Gary Belovsky <> Eugene Cittadino <> Stuart Pimm <> Larry Rasmussen <> Elspeth Whitney

John Haught

Theology and Ecology in an Unfinished Universe
Abstract

     One major assumption of any compelling ecological ethic is that we humans really do belong to the universe and to the Earth. In fact unless we think of our planet and the wider universe as our home, our environmental concern will be weak and ineffective. However, both traditional religions and modern cosmology (since the 17th century) have often given us the impression that we are really strangers here on Earth.
     This lecture argues, however, that contemporary cosmology, unlike earlier modern pictures of the universe, provides the refreshing background for an ecological theology that can reconcile us both with nature and the best in our religious traditions. We must note, however, that a sense of homelessness, detachment or restlessness has been an essential aspect of our religious traditions, and this has often allowed Christians (among others) to interpret their faith as implying that we do not belong here. It often seems, religiously speaking, that a sense of cosmic homelessness is a condition of final personal liberation.
     The theme of homelessness is a precious part of our religious heritage. But somehow religious homelessness was carelessly and needlessly translated into an ecologically questionable cosmic homelessness, or at least into a terrestrial homelessness. In Western religions, for example, the Earth became a place to get away from in order to find salvation. Nature was often understood as a "soul school" or a "vale of soul-making" in which we could prove our moral mettle so as to be worthy of entering heaven, our true home. The cosmos, or the world of nature was interpreted as a launching pad for the spiritual journey, something we could leave behind as we soared forth toward ultimate liberation. Nature in this view became little more than a point of departure for the religious quest. The Earth became a victim of our religious restlessness. It appeared to lack the intrinsic value that would allow us to reverence it for its own sake.Many of Earth's inhabitants, including many Christians, still harbor the deep suspicion that we humans really do not belong here. They fear that it would be a capitulation to naturalism or "neopaganism" if they put their roots down too firmly into the natural world. So in the name of religion they distance themselves from nature.
     However, it is not only religious escapism, but also scientistic and mechanistic assumptions that have alienated us from nature. Scientism has followed the modern inclination toward a mind/matter dualism in which nature is seen as essentially lifeless and purposeless, and the cosmos itself as fundamentally alien to mind.
     Thus, by promoting cosmic homelessness, both religious and scientific thought have at times become ecologically problematic. They have both left us with the question: How can we love and care for a universe to which we do not perceive ourselves as fully belonging? This lecture argues, however, that some recent developments in scientific cosmology are now of great importance to this question-especially from the point of view of ecology and theology. Two features in these new developments stand out: First, the securely established scientific sense that the universe is still in the process of coming into being; and second, the twentieth century scientific developments, especially in physics and astrophysics that once again apparently make mind an intrinsic part of nature. These two prominent aspects of recent science make it possible for us to think of ourselves, both intellectually and spiritually, as once again belonging to the universe. And by rooting our being in a dynamic, evolving and restless universe they allow us to remain faithful to the great religious imperatives to experience our lives as an ongoing journey also. A new understanding of "stewardship" emerges as a consequence.