Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:43:29 -0500
From: Mark Stoll <marks@admin.stedwards.edu>
Subject: Religion and nature
I think that to say that religious ideology pales before economic interest is true to a point. There is in virtually any religion a rationale for the use of nature, since it is by the use and manipulation of nature that we humans survive. To have any such activity morally condemned across the board would make a religion impossible to live up to.
On the other hand, I do believe that different religions carry differences in their stances toward moral and ethical activism that make some religious traditions more prone to foster a powerful moral critique of economic activity in nature. The stern moral iron of Calvinism produced both John Brown and John Muir at the same time that sons of the Puritans were dominating the boardrooms of American industry.
On another point, I don't think that John Muir tells us any more about the Churches of Christ than Terry Tempest Williams tells us about Mormonism. Yet I wouldn't hesitate to generalize about the membership of both churches being rather slow (at best) to get on the environmentalist bandwagon.
Mark Stoll
St. Edward's University
Austin, Texas 78704
Please have a look at the other discussion threads:
Christian Attitudes and the Environment
Muscular Christianity and the Outdoors
"Muscular" Mormonism
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:35:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Religion and nature
From: RH4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Mark:
While I agree with most of what you write, I wonder whether the
generalisation
you make with respect to Mormons and Campbellites would not apply to the
American public in general, not just to religious communities.
Again, I think one must be sensitive to contradictions within religious groups and the multiple political, ideological, economic, social, and other cultural discourses that implicate themselves in its members
Ron Helfrich
UAlbany
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:01:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Religion and Nature
From: "A. Johnson" <aj@erica.demon.co.uk>
Sonia Juvik at University of Hawaii has made a detailed and interesting comparison of the environmental attitudes of members of 3 Christian denominations (Christian fellowship church, United church and Seventh-day adventists) in the Solomon Islands. (in Lawrence Hamilton ed., _Ethics, Religion and Biodiversity_). Chris Park reports some work on Mormon versus Amish land-use patterns in his recent book called (I think) _Geography and Religion_.
I'd like to hear some more specific citations on similar topics.
Dr. A. Johnson, White Horse Press. email: aj@erica.demon.co.uk 10 High Street, Knapwell, Cambridge CB3 8NR, UK. tel/fax 01954 267527 1 Strond, Isle of Harris HS5 3UD, UK. tel/fax 01859 520204
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:40:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Religion and Nature
From: RH4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Thanks for the info on Religion and the environment. Of course, (sorry to be so obvious) the question itself raises the thorny issue of the directionality of influence, if one assumes causality as opposed to a more Weberian "elective affinities" model (the one I am more comfortable with).
Is religion a mirror of the economic organisation of society? Does religion itself influence a society's economic presuppositions? Are religion and economics themselves influenced by some other factor? Are all social, cultural, and economic phenomena implicated in the structuration of the society? All of these are questions posed by the religion/environmental issue. And of course there are other questions. Often, as in the case of Nash's Wilderness book, I think the directional model offered is rather naive and simplistic.
Ron Helfrich
History
UAlbany
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:59:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Religion and Nature
From: RznDemo@aol.com
Why rely on elective affinities as opposed to dialectical materialism? Unless, of course, you believe REDUCTIONISTICALLY that this equates with support for the former Soviet Union.
Seriously, there's plenty to criticize in Marxist thought -- not least Marx's facile baby-with-the-bathwater approach to religion -- but the basic philosophical approach is so commonsense it's virtually inescapable. One starts with what is (thesis) which gives rise to questioning, critical thought and action (antithesis), which results in a new state of what is (synthesis).
Marx carried the imprint of the naive positivism of his age, but we need not be so limited. If we combine the obvious commonsense of dialectics with the emerging understanding coming out of the various fields that converge under the banner of cognative science, the time is indeed ripe for studying HOW we think, just as we study all other natural phenomenae.
Consider the following off-the-cuff answers which this perspective would give to the litany of questions asked:
>Is religion a mirror of the economic organisation of society?
No, it's a multi-layered mirror of many different stages of economic organization -- and something more besides.
>Does religion itself influence a society's economic presuppositions?
Absolutely! Which is why, from time to time, one religion is discarded and another taken up. The new, increasingly Protestant elites of Latin America need a different set of economic presuppositions than the old Catholic elites did. It's not just a matter of liberation theology.
>Are religion and economics themselves influenced by some other factor?
Of course! All kinds of other factors! Geography, language, technological development, you name it! But economics is about the fundamental organization of work, resource distribution, and thus much of social struture. It is rooted in the daily actions of every person in the culture. As such, it cannot help but serve as the glasses through which everything else is seen.
>Are all social, cultural, and economic phenomena implicated in >the structuration of the society?
"Structuration"???
And what's the pragmatic meaning of "implicated" for a scientific inquiry, as opposed to a criminal one?
This last question seems to be an example of how confusing language obscure problems -- one of the problems that continually bedevils religion.
This state of confusion is particularly vulnerable to the importation of assumptions from more concrete realms -- of which the economic is the most systemically organized (except for, in a different sense, the biological).
>All of these are questions
>posed by the religion/environmental issue. And of course there
>are other questions. Often, as in the case of Nash's Wilderness
>book, I think the directional model offered is rather naive
>and simplistic.
Sophisticated dialecticians (Adorno in _Negative Dialectis_, for instance) have made this point repeatedly over many decades.
There's no incompatibility between a sophisticated awareness of multiple causality loops and a fundamental grasp of which forces drive -- but DO NOT totally determine -- the rest.
There is no incompatibility between the existence of gravity and the intricacies -- and uniqueness -- of a snowflake. No gravity, no planets, no atmosphere, no snowflake. Many other factors are proximally MORE important
Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
RznDemo@aol.com
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 13:08:40 -0500
From: Mark Stoll <marks@admin.stedwards.edu>
Subject: Re: Religion and Nature
Regarding Paul Rosenberg's points about dialectical materialism: I have to back up Ron Helfrich here. To me, Weber's "elective affinity" describes the effect of religion on action far more effectively than dialectical materialism. For example, religion has the very frequent effect of causing people to act in a way exactly counter to their economic interests. Obvious examples would be St. Francis and Siddhartha. How, for instance, does a materialist explain the ascetic impulse (whether _innerweltlich_ or _ausserweltlich_, to stay with Weber's terminology for a moment)? Religion causes people to go against their natural impulses, which is rather difficult to explain in mere economic terms.
Paul Rosenberg mentions as an example the rise of Protestant economic elites in Latin America. That may be true, but it was news to me. I am only aware of Protestantization at the other end of the economic scale, e.g., Guatemala Indians. In the latter case, there is so much more involved that simply economics that it would be difficult even to isolate economics as a primary motivator. How would the existence of Protestant Indians be reconciled with "Protestant economic elites" anyway?
To use a historical example, sixteenth century Calvinism has often been categorized as a religion of merchants, shopkeepers, lawyers, and the petit bourgeoisie. Yet two bastions of Calvinism came to be rural Scotland and New England, and in eighteenth century New England the farmers were Calvinist while the elites were moving toward Unitarianism. Would economics alone be able to explain that?
And finally, perhaps it's been too long since I read Marx, but Paul Rosenberg's definition of dialectical materialism, to wit:
One
>starts with what is (thesis) which gives rise to questioning, critical
>thought and action (antithesis), which results in a new state of what
is
>(synthesis).
sounds awfully Hegelian to me!
Mark Stoll
St. Edward's University
Austin, Texas 78704
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:41:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Religion and Nature
From: RznDemo@aol.com
This is only a problem for a REDUCTIONIST interpretation of dialectical materialism -- which I explicitly rejected. But I would question the degree to which folks "very frequent[ly]...act exactly counter to their economic interests" in large matters, rather than small.
If one wants to focus on SIGNIFICANT events, contrast this claim with the widespread visceral hatred of FDR by the very capitalistd who were essentially saved by his relatively modest reforms.
>Obvious
>examples would be St. Francis and Siddhartha.
????
Obviously the story of Siddhartha involves a radical shift in his perception of what was IN his self-interest. How this constitutes a refutation of dialectical materialism is a an utter mystery to me!
>How, for instance, does a
>materialist explain the ascetic impulse (whether _innerweltlich_ or
>_ausserweltlich_, to stay with Weber's terminology for a moment)?
Religion
>causes people to go against their natural impulses, which is rather
>difficult to explain in mere economic terms.
This statement depends upon a rather arbitrary, REDUCTIONIST concept of "natural impulses". As one possessed with a mild ascetic streak himself, I must confess I find it entirely natural. In fact, I'd say, to quote _Teh Crying Game_ "It's my nature!"
>Paul Rosenberg mentions as an example the rise of Protestant economic elites >in Latin America. That may be true, but it was news to me. I am only aware >of Protestantization at the other end of the economic scale, e.g., Guatemala >Indians.
Gee! I wasn't aware that there WERE any Guatemalan Indians left after Evangelical minister Rios Montt got through with them! ;}
>In the latter case, there is so much more involved that simply >economics that it would be difficult even to isolate economics as a primary >motivator. How would the existence of Protestant Indians be reconciled with >"Protestant economic elites" anyway?
When a population is subjected to a genocidal war (about 100,000 killed in the early 80s under Rios Montt) the result is frequently the embrace of milleial religions (remember the Ghost Dance?). This has a straightforward materialist excplanation -- in fact, it can even be traced back to Skinner's investigations of reinforcement schedules -- including the emergence of superstitious behavior (not that I buy Skinner's reductionism, there are plenty of invervening factors in human motivation). When people encounter situations where their learned coping mechanisms do not produce expected results, the future becomes unpredictable, uncontrollable, and there is a strong tendency to revert to magical explanation schemas.
>To use a historical example, sixteenth century Calvinism has often been >categorized as a religion of merchants, shopkeepers, lawyers, and the petit >bourgeoisie. Yet two bastions of Calvinism came to be rural Scotland and New >England, and in eighteenth century New England the farmers were Calvinist >while the elites were moving toward Unitarianism. Would economics alone be >able to explain that?
"economics alone" would entail a REDUCTIONIST explanation -- which I have consistently rejected. This is a straw man argument.
And, of course, there were PLENTY of straightforward materialist influences underlying the Calvinist settling of America, plenty of theological rationalization, and still more materialist influences underlying the changes they wernt through when they arrived in America. Mark even makes a materialist statement of a supposed problem when he says:
>and in eighteenth century New England the farmers were Calvinist >while the elites were moving toward Unitarianism.
The challenge would seem to be the other way around. Given a correlation between economics and religious belief, the problem is to explain it on NON-economic grounds!
>And finally, perhaps it's been too long since I read Marx, but Paul
>Rosenberg's definition of dialectical materialism, to wit:
>
>One
>>starts with what is (thesis) which gives rise to questioning,
critical
>>thought and action (antithesis), which results in a new state of
what is
>>(synthesis).
>
>sounds awfully Hegelian to me!
>
Yeah, Hegel's the dialectical part. But Hegel starts with mind as the thesis
Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
RznDemo@aol.com
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
[an error occurred while processing this directive]