that while phenomenology is a human endeavor-- just as science is-- it's not an attempt to understand the cause-and-effect patterns to how things work. Rather, it is an attempt to understand how our perception of things works.

Phenomenologists refer to our perception of things-- our observing, knowing, being aware of events, processes, persons-- as our "apprehension" of them. The point of all this is that our apprehension of design in nature is not the result of thinking about those patterns but is the direct result of our immediate experience of the fact that the phenomena have patterns.

===

Dr. Wolf notes that everyone-- "even the most hardcore Darwinists"-- agrees that natural phenomena have patterns. No one-- "not even militant atheists," he says-- denies that there are patterns to how things work: "the perception of design in nature is as old as human reason itself. It is spontaneous, involuntary, universal, and not even a matter of choice."

One more idea. It may sound like double talk at first, but it's not. The fact that we can see patterns to natural processes like the formation or stars or the development of an embryo is itself a phenomenon. In slightly different words: the human ability to see that some phenomena in nature are intelligible is also an intelligible phenomenon.

The point is that our apprehension of design in nature (which is the direct result of our immediate experience of phenomena having patterns) is something completely different from our effort to figure out how those patterns work.

So, the apprehension of design is not "science."

But it's not "religion," either.

It's something completely different from both-- a “third” thing. And it is, as Dr. Wolf says, what "bridges the gap" between science and religion.

===

While science is our effort to understand the intelligible designs we apprehend in nature-- in terms of random, unconscious and impersonal forces-- religion interprets those designs as a result of a creative intelligence or a divine mind.

Dr. Wolf lists some of the common interpretations which humans have come up with in our recognition of the intelligible patterns we observe in nature, things like pantheism, stoicism, neo-Platonism, pan-en-theism, deism and, of course, theism (which is where theologians jump in!).

When we keep in mind that both science and religion are based on the "phenomenological apprehension of design," we see that, while science makes use of the phenomenological perception of intelligent design to figure out how the patterns work and religion interprets the intelligence in the designs as coming from a creative consciousness, religion and science are in fact two totally different things.

===

At this point, you are probably saying to yourself, "OK. But, so what?"

Well, in fact, many significant things follow. One is that the "phenomenological apprehension of design" isn't as unusual as the phenomenologists' name for it might make us think. It's a down to earth experience familiar to all of us. We just call it other names.

Another is that the "phenomenological apprehension of design" has some important implications for our understanding of those Sophia/Wisdom perspectives which I've mentioned in many previous posts as being at the core of the western religious tradition.

I'll share some thoughts about both of those ideas in future posts. Here, I will offer just one very practical response to that "So what?" that may have been in your mind.

===

Wolf notes that it's almost impossible in the United States to be sympathetic to the idea of design in nature because, as he says, the idea of design in nature has been compromised by American fundamentalists' use of it to promote their creationism views.

But the whole point of Dr. Wolf's talk is that "it would be a disaster if we abandon the idea of design in nature. It is a philosophical idea that we in no way can afford to lose."

Why not? He spells it out nicely.

If we have only science and religion, and the idea of design in nature fits into neither of these categories, we tend to lose it as a valid concept for expressing our experience of nature.

But neither institutional religion nor scientific rationalism provides us with that experience of nature. And in this time of environmental crisis, it's our experience of nature that makes all the difference. Dr. Wolf talks about the environmental situation in terms of "ethics."

He notes that theories are never ethically indifferent, that they have practical consequences. Here, the fundamental connection between theory and ethics is that the different ways in which we experience things determine the ways we treat them.

If we see the creatures of nature only as the results of unconscious processes and random events (in the way which science-- by conscious intention-- does), then it is impossible, as he says, that they have any intrinsic value.

But "if they do have a value in their own right, it is outrageous to damage them."

And the one thing that justifies this "ethical" view of nature is our phenomenological recognition of intelligent design in nature.

Neither patriarchal religion nor mechanistic science-- but only our personal experience of nature as an expression of intelligent design-- can inspire each of us to personally contribute to the healing of the Earth.

sam@macspeno.com

+++

PS. Two articles in today's (23 Aug 09) New York Times are relevant to this post. One is by Thomas L. Friedman, the other by Robert Wright.

In "Connecting Nature's Dots," Friedman quotes Map Ives, director of sustainability for Wilderness Safaris in Botswana, about reading "Mother Nature’s hieroglyphics." It's an excellent example of what Jacob Wolf means by "apprehending intelligent design."

Director Ives says, “If you spend enough time in nature and allow yourself to slow down sufficiently to let your senses work, then through exposure and practice, you will start to sense the meanings in the sand, the grasses, the bushes, the trees, the movement of the breezes, the thickness of the air, the sounds of the creatures and the habits of the animals with which you are sharing that space.”

Friedman adds, "Humans were actually wired to do this a long time ago."

The point of his column, says Friedman, is that "We’re trying to deal with a whole array of integrated problems-- climate change, energy, biodiversity loss, poverty alleviation and the need to grow enough food to feed the planet-- separately." But "We need to make sure that our policy solutions are as integrated as nature itself."

Poverty fighters, climate-change folks, food advocates and biodiversity protectors "all need to go on safari together."

===

The other article is "A Grand Bargain Over Evolution" by Robert Wright. 

It's also about apprehending design in nature. Although it's longer and more complex than Freidman's, it's well-worth working your way through.

The sections about the "intrinsic creative power" of natural selection and about seeing intelligible design in plants and animals are especially helpful. "Unlike a rock," says Wright, "an organism has things that look as if they were designed to do something."

Most helpful is the section in which he talks about "seeing the same kind of pattern in the development of human culture."

He says, "The technological part of cultural evolution has relentlessly expanded social organization, leading us from isolated hunter-gatherer villages all the way to the brink of a truly global society. And the continuing cohesion of this social system (also known as world peace) may depend on people everywhere using their moral equipment with growing wisdom-- critically reflecting on their moral intuitions, and on the way they’re naturally deployed, and refining that deployment."

Good stuff. I hope you can get to read it.

+++

To send a comment: use "Click here to send a comment" (below) or click on "Post a Comment" (at the bottom).

To email a link to this post to a friend, with your own message, click on the little envelope with an arrow (below).

If you would like to be notified when I publish a new post, let me know; I'll put you on the list.

+++