4.1 Preview

Religion-Environment discussions don’t always take the step that we intend in this chapter, which is to consider the underlying meanings and paradigms that contextualize these topics and the ways that we typically understand and assess them. This may seem like a simple step, but examining our own context can be elusive, because often what and how we already think seems as basic (and as taken for granted) as the air we breathe. My belief is that we can arrive at a better understanding by critically assessing our underlying paradigms than if these remain unexamined. Because this approach ^[1] is uncommon and nuanced (and possibly perplexing), this preview provides hints as to the direction we are heading in this chapter.

We’ll start by thinking about what it means to know anything in the first place. Science and knowledge are closely linked, and we’ll critique some of the ways moderns have thought about knowledge by examining Richard Baer’s “Our Need to Control,” which criticizes an overemphasis on knowledge as power and control. We’ll also question whether preferences for “objectivity” in our claims about knowledge might reveal a control-based approach to nature. If so, such rationalistic views – that make human reason the measure of all things – might be what got us into this “ecologic” mess, more than the religious variables that Lynn White blamed. ^[2]

We will look at different modes of knowing – particularly at the more objective, rational, repeatable, scientific modes and methods of knowing (what Baer relates to ratio), as well as the more intuitive, subjective, relational, spiritual, mystical, emotional/affective modes and methods of knowing (intellectus). We will discuss how these forms of knowledge relate to one another in a complementary way that provides a platform for fruitful and respectful dialogue. We will note several models of how religion and science might interact. Our approach assumes that dialogue and some amount of integration between science and religion is both possible and appropriate, both for environmental professionals, college students studying religion and environment at a land grant university, and people of faith in Ohio and beyond. We will also respect the assumption that operating in this realm does not threaten our respect for scientific and religious experts alike. ^[3]

As for epistemology – after discussing what we think it means to “know” something, either in science or religion (or both), we will want to talk about the ways in which we think knowledge is relevant. Will we assume that what we decide we “know” about religion and the environment is a form of absolute knowledge – knowledge that is definitely right as opposed to other things that are wrong? Will it be a type of relative knowledge, where what we know will be compelling to us, but other things might be compelling to others? Allen Wood’s article on “Relativism” explores these questions, and compares relativism to skepticism, fallibilism, and other options. In the end, we will discuss ways to redefine knowledge and “objectivity” so as to proceed with productive common ground between religious and scientific knowledge and without being derailed by premature dismissals of views that challenge us or getting pulled into knee-jerk arguments that uncritically insist on marginalizing either science or religion. ^[4] We will proceed from there with “eyes wide open” about what we are talking about and the challenges of talking about these subjects. Hopefully by the end of this chapter, the table will have been set for our proper investigation into religion and environmental values in America.

Belief systems addressed in future chapters: