Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The World of Nature According to the Protestant Tradition
I found this chapter very interesting as the authors discuss the ideas and teachings of two prominent figures to Protestantism. Personally, I was unaware of their beliefs so reading about their views on nature were helpful in determining the effects of this religion on the environment. Both Luther and Calvin showed that they have some appreciation for nature but what stands out is that they feel that nature "is first and foremost an encounter with God's creation". In my own opinion, this takes away value from the beauty in nature that they are acknowledging. While Luther and Calvin both felt that nature had been cursed because of human sin, Calvin takes the idea of humanity's use of nature further. He has a clear anthropocentric view and promotes the idea of humans having an "active life". The authors also bring up the tradition of learning about God through nature. Again, this displays how as humans we are using nature instead of respecting it. In the final section of the chapter the ecological crisis of the 1970's is considered. The reader learns that during this time the blame began being directed at Christians. During this decade, philosopher's began to warn society of the dangers of these religious traditions. Today, many continue to write about of the growing importance of moving away from the anthropocentric society in order to save the earth before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posted by Helen Gaynor
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting was the discussion on Lynn White, an author whose piece we read recently, and criticized harshly. In our class discussion we mainly criticized White for not backing up any of his claims. Without citing evidence, his piece is completely unreliable, however it turns out that many Christians took his word very seriously, and the quote the chapter, "the criticism stung" (133). Many Christian writers took the defensive arguing that the Bible is not necessarily anthropocentric; it can be interpreted in many different ways. What is interesting to me is the fact that many Christians were deeply offended by what he was saying and took it seriously. According to the text, it changed the self understanding of many Protestants. For something written by someone who has no real evidence to prove his claims to effect your own self understanding, I believe you have to be questioning your views to some extent in the first place. This would mean that many Christians were aware of anthropocentric tendencies in the Bible and/or their religion, yet got offended when someone else pointed them out. Overall I found the text to be extremely enlightening and supplement the idea that Christianity has a good share of anthropocentrism in it's beliefs.
Along with Jackie, I thought that this reading was really interesting in that you don't generally hear a lot about nature when learning about a religion (or at least in prior my experience). In following this I thought it was really interesting how the text covered the more modern applications of both Luther and Calvin's perspectives. I really liked when the text talked about Luther's appreciation for nature. On page 119 it says, "He depicts God as being 'with all creatures, flowing, and pouring into them, filling all things.' He marvels at a grain of wheat: if we really understood it, he says, we would die of wonder." This to me is the answer to anthropocentrism. If we could all just try to harvest in ourselves some deeper level of respect in the environment and our world the ecological crises we face today would be a lot easier to address.
ReplyDeleteThe section in this chapter that really caught my attention was "The Reformation Tradition and the Culture of Modernity". The section focuses on the how The Reformers updated and changed different theories and ideas as times change. on page 124 it is stated, "The Reformers had concentrated attention on the human world and especially the relationship between God and the believer or the community of believers ". While even though Luther and Calvin acknowledge the the importance on the nature, they see that as times have changed and scientific advantages have been made, the natural world has been altered. As the natural world no longer existed as it did in the past it is argued that the idea of nature and the natural world has become more an idea or state of mind. I would agree with this statement because it is harder and harder to become "one with nature" so when we think of nature or "the natural world" we might picture a nature scene that we have never actually physically seen before and we might find serenity in just picturing this natural setting without actually going there.
ReplyDeleteThis reading was very interesting. In class we have been talking extensively about the relationship between humans and the environment, and how religion influences people and their treatment and view of the earth. I respect the angle that Martin Luther is coming from, and his deep critique of the church and its new movement towards an almost superficial looking future. Luther points out that followers of the church were looking for a tangible higher power, and this allowed the church to expand and become the aggressive power that it was then and still is today to a large extent. I think it is so interesting that while this movement is happening there is also the ability for the relationship between people and environment to be addressed; despite the fact that many followers of the faith were offended by the idea that the Bible has any anthropocentric ideas or teachings, there is certainly substantial evidence that could lead one to believe this. It is interesting that is even encouraged many Protestants to evaluate their self-understanding, and had the ability to actually change people’s beliefs. I feel as though if people nowadays were to consider more thoughtfully their own relationship with the earth and nature, then there would be more progress made in terms of environmental issues.
ReplyDeleteI, like Jackie, also found this chapter very interesting because I have never really taken the time to learn about other religions' views on the environment. The Protestant view, espoused by both Calvin and Luther, proved to be especially didactic. Specifically, I enjoyed reading about Calvin's anthropocentric view, through which he stressed that humans should have an active life through the environment. With regards to what we have been discussing in class, I tend to agree with Jackie that Calvin's view of finding God through nature is a little bit skewed. In my eyes, finding God through nature is essential. Coming from a Catholic background, I was always told that one can find God through all things, be it through another person or some physical place on this planet. I agree that traces of God are scattered all throughout the world. However, I believe that nature should be valued for its own sake, and that respecting the environment as such is an extremely vital step we must take for the future. Also, reading about the ecological crisis of the 1970s reminded me of Rachel Carson's works. I agree that the whole anthropocentric view towards nature needs to change, or at least be re-vamped. Especially during these times, it is vital that human beings are taught the importance of respecting the environment that they live in. It is so easy to take the physical earth for granted, but many don't realize how much we depend on the environment around us. As always, it was great to read about a different religion's perspective on the matter.
ReplyDeleteWhen contrasting Luther and Calvin's views that divided them from the Church, I couldn't help but wonder how the Church had gotten to that point in time. I don't know much about the history of the Church in relation to the history of Europe, but when I read this chapter, I was astonished by the things that Luther and Calvin were criticizing about the Church. Factors such as not decorating churches with images of God and fully appreciating nature amongst others were all ideals that I thought were already respected within the Church. I felt that their idea that encounters "with nature [are] first and foremost encounters with God's creation" should not be revolutionary (122). It might be the fact that I grew up in an environment that always correlated the beauty of the world to God's majesty, however, even the Bible has many passages that affirm the awesomeness of God within nature. Overall, the ideas of nature and religion are almost intertwined whether the Church chooses to acknowledge God within nature or not. Also, I found it fascinating that the divisions in the Church were due to salvation and the interaction of God with laws of nature. I could not comprehend how leaders could determine the salvation of mankind or the power of God with respect to nature. Ideas such as these and Darwin’s led to changes that seem to divide mankind’s understanding to that of God’s power.
ReplyDeleteI, like most people who commented here, found this article interesting as well. I knew about Protestantism vaguely through what I had learned in my history class but this gave a great focus on a topic I had not thought about before which was the protestant view on the relationship or religion with the environment. In the section called The Reformation Tradition and the Culture of Modernity, I found a particular statement very interesting: “Nature provides the basic grounds for believing in the existence of God.” The way that it was stated so matter-of-factly that religion had an important role in nature took me aback because this is a great debate that has torn apart philosophers for centuries. The conflict of environment vs. religion and their relationship is the whole topic of this entire class. The fact that they already acknowledged that nature and religion are very much related, the same viewpoint that I hold, made me really respect them for being reasonable and not taking any extreme side.
ReplyDeleteI think this is one of my favorite readings we’ve had so far. It’s really interesting learning about the environmental beliefs of a religion. I’m a Protestant and most of this information was new to me, simply because these views aren’t normally mentioned in church. I think that this is one of the problems that could be easily fixed. I’ve never been to a service where the sermon was focused on the relationship between the Earth as God’s creation and how humanity should treat it and that type of sermon might be what needs to be heard.
ReplyDeleteI was also really interested in this article. I'm not Protestant, so I really had no idea how their environmental views differed from Catholicism. I think that it is interesting that while Calvin had an anthropocentric view, he still stressed the importance of taking care of the environment. It is possible to believe that humans have control over nature while still having a responsibility to take care of it. I like this view better than the Catholic church's view, which basically gives humans no responsibility over the well-being of the Earth.
ReplyDeleteAnthropocentrism is clearly not a belief one should have in contemporary times. We have advanced science to the point where we can recognize the issues locally on land and to our own atmosphere on earth. The question now moves from separation of church and state and becomes separation of church and nature. Tradition is a significant part of protestantism (ironically enough) in order to retain certain practices that distinguished them from the Catholic church. Can we expect doctrines to change that were formed by protestant founders like Luther and Calvin? Is that fair? :-/
ReplyDeleteIt surprised me a lot to see that both Calvin and Luther criticized the church. It seems like they feel that religion should be on a more individual basis, and the bible is more important than the Church and the pope. Calvin feels as though nature is an encounter with God's creation, and each part of nature can tell us something about God. This is an idea that if everyone embraced, maybe there would be a greater respect for the environment. I think that Calvin's ideas do seem anthropocentric as he is accepting that the world is doomed due to human sin and people should practice an active life. I also think that many people are unable to connect with nature, because the natural world is so hard to find in some places, like DC. Living in a place like this you're entire life, you probably wouldn't get much opportunity to really connect with nature. As the ecological crisis occurs, it reminds me of today. In both situations, people must learn to respect the environment as it's own entity, not just a part of ours.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Helen's insight and I thought that the discussion on the significance of Lynn White's lecture in relation to the western churches was very interesting. Having already read this lecture, I thought that I was able to fully understand the point trying to be made. I also thought it was very interesting how Earth Day was such a big deal to the churches in 1970 because in a way they had to improve their image as portrayed by Lynn White. the fact that Earth Day was important surprised me because when we think of Earth Day in present culture, the church has very little impact or recognition for being apart of the celebrations. I think Disney earth movies rather than the church.
ReplyDeleteI also found the discussion of Frederick Elder's book Crisis in Eden to be very interesting in regards to whether the natural world could be separated from scripture, and as we discussed in class on Monday, this would be interesting to discuss even further. In my opinion, I would like to do more research in regards to how separating the two aspects would be possible since in my opinion they coincide together well.
I agree with most of the above posts and found this reading to be especially intriguing. The text brings up the idea of understanding God through nature. While Luther and Calvin both felt that nature had been blemished because of human sin and evil, Calvin presents an anthropocentric view, where he writes about the idea of exhausting nature more. I think perhaps a simplistic, but plausible solution would be emphasizing moving away from this anthropocentric society in order to save the earth before it is too late. It is also remarkable to see that while this movement is happening there is also the ability for the relationship between people and environment to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteThe only times I have really ever learned about Protestantism was in US history. I know that it provides the base for a lot of our nation’s core values, as the many Protestants seeking new life came to America. Protestants such as Calvin and Luther thought that nature is cursed because of human sin, but this made me thought of something else. A fair amount of our nation’s base values also come philosophers such as Aristotle, who as an empiricist, certainly did not view nature in this manner. I find it interesting that what makes up out nation can be slightly opposing.
ReplyDeleteThey also talked about how humans do not maintain the same relationship with nature as time progresses, as new lifestyles distance us from Mother Earth. I definitely agree with this, as we grow to be a more innovative society, we seem to be gaining more ownership over nature as opposed to getting closer to it and having any emotional attachment to it. Perhaps this is the sin that makes nature cursed.