It's not what you quote that counts
It's what you don't quote
This week's example of an ignorant rant comes from Michael S. Coffman's book Saviors of the Earth?: The Politics and Religion of the Environmental Movement (Northfield publishing, 1994). Coffman is a leader in a side-branch of the anti-environmental movement, one that combines far right politics, conspiracy theories and bible quoting christianity (see related links). As the subtitle of the book suggests, a major part of Coffman's work is promoting the idea that the environmental movement is really a religion. This idea is nothing new, of course, but normally it is simply stated as a fact, or implied by the use of language ("fundamentalist greens", "global warming true believers") . Coffman presents a lengthy argument, but one so deeply flawed that it becomes virtually unreadable.
Coffman's opening salvo is a look at one of the classic essays in environmental studies, Lynn White's "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crises". The essay was first published in the journal Science (March 10, 1967) and has been widely reprinted. Coffman's approach is a familiar one; highly selective and misleading quoting followed by massive amounts of spin. First I will post the parts that Coffman quoted in black, with the parts left out in red. Italics, added by Coffman, have been left in (page 80):
[Several pages left out]
These novelties seem to be in harmony with larger intellectual patterns. What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny--that is, by religion. To Western eyes this is very evident in, say, India or Ceylon. It is equally true of ourselves and of our medieval ancestors.
The victory of Christianity over paganism was the greatest psychic revolution in the history of our culture. It has become fashionable today to say that, for better or worse, we live in the "post-Christian age." Certainly the forms of our thinking and language have largely ceased to be Christian, but to my eye the substance often remains amazingly akin to that of the past. Our daily habits of action, for example, are dominated by an implicit faith in perpetual progress which was unknown either to Greco- Roman antiquity or to the Orient. It is rooted in, and is indefensible apart from, Judeo- Christian theology. The fact that Communists share it merely helps to show what can be demonstrated on many other grounds: that Marxism, like Islam, is a Judeo-Christian heresy. We continue today to live, as we have lived for about 1700 years, very largely in a context of Christian axioms.
What did Christianity tell people about their relations with the environment?
While many of the world's mythologies provide stories of creation, Greco-Roman mythology was singularly incoherent in this respect. Like Aristotle, the intellectuals of the ancient West denied that the visible world had a beginning. Indeed, the idea of a beginning was impossible in the framework of their cyclical notion of time. In sharp contrast, Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as nonrepetitive and linear but also a striking story of creation. By gradual stages a loving and all- powerful God had created light and darkness, the heavenly bodies, the earth and all its plants, animals, birds, and fishes. Finally, God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes. And, although man's body is made of clay, he is not simply part of nature: he is made in God's image.
Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric [man centered] religion the world has seen. As early as the 2nd century both Tertullian and Saint Irenaeus of Lyons were insisting that when God shaped Adam he was foreshadowing the image of the incarnate Christ, the Second Adam. Man shares, in great measure, God's transcendence of nature. Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient paganism and Asia's religions (except, perhaps, Zoroastrianism), not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.
At the level of the common people this worked out in an interesting way. In Antiquity every tree, every spring, every stream, every hill had its own genius loci, its guardian spirit. These spirits were accessible to men, but were very unlike men; centaurs, fauns, and mermaids show their ambivalence. Before one cut a tree, mined a mountain, or dammed a brook, it was important to placate the spirit in charge of that particular situation, and to keep it placated. By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.
[Several paragraphs left out]
An Alternative Christian View
We would seem to be headed toward conclusions unpalatable to many Christians. Since both science and technology are blessed words in our contemporary vocabulary, some may be happy at the notions, first, that viewed historically, modern science is an extrapolation of natural theology and, second, that modern technology is at least partly to be explained as an Occidental, voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man's transcendence of, and rightful master over, nature. But, as we now recognize, somewhat over a century ago science and technology--hitherto quite separate activities--joined to give mankind powers which, to judge by many of the ecologic effects, are out of control. If so, Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.
Note that by leaving out the "If so" Coffman turns a conditional statement into a factual statement.
I personally doubt that disastrous ecologic backlash can be avoided simply by applying to our problems more science and more technology. Our science and technology have grown out of Christian attitudes toward man's relation to nature which are almost universally held not only by Christians and neo-Christians but also by those who fondly regard themselves as post-Christians. Despite Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim. The newly elected Governor of California, like myself a churchman but less troubled than I, spoke for the Christian tradition when he said (as is alleged), "when you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all." To a Christian a tree can be no more than a physical fact. The whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and to the ethos of the West. For nearly 2 millennia Christian missionaries have been chopping down sacred groves, which are idolatrous because they assume spirit in nature.
What we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationship. More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.
Leaving out the last part of the sentence allows Coffman to claim that White was proposing a new religion to replace Christianity, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
The beatniks, who are the basic revolutionaries of our time, show a sound instinct in their affinity for Zen Buddhism, which conceives of the man-nature relationship as very nearly the mirror image of the Christian view. Zen, however, is as deeply conditioned by Asian history as Christianity is by the experience of the West, and I am dubious of its viability among us.
Possibly we should ponder the greatest radical in Christian history since Christ: Saint Francis of Assisi. The prime miracle of Saint Francis is the fact that he did not end at the stake, as many of his left-wing followers did. He was so clearly heretical that a General of the Franciscan Order, Saint Bonavlentura, a great and perceptive Christian, tried to suppress the early accounts of Franciscanism. The key to an understanding of Francis is his belief in the virtue of humility--not merely for the individual but for man as a species. Francis tried to depose man from his monarchy over creation and set up a democracy of all God's creatures. With him the ant is no longer simply a homily for the lazy, flames a sign of the thrust of the soul toward union with God; now they are Brother Ant and Sister Fire, praising the Creator in their own ways as Brother Man does in his.
Later commentators have said that Francis preached to the birds as a rebuke to men who would not listen. The records do not read so: he urged the little birds to praise God, and in spiritual ecstasy they flapped their wings and chirped rejoicing. Legends of saints, especially the Irish saints, had long told of their dealings with animals but always, I believe, to show their human dominance over creatures. With Francis it is different. The land around Gubbio in the Apennines was ravaged by a fierce wolf. Saint Francis, says the legend, talked to the wolf and persuaded him of the error of his ways. The wolf repented, died in the odor of sanctity, and was buried in consecrated ground.
What Sir Steven Ruciman calls "the Franciscan doctrine of the animal soul" was quickly stamped out. Quite possibly it was in part inspired, consciously or unconsciously, by the belief in reincarnation held by the Cathar heretics who at that time teemed in Italy and southern France, and who presumably had got it originally from India. It is significant that at just the same moment, about 1200, traces of metempsychosis are found also in western Judaism, in the Provencal Cabbala. But Francis held neither to transmigration of souls nor to pantheism. His view of nature and of man rested on a unique sort of pan-psychism of all things animate and inaminate, designed for the glorification of their transcendent Creator, who, in the ultimate gesture of cosmic humility, assumed flesh, lay helpless in a manger, and hung dying on a scaffold.
I am not suggesting that many contemporary Americans who are concerned about our ecologic crisis will be either able or willing to counsel with wolves or exhort birds. However, the present increasing disruption of the global environment is the product of a dynamic technology and science which were originating in the Western medieval world against which Saint Francis was rebelling in so original a way. Their growth cannot be understood historically apart from distinctive attitudes toward nature which are deeply grounded in Christian dogma. The fact that most people do not think of these attitudes as Christian is irrelevant. No new set of basic values has been accepted in our society to displace those of Christianity. Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.
The greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history, Saint Francis, proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of nature and man's relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man's limitless rule of creation. He failed. Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny. The profoundly religious, but heretical, sense of the primitive Franciscans for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature may point a direction. I propose Francis as a patron saint for ecologists.
After the quoting comes the spinning. Coffman writes (page 80) "White's paper electrified environmental leadership. Published in Science the following March, it issued the battle cry against Christianity and all of modern society." White's paper certainly set off a great deal of discussion. Many interpreted the paper as blaming Christianity for our ecological problems while others disagreed with this assessment (see "Eco-Myths: Don't believe everything you hear about the church and the environmental crisis"). In any case, it certainly was not a "battle cry against Christianity and all of modern society." As David N. Livingstone, Calvin B. DeWitt, and Loren Wilkinson point out in Eco-Myths White was a "lifelong Presbyterian and a frequent contributor to church publications." Coffman continues (page 60-61) :
White had given environmental leadership something to blame and the vehicle by which to do it: "The environmental movement now had an epistle for spiritual reform" [Site Alston Chase's Playing God in Yellowstone] After their true religious beliefs had been repressed for decades, White's paper gave credibility to what conservationists/environmentalists believed and is undoubtedly the most oft-quoted article in environmental literature. Moreover, this paper is still compulsory reading for anyone interested in eco-philosophy or the development of science and technology in America's colleges and universities.
The "true religious beliefs" of the environmentalists include all of the major and minor religions, as well as non-belief. Coffman, in an increasingly incoherent series of quotes and claims, eventually concludes that environmentalists practice the religion of Theosophy. Also note that Coffman tries to inflate the importance of White's essay (an appeal to popularity). It "is undoubtedly the most oft-quoted article in environmental literature." Will, I am a skeptic and I have lots of doubt. A quick unscientific survey (some Google searches) found that while White's essay got 2620 hits, Garret Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" got 5310 and Thomas Malthus' "An Essay on the Principle of Population" got 7010. His claims about it being required reading are equally questionable.
Coffman next has a paragraph on Christian stewardship of the environment. While it is true that many have used the Bible to support protecting the environment, others, including Coffman himself, have argued against environmental protections.
Continuing on page 81: White and other environmentalists also missed Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, and the Greek and Roman mythic god beliefs, which were even more man-centered than Christianity." But White did mention Zoroastrianism, Coffman simply cut that reference out. Not being a scholar of comparative religions, I have no idea as to how man-centered they are. Coffman then gives several examples of environmental destruction in countries with Eastern Religions. He concludes the paragraph: "If so, rather than being the answer to saving the earth, these Eastern religions glorified by White and many environmental leaders merely provide another path to its destruction." White did not glorify these other religions, nor claim that they were "the answer to saving the earth."
Coffman continues:
Though wrong in his analysis, White was perfect in his timing. Environmentalists with a nature/god belief were ready to believe him with an enthusiasm that revealed their "deep-seated antipathy to Judeo-Christianity. . . . White had proved that the movement rested on radical religiosity." [another reference to Chase's Playing God in Yellowstone} Alston Chase, himself once active in the environmental movement, summarizes White's effect on the environmental movement:
White had set environmentalists a three-fold challenge: to find a religion replacing Judeo-Christianity which would resolve the question of our place in nature; to find a science, replacing the one that had produced our destructive technology, which would show us how nature could be known; and to construct a social agenda replacing the one based on unlimited growth, which would change our culture before it had destroyed the earth
The quote from Chase is nothing more than an appeal to authority. It is a complete distortion of what White really called for, a return to the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi.
Coffman ends the section thusly (page 82): "Fully energized, having clear goals, and having an enemy in sight, environmental leaders declared war on American culture. The first goal would be to implant their religious beliefs." From here the book simply goes downhill. Later on page 82 the author claims that "They [New Age environmentalists] can't accept a personal, interacting Judeo-Christian God, because they believe they are god themselves-along with all of nature."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Birch Society Cashes in on Wise Use
None Dare Call It Reason: Anti-enviros explore the political uses of paranoia. by Paul Rauber
Wise-users try to whip up a recipe for their own salvation by Heather Abel
Diplomatic Immunity for the Sierra Club?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Written by Jim Norton
Visit my anti-environmental myths home page.
Visit my practical skepticism page
The text on these pages may be freely copied, distributed and posted as long as my name, this statement and the URL are included.