It's been a while since we all confessed our eco-sins. Inspired by these San Franciscans, I think it's high time we all opened up to each other again. And go! (As long as you abide by the strict confessions-only rule -- no chiding allowed.)
Me? I love to drive and hate to bike (although I own neither car nor bicycle). Sometimes I toss things in the trash because I'm too lazy to dispose of them the greener way. I have bought exactly one compact fluorescent light bulb in my life. And I fly. Among other things.
Et tu?
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Threaded
plum Posted 2:53 pm
17 Apr 2007
I sleep with the light on (and it's not a fluorescent).
I don't own a car or bike, but I'll bus to a supermarket that's way out of my way (because they have the crunchy peas I like).
I print out pdf files, even though by rights I should read them on the screen.
I leave the computer on all night. If I turn it off, I'll only turn off the monitor half the time (Aaarrgh!)
I buy bottled water.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:07 pm
17 Apr 2007
Rather than complaining about the little people, perhaps it'd be better to focus on the 800 pound gorillas.
_
If you're being green for your own personal enjoyment, or health, or budget, by all means.
But if you want to get anything done, it isn't going to happen by alienating others with a holier than thou attitude.
Thats why the best solutions are one's that don't rely on people's guilt.
Or even involvement, or attention.
The best solutions are ones which rely on changing people. Since if it does, you're setting yourself up for failure.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:10 pm
17 Apr 2007
The best solutions are ones which don't rely on changing people. Since if it does, you're setting yourself up for failure.
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 9:40 pm
17 Apr 2007
If I read your comment right you're saying this confessional of eco-sins is reflective of enviros holier than thou approach, which is in turn reflective of the mistaken assumption that we have to change behavior. If that's a good read of your comment, which I agree with, than there's also another read of Sarah's post -
It's a chance for enviros to realize how hard behavior change is and reflect on the challenge of reconciling the individual behaviors we can change (our own), the parralel ones we'd like to, but can't (others) and the larger system which has set us up for this.
So, instead of being an online self-flaggelation over our faults, this post can be seen as a collective reality check about how hard it is to change, even when you want to. Such a reflection can actually reinforce our committment to systemic change.
For my part I waste water. I wash dishes with the water running and take longer showers than I need to. I've got plenty of other sins, but that's the one that bothers me the most.
Permalink
SarahH Posted 9:56 pm
17 Apr 2007
I take longer showers than I should.
I buy too much far-away and packaged food.
Those are really the big three for me at the moment. I was looking forward to spring to give me the push to take shorter showers in warmer weather, but no. And there's this part of my brain that refuses to believe I need to save water when it's pouring down seemingly-endless ice-cold rain.
Permalink
MJohnson Posted 12:31 am
18 Apr 2007
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:28 am
18 Apr 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:46 am
18 Apr 2007
Pretty much.
Changing yourself, if you get some personal gratification out of it. Fine.
However the train of thought is generally "Lets change other people's behavior"
And frankly, asside from making things dead simple, for instance: the Prius has a MPG meter on the dashboard.
Changing people's behavior in a "high maintenence" way is usually just frustration.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:27 am
18 Apr 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:35 am
18 Apr 2007
Very easy to switch from personal gratification of feel good environmentalism,
towards demonization of those who aren't following the eco-rightous path.
Which is silly, because feel-good-environmentalism has very little effect in the big picture.
_
Or to grab a phrase from the other thread, it's an easy path towards genuine "Liberal snobbery".
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:42 am
18 Apr 2007
Now I am being asked to be less green and do more green. So what should I do? It is planting season. Should I just buy vegetables and spend my time doing something more effective than enjoying vegetable gardening? Time is precious when so much is not being done. Doing nothing external is so easy.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:44 am
18 Apr 2007
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:00 am
18 Apr 2007
So, while we should try to understand the relative value of the various ways we can make our impact less negative or more positive, we should not discourage anyone from doing any helpful thing.
Also, changing other people's behavior is important because it multiplies the effect that one person can have. It's done by helping people to change their values by sharing information, philosophy, etc. Good interpersonal relationships seem to help a lot.
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 4:06 am
18 Apr 2007
I wouldn't ask that you take on my beliefs, but why do you feel the need to call my world view infantile?
I'm really regretting that I skipped the interfaith panel at Agnes Scott last night on 'Is the Land Ours: biblical perspectives on man's relationship to the environment.' I'm sure I would have been able to write a better post on why I feel this approach is neither short-term, nor infantile.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:10 am
18 Apr 2007
Threads like these help us to get to know each other better as individual human beings. There's nothing wrong with that. Indeed we can even make friends this way, which can be very beneficial for communicating and working together on problems.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:14 am
18 Apr 2007
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:14 am
18 Apr 2007
Shaming and sin as frames will always produce a backlash and muddy the issues. Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that moral principles should guide us but I don't think anyone is "bad" who drives a car a lot or turns on the air-conditioning. I reject this thinking entirely.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:23 am
18 Apr 2007
Do you mean that unnecessarily polluting the environment doesn't violate any moral principle, or that your morality doesn't have any place for judgment or shame?
I'm genuinely curious. I love discussions like this, and I agree with Pandu that it's important to surface all our various assumptions in this area.
www.grist.org
Permalink
tico89 Posted 4:35 am
18 Apr 2007
Me? I enjoy visiting foreign countries and appreciating other cultures; I also enjoy visiting family. For all of this, I use planes a lot of the time. I also buy imported food (stuff you can't get in this country), most of which has enormous amounts of packaging (but then there's not a lot I can do about that). In addition, I gave up on a recycling programme I helped organise in my community, because absolutely no one would help. Then there's using incandescent lights, because there aren't available disposal methods for fluorescents. I suppose most of my 'sins' are those inherent in living in a developing country. Oh, and I eat meat.
Btw, if it's a 'holier than thou' approach you want, you need to run a thread on 'what I have done to help the environment'. That would get every self-righteous person in the neighbourhood licking their lips.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.
Permalink
reneerose Posted 5:04 am
18 Apr 2007
So, that said: Yes, I LOVE long, hot showers! And I own a car even though I drive it maybe once a week to get out of the city. I also end up throwing lots of packaging away, in part due to the choices available where I live and the local market's reliance on plastics.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:17 am
18 Apr 2007
I also don't believe in a Supreme Being who is concerned with sin and judges people. However, I do believe in God, Krishna,(a person, not an abstract being), sin, and judgement (though not final, except when we achieve perfection). It's simply that God is not at all concerned with material nature:
"...even if all the universes and the material energy [māyā] are destroyed, Kṛṣṇa does not even consider the loss." http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/178/en
His devotees, however, take care of the material energy because it is His property:
"Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong."
http://isopanisad.com/1/en
I find it interesting that you don't think a spiritual philosophy such as this would useful with regard to environmentalism. Before I knew about Krishna, my environmental ethic was ultimately based on my own sense gratification, the feeling one gets from seemingly altruistic work. I no longer believe in non-spiritual altruism, and I am somewhat skeptical about the environmental ethic of those who do not have a spiritual worldview.
If everything is temporary and nothing survives the death of the material body, I do not see how all of existence could ultimately amount to anything at all.
Please don't get me wrong here. I'm open to an alternative view; I just don't know what it would be. That would be good food for thought.
Permalink
adventuresinspace Posted 5:25 am
18 Apr 2007
i rarely buy local, but think about doing it a lot
i used to drive 4 hours to my cottage just for the weekend
yesterday i threw out old food in plastic containers because i couldn't be bothered to empty and wash them
i only re-use my plastic bags once
i can't get my mom off bottled water
i don't compost at home
not all of my detergents and cleaners are environmentally friendly
i'd like to say that felt better, but i'm not sure. thanks for trying anyways.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:25 am
18 Apr 2007
Funny, the idea of this thread digging up counter-religious feelings related to sin and forgiveness had not even crossed my mind.
I have no plans stop speeding soon, unless I get another ticket!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:36 am
18 Apr 2007
It was inconvenient. It would have disturbed the people around me. I was attracted to other things. It just didn't occur to me. Lot of reasons.
But I could have gotten more involved, and I would have been a better person if I had. I wouldn't have wasted so many years doing at stupid jobs with co-workers with whom I had little in common.
I use the word "sin" on purpose, since that dramatically captures the sense of being untrue to one's values and beliefs. Jason doesn't like the religious overtones, but there are humanistic analogues to the idea of sin, for example in Stoicism and existentialism. "To thine own self be true."
GreyFlcn doesn't believe in the efficacy of moral injunctions. I would respond: beware of generalizations based only on American popular culture. Might be a good idea to read in history and humanities.
Religion and morality have always been powerful influences on behavior. In fact, we have absorbed the influences so completely that we are unaware of them. For example, we do not speak in value-neutral terms of murder, spouse-beating, lying, theft, racial abuse. Even in trivial behaviors, we react in a moral fashion. Who defends cutting in line or picking one's nose in public?
What's happening with environmentalist ideas is that gradually we are coming to realize that they too should be part of our conception of morality.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:47 am
18 Apr 2007
http://www.voicesofreason.info/permalink/2007_04_01_in_de ...
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:48 am
18 Apr 2007
Sin and punishment for those sins is essentially bad behavior and natural negative feedback for that bad behavior. That is all. Eating pork might have been a sin when the price you paid was severe illness. Coveting your neighbor's property is a sin in that it distracts one from leading a fulfilling life and could tempt one into greater sin.
I would encourage Pandu to stop speeding, as punishment might include loss of your life or living with the knowledge that your actions deprived someone else of life. If you are lucky, you will receive only a fine, but consider what other good things you could accompish with that money.
Forward!
Permalink
mihan Posted 5:51 am
18 Apr 2007
I drove about 3,000 miles last year (rental cars), more than I've ever driven in my previous 3.5 decades of life put together.
Yucker.
On the other hand, I didn't fly anywhere.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:04 am
18 Apr 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 6:19 am
18 Apr 2007
I think your definition of sin is a straw man. Most adults I know would have nothing to do with the idea of sin if it referred to fear of being punished.
Here are some descriptions of sin that I come across in speaking with religious people:
moral failure
wrongdoing
missing the mark
falling short
lawlessness
ignoring your conscience
Shaming and sin as frames will always produce a backlash and muddy the issues.
Sin as a frame... thats confusing to me. Sin is only a meaningful concept within a frame, a moral frame. Just as crime can only happen where there are laws.
Most faith-environmental initiatives I've seen are elaborating a moral framework within which pollution can be seen as a moral failure, wrongdoing, or as sin. If you denigrate that moral frame by describing it as "some supreme being judging as and dishing out rewards and punishments for our behavior," you're belittling the efforts of your allies. Which would be fine.. except that the US has very high rates of... religiosity.
Anyways, heres a nice example of the kind of people you'd be alienating: http://www.gipl.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:26 am
18 Apr 2007
I'm more concerned with working on public policies that protect the environment and make people pay the true price of goods.
The only environmental choices that I am comfortable adding an EXPLICIT moral dimension to are diet because diet DIRECTLY influences the amount of suffering living beings experience.
As to alienating people- I don't go out of my way to- but I won't use language that I don't believe is sensible just because lots of people seem to like it. That makes for a watered-down and weak movement in my view.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 6:54 am
18 Apr 2007
I have never met anyone with a sadistic, who-gives-a-damn-about-the-world-and-future-generations turn of mind. I do however know plenty of people who don't switch off that light because they just can't be bothered to go back and check. I know people who proudly enumerate what they do right, without even thinking about correcting what they do wrong. And I know people who are ignorant of the world's issues, and just don't know enough to take action.
By any definition, the first person I described is immoral, if not amoral, and possibly a sinner, while none of the other people would be described as such. Nevertheless, everyone has the same effect, pretty much, so isn't it more important to change those attitudes than to go round doling out punishments? 'Context is all', but should it really be?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 6:55 am
18 Apr 2007
Sometimes, working late, I also throw in two packets of Swiss Miss Rich Chocolate Hot Cocoa Mix with marshmellows.
Sometimes I use a styrofoam cup instead of my coffee mug.
Permalink
margie46 Posted 6:58 am
18 Apr 2007
Gasaholic cars, an overabundance of consumer goods, wasteful appliances, cutting down rainforests to raise livestock, leaving incandescent lights (or any, when not in use) on... I think these are the worst culprits. We need to "attack" on all fronts. Make governments, corporations, businesses accountable, too.
What if you aren't an "activist" but want to do your part? Saving the planet begins at home. Check out http://www.ProjectHOUSE.vpweb.com for how to begin, or continue.
Margie Campaigne
http://www.ProjectHOUSE.vpweb.com
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 7:17 am
18 Apr 2007
Ohhhh.... you're an economist. Well, I can see why you define your terms as you do then. Money wouldn't work if people thought that valuation formulas were based on anything as fuzzy as morals.
"I think it is ridiculous to consider driving a car a lot or using an air conditioner or traveling some sort of moral failure."
I can, and often do, see driving a car as a moral failure - when its a clear cut case that the driver is a slave to convenience at the expense of their health, the community, the environment, and especially their children's health. It is a measure of my forgiving nature that I do not key more cars.
Even the driver paid a true price for the car, and the gas, and the freon, etc., it could still be a moral failure in my mind. Although... is the scenario I am describing even possible, if drivers had to pay the true price of their decisions? Hmm...
Is it your position that our society can sidestep discussion of moral dilemmas by eliminating them with the correct economic policies? Such that, after incorporating the cost of externalities, humans won't have the personal purchasing power to pollute? In that scenario, my immoral driver wouldn't have a choice about whether or not to drive. The decision would simply be priced out of reach.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:06 am
18 Apr 2007
How does one define what is good and what is evil?
How does one distinguish between the saint and and the sinner?
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:15 am
18 Apr 2007
<<
Btw, if it's a 'holier than thou' approach you want, you need to run a thread on 'what I have done to help the environment'. That would get every self-righteous person in the neighbourhood licking their lips.
>>
Amen, Sister Tico!
As is usually the case, I agree completely with Mimi. (She is much better educated than I, so often there are times, in other threads, when I cannot follow what she says. But she should know that I am always there, silently and invisibly cheering her on from the sidelines.)
To her very good message on how to define "sin," I would add two comments.
First, "missing the mark" is extremely important in the history of ethics, because that is the idea of "hamartia," and more specifically "hamartema," in Greek philosophy. Aristotle -- than whom there is no more secular philosopher -- accepts the by no means unreasonable Greek commonplace, that all our freely and consciously chosen conduct has its beginning in our seeking our own happiness. But for various reasons, our conduct can be misled, confused, seduced, dragged down. When we "miss the mark," i.e., when we "sin," we are stumbling along our own path to happiness.
Secondly, among us Catholics, especially those of us who are more liberal and free-thinking, the simple definition of sin is "separation from God." The implication of that has nothing to do with any old-fashioned idea of facing a hostile Supreme Prosecutor/Jury/Judge, who also happens to be Legislator (as the religiously shallow Jason Scorse might imagine, as, sitting in his puddle, he mischievously throws around words like "infantile").
We owe a lot, in this regard, to the great thinkers of ancient Greece. Inasmuch as God is the source of all goodness, we wound ourselves, we cripple ourselves, we impair our hope of happiness, by neglecting and damaging the goodness of God's creation.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Polamca Posted 9:02 am
18 Apr 2007
We are locked in wasteful systems that we can barely tweak, much less eliminate.
Products are designed to be discarded, early. Repairing and reusing are made difficult. The yawning dump and garbage can are always there. And cheap and subsidized. We are given almost no choices of perpetually reusable alternatives. The low mpg car is forced on us.
We need to collectively design new systems and put them into place so we don't need to individually struggle. But don't ban anything until some good alternative is in place or else the commercial alternative may be even worse.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:58 am
18 Apr 2007
Your notion that sin means "separation from god" proves my point precisely. Any notion that something like recycling separates people from god is beyond absurd on every level.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:13 am
19 Apr 2007
...my last eco-Confession was 1970.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
PuddleJumper Posted 2:29 am
19 Apr 2007
I felt so bad once I realized what I had done.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:36 am
19 Apr 2007
The sin of separating from God occurs in the heart (not the muscle but the seat of the soul). The actions that can be described as sinful come as a result of that separation, but they also reinforce it to some extent.
Your objection is fair regarding idea that failing to participate in recycling separates people from God, because it is so minor. As you said, our diets are a much bigger issue. The faithful Hare Krishna devotees prepare vegetarian food only for Krishna, and take His remnants, which are spiritually pure and therefore called prasad (mercy).
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:45 am
19 Apr 2007
After getting my environmental degree I struggled to support my family in poverty for a few years, unable to find a suitable job. My wife's father gave us a vehicle, a 1977 Suburban with a 454 engine (formerly used for hauling a big boat). It got 10.5 miles per gallon, and could top 140 mph. After we repaired body damage, it looked like a giant yellow and black spotted ox. I had the whole back end covered with Earth First! stickers. Once when visiting the Toronto Hare Krishna temple, I returned to the truck to find a note on the window accusing me of hipocracy. However, I've always believed that the poor have a right to do what they must to survive.
Permalink
Julie Foreman Posted 4:48 am
19 Apr 2007
I can't stop buying Starbuck's coffee in the paper cup!!! Yes, I have a perfectly good plastic to-go coffee cup but...IT'S NOT A VENTE!! Isn't that so very sad? So in order to get the gargantuan portion of my caffeine fix, I by-pass the eco friendly cup in my cupboard for a wasteful paper one with the Starbuck's logo.
I am wracked with guilt. Damn you Starbuck's. My love for you is soiled.
Julie Foreman
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 5:44 am
19 Apr 2007
Well, I agree that the Jewish definition of sin (missing the mark) better applies to recycling than, say, a Catholic definition of sin (separation from god). Neither is patently absurd though - here I think you are confusing your personal beliefs with what the word sin means in common parlance. Roughly speaking, both religions use the word to refer to a body of knowledge about a range of choices, large and small.
Canis, nice to see you! Not smarter, I just speak in code from time to time. Had no clue that Aristotle talked about hamartia, intalesting.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:28 am
19 Apr 2007
"... I am somewhat skeptical about the environmental ethic of those who do not have a spiritual worldview."
Hmmmm. I think I have an environmental ethic. But I suspect I don't have a spirtual world view by the Grist community's standards. So what's really going on here? Either I'm not really an environmentalist or I'm actually spiritual. Did we ever resolve the difference between spirituality and religion? Sam Harris manages to accomplish this in "The End of Faith", but I wonder whether the distinction applies here.
Regardless, can't someone have an environmental ethic just because they don't feel a need to destroy stuff willy nilly? Do they really have to have a spiritual world view? Or is the ability to control violent impulses displayed only by those embracing a spiritual -- aka religious? -- world view?
Pandu also wrote:
"If everything is temporary and nothing survives the death of the material body, I do not see how all of existence could ultimately amount to anything at all."
This is a bit confusing. First there is the suggestion that environmental ethics are constructed on a spiritual world view. But here is an example SUGGESTING that there MIGHT be no need to preserve the environment... emerging from a spiritual world view. Read that sentence again... "If everything is temporary... I do not see how all of existence could ultimately amount to anything at all." What does it mean?
Finally, Pandu wrote:
"Please don't get me wrong here. I'm open to an alternative view; I just don't know what it would be. That would be good food for thought."
That's good. Otherwise you might find this response to you post annoying. The alternative view MIGHT be that everything arose out of nothing and everything will return to nothing, there is no God, no ultimate connection between everything. We do not need an ultimate purpose. But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy life or that we are entitled to destroy stuff willy nilly. Wherever every thing came from and wherever every thing is going, it is a perfectly reasonable to conclude that life will be better for all if we protect the whole and do our best to be nice to one another. Life is its own reward. And punishment -- derived not from a sentient being, but from a web of cause and efffect -- for not being nice to one another can be swift and painful.
Forward!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 2:40 pm
19 Apr 2007
By expressing my inability to see value in life without a spiritual reality, I am referring to the fact that death chases life very quickly. Whatever your enjoyment or appreciation of life may be, death would finish it forever. A lifetime of unique experience gone as your consciousness is extinguished. Soon enough all life meets its end, and then what is the value and to whom?
The principle of bhakti yoga, on the other hand is that devotional service is performed for the pleasure of Krishna, God, produces eternal benefit for the eternal soul. Simply by thinking of material natue as Krishna's property, environmental work becomes devotional service.
In Bhagavad-gita 12.10, Krishna says, "If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage." That is precisely my situation at present, unable to practice the regulations of devotional service, and so I work for Krishna, doing what I can to preserve and assist His natural world. It's odd that His aloof relationship with material nature also gives people the freedom to disbelieve in Sri Krishna, while also giving more ways to serve Him.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:43 pm
19 Apr 2007
One wonders what could have moved you to write this unlikely sentence:
<<
Any notion that something like recycling separates people from god is beyond absurd on every level.
>>
"Refusing to recycle separates us from God" would be rather closer to what I was suggesting, in fact, though I would never put it so starkly. Nor do I think that "separation from God" is anything more than a very preliminary, highly inadequate attempt to define what is meant by sin.
Nor is this the time to go much further in the definition project. Suffice it to say that as I see it -- for I am not speaking for other Catholic theologians -- , we start with our ideas of the summum bonum, the highest good, adumbrated by the classical Greek eudaimonia, usually translated as "happiness," and by the biblical Hebrew qodesh, "sacredness" or "holiness," and birakhah, "blessing," and by such biblical and post-biblical expressions of a spiritual sort as "seeing God," and "union with God"; we understand that we, along with all human beings, all children of Adam and Eve (fictitious but metaphorically useful characters), are through the Incarnation and salvific works of the Logos able truly to aspire to that summum bonum; therefore, it is a matter of great sorrow, when we fail to achieve, within what we can practically do, the habit, the virtuous condition (as Aristotle might put it), aiming at that highest good.
That failure, and that sorrow, are what we mean by sin.
In the biblical tradition, God is Creator of Heaven and Earth and all things in them. And we are invited to love all God's creatures, and to be co-creators with God, helping living things to live, and forfending their death.
There is the environmentalist hook.
To Mimi: If you heard that the "Jewish definition of sin" is "missing the mark," then you were talking to a Jew who was borrowing from Aristotle and his classicist commentators. See the Nicomachaean Ethics: not an easy book, but essential.
To WiscIdea: Surely atheists can do better than this:
<<
We do not need an ultimate purpose. But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy life or that we are entitled to destroy stuff willy nilly. Wherever every thing came from and wherever every thing is going, it is a perfectly reasonable to conclude that life will be better for all if we protect the whole and do our best to be nice to one another. Life is its own reward. And punishment -- derived not from a sentient being, but from a web of cause and effect -- for not being nice to one another can be swift and painful.
>>
What is the metaphysical foundation of "being nice to one another"? Why are you not troubled when bad things happen to very nice people, and when very un-nice people prosper and live in peace, comfort and pleasure all their lives?
You might find the de facto atheist anti-religionist Lucretius (1st-century-BCE Roman poet, Epicurean, author of De rerum natura, "On the nature of the universe") helpful in strengthening your arguments.
To Pandu: As you already know, I like very much the attitude that you describe, of the human being in love with God, living towards God.
But let us not overlook where we may differ:
<<
It's odd that His aloof relationship with material nature also gives people the freedom to disbelieve in Sri Krishna, while also giving more ways to serve Him.
>>
I love the way you present the beauty that freedom creates, thanks to a kind of divine reserve. There are Jewish kabbalistic ideas very similar to that.
But we in the Christian tradition also recognize that God is passionately in love with material nature -- even while remaining "aloof"! -- , so much so that God assumed the human nature, and lived the life of a mortal, fleshly, weak human being, and died the death of a slave, a hated criminal.
One could powerfully argue that when Christians show antipathy toward environmentalism, they are thereby showing great ignorance of the creed that they profess.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:00 pm
19 Apr 2007
I am a devout antireligionist whose definition of the sacred is all-encompassing and therefore to most intents and purposes meaningless. I understand our purpose here as sentient beings is to experience joy. In the balance sheet of history as I have learned it the positive contributions of the various conspiracies of religionists have been heavily outweighed by the negative: the cost/benefit of misery/joy offered by the religions has been, overall, a bust.
From this perspective I see joy accruing to our species from the busy diversity of our world and misery approaching from its abuse. If Pandu or anyone else chooses to define the environmental concerns arising from this as this a spiritual and therefore religious impulse I also choose to reject that definition. Down with religionism! Down with it I say!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:37 pm
19 Apr 2007
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response and effort to clarifiy your views, Though I disagree with much of what you say, I appreciate your contributions to the various discussions.
While it might appear that I single you out for "attack", I think the reality is that neither you nor I am afraid to express our views. This combination of personalities can lead to a volatile situation. But, hopefully, in this case it will shed more light than heat.
Peace.
Forward!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:04 am
20 Apr 2007
I'm reminded of "Wales" and "Welsh", both derived from the Saxon word Wealas meaning something like "filthy barbarians": this was the invaders' term for the native people they displaced from the fertile lowlands of England to the barren western mountains. In the ancient language of that people they call their country not Wales but Cymru. Likewise I am told that Sioux is a term of opprobrium for the Dakota people in the language of the Objibwa, their ancient enemy, meaning something like "treacherous snake-in-the-grass": the voyageurs were allied with the Objibwa and thus the derogatory title entered the European vocabulary uncritically.
There are of course examples of names intended as derogatory which have been accepted enthusiastically by the intended targets, especially in the arts: Impressionist and Fauve (wild beast) come to mind. Punk too perhaps? I do feel though we have in the course of centuries allowed the religionists way too much freedom in the framing of discourse and the definition of terms, just as we have allowed the religious right and the neo-cons to blast through almost unchallenged with their own private definitions of such critical concepts as family values and national security.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:09 am
20 Apr 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:29 am
20 Apr 2007
But we in the Christian tradition also recognize that God is passionately in love with material nature
I grew up going to church each week, and was taught that "God so loved us that He became man" in the form of Jesus. The Vedic conception is that material nature is different than the living entities, who are spiritual and marginally situated between the superior and inferior energies of the Lord. so His goal in His dealings with us is to eventually turn our attention away from material nature to the Personality of Godhead Himself. Thus in the Vedic conception, there is no contradiction whatsoever between God's love for us and His nonattachment to material nature.
Brahma Samhita 5.6-7 speaks of this very nicely:
The Lord of Gokula (Krishna) is the transcendental Supreme Godhead, the own Self of eternal ecstasies. He is the superior of all superiors and is busily engaged in the enjoyments of the transcendental realm and has no association with His mundane potency.
BS 5.7: Krishna never consorts with His illusory energy. Still her connection is not entirely cut off from the Absolute Truth...
http://brahmasamhita.com/5/en
The Vedic tradition recognizes Jesus as a "shaktyavesa avatar," an empowered representative of God, not as the Personality of Godhead Himself. There was also a contemporary of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu (500 years ago) named Vasudeva Datta, who prayed to Him as follows: "My dear Lord, let me suffer perpetually in a hellish condition, accepting all the sinful reactions of all living entities. Please finish their diseased material life." http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/163/en
Mahaprabhu replied, "Because of your honest desire, all living entities within the universe will be delivered, for Krishna does not have to do anything to deliver all the living entities of the universe." http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/171/en
That God would personally suffer would be intolerable suffering for His pure devotees, whom He would never allow to suffer, as described in Caitanya Bhagavat [http://www.acbspn.com/books/cb/cb_adi16.htm], when His pure devotee Haridas Thakur was beaten in 22 marketplaces: By the grace of Lord Krishna, Haridas felt little pain in his body. Just like Prahlada in the Srimad Bhagavatam who was tortured by demons, Haridas never suffered at all. Not only was Haridas freed from his pain, whoever remembers this story of Srila Haridas will also be saved from the miseries of life. Throughout his ordeal, Haridas's one emotion was pity for the sentries. "O Lord Krishna, please be merciful upon these poor souls so they may not be punished because of me."
The story continues its relevance: Oh Haridas," they pleaded. "Because of you we shall certainly be punished. When the Qazi sees that despite our beating you are still alive, he shall certainly kill us instead."
"If my survival brings such terrible misfortune to you," replied Haridas, "then I shall definitely give up my body. Just see how I die."
Srila Das Thakur immediately fell into trance. A pure devotee of the Supreme Lord possesses all mystic power so without any hesitation, Srila Hari das fell lifeless, without a trace of breath."
As the story continues, Haridas' body was brought to the Nawab to show him as dead, and was then thrown into the Ganga. After some time, Haridas' consciousness returned to his body, and his life of devotional service resumed as before. Many Hindus believe that Jesus' life continued after the cross in the same way, and that eventually Jesus left his body as an old man in Kashmir.
http://www.tombofjesus.com
Wiscidea,
It's nice to see we're softening up a bit. Maybe we could both use to take the edge off a little.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:34 am
20 Apr 2007
As for names: I for one have great regard for atheists, finding much joy in their company and much edification in their words. And so I do not at all use the epithet "atheist" to mock, reprove or revile. Apparently there are other religionists who do so use it, and that is much to be regretted.
By coincidence, I just saw Bing Crosby, as Father O'Malley, in "Going My Way," of 1944, in which there is a relevant reference. The boys on the block, Bing's pals, in the course of their baseball game on the street, have unintentionally knocked the ball through the window of an ill-tempered man. Bing apologizes to the man, and promises to pay to replace the window, and offers his mother-of-pearl rosary beads as a pledge. The man refuses both Bing's apologies and the rosary beads, declaring he is an atheist; and with that, he throws the ball so that it rolls under a parked truck. Bing's parting shot is, "You even throw like an atheist." Whatever that was intended to mean, in 1944.
You are right that WiscIdea did not refer to himself as an atheist in his comment, and perhaps he has never done so. From his many comments in many threads, I gather he is resentfully mistrustful of organized religion, and does not look to religion as a source of anything valuable. On the other hand, he is a seeker, and is currently exploring Buddhism, and perhaps Buddhist practice as well.
On the imposition of names: Other American examples are "Inca," "Navajo," "Eskimo," and "Indian" itself. In the Old World, the Greeks came up with "Egyptian" and "Ethiopian" for people who did not call themselves that; and the Romans called the Greeks "Greek" (Graeci), although they called/call themselves "Hellenes."
Nobody knows what to call the Germans. They call themselves Deutsch, which perhaps is what the Italian tedesco is aiming at. But the Romans, and we English-speakers after them, name them for one particular tribe (Latin Germani); and the French and Spanish name them for another (Latin Alemanni).
And then there are the Slavs ...
As for names which were intended to be terms of abuse but which have been gladly embraced by the intended victims of the abuse, you have missed arguably the most triumphant recent example: "queer."
Finally, you wrote this:
<<
I do feel though we have in the course of centuries allowed the religionists way too much freedom in the framing of discourse and the definition of terms, just as we have allowed the religious right and the neo-cons to blast through almost unchallenged with their own private definitions of such critical concepts as family values and national security.
>>
Of course I join you in deploring the power of the religious right and the neo-cons.
But I do not know who the "we" is supposed to be, who were for centuries allowing religionists way too much freedom, etc. Up till not so very long ago, just about everybody who could think and write was a religionist, of one kind or another.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:15 am
20 Apr 2007
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:47 am
20 Apr 2007
Or, with good reason, was fearful of expressing themselves otherwise.
Queer never occurred to me as I wrote but it is indeed an excellent example of the genre. And I do understand that your use of the term atheist was not intended to be derogatory. I do believe though that the term is implicitly religiocentric.
I did not claim that the balance of joy and misery was simple, but my estimate still stands. I am nevertheless mostly tolerant of religionists except when they claim exclusive access to benevolent thought and action, as this line of Pandu's seemed to do: "I no longer believe in non-spiritual altruism, and I am somewhat skeptical about the environmental ethic of those who do not have a spiritual worldview."
Namaste
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:59 am
20 Apr 2007
What I did call you was "shallow," specifically with regard to religious matters, which is an entirely different thing. It may please you to know that I also consider Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to be "shallow," in precisely the same way. And seeing how those two are sublimely intelligent, even brilliant gentlemen, you might even feel flattered, I suppose, that I so gladly put you in their honorable company.
Nor would even shallowness, in itself, merit a comment. Be as shallow as you like. It is really only the accompanying, most unwelcome decretal tendentiousness, as of a reigning Pontiff, that is so provocative.
By the way, one does not "understand" religion, one does not truly appreciate what religions are and do, simply by reading classic religious texts, as important as that discipline is. The belief that one "understands" a religion just by reading that tradition's great books is SO two-centuries-ago.
As for myself being a sorry example of a "religious" person, alas, that is all too true. I am no saint; I am not even a Bing Crosby. As Balzac is said to have said, commenting on his preference for coffee without cream or sugar:
"Je prends mon café noir et amer, comme mon âme exécrable est noire et amère."
All the same, defending a disliked minority from unfair criticism -- and surely those within the Gristmill community who like to associate their environmental values with their religion are such a minority -- seems a fairly typical religious duty, at least within some traditions.
To Pandu: Thank you for your interesting commentary on suffering, especially the deliverance from suffering of those who are closest to God. In the Qur'an too, Jesus, considered a great prophet, is explicitly said to have been delivered from dying on the cross, and one "bi-mithlihi," "like him in appearance," was crucified in his place. It is already an important aspect of Greek theology, in its many forms: the immutability and impassibility of divine beings. So what you describe in your Indian examples is common to many traditions in which a high veneration of the divine nature is essential.
And that is what makes orthodox Christianity unique and revolutionary. It is absolutely fundamental that God the Word, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, through whom all things were made, having assumed the human nature and been born of a woman, afterward truly suffered and died on a cross. There is no room in the Gospels for a pleasant retirement in a houseboat in Kashmir.
By the way, John 3.16 should, as you know, be translated, "God so loved the world," not "us." Probably the author of the gospel had a particular meaning in mind for "world"; but that does not matter so much, we are free to interpret it as we wish (within reason), and we are certainly free to find there an Earth-loving, environmentalist interpretation.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 9:11 am
20 Apr 2007
In the Vedas, atheists are sometimes referred to as 'asat,' which means "nonexisting." In other words, God says atheists don't exist. This is quite amusing if you think about it.
An example of asat used this way is in Srimad Bhagavatam verse 5.14.13, "ekadāsat-prasańgān nikṛta-matir," which translates as, "Sometimes, to mitigate distresses in this forest of the material world, the conditioned soul receives cheap blessings from atheists. He then loses all intelligence in their association."
http://vedabase.net/sb/5/14/en
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:53 pm
20 Apr 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:27 am
23 Apr 2007
I took a break from visiting this website for a few days. Looks like I will have to read several comments before posting more than the following...
For the record, I do not consider myself an atheist. A criticism of faith-based religion is not synonymous with atheism. I believe my earliest remarks showing hosility toward religion expressed disbelief in the god depicted in the Christian Bible. However, one can arrive at a rational understanding of God and God's message. No need to rely on religious texts. No need to accept the existence of the Old Testament or New Testament version of God.
I apologize if this was all covered in during my absence.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:08 am
23 Apr 2007
"We do not need an ultimate purpose. But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy life or that we are entitled to destroy stuff willy nilly. Wherever every thing came from and wherever every thing is going, it is a perfectly reasonable to conclude that life will be better for all if we protect the whole and do our best to be nice to one another. Life is its own reward. And punishment -- derived not from a sentient being, but from a web of cause and effect -- for not being nice to one another can be swift and painful."
caniscandida's reply included:
"Surely atheists can do better than this"
and
"What is the metaphysical foundation of "being nice to one another"? Why are you not troubled when bad things happen to very nice people, and when very un-nice people prosper and live in peace, comfort and pleasure all their lives?"
First, why must atheists do better than this? Must there be a metaphysical foundation underlying all behavior? I believe it is a matter of simply looking at the world. Most people, regardless of religion or lack of religion can recognize the benefits of human beings being kind to one another and our fellow beings on the planet. A recognition of this principle frees up a lot of time currently invested in searching for meaning, purpose, justification, explanations, excuses for killing people you disagree with, and whatever else humans derive from religious texts. I believe we can look to the natural world and personal experience, bypassing the secondhand accounts. I'm not denying that there might be inspirational material in those texts, but I don't believe one should just accept it all as fact; it must be evaluated along with all of the information one gathers from other sources.
Second, there are atheists -- or at least individuals not embracing faith-based religion -- who do present better explanations of such a view. I merely present the most abbreviated version. Several authors who have covered Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion, though their names escape me at the moment, have presented very good cases for humans basing their lives on simply being kind to one another. No need for a creator or God to dole out reward and punishment. A more extreme perspective is presented by Sam Harris in his "The End of Faith". By the way, why do you consider his book shallow? And the most extreme perspective is presented by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion". I also wonder why you found his book shallow. Both Harris and Dawkins lay out very thorough explanations of why they believe faith-based religion is not a net positive. Sam Harris, however, is much better at documeting his criticism (indeed, too many interesting endnotes).
Third, I'm very alarmed by your suggestion -- implied by your question -- that I'm "not troubled when bad things happen to very nice people, and when very un-nice people prosper and live in peace, comfort and pleasure all their lives". To paraphrase part of someone's post from another thread... I find this hostile, prejudiced, and offensive. Are you suggesting that because I find faith-based religion a distraction or perhaps even dangerous, I'm not troubled when bad things happen to very nice people? If so, you are very wrong.
Forward!
Permalink