Conservation Science and Religion- Letter

Spirituality and Sustainability

The December 2002 issue of Conservation Biology contains several articles addressing spirituality and sustainability, calling for, as David Orr (2002) puts it, a “spiritual renewal.”
I commend the efforts of the contributing authors to foster a dialogue between scientific and spiritual viewpoints. While recognizing the difference between spirituality and religion ( McDaniel 2002 ), I would like to offer a few additional insights on the latter.

In “Spirituality and Sustainability,” McDaniel (2002) asks, “Can the world’s religions contribute to this spiritual renewal” as called for by Orr? While McDaniel acknowledges that people of various religious faiths will recognize the elements of spirituality Orr recommends, he nonetheless concludes that religions in their fundamentalist forms cannot help; they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.” Similarly, Orr (2002) states that the solution does not lie in returning to “some simplistic faith of an earlier time.” I suggest, however, that behind the various interpretations and reinterpretations of religion, fundamentalist or otherwise, the ideas at the heart of every major world religion are the very values Orr suggests we adopt: “wisdom, love, compassion, understanding, and empathy.” Furthermore, it is the earliest, purest teachings of each religion that contain these much-needed values. Later interpretations and misapplications of many religions have complicated and skewed the original messages, sometimes beyond recognition, as societies have misused or misconstrued religion to further other cultural or political agendas. For example, religious movements that have acquired a reputation
for violence have broken with their own earliest traditions, which at their inception taught principles of love, peace, and harmony. We do not need a new kind of religion in our pursuit of spiritual renewal; what we need is a renewed, correct understanding and application of the core ideas already found in existing religions.

We must also bear in mind the distinction between the religions themselves and the cultures in which they arise. We should not assume that violent or destructive societies arise out of the teachings of the religions they espouse. For example, we should not equate the teachings of Christ with Western expansionist culture or the teachings of Mohammed with the militancy of the Ottoman Empire, any more than we equate the findings of Darwin with oppression rationalized by Social Darwinism. Religion per se does not cause violence, ethnic rivalry, scarcity, or environmental degradation. People cause those problems, though they often wrongly claim religion as an excuse to do so. Part of the problem is that even practitioners of religions often fail to distinguish between elements of their religion and elements of their culture. Thus, religion becomes either an excuse or a scapegoat for blame for harmful actions arising from cultural or political agendas. If the world’s peoples were truly living according to the core teachings of their respective religions, they would not perpetrate violence toward other humans and they would recognize the innate value of other life forms. Religion is not part of the problem; people are the problem.

As an undergraduate, I attended a class in which we participated in a helpful exercise. The professor drew a line down the center of the chalkboard and asked the students to list on one side the essential, core beliefs of their religion and on the other side the “cultural trappings” often associated with the religion but that were not truly part of its doctrines. It was an eye-opening exercise to realize which elements of my culture had become intertwined with my religious beliefs and which cultural practices I could give up without violating the core teachings of my religion. Perhaps it is overly optimistic to assume that people are more willing to change cultural practices than religious ones, but perhaps getting them to recognize the difference is a first step.

Once we recognize what is religion and what is not, we can return to McDaniel’s question: Can the world’s religions help in our efforts to achieve the spiritual renewal necessary for sustainability? Not only can the world’s religions help, but we cannot expect to make much progress toward spiritual renewal and sustainability without them. It is much more feasible (not to mention efficient and cost-effective) to help religious peoples recognize in their own traditions those values that—if put into practice more fully—would lead to sustainability, rather than trying to convert everyone to something they may perceive as new.

I challenge readers to find any religion that, at its core and from its earliest inception, teaches violence, hatred, or misuse of the Earth’s resources. I further challenge adherents of the various religions to find, in the purest doctrines and theologies of their own traditions, principles and values that would contribute naturally to sustain-ability. If this is done honestly, laying
aside culture or politics, we would be astonished at the positive contributions the world’s religions could make toward a sustainable future.

Alisse Garner

Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844–1136, U.S.A., email garn9434@uidaho.edu

Literature Cited

McDaniel, J. 2002. Spirituality and sustainability. Conservation Biology 16:1461–1464. Orr, D. 2002. Four challenges of sustainability. Conservation Biology 16:1457–1460.

Conservation Biology, Pages 946–947
Volume 17, No. 4, August 2003

Alisse Garner is correct to say that the “traditional values” of many world religions, if practiced more fully, would lead to a more sustainable world. This is not because these values encourage the kind of respect for the earth that is required in our time, but rather because they often promote simple living, thus discouraging the spirit of exploitation, rooted in greed, that permeates consumer culture. Long ago Paul Ehrlich pointed out that contemporary assaults on the environment are the product of population, affluence, and problematic technologies. The world’s religions, at their best, call into question the excesses of affluence. Thus, human societies would indeed become more sustainable if the over-consumers of the world—participants in affluent nations—decided to live more simply.

Even in their core teachings, however, many of the classical religious traditions fail to emphasize a sense of kinship with creation that is also required for sustainable living. Some of these religions—especially those that are text-based rather than nature-based—overemphasize human-divine and human-human relations, at the expense of simultaneously emphasizing human embeddedness in a larger web of life. The good news, however, is that religions, like science, evolve, and their inherited cores are not the final word. Religions can embrace more Earth-sensitive teachings. The insights of conservation biology, combined with a spirit of repentance and adventure, can help facilitate growth toward greater respect for the earth than these religions have embodied in the past. Even the essence of a religion is an essence-in-process, capable of fresh adaptation to new situations.

The requirements of sustainability call for such adaptation in religion
and a host of other human endeavors, including medicine, law, business, and perhaps science as well.

Jay McDaniel

Hendrix College, Conway, AK 72032, U.S.A.,
email mcdaniel@mercury.hendrix.edu

Conservation Biology
Volume 17, No. 4, August 2003