Dark Green Religion

[Quintessence]

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?

 

[George-ananda]

I'm all for going 'green' but I don't think the word 'religion' is appropriate. It doesn't address the same questions as religion. Let's call it a 'Movement' instead that welcomes people of all religions and no religion.

 

[columbus]

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?

The part that resonates strongly and immediately with me is the #3.
I believe that the most fundamental foundation of morality is the recognition that we are all a part of a vast interconnected and interdependent web. It is not possible to improve your own life by damaging someone or something else.
It only seems that we can improve our own situation at another's expense because our perceptions are too limited to see the really big picture.
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

I'm all for going 'green' but I don't think the word 'religion' is appropriate. It doesn't address the same questions as religion. Let's call it a 'Movement' instead that welcomes people of all religions and no religion.

What questions does religion address, to you?

I ask, because the crux of my religion is pretty much exactly what this guy is talking about. Druidry is almost a cliché "dark green religion," and currents if it run through Neopaganism more generally (especially in North America).

 

[Quintessence]

The part that resonates strongly and immediately with me is the #3.
I believe that the most fundamental foundation of morality is the recognition that we are all a part of a vast interconnected and interdependent web. It is not possible to improve your own life by damaging someone or something else.
It only seems that we can improve our own situation at another's expense because our perceptions are too limited to see the really big picture.
Tom

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. Only humans are treated as moral subjects, and, frequently, only certain kinds of humans (e.g., those belonging to your race or nation). Doing otherwise gets messy and complicated. Though, so too, does treating only your kinfolk as moral subjects. No easy solutions to these quandaries exist, it seems. To me, it is enough to find one's own sense of honor and virtue, then aspire to live in accord with it as much as possible, whatever that standard be.

 

[Riverwolf]

I certainly like the idea, and it's sort of putting words into things I already believe.

I could certainly see points of disagreement and contention regarding the varying implications of these points, and to what extremes they should be carried out. But I think having them as a basis would be a good start.

 

[Deidre]

Love the ideas but don't like applying the term ''religion'' to it.

 

[Straw Dog]

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?

Yes, this perspective may be useful. There would be no human world without the non-human world. There would also be no life without non-life. All of these imaginary boundaries could be reevaluated.

 

[George-ananda]

What questions does religion address, to you?

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..

I ask, because the crux of my religion is pretty much exactly what this guy is talking about. Druidry is almost a cliché "dark green religion," and currents if it run through Neopaganism more generally (especially in North America).

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Except for the intrinsic value and feelings of humility, I agree with those points, and is approximately the world view that I have.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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?

While I do like this, as it does reflect my own personal beliefs as well, I will note that it is highly reminiscent of the arguments/positions of many "Deep Ecology" writers in the 80s and 90s. The issue I see is the potential for what I also saw with Deep Ecology [note: I stopped reading that literature in the latter 90s, and have no idea what ever happened to that thread of thought]. For the most part (there were some exceptions), the DE writers displayed what appeared to me to be a rather smug air of moral superiority, in regard to their Deep Ecology beliefs, combined with a lack of any practical ideas about how to spread this way of thinking/viewing the world outside the rather narrow community (mostly white/American/Middle Class) that supported the view already, or to come up with implementable solutions to real-world problems. Mainly, how are you going to get people who don't look at the world this way and adopt policies/behaviors that will reflect that point of view?

I certainly don't have a good idea about how to spread the view, although I have adopted a rather pragmatic approach to addressing real-world problems, which means while my beliefs along these lines guide what I do and suggest, I do not expect others to necessarily accept my views, so I focus on trying to answer their needs and concerns.

 

[Quintessence]

Love the ideas but don't like applying the term ''religion'' to it.

Why do you think that is? Do you associate mostly negative things with the word "religion," and if so, why did that happen?

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..

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Doesn't Taylor's "deep green religion" idea do precisely this? It relates directly to how we understand the nature of the world around us... and the ethical implications of that understanding. More specifically, Taylor presents an understanding of the universe that emphasizes interconnectivity and interdependence, with the ethical implications (the "how we ought to live" bit) being respectfulness for that interdependent web. Although I didn't present it in this excerpt, one of the forms of "deep green religion" Taylor recognizes does contain "supernatural" elements. I guess I'm just confused because from this understanding, it seems to me that Taylor's map called "deep green religion" would be religion by your standard?

Except for the intrinsic value and feelings of humility, I agree with those points, and is approximately the world view that I have.

What value system do you hold if not that all things have intrinsic value? Do you feel things only have value if they are useful to humans, or if you, personally, deem that they have value? Do you feel value is defined solely by money or capital? By utility? What?

Is there some other sense of humility in your life, or do you see yourself or humanity as the apex of something?

Mostly just curious... and things to think about on your own. You don't need to share if you don't want to.

 

[Quintessence]

While I do like this, as it does reflect my own personal beliefs as well, I will note that it is highly reminiscent of the arguments/positions of many "Deep Ecology" writers in the 80s and 90s.

It is very similar, yes. Deep ecology framed itself as a philosophy, though, rather than in a religious context. That religious context becomes more evident with the rest of the excerpt I have access to via Circle Magazine where he talks about the four types: spiritual animism, naturalistic animism, gaian spirituality, and gaian naturalism. At some point I'm going to ILL this book, but who knows when as my "read this" list keeps growing faster than I can keep up with material.

The issue I see is the potential for what I also saw with Deep Ecology [note: I stopped reading that literature in the latter 90s, and have no idea what ever happened to that thread of thought]. For the most part (there were some exceptions), the DE writers displayed what appeared to me to be a rather smug air of moral superiority, in regard to their Deep Ecology beliefs, combined with a lack of any practical ideas about how to spread this way of thinking/viewing the world outside the rather narrow community (mostly white/American/Middle Class) that supported the view already, or to come up with implementable solutions to real-world problems. Mainly, how are you going to get people who don't look at the world this way and adopt policies/behaviors that will reflect that point of view?

Yeah, that issue is why I sometimes prefer the angles taken by psychologists and sociologists, because it looks at how patterns of human behavior tend to resist certain types of paradigms or change. Some of the proclamations in those works are rather... well... grim. Generally, to change human behavior you have to change the environment. But changing the environment requires some serious top-down leadership from, say, government agencies that just isn't there. Education is a big one that could do it. I know that a major factor behind my adopting the worldview I have has been because of strong science education and following that into undergrad and then grad school. 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.

 

[George-ananda]

Doesn't Taylor's "deep green religion" idea do precisely this? It relates directly to how we understand the nature of the world around us... and the ethical implications of that understanding. More specifically, Taylor presents an understanding of the universe that emphasizes interconnectivity and interdependence, with the ethical implications (the "how we ought to live" bit) being respectfulness for that interdependent web. Although I didn't present it in this excerpt, one of the forms of "deep green religion" Taylor recognizes does contain "supernatural" elements. I guess I'm just confused because from this understanding, it seems to me that Taylor's map called "deep green religion" would be religion by your standard?

What are these supernatural elements that you didn't present? Do they address question what/if is the meaning/reason for the Universe? If/what meaning there is for us? for nature? what happens when we die? is it all physical or more? It's theological positions? These issues are discussed in anything that is called a 'religion' as opposed to a 'Green Movement'.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is very similar, yes. Deep ecology framed itself as a philosophy, though, rather than in a religious context. That religious context becomes more evident with the rest of the excerpt I have access to via Circle Magazine where he talks about the four types: spiritual animism, naturalistic animism, gaian spirituality, and gaian naturalism. At some point I'm going to ILL this book, but who knows when as my "read this" list keeps growing faster than I can keep up with material.



Yeah, that issue is why I sometimes prefer the angles taken by psychologists and sociologists, because it looks at how patterns of human behavior tend to resist certain types of paradigms or change. Some of the proclamations in those works are rather... well... grim. Generally, to change human behavior you have to change the environment. But changing the environment requires some serious top-down leadership from, say, government agencies that just isn't there. Education is a big one that could do it. I know that a major factor behind my adopting the worldview I have has been because of strong science education and following that into undergrad and then grad school. 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 prefer the bottom-up approach, and work with my students to 1) work on changing their own behaviors, and be change leaders in their social circles, and 2) introduce them to the idea that you don't have to solve all problems all at once: start small and local and personal, and that they can do it working through the existing groups and channels in their own communities...at least in America). After all, it's taken several hundred years to get into the situation we're in today, it will likely take several hundred to get us out; the way in was mostly incremental, and will mostly be incremental to change things for the better on the way out.

The advantage we and the future may have is that we understand better what we did in the past, and how to do things better now, with a broader view to our own enlightened self-interest (that is, is preserving and protecting at least some of the natural systems of the planet), which may help us get out of the mess sooner and in better shape than might happen if we rely on centralized and top-down solutions.

The overwhelming problem is the number of people on the planet: 7.4 billion or so and still increasing--maybe 9 billion in another 35 years, and maybe more after that. Even with a virtually zero-impact lifestyle for every one, the sheer numbers mean that we will continue to disrupt most of the natural systems for some time to come, even if we really start to adopt the values reflected in the quote you provided.

 

[Quintessence]

What are these supernatural elements that you didn't present?

From the excerpt I have access to currently, I mentioned earlier Taylor identifies four types (which although he defines them, he sees them more as an intermixing continuum) which are broken down based on a 2x2 matrix. I'm not sure I particularly agree with how he categorizes things, but one axis in that matrix is supernaturalism vs. naturalism, meaning "deep green religion" may be naturalistic or supernaturalistic in its approach. The expert I have talks a fair bit about animism (the other axis he uses is animism vs. gaian earth religion), and I think I'll put up a bit of that here:

"Put simply, Animism has to do with the perception that spiritual intelligences or lifeforces animate natural objects or living things. With the term spiritual intelligences, I especially seek to capture the beliefs of those for whom there is some immaterial, supernaturalistic dimension to the Animistic perception. This is the form of dark green religion I have labeled Spiritual Animism. With the expression lifeforces, I focus especially on those who are agnostic or skeptical of any immaterial dimension underlying the life-forms or natural forces they wish to understand and with whom they may also seek to communicate. This is the form of dark green religion I have labeled Naturalistic Animism. In both cases, Animism, as I am configuring the term, involves a shared perception that beings or entities in nature have their own integrity, ways of being, personhood, and even intelligence."​

Do they address question what/if is the meaning/reason for the Universe? If/what meaning there is for us? for nature? what happens when we die?

Probably, but all I have is a short excerpt from the book. However, all of those things are awfully belief-focused, and many religions have more to do with story and ritual than beliefs. Mine sure does. I couldn't care less what the "reason" for the universe is or what happens when people die. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if elsewhere in this book he notes that a feature of "dark green religion" is that it is life-affirming and more concerned with the right now than the back then or afterlife. But I don't know. I just have a short excerpt, currently.

is it all physical or more? It's theological positions?

Well, I think the excerpt above presents some of that, as animism is a "theological position" and Taylor addresses the "naturalism vs supernaturalism" spectrum directly in the excerpt I have. Again, remember, when he's referring to "dark green religion" he's not talking about some single religion you can point at, but a characteristic shared by multiple religious groupings. It represents ideas shared across religions, which have heterogeneity within (hence the four types he identifies).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm down with it. I'm already an animist who rescues insects from harm and talks to them, hugs trees and I'm a misanthrope. I think humans are a very arrogant, stupid species.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What value system do you hold if not that all things have intrinsic value? Do you feel things only have value if they are useful to humans, or if you, personally, deem that they have value? Do you feel value is defined solely by money or capital? By utility? What?

I take the position of extrinsic value, which I argue that it adds more values to things when you have to think about why something is valuable rather than something holding value by default. How to define how valuable something is more complicated, but money and capital is one of the least most important things to me. However, the reality that all life is interdependent upon each other, and that we all share the earth as our home, those two reasons rank pretty high.

Is there some other sense of humility in your life, or do you see yourself or humanity as the apex of something?

Not at all. However, I am too realistic about things - such as humans are animals, all life is connected, and there is no such apex - to consider myself humble about them. They just are, they are the facts, and nothing more.

 

[Deidre]

Why do you think that is? Do you associate mostly negative things with the word "religion," and if so, why did that happen?

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.

 

[Politesse]

Sounds like the Deep Ecology crowd redux.