Dark Green Religion

[Sees]

I like it, something I wrote for my own stuff recently said, "religion is more about cultivating the perception, experience, and celebration of Belonging, rather than the maintenance and distribution of textbook answers."

The way we understand and value connections and interactions, all around and within us, is as religious as anything else. You could say it is has a foundation of relationship rather than dogmatic information. Truth claims about supernatural or metaphysical things isn't necessarily a part of it or the most important part if present.

Belonging, connection, relationship, how we fit in...is more along the lines of how religion was seen before - intertwined with culture itself. I think it will for sure cycle around and return out of necessity.

 

[Laika]

I'm beginning to think the only way we will get major environmental policies done is a major rupture in our worldview. we seem to be utterly committed to believing that either change is impossible or would be somehow worse than the problem itself due to "unintended consequences". if you can get people to believe change is both possible and necessary and break the sense of paralyisis, really I'm all for it.

 

[JoStories]

It is generally agreed that environmental and sustainability concerns are among the most pressing issues faced by current and future generations of living beings on our planet. As ecosystem engineers, humans have modified all biotic and abiotic systems across the globe, for good or for ill. This is so pervasive that some have taken to calling our epoch the "anthropocene." Religion, being a key framework around which peoples spin and weave tales of life's meaning, is poised to inform the human relationship with the non-human world. The relationship between religions and regard for the non-human world is a vast and complex territory, but here I'd like us to consider one paradigm presented by Bron Taylor:

"Dark green religion is generally deep ecological, biocentric, or ecocentric, considering all species to
be intrinsically valuable; that is, valuable apart from their usefulness to human beings. This value system
is generally

(1) based on a felt kinship with the rest of life, often derived from a Darwinian understanding that all forms of life have evolved from a common ancestor and are therefore related;
(2) accompanied by feelings of humility and a corresponding critique of human moral superiority, often inspired or reinforced by a science- based cosmology that reveals how tiny human beings are in the universe; and
(3) reinforced by metaphysics of interconnection and the idea of interdependence (mutual influence and reciprocal dependence) found in the sciences, especially in ecology and physics."
*quoted from Issue 116 of Circle Magazine, excerpted from Taylor's book here*​

It is important to understand that Taylor doesn't necessarily mean for "dark green religion" to be taken as a religion in of itself, but a manner of religiosity that could be present, say, in a Christian as much as in a non-theist. He goes on to remark about the compatibility of this form of religiosity with the sciences, and identifies four flavors of dark green religion. I can summarize that later if people are interested, but mainly I wanted to forward some discussion on this concept of "dark green religion."

What do you think about this idea of "dark green religion?" Do Taylor's words here reflect aspects of your own worldview? Do you find yourself disagreeing with this perspective? What does your religion (or equivalent non-religious worldview) teach you about how to regard the non-human world?

I think that this version of a faith, even if it is not one, reflects a great deal of eastern faiths ideals as well, particularly Buddhism. I share in all three of the axioms that you present here. Here in Maine, we recycle, we compost all foods that we can and put them in our garden. Buddhists should be humble, and the idea of interconnection is very much a part of the ideals that I follow. And of course, as most know, Buddhists have a deep and abiding respect for all life forms.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

At the same time, one can drive oneself crazy trying to account for the whole of the Weave (that's a term I use for the interconnected reality of which we are all part of). As an example, an ethical maxim found in Wicca is "if it harms none, do what you will." It's essentially a rendition of the golden rule found in many other religious traditions, but in practice, it is impossible to do this if we consider the broader network we humans are part of. Do nor harm is impossible. You'd drive yourself nuts trying to do that. So how do we navigate that? Traditionally, Western culture does it by regarding only certain kinds of things as worthy of ethical consideration.

Like most such maxims, most humans focus on the "What I can do?" instead of "What limits do I have to be aware of?" Even if you just consider humans, most of us here today don't consider the web of harms (and positive effects) of our choices to buy and use various goods and services cause--even owning and using a computer comes with a significant human impact beyond the cost of the computer, the electricity and internet access. What I introduce my students to in the idea of full-cost and ecosystem services accounting, which forces one to measure and account for ALL actions of production and consumption. Its very eye-opening.

If taken seriously, such an approach heavily constrains what humans, individually and in groups, can and should do. Including a more equal valuing of non-human entities (plants, animals, ecosystems, etc.) along with humans makes the possible options for action even tighter.

 

[Quintessence]

Not entirely negative. I see positive things in all religions, to be honest. But, the term itself gives off an impression that a strict dogma of sorts will be adhered to, so it strikes me as unnecessary to 'following' these ideas and concepts. I guess sometimes it feels like if we don't look at something as a religion, it's diminished in value, and it's not.

Many do seem to assume dogmatism with religion, even though that isn't an inherent nor required quality of religions. It's interesting to think about how that association developed, and I'm not sure I have a good answer to that other than to point to the dominant Western forms of religions and how some of them emphasize that (as opposed to, say, indigenous religions that don't). Interesting comment about "if it isn't religion, it has diminished value" idea. I wonder if that is the case for some?

I'm beginning to think the only way we will get major environmental policies done is a major rupture in our worldview. we seem to be utterly committed to believing that either change is impossible or would be somehow worse than the problem itself due to "unintended consequences". if you can get people to believe change is both possible and necessary and break the sense of paralyisis, really I'm all for it.

It seems that attitude comes from a selective interpretation of history. Environmental history isn't taught much in standard history courses, but if we look at what has actually happened over time, changes and major policies have been made and continue to be made today. But, as should be expected through any democratic legislative process, these changes are incremental and not some massive bang all at once. Not sure it's realistic to expect sweeping, dramatic legislation. Virtually nothing ever gets done that way, at least in my country, whether we're talking environmental issues or health care. Change is made incrementally. That we have things like the Clean Air Act and more municipalities changing their books so homeowners can stick things like solar panels on their roofs is evidence enough of change for me.

 

[Laika]

It seems that attitude comes from a selective interpretation of history. Environmental history isn't taught much in standard history courses, but if we look at what has actually happened over time, changes and major policies have been made and continue to be made today. But, as should be expected through any democratic legislative process, these changes are incremental and not some massive bang all at once. Not sure it's realistic to expect sweeping, dramatic legislation. Virtually nothing ever gets done that way, at least in my country, whether we're talking environmental issues or health care. Change is made incrementally. That we have things like the Clean Air Act and more municipalities changing their books so homeowners can stick things like solar panels on their roofs is evidence enough of change for me.

that's probably a fair criticism, as legitislation does not in itself solve problems, nor at any great speed. The sense that these problems may lead to a mid-late century catastrophe and the sheer level of inertia to actually implimenting policies that would help makes it more rather than less likely that extreme measures will be taken in response. I hope you are right and that we can evolve towards a sustainable society, but- perhaps from taking the news too seriously and being alarmist- I'm left with the sense we are doing too little, too late. I'm not even 100% sure what we can do as individual actions do not touch the much deeper structural sources of pollution in energy, transportation, agriculture, etc that require major investment from either the public or private sector. it would seem that the neoliberal prejudice against state intervention is a dangerous position to take on this in the long-run. I appreciate what your getting at, but the sense of powerlessness, pessimism and futility is hard to escape.

 

[Iti oj]

Religion addresses the question of the ultimate nature of the universe and how we ought to live under that nature. And it defines beliefs about things beyond the physical, life after death, etc..


All those things to me are of only secondary interest to what I said above. To me things like 'being environmentally conscious' are just the application of religion into our everyday lives.

imo none od

Religion addresses the question of the ultimate nature of the universe and how we ought to live under that nature. And it defines beliefs about things beyond the physical, life after death, etc..


All those things to me are of only secondary interest to what I said above. To me things like 'being environmentally conscious' are just the application of religion into our everyday lives.

none of the things you mention matter to me. in fact that is kinda why i have an anti religious streak . focusing on those topics are bad .

what the op presents is beautiful, important and worthy .

 

[columbus]

Many do seem to assume dogmatism with religion, even though that isn't an inherent nor required quality of religions.

I think a huge part of the problem is that religion is one of those words with almost no objective meaning. When most people use it the meaning has little to do with a definition and most of the meaning is carried by the implications and connotations.

Tom

 

[Unification]

It is generally agreed that environmental and sustainability concerns are among the most pressing issues faced by current and future generations of living beings on our planet. As ecosystem engineers, humans have modified all biotic and abiotic systems across the globe, for good or for ill. This is so pervasive that some have taken to calling our epoch the "anthropocene." Religion, being a key framework around which peoples spin and weave tales of life's meaning, is poised to inform the human relationship with the non-human world. The relationship between religions and regard for the non-human world is a vast and complex territory, but here I'd like us to consider one paradigm presented by Bron Taylor:

"Dark green religion is generally deep ecological, biocentric, or ecocentric, considering all species to
be intrinsically valuable; that is, valuable apart from their usefulness to human beings. This value system
is generally

(1) based on a felt kinship with the rest of life, often derived from a Darwinian understanding that all forms of life have evolved from a common ancestor and are therefore related;
(2) accompanied by feelings of humility and a corresponding critique of human moral superiority, often inspired or reinforced by a science- based cosmology that reveals how tiny human beings are in the universe; and
(3) reinforced by metaphysics of interconnection and the idea of interdependence (mutual influence and reciprocal dependence) found in the sciences, especially in ecology and physics."
*quoted from Issue 116 of Circle Magazine, excerpted from Taylor's book here*​

It is important to understand that Taylor doesn't necessarily mean for "dark green religion" to be taken as a religion in of itself, but a manner of religiosity that could be present, say, in a Christian as much as in a non-theist. He goes on to remark about the compatibility of this form of religiosity with the sciences, and identifies four flavors of dark green religion. I can summarize that later if people are interested, but mainly I wanted to forward some discussion on this concept of "dark green religion."

What do you think about this idea of "dark green religion?" Do Taylor's words here reflect aspects of your own worldview? Do you find yourself disagreeing with this perspective? What does your religion (or equivalent non-religious worldview) teach you about how to regard the non-human world?

Very beneficial.

The close and connected relationship of the macrocosm and the microcosm.

The inside psyche is the foundation of the outside world of the material world and physical body.

Knowledge: external
Knowing: internal

We can't understand how the outside works and what makes it so, until we know it from the inside.

We must begin an inner investigation of reality, so we will begin to understand the outside.

Making the two into one, and whole... the inner becoming the outer and the outer becoming the inner.

 

[Unification]

I think a huge part of the problem is that religion is one of those words with almost no objective meaning. When most people use it the meaning has little to do with a definition and most of the meaning is carried by the implications and connotations.

Tom

Very huge. Religion should be about the internal, metaphysical.. but there is no objective meaning because it's been made externally. The search outside of oneself will always lead to one not knowing themselves and yearning for more. Objectively, we all have the same internal body parts, processes, we are all made of the same stuff, came from the same place, and are very connected.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Very huge. Religion should be about the internal, metaphysical.. but there is no objective meaning because it's been made externally. The search outside of oneself will always lead to one not knowing themselves and yearning for more. Objectively, we all have the same internal body parts, processes, we are all made of the same stuff, came from the same place, and are very connected.

I hold the contrary view. I used to think that religion was about our internal understandings, and the metaphysical aspects (life after death, etc.), but as I've become animist, I've realized that "religion" for me is more about relationships with the humans and other-than-human persons, which involves engaging in activities related to current life, and not nearly as much about the more esoteric. I have beliefs, but my actions do not hinge on those beliefs.

 

[George-ananda]

imo none od

I don't understand what you meant by 'od'.

none of the things you mention matter to me. in fact that is kinda why i have an anti religious streak . focusing on those topics are bad .

what the op presents is beautiful, important and worthy .

Then you are not interested in things that are classically part of religion. Those things are of top interest to me so 'different strokes for different folks'.

 

[Unification]

I hold the contrary view. I used to think that religion was about our internal understandings, and the metaphysical aspects (life after death, etc.), but as I've become animist, I've realized that "religion" for me is more about relationships with the humans and other-than-human persons, which involves engaging in activities related to current life, and not nearly as much about the more esoteric. I have beliefs, but my actions do not hinge on those beliefs.

Everything derives internally. It's where the brain and mind and heart are. The more balanced, whole, and sound those are... Our relationships to others are more peaceful.

Kind of like this: on the inside we have a west and east sphere to the brain. On the outside, the earth has a west and east sphere. The closer they both are to being balanced, whole, United, connected, peaceful... The better for humanity.

 

[Unification]

I hold the contrary view. I used to think that religion was about our internal understandings, and the metaphysical aspects (life after death, etc.), but as I've become animist, I've realized that "religion" for me is more about relationships with the humans and other-than-human persons, which involves engaging in activities related to current life, and not nearly as much about the more esoteric. I have beliefs, but my actions do not hinge on those beliefs.

That's beautiful stuff though, bud. You have found what works for you, your way and realizations.

 

[Riverwolf]

Learning about ecology, in particular, which, unfortunately, gets very little coverage in K-12 curricula beyond short units on biomes and a few ecological cycles.

I don't think we even got those. Most of my childhood knowledge of ecology came from Kratts' Creatures and Ferngully.

EDIT: ...and I REALLY hope that's just because I have spotty memory of what I was taught in Elementary School, come to think of it. The school I went to was called "John Muir".

 

[Riverwolf]

that's probably a fair criticism, as legitislation does not in itself solve problems, nor at any great speed. The sense that these problems may lead to a mid-late century catastrophe and the sheer level of inertia to actually implimenting policies that would help makes it more rather than less likely that extreme measures will be taken in response. I hope you are right and that we can evolve towards a sustainable society, but- perhaps from taking the news too seriously and being alarmist- I'm left with the sense we are doing too little, too late. I'm not even 100% sure what we can do as individual actions do not touch the much deeper structural sources of pollution in energy, transportation, agriculture, etc that require major investment from either the public or private sector. it would seem that the neoliberal prejudice against state intervention is a dangerous position to take on this in the long-run. I appreciate what your getting at, but the sense of powerlessness, pessimism and futility is hard to escape.

I more or less take comfort in the (probably naive) belief that nothing we do to Earth can match what happened during the K-Pg extinction. (At least in terms of what we're realistically likely to do).

 

[Riverwolf]

I think a huge part of the problem is that religion is one of those words with almost no objective meaning. When most people use it the meaning has little to do with a definition and most of the meaning is carried by the implications and connotations.

Tom

Technically, all language is like that, but yes, religion and its related vernacular are NOTORIOUSLY polysemic, probably moreso than any other topic that English has words for.

But it's probably because there's just so many flavors of what we call religion that the word simply isn't adequate to describe any single thing adequately, except the very generalized behaviors associated with them.

 

[Unification]

I don't think we even got those. Most of my childhood knowledge of ecology came from Kratts' Creatures and Ferngully.

EDIT: ...and I REALLY hope that's just because I have spotty memory of what I was taught in Elementary School, come to think of it. The school I went to was called "John Muir".

In Parma, OH?

 

[Riverwolf]

In Parma, OH?

No, I live in California. I'm sure plenty of schools around the country have his name.

 

[columbus]

Technically, all language is like that, but yes, religion and its related vernacular are NOTORIOUSLY polysemic, probably moreso than any other topic that English has words for

True, but some important words are more vague than others. There is only one definition for "water". The word "let" has a couple of dozen, but they are usually obvious from context.
The magisterium known as religion is all about the unknown and maybe the unknowable. So the important words, like righteous and love and god and truth and morality are all mostly free of objective meaning and entirely a matter of opinion.
Human opinion.
Tom