Working paper: Religious Environmental Humanism as Means to Promote Environmental Sustainability: Buddhist and Confucian Approaches (2)

 

Understanding Anthropocentrism 

‘Anthropocentrism’ is not a new term, having been coined over a century and a half ago in England to refer to the prevailing worldview that human beings occupied the center of the universe (Campbell, 1983). Nonetheless, the term admits multiple definitions and valences depending on how it is used and interpreted. Undoubtedly, the most prevalent understanding of the term is to describe the human outlook that the existence of human beings is the most important and central fact in the universe. This privileged position at the apex of all creatures allows them to occupy ontological and moral priority over all other entities. An extreme interpretation of this privilege, however, can easily lead to the assumption that humans can do whatever they want with creation, if such actions are perceived to contribute to the advancement of human society.  

While the ontological and ethical connotations of the term anthropocentrism are apparent, there is another dimension to the term that can be considered – an epistemological understanding. From the standpoint of epistemology, anthropocentrism simply refers to the reality that human beings perceive and interpret the world according to human values and experiences. This understanding highlights the objective fact of human locatedness in any act of human perceiving. Thus, what we have is a sort of “perspectival anthropocentrism,” to use the term of Frederic Ferré, since humans can only really think in one way – as humans (Ferré, 1994, p.72). This is so “even while we try to transcend egoism by cultivating sympathy and concern for other centres of intrinsic value.” Indeed, humans do have some ability to step outside of themselves, to put ourselves in the other’s shoes, even attempt to feel the pain of non-human species facing destruction and extinction, but ultimately, we must approach reality from our own locatedness and address the various issues using the critical function to which we have been endowed to do (Hayward, 1997, p.51).  

The brief discussion above demonstrates that the term ‘anthropocentrism’ admits both objectionable and unobjectionable connotations. Anthropocentrism is objectionable when it promotes and reinforces an egotistical perception of the place and value of humans that justifies even the most wanton destruction of non-human nature. On the other hand, it is unobjectionable when it simply refers to an unavoidable reality about human cognition. From this fact, any attempt to build a genuinely non-anthropocentric environmental ethic is unachievable because such a paradigm would effectively marginalize the human role, values, concerns and experience (Grey, 1998, p.99). According to Hayward, “If the ultimate point of an ethic is to yield a determinate guide to human action, then, the human reference is ineliminable even when extending moral concern to nonhumans” (p.56). The agent can respond to the ethical obligation to make others’ ends his/her ends, but ultimately, asserts Hayward, “Values are always the values of the valuer” (p.57).   

The necessity of a human reference point ultimately leads to decisions that reflects human values and perceptions about what constitutes well-being and flourishing. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the fiercest advocate of environmental ecocentrism would not argue that humans should not do anything to interfere with the natural balance since coronaviruses have as much right to exist as elephants, bees and humans. Conversely, they would not agree that humans in their own human nature, could do whatever they want, even if it meant the extinction of other species and perhaps even the eventual extinction of humans themselves due to self-inflicted consequences. The reality is advocates of non-anthropocentric environmental ethics must ultimately yield to the anthropocentric perspective in judging what is the most acceptable form of balance that considers the interests of humans as well as non-human entities—both biotic and abiotic. The fact that devising vaccines to eliminate a virus dangerous to human life is acceptable while hunting elephants for ivory is unacceptable reflects an idea of natural equilibrium that is fundamentally based on human perception of what constitutes natural balance. As Mary Anne Warren commented:  

We are not gods but human beings, reasoning about how we ought to think and act. Our moral theories can only be based upon what we know and what we care about, or ought to care about. If this makes our theories anthropocentric, then this much anthropocentrism is inevitable in any moral theory that is relevant to human actions. (Warren, 1997, p.43)

Working paper: Religious Environmental Humanism as Means to Promote Environmental Sustainability: Buddhist and Confucian Approaches (1)

 

Introduction

           

Some years ago, I participated in an academic conference on religion and the ecology at a university in the United States. As a contribution to the event, I delivered a paper from the Buddhist perspective while other participants presented theirs from that of other religious traditions. As part of the format, each session consisted of about three papers followed by reaction from a person designated by the conference organizer. In the session that I was scheduled, our reactor, after listening to the papers from different religious perspectives, observed that while the papers provided very profound religious and spiritual insights to address the ecological crisis, these perspectives were nonetheless very “anthropocentric”. The comment was meant to not only highlight a common thread running throughout the various religious environmentalisms but also to draw attention to what might be perceived as a shortcoming in environmentalisms rooted in religious traditions. In the field of environmental ethics, the term ‘anthropocentric’ or ‘anthropocentrism’ often conjures up unpleasant images of human manipulation and exploitation of nature to serve the whimsical needs of arrogant human beings who perceive themselves as the center of the universe endowed with the right and the power to dominate and subjugate everything around them. On a more benign level, anthropocentrism allows for some considerations of the “rights” and well-being of nature, but human beings ultimately still prioritize their own interests when all is said and done. For some environmental ethicists, unless one adopts holistic ecosophies referred to by various labels such as eco-centrism, bio-centrism or Deep Ecology, having other paradigms can easily lead to being labeled as anthropocentric, albeit ranging in different degrees from benign (weak) to tyrannical (strong). These ecosophies generally try to avoid anthropocentric tendencies by placing non-human natural entities on equal footing with human beings and calling for the recognition of their intrinsic value that must be respected. Since religions fundamentally focus on the human spiritual condition and the effort to improve it, religious environmentalisms also tend to place emphasis on the human agency in addressing environmental issues. This attention to the role of human beings, however, can be interpreted as perpetuating anthropocentric attitudes and approaches, which leaves advocates for holistic ecosophies unsatisfied. This paper proposes that religious environmentalisms are necessarily anthropocentric, but not in a negative or objectionable way. Moreover, to avoid the negative perceptions conjured by the term ‘anthropocentric’, religious environmentalisms are better characterized as ‘humanistic’. Thus, this paper proposes the use of the term ‘religious environmental humanism’ to refer to the environmental implications of religious humanism. In this paper, two religious traditions, Buddhism and Confucianism, will be discussed as examples of religious environmental humanism. As we will see, a close study of these religious traditions will reveal that religious environmentalisms should be described as ‘humanistic’ rather than ‘anthropocentric’ in order to avoid negative interpretations stemming from pejorative connotations conjured by the term ‘anthropocentric/anthropocentrism’.

Book Note: Brain Wash: Detox Your Mind for Clearer Thinking, Deeper Relationships, and Lasting Happiness

 by David Perlmutter and Austin Perlmutter. New York, NY: Little, Brown Spark, 2020. 270 pp.

            This book is a collaboration between a set of father and son, both medical doctors. The book is divided into two major parts. The first part presents how all the modern-day habits that have been accepted as normal are in fact doing great harm to our brain and its ability to function properly. The second part discusses ways to rectify this problem, and suggests a program of activities that would “wash” the brain of its negative programming to improve our life and achieve what the authors list in the book title.

            One of the main concepts that the authors introduce and discuss in the book is the “disconnection syndrome,” which is the separation from wellness, health, and sustainable joy. This syndrome is brought about due to our brain being hijacked by companies who manipulate our psychology and biology for commercial profit. Our neurological pathways are exploited causing us to adopt habits that bring instant gratification at the detriment of sustainable happiness. The many harmful habits that have become normalized in society include scrolling mindlessly through social media, checking emails and messages the moment we wake up, our consumption of sweet and salty food, even our consumption of the daily news. The authors in great details provide scientific evidence for how these and other daily habits have caused the infrastructure of the brain to change resulting in loss of sleep, concentration, mental wellness, healthy social relationships, and the ability for empathy. The science cited to undergird their claim is the most interesting part of the book.

            The second part goes through the various ways that we can retake control of our brain. These include developing regular exercise habit, eating a proper diet, getting back to nature, and finding quiet time for meditation. Again, in this section the authors provide the science that supports how these activities are conducive to a healthy and fully functional brain. In the last chapters of the book, the authors present a ten-step (10-day) “brain wash program” that is meant to kick start the journey to recovery. The program includes going through a digital detox, developing a sense of gratitude and empathy through reflection and journaling, forming a relationship with nature, improving diet, sleep and exercise habits, taking time to meditate, to improve social connections with family and friends, and doing self-evaluation in order to devise an ongoing plan to maintain wellbeing.

            The book is most valuable for the science behind all the claims. The lessons are not necessarily new, but that doesn’t mean that they are not good lessons or that they are easy to carry out. The lessons mostly reinforce what we have always heard and known but lack the motivation and determination to follow. Hopefully, by providing the hard science behind the modern-day bad habits, we will all be more conscious of how our daily actions are doing a number on our brain and our goal of achieving sustainable happiness, and might even begin to take some steps towards self-improvement.

Opportunities and Challenges to Interculturality in the Digital Milieu

Opportunities and Challenges to Interculturality in the Digital Milieu

Anthony Le Duc, SVD

Afr.J.Humanit.&Soc.Sci. 2(1) (2022) 18-29, DOI: https://doi.org/10.51483/AFJHSS.2.1.2022.18-29

Abstract 

Interculturality has become an important sociological and missiological paradigm in recent years as a way to rectify shortcomings in how issues pertaining to culture have been addressed by social and religious institutions. As this paradigm aims for ideals such as reciprocity, respect, appreciation and mutuality in terms of how people from different cultures engage with each other, this paper sets out to examine whether interculturality characterized by these ideals can be achieved in the contemporary digital milieu. The paper argues that the present digital age with extensive use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) can present both opportunities and challenges to promoting interculturality. The paper sets out to: (1) briefly present the concept of interculturality as understood by scholars in the Church today; (2) explore a number of opportunities and challenges to in tercultur ality in the present digit al milieu ; and (3 ) proposes how interculturality can be advanced with the support of ICT. The thesis is that the work of achieving interculturality has to be actively carried out, using means of communication available in modern society. In the digital age, traditional ways of communication alone will not be effective in the face of many challenges to interculturality coming from present directions in development and use of ICT. 

Download Article: https://www.svedbergopen.com/files/1643879273_(4)_AFJHSS22032021MTN004_(p_18-29).pdf

Book Note: The End(s) of Religion

 The End(s) of Religion: A History of How the Study of Religion Makes Religion Irrelevant by Eric Bain-Selbo. New York: NY, Bloomsbury Academic, 2022. 278 pp.

 

In this volume, Eric Bain-Selbo employs the word “End(s)” in the title to refer to two main concepts. The first idea, which is presented in a methodical fashion, is the “end” or purpose of religion in human society as interpreted and advocated by various individuals in the last several centuries from philosophers to sociologists. Thinkers discussed in the volume include Kant and Hegel (the ethical/philosophical function of religion); Dukheim and Weber (the sociological function of religion); Freud and Jung (the psychological function of religion); and Eliade and Tillich (the existential function of religion). All these reductionist approaches reduce religion to a particular goal, such as having a set of rational principles, a social function, or a set of practices to cope psychologically with life.

The other meaning of the word “end” in the book refers to the the “demystification, marginalization, and ultimately irrelevance and decline” of religion that we are experiencing today. The author argues that the increasing secularization and decline of institutional stereotypical religion can be attributed in various ways to the reductionist approaches in the study of religion by these philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and scholars of religion. And there is no evidence that this trend will reverse itself in the future.

In so far as religion is interpreted as serving to fulfill a particular human need, the author identifies various cultural practices that have been seen to play a similar role as religion, e.g., sports, arts and entertainment, nationalism and civil religion. Thus, the void left by the end of institutional stereotypical religion and be fulfilled by the “religion of culture”. In other words, what we perceive as fundamental “religious” needs do not necessarily have to depend on the existence of institutional religion. One approach, according to the author, is to turn to humanism, which is “a philosophy or outlook that focuses on the human ability to live moral and meaningful lives in the absence of religious beings or realities that stereotypically provide us with a moral code or capacity and are the basis or foundation of meaning in our lives.” Through humanism, the religion of culture – sports, theatre, art, film, dance, literature, and music etc. – can be promoted and protected from forces and dynamics that threaten to do harm to its intrinsic nature and prevent it from achieving its noble ends

Book Note: How God Works

How God Works: The Science Behind the Benefits of Religion by David DeSteno. New York: NY, Simon & Schuster, 2021. 256 pp.

David DeSteno, the author of the book and a psychologist in this volume sets out to examine how what he calls “technologies” and “tools” (i.e., religious rituals) developed by religion over hundreds or thousands of years benefit people mentally and physically in all the stages of life from birth until death. Each chapter focuses on a specific stage of life – infancy, childhood, the coming of age, young adults, midlife, retirement and the end of life. The author cites numerous scientific studies to demonstrate the veracity of the claim as stated in the book title. Although the title mentions God, the book also cites examples from nontheistic religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism.

            The book goes through each stage of life in a methodical manner, pointing out how religious rituals positively affect the individual as well as the people in his or her life. For example, in the earliest stage of life where children are still in their mothers’ womb, the Japanese religion Shinto prescribes rituals that prepare the parents and the community for welcoming them into their midst. These pre-birth rituals as well as those that are carried out in the first months and years of the infants’ lives strengthen parent-child bond as well as community support.

            In a similar fashion, DeSteno goes through each stage of the lifespan detailing in a scientific manner the benefits of religious rituals, for example, how Buddhist meditation promotes acts of compassion and forgiveness while reducing hostility towards others; how communal prayer helps people to form stronger social bonds and promote mutual commitment; how Catholic end of life rituals give courage and healing to those facing death; and how Jewish practices at the death of a loved one help reduce pain and grief.  The scientific studies cited in DeSteno’s book is not only numerous but highly credible, helping to buttress his argument that religious practices are beneficial for one’s emotional and physical health.

            As a psychologist, however, DeSteno does not take the stance that the “technologies” and “tools” of religion are not replicable. In fact, he advocates adapting these rituals so that anyone, regardless of religious adherence or not, can benefit from them. The benefits come from the positive psychological effect that these rituals have on the individuals. They do not necessarily have to be connected with theological or metaphysical beliefs that must be adhered to.