• 목록

Interreligious Dialogue
  toward Overcoming
  the Eco-crisis                                - Hyun Min Choi -

Abstract

The problem of eco-crisis is dualistic in nature, in that the
human-centered view considers nature as an instrument for human benefit,
whereas the eco-centered view rejects nature as merely instrumental, according
value to its intrinsic worth apart from its benefit to humanity. According to
eco-centrism, a human being is only an individual entity which constructs
within nature. But this interpretation of a human being raises the problem as
to who is responsible for the preservation of nature? Another limitation of the
eco-centrist view is that it tends towards the metaphysical rather than the
aspect of ethical practice. Thus, we propose that a curative way to overcome
eco-crisis is through a religious perspective which supports a practical
approach.
The Buddhist law of Dependent Origination provides a blueprint for
resolving the tension between dualism and anthropocentrism. Dependent
Origination helps us to recognize that human beings and other beings are
linked as one entity. Dependent Origination is not only a view of wisdom but
also a view of compassion. Buddhist enlightenment is completed through the
practice of ‘One Body of Great Compassion,’ a view that offers a possible
Hyun Min Choi is Visiting Professor in Religious Studies, Sogang Univ.
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture Febraury 2009, vol. 12, pp. 125-155.
ⓒ 2009 International Association for Buddhist Thought and Culture
Hyun Min Choi: Interreligious Dialogue toward Overcoming the Eco-crisis

158
solution to the ecocrisis. However, there are also some limitations in
Buddhism that might be detrimental to environmental ethics such as, the
problem of social practice and amorality; in other words, the moral subject in
respect of responsibility. So how can we approach these issues in a positive
way and overcome the problem of amorality and moral subject?
An answer may be found in the stewardship ethic of Christianity. In this
view, human beings having been entrusted as stewards with a responsibility to
take care of the world as collaborators with God―in nature, with nature and
through nature.
Hans Küng says that our consciousness of global responsibility for the
future of humankind has probably never been as great as it is now, which is
why we acutely need a world ethic to support a resolution to the ecocrisis. In
this regard we have seriously considered the possibilities for developing a
successful world ethic through a complementary relationship between Buddhism
and Christianity; a partnership concerned with a resolution to the ecocrisis by
applying the wisdom of world ethics through interreligious dialogue.
Key words: Human centered view, Eco-centered view,
Law of Dependent Origination,
One Body of Great Compassion,
The problem of moral subject,
Stewardship ethic of Christianity,
World ethics through interreligious dialogue.
I. Introduction
The environmental crisis, with regard to its multiplicity of issues and
concerns, is a burning topic in contemporary society. Interest in environmental
problems has spread rapidly from philosophy to natural science and it is
relevant to most fields of study. But a solution is not so easy to come by for
such a complex problem. Conflict among people with different values is a
major block to reaching amicable solutions. The most obvious dichotomy is
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture

159
between people who seek economic development and those who want to
preserve the environment, as each is motivated by very different values:
human-centered versus eco-centered. Those who cherish economic development
above all believe that environmentalists are impeding economic development,
whereas, environmentalists assert that the value of nature has been degraded
by the utilitarian view that sees it only as a resource for economic
development. They believe that this singular view of the value of economic
development has suppressed other essential values in modern society, upsetting
the balance of the ecosystem and creating many environmental problems.
In the struggle between environmental conservation and economic
development, a new concept of ‘sustainable development’ has emerged. It was
initially introduced at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment
in Stockholm (June 5-16, 1972) which was the first international gathering to
look at the environment as affected by human activity.
In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and
thus to improve the environment, States should adopt an integrated
and coordinated approach to their development planning so as to
ensure that development is compatible with the need to protect and
improve environment for the benefit of their population.1
It is said that sustainable development requires an integration of
environmental conservation and economic development, but as most countries
are now experiencing, even with a desire to build a common future based on
such principles, it is far more difficult to put into practice than it is to
express theoretically. It is a concept that is easy to describe on a global scale
but tricky to implement at a local level so that, if it is to have a reality, it
must seek that elusive ground between output and process, between social and
environmental, and political and principled.
In order to practice sustainable development we need to reflect on the
fundamental dimension. In other words, what is needed is transformation of
perspective or attitude about nature; change in value is impossible without
transformation of perception. Hermann Dembowski (1928-) defines an
1 http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&Article ID=1503.
Hyun Min Choi: Interreligious Dialogue toward Overcoming the Eco-crisis
160
ecological crisis as a crisis of perception about nature (Dembowski 1989,
30-37). And J. Baird Callicott shows that we cannot make sense of, or begin
to resolve, the ecological crisis without transforming our thinking about what
it means to be human (Peterson 2001, 15). In order to resolve problems of
eco-crisis, we need to change our perception about nature and humans and
reflect deeply on our understanding of their fundamental dimension. The
destruction of the environment points to both a distorted perception of nature
and a distorted perception in all our relationships. With regard to the
inter-connectedness of all beings, we have distorted not only the relationship
between humans and nature, but also the relationship between us as human
beings, and between human beings and God. The ecological crisis thus impels
us to reflect on all our relationships. Here, we will analyze the relationship
between humans and nature initially through a consideration of our traditional
view of nature.
II. Understanding nature in terms of anthropocentrism
A. Judeo-Christian tradition as the root cause of ecological crisis
Human beings commonly view nature as object from the perspective of
dualism. This viewpoint connotes the idea that human beings, as subject, can
exploit nature for their own benefit and is based on the belief that nature is
only an object for the purpose of furthering human welfare. In this
human-centered view, nature is an instrument that humans control, and
preservation of nature is only a value if such preservation furthers human
welfare.
Lynn White (1907-1987) in his paper titled “The Historical Roots of our
Ecological Crisis,” asserts that the historical origin of eco-crisis is deeply
related to the natural view that is based on anthropocentrism in the
Judeo-Christian tradition (1973, 18-30). L. White holds that the monotheism of
Judeo-Christian religions desacralized nature. According to him, “by destroying
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture
161
pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of
indifference to the feeling of natural objects....The spirit in natural objects,
which formerly was protected from man, evaporated. Man’s effective monopoly
on spirit in the world was confirmed, and the old inhibitions to the
exploitation of nature crumbled” (White 1973, 25).
Other authors who support L. White’s thesis, especially R. F. Nash,
concur with him in tracing the roots of our environmental crisis from the
dominion passage of Genesis 1: 26-28 (1989, 90). Nash argues that the
Hebrew verbs ‘radah’ and ‘kabash’ connote exerting absolute dominion, and
as such conjure the image of a conqueror subjecting his enemy nature to
enslavement. This understanding of the Hebrew term influenced Christians to
interpret the dominion passage as a command to conquer and exploit nature
because it was given to them solely to serve their needs. In other words, the
Judeo-Christian tradition has emphasized the extreme principle that nature has
no purpose except to benefit humans. People have used the Scripture to justify
the exploitation of nature (White 1967, 1203-7).
According to many historians and biblical scholars, White’s claim that
the exploitative attitude towards nature is rooted in Genesis 1: 26-28 is a
misinterpretation of Genesis (Nash 1991, 102). But J. A. Nash holds that
White has misinterpreted both the image of God and the dominion concepts of
Genesis. Nash interprets the concepts (image and dominion) within the context
of other Hebrew Testament (N. B. Since Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate document
in 1965, the Church prefers the term Hebrew Testament to Old Testament.)
passages and concludes that the interpretation is not despotic (Nash 1991,
104). According to Robert H. Ayers, when Genesis is interpreted within the
context of Genesis 2, the Hebrew Testament renders dominion as a call to
stewardship (Ayers 155). C. J. Glacken’s views are the same. He holds that
human beings are stewards of God’s creation and not its plunderers (Glacken
1967, 168). David A. S. Fergusson interprets dominion in terms of stewardship
as well. He argues that the term ‘dominion’ emphasizes the relational rather
than the substantive sense of the Imago Dei (Fergusson 1998, 15).
This discussion concerning all White’s statements leads us to conclude
Hyun Min Choi: Interreligious Dialogue toward Overcoming the Eco-crisis
162
that his Judeo–Christian position is based on an imbalance of historical data.
John Passmore, who criticized L. White’s assertion, hypothesizes the
Greco-Christian tradition is at the root of the ecological crisis.
B. The Greco-Christian tradition as the root of the ecological crisis
Passmore agrees with White that, in as far as the interpretation of the
Hebrew Testament is concerned, nature is not sacred.2 But he asserts that
Greek philosophy and Christianity are responsible for the environmental crisis.
J. Baird Callicott also says that it is Greek philosophy not Jewish biblical
religion that encouraged despotism.
Newton and other seventeenth century scientists may have been
inspired by belief in a transcendent creative deity and the imago Dei
to try to ‘think God’s thoughts after him,’ but the details of the
creator’s thoughts were inspired by Pythagoras and Democritus, not
Moses and Paul. In my opinion, the culpable conceptual roots of our
ecological crisis are traceable to the intellectual legacy of Greek
Natural Philosophy—which may have insidiously influenced the
environmentally controversial parts of Genesis... (Callicot 1991, 110).
E. C. Hargrove also supports Passmore’s Greco-Christian explanation. He
asserts that Western religion borrowed many ideas from Western philosophy
and was itself victimized by it (Hargrove 1989, 15). The Greek philosophers
(especially Plato, Aristotle and the Neo-Platonist Plotinus) had no interest in
objects of nature. They viewed nature as evil, irrational, impermanent, and
perishable and in a constant state of change. Their interest was in objects of
knowledge or reason, which are held to be permanent, eternal and unchanging.
The only value non-human creation has is its instrumental value. Is it any
wonder then, that Greek philosophy with such a utilitarian perspective towards
nature influenced the Western world to have an exploitative attitude towards
it?
Greek philosophy, with its dichotomy between nature and human beings,
2 “Nature is in no sense sacred; this was a point on which Christian theology and Greek cosmology
agreed” (Passmore 1974).
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture
163
became extreme in the thought of Descartes. Descartes claimed that nature is
purely material without mental traits, in the dichotomy between ‘res cogitu’
and ‘res extensa’ (Collinson 1997, 58). Descartes holds that nature exists as a
resource for humankind and there are no moral obligations restraining
humankind’s manipulation of nature. For Descartes, everything that exists
without consciousness is a mere machine which humans can manipulate
without scruples; for him, nature is like a machine, just doing repeated
movements (Passmore 1974, 21). The philosophical origin of modern science is
based on the understanding of nature in the anthropocentric and mechanical
views. After all, human beings have damaged nature by using it arbitrarily for
their interests, which has resulted in the eco-crisis that threatens the lives of
humans themselves.
Christian religion borrowed many ideas from Greek philosophy to
express its faith but in the process was victimized by It (Hargrove 1987, 15).
Evidence of Greek philosophy’s influence on Christian concepts is seen in the
theology of redemption that encouraged humankind to look at nature as evil,
temporal, and something from which to escape. The Christian duty was to
mind the salvation of one’s soul rather than pay attention to the welfare of
nature. This kind of theology does not encourage protective attitudes towards
nature.
Actually, dualism existed when Gnosticism was flourishing in the
Christian tradition. The Gnostics proposed a dualism between soul and body in
that the soul is good but the flesh is evil. They considered only the soul to
be important, whereas the material was insignificant. But Christianity rejected
Gnosticism as a heresy by emphasizing Jesus’ divinity and humanity. However,
the dualism of this movement reappeared in Christian history (Peterson 1974,
21). The Albigen (Catarian) thought that flourished near the Rhone River in
the southwest of France in the 13th century, for example, was based on
Monism. They asserted that the Creator of the world is not a good god, but
an evil god, because this world and its substances themselves are evil. The
Human person is a dualistic being, having soul and body in an evil world.
Consequently, if humans want to go from this evil world to the good God,
Hyun Min Choi: Interreligious Dialogue toward Overcoming the Eco-crisis
164
they must go through the ascetic way that denies body and purifies soul
(Peterson 2001, 31). Catarians had a strong desire to escape this material
world in order to get to heaven. They looked down on physical life and were
obsessed with the soul. Thus, they revived the Gnostic idea of dualism
between soul and body.
We can also see dualism in the ideas of Augustine. According to him,
soul and body are partners, but not equal: the body is not innately evil, but it
is both secondary and ephemeral compared to the soul (Peterson 2001, 33).
We can see that his idea also included a hint of dualism between soul and
body. In line with this dualistic and human-centered view, Western Christianity
had no interest in other creatures. Even if scientific developments are not a
direct result of Christian thought, Christian ideology certainly didn’t discourage
scientific development from creating the ecological crisis. The attitude of
Christians has at best been passive at best, on the destruction of nature and
the creation of the eco-crisis. In the anthropocentric view, the understanding of
‘human’ and ‘nature’ has resulted in nature being degraded to an instrumental
object.
C. Other factors as causes of the ecological crisis
We have already considered L. White’s Judeo-Christian tradition and
Passmore’s Greco-Christian tradition as the root cause of our ecological crisis.
But there are other views that also posit causes for the crisis. M. Northcott
rejects a single primary root cause. He claims the cause is complex and
composed of multifactorial forces (Northcott 41-85). For him, the root of the
crisis lies in a range of changes which he identifies as agricultural revolution,
market-economy, science and technological progress. And P. R. Ehrlich
proposes over-population as the fundamental cause of the environmental crisis
(Ehrlich 1991; Ehrlich and Holdren 1995, 12-13, 206-7). He argues that the
doubling of the human population in a short time has been one of the major
factors behind the destruction of the environment. The impact of population
growth on the environment is well understood when it is related to human
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture
165
consumption and the use of technology. Denis and Donella Meadows show
that if world population and industrial production, pollution, food production
and resource depletion, continue to grow exponentially, the global limits will
be exceeded within a few decades (Meadows 1972, 187). For J. De Tavernier,
the economic cause is closely linked with technological cause. He sees the
development of technology as the most important factor that empowers
economic growth to exert its destructive impact on the environment (De
Tavernier 1994, 239-40). Population explosion, technological–economic impact,
patriarchal domination and capitalistic egoistic tendencies have contributed to
the ecological crisis. In other words, it is impossible to establish a single
force or root cause of our present ecological crisis. The environmental crisis
has been indirectly linked to multiple causes.
To summarize, the core of the environmental crisis is based on the
anthropocentric idea. That is, the fundamental cause of the ecological crisis is
the subject-object dualism in perceiving humanity and nature. Therefore we
need to change the fundamental view of the relationship between humanity
and nature. The holistic view emerges from this reflection.
III. Understanding nature in terms of eco-centrism
A. The background of the eco-centrist understanding of nature
Eco-centrism3 constitutes a radical challenge to the anthropocentric
attitudes which are deeply rooted in Western culture. In the human-centered
view, nature is considered to be an instrument for human benefit and the only
purpose therefore, behind the preservation of nature is to enhance human
benefit. However, eco-centrists reject this instrumental view of nature and
regard nature itself to have value, apart from its benefit to humanity. Aldo
Leopold is an eco-centrist who recognizes the apparently intrinsic value of
3 The term “Ecocentric” is preferred by some deep ecologists to “Biocentric” because it more closely
reflects the fact that deep ecologists see “life” more broadly than its merely biological definitions:
rivers, mountains, forest or prairie ecosystems, etc., are all “alive” from a Deep Ecology perspective.
Hyun Min Choi: Interreligious Dialogue toward Overcoming the Eco-crisis
166
nature. In his famous book “Land Ethic,” Leopold urges us to transform our
perception of nature using a new paradigm. He asserts: “A thing is right when
it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (Leopold 1968, 224). “The land ethic
simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters,
plants, and animals, or collectively, the land....[A] Land ethic changes the role
of Homo sapiens from conquerors of the land-community to plain members
and citizens. It implies respect for fellow-members, and also respect for the
community as such” (Leopold 1968, 204). His theory of ‘land ethic’ did not
receive social acceptance initially, as it was considered too radical, but the
following generation has claimed him as the founding father of the eco-centric
approach. Aldo Leopold’s earlier statement provides an appropriate basis for an
ethical system based on deep ecological principles. His view is considered to
be consistent with ‘deep ecology’ in that it approaches Arne Naess’
eco-philosophy. Clare Palmer describes Deep Ecology as follows:
Deep ecology was a term first used in print by the Norwegian
philosopher Naess in 1973. Naess argued that the environmental
movement had two key strands, which he called the “shallow” and
the “deep.” The shallow movement, he maintained, was primarily
concerned with human welfare and with issues such as the exhaustion
of natural resources. In contrast, the deep environmental movement
(with which Naess identified himself) was concerned with
fundamental philosophical questions about the ways in which humans
relate to their environment (Palmer 2003, 29-30).
Naess takes a holistic approach to ethical consideration of ecological
wholes rather than individuals. The holistic view considers everything as
interconnected; if something is isolated, it self-destructs. A key idea in the
metaphysical insight of deep ecology is an inherent interconnectedness between
nature and humanity. According to J. Baird Callicott, an individualistic
approach which concerns itself only with the moral significance of
environmental concerns cannot be the basis for a proper Ethic. An
environmental ethic, he maintains, would have to take a more holistic
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture
167
approach (Pojman 2001, 52-63).
In terms of axiological insight, deep ecology’s key idea is that anything
in nature has intrinsic value. This reflects the first of eight principles
formulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions in 1984 (Loy). The principle
states that: The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on
Earth are values in t