Nature as Sacred

[Milton Platt]

With the present events in our world progressing with the rapid destruction the non-human part of our world and accelerating climate change, would humans be better off to treat nature as sacred?

We share a world with other life which we are intimately connected with and dependent on. Something so essential for our existence should be entitled to reverence and respect. If sacred we should give our non-human aspect of the world the respect it deserves we should then treat it with such respect. This might change our behavior towards our world and make the sacrifices needed to prevent its destruction.

Can nature as sacred be practiced in harmony with most religions?

Not a fan of the word "sacred" as it carries a lot of baggage, but I get what you are saying, and, yes, I believe we should be better caretakers of the environment.

 

[Bear Wild]

Not a fan of the word "sacred" as it carries a lot of baggage, but I get what you are saying, and, yes, I believe we should be better caretakers of the environment.

The word sacred is just to endow our non-human world with the respect it deserves. What is important is a change in the way we see our world and how we treat it. Never in the time of human existence has it been so important than now that we are on the brink of an environmental catastrophe which could make our planet uninhabitable for us. The word sacred came from some of the writing of religious naturalists who discuss religion and nature to indicate the importance of our relationship to the rest of our world.

 

[Bear Wild]

Where things go from there is complicated. In animistic cultures - ones that do recognize "person" means more than just "human" - seeing something as a person doesn't mean you don't kill it, destroy it, or harm it. These cultures tend to recognize the inevitability of what we might now call ecological cycles and trophic webs; matter/energy aren't created or destroyed, they flow and cycle through various systems. Destruction is a necessity, and without it, there is no creation. Animism does provoke a mindset shift, though. When non-humans are subjects for ethical consideration, you consider reciprocity. You think about things like "okay, if I destroy these trees to build this building, how am I giving back? Is this act of destruction really needed?"

It suffices to say that recognizing non-humans as persons remains a distinct countercultural minority in Western cultures as a whole. It's a mainstay of my own religious demographic - contemporary Paganism and especially Druidry - but on the whole isn't very prevalent.

It may be not prevalent but its time is overdue. I became involved in Celtic pagan religion 20 years ago because of the connection with the non-human world. I also learned from native American philosophy and found a resonance with the way they see the non-humans as relations -non-human persons. What fascinated me was how this view changes the way you see the non-human world creating a harmony with the world that provides us with what we need to live. Once you see how interconnected we all are then how you treat the non-human part of our world changes. We will not exist in the future unless we begin to treat the rest of the world with more respect. It is just right to treat both the living and the non-living aspect of our world with such respect.

 

[Quintessence]

Because the science of ecology is poorly covered in public education, most folks are not aware of the relationships between various parts of the biosphere. Anthropocentrism is basically the norm, and suggesting non-human persons be given equal consideration as human persons tends to elicit reactions of "that's crazy" or "that's wrong." I'm not really interested in moralizing any of this, but if I had to describe how most humans who moralize view things, I don't think they'd say it is "right" to put anything other than human interests first when it comes right down to it. If, for example one suggested sentencing someone for the equivalent of manslaughter when they don't bother to try avoiding a squirrel crossing the road, and they'll call it absurd.