What
the brief discussion on the term anthropocentrism above demonstrates is that while
the negative reality which it describes indeed exists and needs to be rectified,
the epistemological sense is neither objectionable nor avoidable. It would be
accurate to assert that when religious environmentalisms in their most profound
forms are described as “anthropocentric”, that the observation should be
understood in the unobjectionable epistemological sense rather than the negative
ontological or ethical sense. Either way, the term anthropocentric is wrought
with controversy and conjures up many unpleasant imageries, and therefore
should be avoided when speaking about religious environmentalism. What I would
like to propose is an alternative term – religious environmental humanism –
to describe how religious traditions promote environmental well-being by promoting
human moral and ethical cultivation and transformation. What religious
environmental humanism emphasizes is that the effort to care for and protect
the natural world is deeply dependent on the human state. In other words, environmental
flourishing is achieved not despite human beings behaving as humans but is
achieved when human beings are truly human, that is, when they live in
accordance with their noblest self, which can be realized through the process
of self-cultivation. Religious environmental humanism points to the
inextricable connection between human spiritual well-being and environmental flourishing
and sustainability.
Thus, the fate of humanity (individually
and collectively) is integrally tied to that of the environment in such a way
that one cannot speak about human spiritual progress, salvation, liberation or
eternal happiness divorced from concerns for other beings in the world. Therefore,
the effort to becoming truly and deeply human is not a self-centered, myopic
endeavor but a journey of spiritual transformation that leads one to full
self-realization as a human being totally open to and in relationship with the
world. To be truly human, then, is to deeply understand one’s identity and
one’s position in relations to the rest of the universe and to the Ultimate,
and to act in a way that is congruent with that vision of reality. Religion and
spiritual traditions take as their primary task to help human beings achieve
their ultimate spiritual destiny. Religious environmental humanism asserts that
if religions are successful in this espoused goal, it makes a profound difference
to the world!
Like
the term ‘anthropocentrism’, the term ‘humanism’ also needs some clarification
before we delve into the presentation of Buddhist and Confucian environmental
humanism. The term ‘humanism’ being used in this paper is meant to be a broad
category that encompasses a variety of worldviews – religious, non-religious, theistic,
nontheistic, philosophical, and so on. Today, the term often is taken to refer
to the free thought ideology which interprets the human condition through a rationalist,
secularist, and naturalist worldview. In fact, what came to be called humanism
is a notion that long precedes this philosophical outlook. This restrictive use
of the term humanism is a rather recent development, and certainly not an
invention of the secular humanist movement, as accurately observed by the
humanist Nicolas Walter:
The facts are
that, while humanism happens to be the word we now use, it isn’t “our own”;
that it has been, is being, and will be used by many other people in many other
ways; that most of its senses have actually involved religion; that many of its
nonreligious senses are unclear without qualification; that all viable senses
of a word are equally valid; that semantic dogmatism and verbal
authoritarianism are quite alien to what most of us understand by being
humanist or supporting humanism; that words can’t be “stolen”; and that neither
we nor anyone else could control the words even if we wished to. (Walter, 1998)
A general introduction to humanism
might start with introducing its etymological roots in the Latin term humanitas,
which designates human nature as something civilized and cultivated as opposed
to being barbaric (Ritchie and Spencer, 2014, p.15). A humanist, as it was used
in the Middle Ages in Europe when the term came into existence, was someone who
benefitted from an education comprising of language and literature, and who
continued to work in these areas as a scholar and teacher (Walter). Such a person would be characterized by moral
and social integrity manifesting the fullness of what it meant to be human
(O’Malley, 2000, p.1). When the word humanist appeared in English in the
sixteenth century, it was still employed to refer to someone who was a
practiced grammarian or rhetorician, or someone who was devoted to studying
human affairs. Though humanism had a pedagogical emphasis, it was always
developed within a greater Christian context which presumed faith in God. Thus,
for hundreds of years, individuals and movements who identified themselves with
humanism were also very much Christians. It was not until the late nineteenth
century that humanism began to take on an anti-religious connotation depicting
human beings as rational creatures independent of theological considerations
(Ritchie and Spencer). This modification is judged by Walter, however, to be
“applied retrospectively and indeed anachronistically and unhistorically”
(Walter).
In the years after, philosophers
such as Ludwig Feuerbach and Arnold Ruge continued the process of expunging
Christian elements out of humanism so that humanism itself became its own
religion—a religious alternative to Christianity. Despite the movement to
replace faith in God with faith in humanity as inspired by Auguste Comte’s
anti-theistic positivism, humanism continued to be referred to in religious
overtones. It was not until the latter half of the twentieth century that
humanism made a divorce from religion all together as reflected in
educationalist Harold Blackham’s declaration that humanism is an “alternative
to religion.” Humanism, asserted Blackham, proceeds “from the assumptions that
man is on his own and this life is all and as assumption of responsibility for
one’s life and for the life of mankind” (Quoted in Richie and Spencer, p.20).
While this understanding of humanism gained popularity in a particular circle
of thinkers, the term continued to be connected to all sorts of disciplines:
religious, scientific, secular, ethical, rationalist, spiritual, civic, etc.
Catholic thinkers throughout history and up until the modern age continued to
insist on a humanism rooted in religion and faith in God and modeled on the
person of Jesus Christ. Christian humanism maintained its own place of
importance as reflected in the vibrant teachings of the Catholic Church up
until the present
While humanism comes in many forms,
and all sorts of groups lay claim to humanism and attempt to differentiate their
particular brand of humanism from the others, the underlying common thread that
runs through all these humanisms is the desire for humanity to become the best
possible version of itself – personally, socially, ethically, etc. The hows and
the whys differ among the various groups depending on their respective
worldviews and metaphysical assumptions. Nonetheless, all believe that when
human beings become their best self, it is better for everyone and everything
around them.
No comments:
Post a Comment