Countless theologians and ecologists claim that religion plays a major role in how humans interact with the natural world. Many theologians, specifically Lynn White, blame religion, especially Christianity, for the ecological crisis that humans now face. However, not only do experts believe that it was religion that got us into this mess, they believe that it is religion that must get us out. Christianity and Buddhism are two religions with vastly different belief systems, especially in regard to perspective on humans and their environment. Christianity is fundamentally built on the idea that humans are different from the rest of the natural world, while Buddhists beliefs convey humans as just another part of nature. However, the ecological views of both Christianity and Buddhism can benefit greatly from learning from one another.
Christianity has been under scrutiny from both theologians and environmentalists since Lynn White published his influential article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” in Science Magazine in 1967. He proposed the idea that Christianity anthropocentric views have heavily contributed to the ways in which we mistreat our environment. According to White, anthropocentrism began in the book of Genesis with the creation story. God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the rest of the world. This has been a justification for much of the overexploitation and control that we take over many aspects of the natural world.
White also believed that Christianity affected our environmental perspective in other ways. One of the major ways is through the concept of Heaven. Lynn states that Christians believe that Heaven is our real home and this earth is just our temporary dwelling place. It is reasonable to see how not acknowledging Earth as our true home can lead to a lack of passion for taking good care of this place. Some Christians even see the deteriorating conditions of the earth to be part of the revelation story that Jesus will come again. In this way, these Christians are assigning no blame of this ecological crisis on humans, but instead believe that this is part of a prophecy.
White also believed that Christianity has taken away the sacredness of nature that other religions hold dearly. Christians believe that God is all that is sacred and that we shall have no other idols. The Earth and its inhabitants can be seen as a representation of God’s power and beauty, but not actually as a part of God. This can lead to a disenchantment of nature for Christians. Christians do not think of nature in the same way that they think of themselves.
In his article, Lynn states that one of the reasons that Christianity has had such a large impact on the environment is because of its integration into Western science. In the 11th century, there was a translation of Greek and Arabic documents to Latin. This shifted science to a more Western viewpoint which was integrated with Christianity. Early scientists even believed that their job was to think of God’s thoughts after him (2). White believed that this led scientists to try to conquer nature, and not just observe it. This mindset seems to have carried over to all technology and nature. White was adamant that we must ‘reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man’.
White believed that greatest Christian advocate for nature was Pope Francis. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio selected Francis as his papal name when we became the pope in 2013. He then articulated an encyclical called ‘Laudato si’, meaning “Praise Be to You: On Care for our Common Home”. This work focused on stressing the importance of environmental conservation and protection.
Pope Francis acknowledged that Christianity is an anthropocentric religion, but he believes that the Bible calls us to respect and protect nature because it is our responsibility. He also stresses that Christians need to respect all living creatures. Pope Francis demonstrated the virtue of humility and urged others to do the same. In a sense, Pope Francis wanted to dethrone man from the top of nature. One of his missions was to reject the idea that nature has no purpose except to serve man. Although his work was not received well at the time, Lynn White was confident that Christians need to use Pope Francis’s teachings as a foundation for how we should interact with nature.
Lynn White’s idea that Christianity is an anthropocentric religion that causes consequences on the environment was not the first of its kind. However, because his article was published in Science it had the largest audience and therefore, the largest impact. Before White, writers such as Perry Miller, Roderick Nash, and Clarence Glacken proclaimed ideas that focused on Christianity’s anti-nature concepts. Even in the first century B.C.E., a Roman epicurean, named Titus Carus, wrote a poem that rejected the idea that every living and non-living element on Earth is here for human use.
Albert Schweitzer, an agnostic theologian in the early to mid 1900s, believed that humans must reject traditions that infer that human beings are more valuable than other living creatures. He criticizes Christianity as being the most influential religion that promoted these traditions. Schweitzer argued that ‘all life shares a profound will to live’. Similar to Buddhist views on nature, Schweitzer stated that humans need to encourage life and do everything possible to keep from harming or destroying it. White extended the idea of valuing living beings further into the concept of valuing all things of the earth such as mountains, atoms, and even the universe as a whole.
Aldo Leopold was also an important thinker who emphasized the effect western religions have on the environment. Leopold agreed with the idea that Christianity claims that everything in the natural world is here for human benefit. He wrote A Sand County Almanac which is still one of the most influential texts written on the environment. Leopold, like White, ventured a step further than some thinkers and claimed that humans need to not only think of the well-being of other creatures, but also to consider the condition of the land. Leopold hoped that new science-based views of the environment would spark a passion for the conservation of biodiversity. Another way in which Leopold’s ideas can be seen as a precursor to White’s ideas is the realization that, while religion can and has caused destruction to the environment, it also has the power to be part of the solution. We need religion in order to spark emotional and ethical changes that are essential to fighting this ecological crisis.
Some theologians in the past few decades have actually claimed that Christianity has become a greener religion. In other words, they believe that Christianity is becoming more environmentally conscious. Konisky wanted to test this theory with statistics. It is important to know how Christianity is influencing people with regards to the environmental problems facing our world today. We need to know how effective Christianity has been in cultivating ecology-centered minds and we need to find ways to do more. Konisky was able to cross-section data from Gallup’s annual surveys about attitudes on the environment. These surveys studied people’s attitude toward the environment and current ecological issues. The surveys also asked participants to indicate what, if any, type of religion they practice. Konisky used these surveys to see if Christian’s attitudes toward the environment improved more in the last fifteen years in comparison to people of other religions or lack thereof. These surveys were conducted in 1990, 1991, 1999, and annually from 2005 through 2015.
The overall results of the surveys indicated that Christians are less concerned about environmental issues than people who do not associate with a religion or practice another religion. This type of result was statistically significant in five of the eight models used to cross-examine the surveys. The other three models revealed no significant data. These survey results suggested that from 1990 to 2015, Christians have actually begun to care less about the environment and more about the economy. The conclusion of this study is that overall, Christians are less concerned than others about the well-being of the environment and engage in less environmentally friendly behaviors. While the results of this study may not support the idea that Christianity is “greening” over time, it is true that many Christian leaders, including but not limited to Pope Francis, are voicing their concern and promoting stewardship for the environment. This is likely due to Lynn White’s bold claim.
Religious leaders around the world gathered to find a way to integrate environmental conservation into their values. The Alliance for Religion and Conservation (ARC) was established in 1986 as a result of a meeting that focused on religion and ecology. This mission of the ARC was to use religion to promote environmental concern. This organization has grown into an influential advocate using religion to change the perspective on how humans should treat their environment. Many other religious organizations have also joined forces to ensure that Christianity must encourage environmental conservation, not desecrate it.
Buddhists have a much different perspective on the relationship between humans and the environment than Christians do. One of the main ideas in Buddhism is “ahimsa”. This is the idea that people must strive for non-violence and non-injury. This idea extends to all aspects of the earth, not just humans. Buddhists believe that suffering is an inevitable part of life and we must do what we can to reduce it in all ways. Buddhist teachings also stress being empathetic toward all creatures on Earth. It is clear how the idea of ahimsa can be used in a positive way to change the way humans treat the natural world.
Meditation is another important practice within the Buddhist religion. Buddhist meditate in order to overcome the desire for things of this world such as wealth and success. The goal of this is to liberate a person from the material cravings of this life. If someone reaches this point, they have achieved enlightenment. Buddhists do not believe in the concept of a permanent self. They believe that material cravings are the result of the idea of a permanent self.
Reincarnation is another cornerstone for Buddhism. Reincarnation is the idea that the soul is reborn in a new body. An important aspect of reincarnation is karma. This is the concept that good deeds carry over to the next life. This is justification for why humans should be kind to the earth and the creatures in it. One of the important ways in which reincarnation relates to humans and the natural world is that people can be reincarnated into animals. This concept suggests that animals, like humans, have morals and complex thoughts. This weakens the separation between humans and animals. Based on reincarnation, humans should not harm nature because it means we are actually harming ourselves.
Some theologians, such as Ruben Habito, claim that Buddhism gives no reason to believe that it is a green religion. He believes that Buddhists completely focus on the enlightenment of human beings and, therefore, everything else is less important, such as the natural world. In contrast, other experts, such as John Holder, believe that Buddhists do not try to escape from the natural but learn how to keep from craving elements of it. He believes that while this quest for enlightenment can be seen as anthropocentric, that Buddhists must be environmentally conscious in order to develop compassion for non-human beings.
Theologian Damien Keown is also skeptical of accepting the fact that Buddhism is a green religion. He claims that in Christianity, God created the Earth, and it was good. Yet in Buddhism, the world was not created by a god. Another reason Keown is not sold on the idea that Buddhism is green is that he believes Buddhist seem to accept that the condition of the earth will inevitably decline. Therefore, Buddhists may see efforts to preserve ecology to be naïve and even futile. He also believes that ancient Buddhist teaching cannot relate to the ecology issues that we are dealing with today. He is adamant that the Buddhist religion must update its cosmology in order to be relevant in today’s debate on the ecological crisis.
Melin wrote an article comparing the environmental approaches of Christianity and Buddhism. Melin emphasizes that in order for this paper to be effective, there needs to be a belief that Christianity and Buddhism are changing entities and are able to learn from one another. He believes that although the two religions take very different approaches in regard to environmental issues, that common ground can be found to build a foundation on.
One of the major ways in which Christian and Buddhist views on the natural world differ is on the concept of dualism between people and nature. Many experts believe Christianity creates a dualism between people and nature. In other words, people have a relationship with divine ideas such as God, but natural is completely separated. A Catholic theologian, Rosemary Radford Ruether believes that anthropocentrism stems from a dualism ideology between history and nature. This dualism claims that nature is something that humans must overcome in order to gain freedom and achieve their purpose on Earth of glorifying God. Ruether claims that God is both the ruler of Heaven and Earth and therefore Christians should appreciate the importance of both.
Similar to Ruether’s ideas, Michael Northcott argues that the root of the word “dominion” refers to being a steward, not a ruler. This agrees with the idea that God does not call for humans to control and exploit nature, but to take care of it. Northcott also claims that in the Old Testament, God makes a covenant with all of nature, not just humans. It is a cosmic covenant between God and all of creation.
Keown ventures a step further. He claims that although many Buddhist would disagree with a dualistic ideology that separates humans and animals, humans need to embrace this difference. We need to recognize that there is a difference between us and animals, and we should be humbled and take responsibility for this.
Buddhism is critical of Christianity’s dualistic approach to humans and nature. Buddhists believe that separating humans and nature promotes the idea that humans are above nature and do not need respect it. Buddhists believe that humans and all other things on Earth are interconnected. Our bodies consist of matter. This matter came from other things on Earth and will one day return to other things on Earth. Christians environmental ethics could benefit from using Buddhism ideologies to move away from embracing dualistic relationship between humans and nature.
The trinity in Christian theology can help in understanding how multiple beings can be interconnected. This is similar to the Buddhist doctrine of shunyata, which is the belief that nothing exists independently. This can help us see how nature can be connected to humans and God. Therefore, if we harm nature, we harm God because he created it and is part of it.
One complication with most Buddhist ideology is that even though it can help us understand that we are connected to nature and we need to care for it, it does not show us how we should prioritize living things in ethical dilemmas. Melin believes that Buddhist and Christians can work together to figure out how to solve problems such as these.
In today’s society, contemporary Christianity has been involved in environmental ethics topics. As stated by Bron Taylor, there are Christian organizations dedicated to helping find an effective to help fight this ecological crisis. Melin claims Buddhist leaders have been less inclined to come involved in these social and political issues. This can be partly accredited to the counterculture traditions of ancient Buddhism. Early Buddhists believed that mainstream culture stood for ideas such as self-indulgence, violence, and waste. As an example of their disapproval, Early Buddhist monks only ate the leftovers of other people by begging for them. These monks also wore robes that were made of rags from local dumps. They did this to prove that it is possible to live on a little. This counterculture foundation may have led Buddhism to become less involved in political and social matters of the world.
Buddhism’s withdrawal from social issues can also be attributed to the Buddhist fundamentals to encourage followers to focus on one’s self. The goal of a Buddhist is to become enlightened. In other words, their goal is to become the best person that they can be. While this can be beneficial on a small scale, it is important to use Buddhist ethics on a political and social scale in order to promote their environmentally friendly values to others. Christians, on the other hand, focus more on how to make moral decisions in this manner rather than working on making his or herself a better person morally.
It is clear that Christianity and Buddhism both possess strengths and weaknesses when it comes to dealing with environmental issues. While Christian attitude toward the environment may not be improving on a large scare according to Konisky, there are Christian organizations that are dedicated to representing the religion in an ecofriendly way. Buddhists have clearly built a foundation on treating all creatures equally and this could be used in beneficial ways to promote environmental concern and respect. Both religions could learn from each other in order to find an effective way to utilize religion in making environmental ethics a top concern in society today.
Bibliography
- “Buddhism.” Part 2: Asian Religion Traditions. James, Simon P., and David E. Cooper. 2007. “Buddhism and the Environment.” Contemporary Buddhism 8 (2): 93–96. doi:10.1080/14639940701636075.
- Keown, Damien. 2007. “Buddhism and Ecology: A Virtue Ethics Approach.” Contemporary Buddhism 8 (2): 97–112. doi:10.1080/14639940701636083.
- Konisky, David M. 2018. “The Greening of Christianity? A Study of Environmental Attitudes over Time.” Environmental Politics 27 (2): 267–91doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1416903.
- Melin, Anders. 2006. “Environmental Philosophy in Christianity and Buddhism: Meeting Places for a Dialogue.” Ecotheology: Journal of Religion, Nature & the Environment 11 (3): 357–74. doi:10.1558/ecot.2006.11.3.357.
- Taylor, Bron. 2016. “The Greening of Religion Hypothesis (Part One): From Lynn White, Jr and Claims That Religions Can Promote Environmentally Destructive Attitudes and Behaviors to Assertions They Are Becoming Environmentally Friendly.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture 10 (3): 268–305. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v10i3.29010.
- White Jr., L. (1967). “The historical roots of our ecological crisis.” Science, 155:1203–1207.
