Gus wrote:
>This is why I argue that Nature - something that is experienced as
>more-than-human - is the appropriate locus for religious values in
>the environmental community, not environmentalism, which is a human
>construct far far more than nature is. That is, I think we would
>all agree that nature (whatever it is) existed before we did.
>Environmentalism certainly didn't.
>
>Are we on a similar wavelength?
I think we are on a similar wavelength here. I would borrow some
more terminology from the history and philosophy of religion to
cement the point.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith speaks of the "reification" of faith that led
to the coining of the term, "religion." This was a historical
process that took centuries--but he notes that before the middle
ages, pious believers never spoke of "religion" but spoke rather of
"faith." It was only (historically) around the time of the
Reformation that people began to use the term "religion" to refer to
their particular *brand* of faith.
So I think this relates to the two things you're describing here Gus:
the first being a "faith" in nature that is more personal, spiritual,
etc., and which is an "appropriate locus for religious values" (a
moral/evaluative judgment). The second aspect is Environmentalism
capital "E" referred to as a formal Religion capital "R". It is this
second sense of "environmentalism as religion" that is, as Steve
Bissell puts it, "subtly critical."
Although please note: if one is subtly critical of claims of
environmentalist infallibility, it is only in the sense that Martin
Luther was also "subtly critical" of papist infallibility. :-)
Jim
>
>best wishes,
>Gus
>
>
>On Saturday, February 28, 2004, at 04:02 PM, Jim Tantillo wrote:
>
>>And I think that many other environmentalists in addition to Taylor
>>hold this foundational belief in the "ultimate" moral attitude
>>toward nature.
|