As the 20th century draws to a close there is a widespread public concern about the state of the environment. If the worst predictions are to be believed then the early years of the next millennium will see the oceans steadily rising as global warming, induced by carbon dioxide and methane pollution, causes the Earth's climate to warm up. Ocean currents could be diverted altering the climates of whole continents. Similarly chlorofluorocarbons are believed to have caused holes in the atmosphere's ozone layer allowing dangerous radiation to penetrate to the Earth's surface. These dangers have led to a growing belief that the Earth is in the grip of an environmental crisis requiring immediate government and international action.

Although there is a widespread belief in the existence of a crisis, there is considerably less agreement on who is to blame for the crisis. Some blame technology, others the free market and others the Enlightenment. One of the most popular culprits is however Christianity in general and the teachings of the book of Genesis in particular.

This essay seeks to examine the thesis that our environmental problems are a result of Judaeo-Christian teaching. In attempting this task I propose firstly to state and analyse the thesis then to consider some critiques of the thesis before drawing some conclusions of my own.

Probably the most influential statement of the thesis that Judaeo-Christian teaching is responsible for environmental degeneration is Lynn White Junior's essay The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis¹. White was a mediaeval historian; his historical method, however, was somewhat different from that of many other historians in the 1960s. At that time the historiographic fashion was for a materialist analysis which regarded all historical events as part of a struggle for economic resources. White, however, considered that the intellectual presuppositions of societies and groups were the principal determinant of their actions, not their material circumstances.

In his essay White contends that the technological superiority of Western Europe had existed from about the 13th century. The historical basis for this superiority, he contends, is the peculiar technological impulse of the West. This, he claims, derives from a change in worldview which occurred in the early mediaeval period. At this time, he contends, men began to look at themselves not as part of nature, but as lord over of nature. He regards the more efficient plough as a symbol of man's new found dominance and exploitation.

What caused this change? According to White it was the victory of Christianity over paganism in the West. The pagan, he contends, regards himself as part of nature. The Christian however regards himself as an exploiter of nature. "Man and nature are two things and man is the master". God created man in his image, but He also created nature to serve man's purpose. The dualism between man and nature allowed man to exploit nature.

This was contrary to the earlier pagan vision. Here nature was imbued with spiritual significance. Each stream or tree had a spirit which had to be placated. Animism mystified nature, Christianity demystified it, permitting the exploitation of nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.

White proceeds to expand on his views however by distinguishing between Eastern and Western Christianity. The technological impulse has arisen solely in the Western branch of the religion because of a differing outlook on sin. The East, he contends, regarded sin as an intellectual blindness to be remedied by illumination. The West however regarded it as a moral evil to be remedied by right conduct. The emphasis on faith in action in the West led to the development of technology as science in action. Eastern Christianity's more mystical view made science a speculative rather than practical exercise.

Having concluded that our ecological problems are a result of our religious attitudes, White then proceeds to consider whether any alternative belief systems would foster a more respectful view towards nature. He mentions, in passing, Zen Buddhism and the affection shown for this doctrine by the beatniks whom he describes as the "basic revolutionaries of our time". Despite this however he rejects Zen as a viable alternative to Western Christianity. He also rejects further developments in science and technology as a remedy to environmental catastrophe, as he believes these are the cause of the collapse.

White's alternative is the Christianity of St Francis of Assisi who preached to birds and converted wolves. White regards Francis as having believed in the "spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature".

White's essay expressed a view that was widely held in the then emerging ecology movement in the 1960s. His theory was developed by others in a direction which took the prescriptions outside the bounds even of Franciscan nature-loving Christianity.

Arnold Toynbee, for example, in a 1972 essay² decried monotheism as having removed the age old restraint that was once placed on man's greed by his awe. Citing Genesis i,28³ as the villain of the piece, he advocates a complete rejection of monotheism and the adoption of a pantheistic religion along Eastern lines. "Confucianism and Shinto stand for an harmonious co-operation between man and nature. Taoism stands for letting nature take her course undisturbed by impertinent and clumsy human interference". These "less aggressive religious and philosophical traditions" offer "the most promising hope of salvaging mankind". This type of viewpoint has been adopted by the most radical fringe of the ecological movement, called Deep Ecology, which entirely rejects monotheism and seeks a pantheistic vision of ecological wholeness.

Not unsurprisingly Christian writers have not let White's thesis and its intellectual offspring, go unchallenged. Attfield⁴, for example, analyses the text of the Bible and suggests that by citing the single passage of Genesis commanding man to subdue the Earth out of context critics have gravely misrepresented the Christian viewpoint. There are ample Old Testament texts to suggest a different Christian view. God gives springs to allow wild beasts to drink⁵, He sends rain to the wilderness to make plants grow⁶ and initially only permits man to have a purely vegetarian diet⁷.

In addition there are passages stating that it is man's duty to care for the world. In Genesis ii, 15, for example, man is said to be put into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it. There are also several passages giving environmental regulations. Land is to be left fallow every seven years⁸, there were considerable food restrictions⁹ and restrictions on the felling of trees during sieges¹⁰ and of taking birds and their young at once¹¹. The Bible also states that the righteous man cares for his animals¹².

Taken together, Attfield contends, these statements show that the Old Testament does not authorise man to adopt a purely instrumental approach to nature as White and Toynbee have suggested. Attfield contends that the Bible itself portrays mankind as stewards of God's creation, not as its rulers.

Although a textual analysis of the Bible may go some way towards responding to White's critique, it would be possible to argue in support of White that his critique was of Christian attitudes in the real world not of abstract Christian doctrine. To meet this thesis Attfield outlines the history of Christian thought and attempts to show that Christian thinkers through the years have not as a rule held to an instrumental view of nature.

St. Augustine, for example, is quoted as saying that "it is not with respect to our own convenience and comfort, but with respect to their own nature, that the creatures are glorifying to their Artificer"¹³. Early Christians, such as Augustine, seem to regard man's role as being a perfecter of nature not an exploiter.

It is only in the mediaeval era that an instrumental view of nature appears to arise. Peter Lombard, for example, is regarded as a representative of this view, as is John Calvin though the latter appears to have developed his view within the framework of a strong theory of human stewardship and accountability. Attfield contends that during this period there was a diversity of views on the subject, with no single dominant view. John the Scot, for example, stated that nature was a movement powered by the love of God while Sir Matthew Hale regarded all creatures as being adapted to one another's needs not just those of mankind.

Attfield concedes that from the 16th century onwards the instrumental view becomes increasingly common. Bacon, for example, spoke of "enlarging the boundary of the human empire, to the effecting of all things possible". He was in favour of vivisection for medical research as was Descartes who said that we should "render ourselves the masters and possessors of nature".

Although the attitude of exploitation was present in more recent years, Attfield argues that on the whole historical evidence for White's thesis is inconclusive on consideration of Christian writing over this period.

Both White and Toynbee have written relatively brief polemics and have not attempted to marshal a significant body of historical evidence to support their conclusions. Much subsequent writing, such as that of the Deep Ecology movement, seems to assume that the guilt of Christianity (or science, or the Enlightenment) is so obvious that it need not be proved. Arguments advanced in favour of the White thesis tend to be theoretical rather than historical.

If White's thesis is true it would seem to predict that societies and cultures which believe that man is part of nature will have a different view of the environment from those based on Judaeo-Christian principles. An attempt to investigate this subject was made by Yi-Fu Tuan, a Canadian geographer, in an essay in which he attempts to compare the geographical significance of mans' impact on the environment in China and in Europe¹⁴.

Tuan's study significantly challenges White's thesis on two points: the contention that Christianity is the source of the idea of man's dominance over nature and the belief that Eastern religions lead to a greater care and respect towards the environment.

On the first point Tuan shows that enthusiasm for human control over nature is not an exclusively Judaeo-Christian pursuit. The Roman Empire, for example, was a keen participant in the subjection of nature with its impressive road systems, aqueducts and its grid method for dividing up land. The ancient Greeks similarly had created environmental problems in their time as illustrated by Plato's complaints in Critias about the erosion of the soil as a result of human activities. Tuan contends that the early mediaeval era was, in fact, less exploitative than the pagan Roman age had been.

Turning to the Eastern experience Tuan notes an official attitude which is environment friendly. The Tao Te Ching, for example, states "When there is abstention from action, good order is universal". Feng Shui is also mentioned. Apparently China's first railway, built in 1876 at Shanghai, was closed in 1877 after a fatal accident. Local people had demanded its closure for its failure to follow feng shui principles.

Ancient Chinese concerns for the environment led to the appointment of forest and mountain inspectors in the 3rd century BC to enforce conservation practices. Despite this and the warnings of scholars and bureaucrats large areas of China were deforested and turned into agricultural land on no smaller a scale than in Mediterranean Europe.

Some Chinese traditions seem to have been considerably less environmentally friendly than those of the West. Mencius, for example, notes the practice of burning forests to drive away wild animals. Modern travellers also noted a practice of farmers burning forests to encourage the growth of smaller trees to save labour in cutting wood. In the ancient Chinese city wood was the main building material and charcoal the main fuel both for industrial and domestic purposes, thereby leading to deforestation of considerable regions of the country.

Perhaps the most unusual irony noted by Tuan is that the introduction of Buddhism contributed significantly to environmental degradation in Ancient China. This was because Buddhism brought with it the idea of cremation of the dead. The pressure on forests from cremations was to lead to timber shortages in south-eastern China.

Tuan suggests that whatever the philosophical differences may be the practical outcome of Chinese philosophy is little different from the Judaeo-Christian West. In China too there was a tradition of dominance over nature and of accommodation to nature existing side by side.

Although often stated and widely believed there appears to have been little effort by historians or geographers to provide evidence to support the historical claims in Lynn White's thesis. The historical work of theologians such as Attfield and geographers such as Tuan suggest that at best it remains unproved and at worst it is highly suspect.

Despite the lack of historical support the thesis appears to have achieved a degree of resonance with some in the environmental movement, and has been in part the cause of the Deep Ecology movement. For this reason I propose to briefly evaluate the cogency of the thesis as a philosophical as opposed to a historical proposition. As I see it there appear to be three flaws in White's theory:

The first flaw is that White does not seem to have considered that the attitude of human dominance is just as likely to lead to responsibility and conservation as it is to lead to plunder and degradation. An analogy could be made with the ownership of property. An irresponsible owner will plunder his property for short term gain, but a wise owner is likely to want to conserve the value of his goods and to ensure that his property is well managed to provide not only for his own needs but for those of his offspring. It is not a necessary or even likely result of dominion over property that an owner will plunder it. Neither can it be said that dominion over nature will necessitate or make more likely exploitation or plunder.

The second flaw in the thesis is that White does not seem to have considered all of the logical implications of man being part of nature. If man is part of nature it would seem to follow that man's works, such as pollution, are also part of nature. If this is so, it would surely also follow that it is up to nature to stop the damaging parts of man's works. Why should man make any conscious effort to stop environmental degradation. Surely man is free to exploit natural resources until they are exhausted, after all this is the attitude which most of the rest of nature adopts. If foxes hunt all the mice the foxes will then starve themselves. Far from discouraging plunder of the environment this attitude would seem to suggest that the only restriction on plunder is that placed by the complete exhaustion of the plundered resource.

The third flaw in White's thesis is its romantic invocation of animism. White and those who have followed him are enamoured with the idea that animistic religions with their sacred groves somehow promote a more environmentally friendly culture and these taboos could be successfully resurrected to guide us in future. The burning of forests to give firewood for Buddhist cremations shows that this is a highly selective reading of animistic cultures. Some taboos help the environment others plainly do not. Any other interpretation of animistic societies is wishful thinking. It is also clear that animism relies on genuine beliefs in the existence of a multiplicity of nature spirits. Modern environmentalism in some of its more extreme forms also speaks of nature spirits, but here they appear to be used as a metaphor. A genuine belief is strong enough to create a sense of mystery around nature but I would doubt that a metaphor artificially devised to promote a particular environmental behaviour would invoke any sense of mystery or awe.

It would appear that the guilt of Judaeo-Christian tradition for ecological problems is considerably exaggerated if it exists at all. Writers such as White who have sought to advocate such a guilt appear either to support the argument with historical generalisations which are so vague as to be meaningless or merely to assume its truthfulness without the need for any proof.

Comparisons between China and Europe do not reveal vastly different environmental practices despite the differences in theory. Both Eastern and Western beliefs can be interpreted as environmentally friendly or a licence to plunder.

The greatest flaw in the White thesis is its overemphasis on philosophical belief as a basis for behaviour. A consequence of this is the apparent presupposition that with a change in belief a total alteration in behaviour can be engineered. This seems to suggest a that a paradigm shift could almost entirely eradicate the environmental crisis. Modern science since Kuhn has been overly preoccupied with speculative theoretical concerns and has drifted away somewhat from the practical "technology" that philosophers such as White deplore. A desire for a radical shift in consciousness to transform the environment has the potential to prevent the development of the myriad of small scale practical solutions or partial solutions to environmental problems that technology could offer. The abandonment of Christianity is not going to dispose of a microgramme of nuclear waste.

Footnotes:

1. Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, Science, (1967), 1203.

2. The Religious Background of the Present Environmental Crisis: A Viewpoint, Arnold Toynbee, Intern. J. Environmental Studies, 1972, Vol. 3, pp. 141-146.

3. "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it"

4. Robin Attfield, Christian Attitudes to Nature, Journal of the History of Ideas (1983), 369.

5. Psalm 104, verse 11.

6. Job 38, verses 26 and 27.

7. Genesis 1, verse 29.

8. Deuteronomy 19, verse 23.

9. Deuteronomy 14.

10. Deuteronomy 20, verse 19.

11. Deuteronomy 22, verse 6.

12. Proverbs 12, verse 10.

13. St. Augustine, City of God, XII.4.

14. Yi-Fu Tuan, Discrepancies between environmental attitude and behaviour: Examples from Europe and China, Canadian Geographer, XII, 3, 1968.

Return to index