Samson S. Chiru (Ph.D.; Post-Doctoral Degrees, UGC & ICSSR)
Dean (Academic Affairs) Sangai International University, Churachandpur
Principal, Mt. Everest College, Senapati
Member, Steering Committee, Planning Deptt., Government of Manipur
samsonsekho37@gmail.com
Introduction
Lexical definition of the terms used in the topic as seen can be presented as: “a scientific study of people, society, and culture is termed anthropology (Collins Cobuild Dictionary of English, HarperCollins Publisher, 2009).” Here, another terminology used is ecology which is: “The study of the relationships between plants, animals, people, their environment, and the balances between these relationships (Collins Cobuild Dictionary of English, HarperCollins Publisher, 2009).” Originally the universe was perfectly planned and organized as per law of nature. Imbalances take place in any phenomena when there is disequilibrium. So is in ecology no different.
In Christianity, the genesis of ecological imbalances was encountered in both the Testaments of the Bible. Innumerable accounts recording the work of God who created all of the creatures are found in the Bible. Even in any given society the practices in relation to nature are preserved. But in Judeo-Christian tradition human beings put above nature has been criticized for being too anthropocentric. Hence, a new theology to shift from anthropocentricism to theocentricism and new Christian-ethical methodology are being felt as imperative needs.
Many findings in the northeast India in connection with the environmental degradation and its impact on the ecology and agri-agro base have been time and again addressed; but much more needs to be done in this pursuance of ecology, awareness of its imbalances and consequences, as man and nature is something existing in proper interaction and respect. This paper tries to find out the causes of the crises/imbalances of ecology and its cries (as nature/all His creation groans) both from nature and by some concepts being framed to handle this problem of ecological imbalances.
I
The Root causes of Ecological Crises
The word ecology, economy, and ecumenism originate from the same Greek word oikos. In fact, the human relationship with one another, particularly managing economic resources is an important aspect of ecology (Granberg, 1984). Unfortunately, ecological crisis occurred through the crisis of broken relationship. The misinterpretation of humans created in the image of God gave rise to anthropological supremacy resulting in ecological crisis. Christianity is blamed by White (1967) for the crisis in ecology. He based allegation on the fact that Christianity taught man had dominance over nature so man treated nature in destructive way. He said, “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and our destiny—that is, by religion. Worldview will spill over into the external world.” Besides, the dualism in philosophy with its outright interplay to theology treating reality as one higher, superior, dominative, and active and the other is considered as lower, inferior, subordinate and passive. Therefore, the environmental crisis is also concerned with the kind of creatures we are and is an outward manifestation of crisis of mind and spirit.
The eco-theologians and the ethicists’ term of ‘Integrity of Creation’ is used in describing the singleness, wholeness and wholesomeness of the cosmos as an ecological and systematic unity. From the ecological view point human beings are part of nature. Therefore there is a need to focus stewardship with the concept of integrity. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention the following points (Douglas John Hall, 1987):
- It insists upon the solidarity of the human with all other creaturely existence; the steward, in the Biblical material, is servant amongst servants.
- It insists upon human accountability for the trusteeship of nature: the steward is neither owner nor master, but must report to another, and must observe the inherent rights and worth of that in relation to which he/she has oversight.
- The steward symbol as it is developed in the continuity of the two testaments maintains the responsibility of the human creature: the steward (oikonomos), without ceasing to be a servant amongst servants, is given particular responsibilities within the household (oikos) from where is the common origin of ecology, economy, and acumanism.
Stewardship
This approach of Christian theologians and ethicists re-interpreted ‘rule over’ or ‘to have dominion’, ‘subdue it’ tended to be re-examined. God has made all other creatures including non-human i.e., animals and plants etc. He wanted man to exist under the rubric of stewardship and relational terms. Man is given greater responsibility of taking care of creations. God cares for all His creatures equally, living and non-living and provides food to each of them (Ps. 104: 13-31). The creator God is the absolute owner: “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it.”
This stewardship of His creation work can best be understood with: “Christian stewardship is based on the concept that everything we have was given to us—our health, our emotions, our intellect, our talents, the social and economic benefits into which we have been born, and all we do or earn or make with what God has given us—all ultimately are gifts from God for which we cannot take credit. In fact, God created everything. He owns everything and they are only loan to us. We are not owners but caretakers. And as the Biblical parable of the Talents (Math. 5:14-30) tells us, we will be held accountable to God for what we do with the resources He entrusted to us. ” Care for the environment is Christian concern. The Church and its civil society have sung: “This is my father’s world” in which included are all His creation which we have been insulting through misuse of air, water, soil and space. Therefore, Christians are global community that should act as a model in the care for the creation-kingdom ethics for unbelievers and steward the earth as part of worship of God (White, 2006). When the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it, for He has founded it on the seas, and establish it on the rivers’ (Ps. 24:1-2; Deut. 10:14;Lev 25, 23; Gen. 3:20;Ps. 115: 15-16; John 1:3; Acts 14:15; 17:24-26; I Corn. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; I Tim. 6:13,17).
St. Paul’s ecological tone is seen in Ephesians as per Kanagaraj (1998), where he deliberately used the term oikonomia in reiterating the ecological concern in which those who are incorporated in Christ share in God’s stewardship by protecting and recreating the whole phase of creation and they participate in God’s administering the ecological economy by sharing their resources with the needy among their fellow beings. Therefore, Christology facilitates Paul’s ecological concern on eco-justice which involves the well-being of humans and of nature. Human activities over two centuries committed drastic ecological and climate change. The Christian response to ecological crises would involve traversing the path that the missionaries traversed (Fernandes, 1998). They contributed in discoveries of the old value of the culture of dominant classes amongst the colonized people and renewed the planet rediscovering the value system of the ecosystem people. Although Christian’s engagement with the environment is of long history yet they are blamed for their lukewarm attitude towards environmental concern (White, 1967). For evangelism pre-dominates care for environmental concern. The postmodern theory calls for careful study that pertains to ecological crisis. Creation theory needs special revisit for ecological concern. For God created man in His own image and has responsibility to relate with God and nature. Therefore, this needs reinterpretation to correct the misinterpretation of ‘over dominance’ that contributed in exploitation of man upon nature.
St. Paul describes the groaning of creation anxiously waiting for liberation/salvation and healing (Romans 8:19-22). Charles Birch pointed out: “An ecological sustainable earth is a necessary requirement for distributive justice. There is no possibility of justice in a world in which the rich exploit resources at the expenses of the poor and of other life.” This echoes what in fact, the human relationship with one another, particularly managing economic resources is an important aspect of ecology (Granberg, 1984). Thus, some of the causes of the ecological crisis are development, modernization, and industrialization.
Modernization and Violence
The level of social mobilization and the level of economic development are directly associated with political stability. And this view, of course, varies from one period of time to another period. It also needs to be noted that modernity means stability and modernization instability. For, urbanization, increases in literacy, education, and media exposure all give rise to enhanced aspirations and expectations which, if unsatisfied, galvanize individuals and groups into politics (This is rightly applicable in the place where I stay in Manipur (Northeast India). There is ever increase of consciousness in terms of land and its resources. There have been insurgency and militancy movements to claim autonomy and some even de jure sovereignty and independence by various ethnic groups. In the absence of strong and adaptable political institutions, such increases in participation mean instability and violence. It is observed that the more modern the society is the more stable and suffers less domestic violence. India has mammoth electorate and successful democracy. However, the rate of development and for whom tends to remain a big question. India has a growth rate of Gross Domestic Product that chases for 9 per cent. But it is doubtful even when this target is achieved India will still have disparities and desperados. With the signing of Pan Naga framework between the Government of India(GOI) and the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isaac-Muiva), the charter of demands ranging from 50 to 100 points wherein included demand for reserved forest which is under the GOI. Nagalim (Nagaland, consisting of contiguous Naga inhabited areas) has rich mineral resources (Souvenir, NSCN, 2009). Here in dramatic form can be clearly seen the paradox that modernity produces stability and modernization instability. So the apparent relationship between poverty and backwardness, on the other hand, and stability and violence, on the other, is a spurious one. It is not the absence of modernity but the efforts to achieve it which produce political disorder. Nagas are in the process of modernization. Thus, the definition of modernity and modernization defined. It is not backwardness but modernization that exists to suggest the causes of violence. Now this can be understood likewise: wealthier nations tend to be more stable than those less wealthy, but the poorest nations, those at the bottom of the international economic ladder, tend to be less prone to violence and instability than those countries just above them. Where does my country lie in these three? Whichever may be the case India has strong democratic institutions which act as different from other countries, say that of China? Human rights violation is rampant both in these countries of passing reference compared countries.
Entitlements and Ownership
The scope of ownership relations can vary immensely with the practice of economic system. A capitalist economy permits private ownership of the means of production: land, labour and capital. Whereas, a socialist economy may restrict this. In all these economies, irrespective of judgmental on bad or good, a person will be exposed to starvation if the exchange of entitlement set does not contain any feasible bundle including enough food. However, starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat. (This is the scenario of poverty in the midst of plenty). A person may have enough money and yet still go hungry sometimes. That is because he mismanages his money. He may not wear proper cloths and no proper roof either. Is this poverty? No. Poverty is the state in which a person cannot afford to live in minimum standard prevailing in particular society (a state of condition where it is below the minimum standard). This may vary from one society to another. The opulence of some people in another society may not be poverty, at least may be lower standard in another society in developed West as the standard is high? The viewpoint of industrialization and modernization were explained. It was discussed here that the poor in whichever society they may belong to but undergoes a situation where they are deprived of benefits of development on account of lack of equity and equality of justice. Now further impact of exploitation of ecology against the relational terms in technological application will be discussed.
From the ecological view point justice is a form of authentic and life-enhancing interdependence between man and between society and its environment. With development comes technology. Technology plays an important role in today’s world of the 21st century. It either destroys or creates depending on its right application and wrong application. Ian G. Barbour criticizes technology on three different issues: 1. Exploitation of the environment, the exploitative attitudes which have led to environmental deterioration; 2. Reliance on power-military force/equipment which is mainly for destruction; and 3. The impoverishment of experience. Rev. J. Thungjamo Lotha in his article cited example of exploitative technology in Nagaland in which before the coming of technology destruction of forests in Nagaland was negligible. But now with the introduction of technologies such as saw mills, veneer mills, plywood factories and the paper and pulp industry, forest in Nagaland are fast disappearing, and the profit of which goes to only a few elite. There are numerous causes of the ecological crisis. My paper is concerned about Christian theological perspective and its scientific relational to this as held responsible as anthropocentric. Modern science and technology are products of Western culture, and because Western culture has at its roots from Christian attitudes and principles, and because Christianity is arrogant toward nature and views nature as having no reason for existence except to serve mankind, then Christianity bears burden of guilt for our current ecological crisis. It is referred here to Genesis 1:26-28. From anthropocentric perspective ‘to rule over’ or ‘to have dominion’, ‘to subdue it’, resulted in indiscriminate destruction of nature.
The human relationship in terms of justice and dilemmas of technological choice opined by climate thinkers revealed that the climate change is a serious and long-term global threat and disproportionately affects the poor and vulnerable people. According to the scientific reports, the greatest risk of relative impacts is expected in regions and countries, where emissions are the lowest. In this respect, distributional considerations affect policy decision-making across all scales of governance (Ms. Arzuhan Dogan Yalemdag, Chairperson of Board of Executives, Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association). The issue of climate change is now widely recognized as one of the major challenges for mankind in the 21st century, not only because it may ultimately affect many areas of our environment, nature and human activity, but also its mitigation may have far reaching consequences for almost all sectors of the society and economy. But the effects are different depending on their location, economic status, history of development and governance patterns (Dr. Atiq Rahman, Executive Director of BCAS, Dhaka and the Winner of the UN Environmental Award-the Champion of the Earth, 2008). Three factors are having direct impact on the environment: population, consumption, and technology which decide how much spaces and resources are used and how much waste is produced to meet consumption needs. For reducing on the impact of consumption levels, working on eco-friendly technology and controlled rate of population are advisable. It is predicted that by 2050, the world population will reach 9.2 billion (from 6.7 billion marks). Most of the environmental changes have taken place as people have started to exploit the natural resources. This is done through modern technology. Technology is itself good to enhance the quality of life. But how it is used, by whom, for what purpose, and at what cost to the community of all life? The theories discussed here spawn understanding crises and cries of the ecological imbalances.
II
Scientifically it can be said that, other than the relational crisis of the creator and the created, the ecological problem has many facets, such as depletion of ozone layer in the stratosphere, greenhouse effect resulting in global warming, air and water pollution, erosion of soil, extinction of wild animals and deforestation etc. The world is experimenting with ever increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse emissions destroy the hope for the survival of future generations. The gases act like greenhouse to capture solar energy and, gradually, the earth warms up. Glaciers and polar ice melts, ocean currents change, and sea levels rise. I hail from the North Eastern Region of India. The growing concern about in the region is increased degradation of the environment. Seventy per cent of the area being hilly, it is felt that much of the deterioration is due to indiscriminate felling of trees, shifting cultivation, and mining. There has been massive increased of human activities towards utilization of natural resources affecting the climate and ecosystem of the region. One of the major problems, as anywhere else, in the region is population problem of the people. The region occupies approximately 7 per cent of the country India in terms of area i.e., 2.35 million square kilometers. In thirty years (1961-1991) there was 2.5 folds increase with the figure as high as 13.3 million to 31.38 million. Therefore, the region witnessed signs of severe strains of the problem of land degredation water stress, food shortages, and depletion of natural resources particularly forest resources.
Warning on Global Warming
God warns us in the Bible, “But if you will not listen to me and carry out all those commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws then I will do this to you. I will punish you for your sins seven times over. I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze. Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, not the tree of land yield their fruit (Lev 26:15, 17-20). But: “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways then I will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land(1 Ch 7:14)”
Disobedience, rejection of decrees, violation of covenants, stubborn pride, and hostility towards God — is a symptom of disobedience of God’s command to humankind to care for this world. Schaeffer (1970) agrees with White (1967) that problem is the philosophy which man has looked at nature.
Whereas the scientific point of view c02(carbon dioxide) content in the atmosphere, supported in the writings such as of Mann et al (1999), as an irrefutable evidence, was itself modified by Mc. Kitrick (2003).
It is also seen in Stern Review which underlined that increased investment in Research and Development (R&D) and innovation could significantly reduce CO2 emissions and we have seen more than 3 billion of venture capital invested in clean tech worldwide since January 2007 (Source: Ernst & Young). However, we need to create much better international, national and regional structures and systems to adapt to climate change as well those to stimulate, nurture and progress new low carbon ideas through R&D to commercialization and the marketplace. A new system is needed that fosters sustainable, low carbon and resource productive innovation — short, medium and long-term. Designers, innovators, investors, entrepreneurs, consumers and governments all have a role to play in the change that is needed.
Institutional Mechanism and Theories
There are estimated to be 100,000 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working for environmental protection worldwide. Some of them are transnational. The focus of these organizations is to address the root causes of ecological imbalances that degrade the quality of life and environment on the planet earth. The need to be done in addressing these concerns is to arrest population growth, end rampant consumerism, generate environment friendly technologies and make prices and market systems work for the environment rather than against it. Rio Earth Summit in 1992 provided the impetus for the sustainable development paradigm with it three components of environmental, social and economic sustainability. It recognizes not just the environmental crisis in its many facets, but how it is embedded in economic and social systems.
From the Green concept perspective nature involves the understanding of the universe as a web of interconnectedness and mutual dependencies within which we and other species live. Humans are not only connected with one another but with other species of animals and plants. These include not only the living entities on which we depend for nutrition, but our connection with other living forms includes forming work and leisure relationships with plants and animals. Green theory rejects the Promethean notion that humans are capable of fully controlling all their interventions in the natural world, and warns that ecosystems behave in unpredictable ways and may even be more complex than we can ever know. Several Green values flow from the recognition of interconnectedness and interdependence. The first of these is the respect for life on this planet. Because everything is interconnected, the fate of other species is tied to the fate of humanity. Since life requires certain conditions to sustain itself; the second Green value flows from this premise that we have an obligation to respect and care for the conditions that nurture and sustain life in its many forms. Green political thought is not the first attempt to accommodate the new developments in our understanding of the natural world to our social organization. Most political theories, especially Liberal theory (Locke, Smith and their followers), have built their version of society around the understanding of the universe and the place of humanity within it. Human beings are perceived as self-interested being focused solely on maximization of happiness and satisfying their needs. But the Green theory is not distinctly new. However, Green concept and Liberal conception of human nature and nature is distinct. As Green theory is the first to confront the anthropocentric continuum that has consolidated ideas of social design for over two millennia. The notion that nature ought to be valued for its own sake view resembles eco-centric view of nature. Eco-centric conception of universe challenges the notion of supremacy of domination of nature. Green theory conceived that humans are to be seen not as rational individuals as Liberals do or as social beings as Socialists do but simply as natural beings.
The concept of ecology was of recent origin but understanding of nature was there in Greek philosophers and some renowned scientists. Pythagoras conceptualized universe in which the earth was the centre. The structure of galaxies, trees, snowflakes, the deeply elegant forms of living creatures, and the proportions of human body reflects the synchronization in universe. He described the universe as ‘one whole of wholes’ and as ‘a single living creature which encompasses all of the living creatures that are within it.’ Human nature consisted of human virtue and other elements included are that of brute beasts. The notion of virtue was used to legitimize the institutions of slavery and patriarchy. The understanding of human nature justified a rigid social hierarchy which questioned the “humanness” of women and slaves, as they were perceived as not capable of possessing virtue or excellence. In hindsight, the classical understanding of nature resulted in social organization which, while prescribing a life of harmony with nature, nonetheless created institutions of human and non-human enslavement. Animals were exploited as energy slaves and transportation sources, and the patriarchal organization of society allowed for female subjugation and exploitation. Although the universe was seen as an interconnected whole, the ancient philosophers did not perceive human society as interconnected and interdependent. Therefore the classical concept of human nature had some ecologically problematic elements. As such social harmony could not result from equality and equal participation, but only from lower classes accepting the ‘natural rule’ of the upper classes. The notion of ancient city was premised on the homogeneity of a shared religion and race. From the Athenian democracy’s trial of Socrates to the Roman persecution of Christians, this intolerance of heretics suggests that the classical understanding of a well-functioning society was incompatible with the ecological principle that diversity is a source of stability and vitality. The medieval concept of human nature continued the classical tradition of placing limits on human behavior. However, the medieval philosophical belief on nature was dominated by the principles of the Christian faith. Humans were regarded as the crown of creation in the cosmic order ordained by God. Since nature was viewed as sacred, human over-exploiting and despoiling nature risked bringing disaster upon themselves and those around them. The Christian belief system, therefore, continued the classical tradition of placing limits on human behavior towards nature but provided different reasons for this behavior. It was understood that respecting nature was accepted as a way of virtuous life, whereas in the medieval times humans respected their limits out of fear of God’s retribution. Still the Judeo-Christian tradition furthered the classical notion of virtue that separates humans from nature believing that “man was a part of nature to the view of man as apart from nature.” One of the implications of the growing alienation (autonomy) between the human and the natural world has been the dominant stance of the human and how we are upsetting the balance of nature—issues of biodiversity, water, soil, deforestation, waste management, global warming and climate change. The challenge once again is to shift from being apart from (autonomy) to being part of the community of all creation. The divine oneness, the Creator of all universes wants from His created beings.
Classical philosophical traditions and of the medieval period was predominantly theistic that adopted classical anthropocentric tradition. The traditions were ecologically-friendly. They were concerned with minimum human activities toward nature and strongly discouraged exploitation of forest, rivers, and lakes. Christian Europe maintained strict established social order. The concept of human nature focused on faculties that separated humanity from nature. The emphasis on what separates than rather unites humanity with its surroundings, forged a clearly anthropocentric attitude towards nature as only humans can possess virtue and have an immortal soul, humans are above nature and human needs are therefore central to the nature i.e., human relationship. This anthropocentric tendency of the medieval world-view was not challenged in the transition from the classical to the modern understanding of the cosmos.
Science-Religion: Conflict?
The conversation between science and theology represented through the writings of a number of writers who have offered a range of alternative schematic outlines or typologies. Ian Barbour scheme allows four categories of relationship—conflict, independence, dialogue and integration. These four categories represent which people related science and religion ranging from the openly hostile-signified by ‘warfare’ metaphor to the desire for some form of synthesis between the two.
The need for dialogue is thrust upon theology in order to be adequately informed about the culture in which theology seeks to serve, a culture in which the scientific worldview is a dominant feature. Theology and science must seek to identify and examine the common epistemological ground as they seek to interpret the nature of reality. Both may generate data or insights which enrich the other, even pointing towards a rational and orderly coherence present in all reality. Apologetic’s approach to identify the growing awareness of the impact of science and technology on contemporary life, particularly in terms of the ethics of new scientific capabilities, such as genetic engineering. Human beings have engaged in intentional genetic modification at the agricultural level. Such scientific experiment resulted in such damaging environmental consequences as deforestation, pesticides pollution and the narrowing of plant and animal gene pools. While the chemical process of natural recombination are very old and while they occur naturally and all around us and even inside us, as technology-conscious, intentional, and purposive-genetic engineering or artificial recombination is new. There is even more need for dialogue for science and general public in the context of public policy and legislation. The area such as recent human cloning needs theologians and scientists to converge on the issue of ethics and apologetics. However, the diversity, the subtlety, and ingenuity of the methods employed, both by apologists for science and for religion, as they have wrestled with fundamental questions concerning their relationship with nature and with God. Man was created without woman. But God created woman out of the rib of a man, Adam. This clearly revealed that Eve can never say many later Adams came from her vagina and women started coming out from her vagina too? Either the woman centric or should not we call it matrilineal/matriarchal nor the transgender claim of s/he is created in the modified image of God. And the original role assigned by God is changed to suit the interest of man? God created woman as co-worker originally. The Fall of man affected the mankind. The second Adam took away the sin of man, and declared that the second Adam is the head of the Church and man is head of the family. Woman was designed to co-work with man. God in His wisdom created prior to mankind, all species of animals, fish, reptiles, insects, birds, and all environmental space and greenery. Never to forget, that God created void, a vast cosmos. Later He divided into land and water bodies so on and so forth. God planned all species of intra-kind and inter-kind. A clue to the possibility of God using inter-kind evolution is found in Genesis 1:20, where God says, “Let the water teem with living creature (v.24), let the land produce living creatures.” The concept of intra kind and inter kind of species somehow point to the present scientific genetic engineering and gene pool and biotechnical evolutions and advancement. God in His wisdom endowed all knowledge and understanding to man with different talents and abilities. And God in His sovereign nature, unquestionable functions in cosmic universe in assigned functions and powers through His agents.
God’s relationship with the natural world is likewise the province of Trinitarian theology, as Colin Gunton and Thomas Torrance, amongst others, have consistently argued. As the creation of the love of God, “The world is not impersonal process, a machine or a self-developing-organism-a-cosmic collective into which particular simply disappears–but that which itself has destroyed along with the human.” These concepts are fundamental to the dynamic relationality implicit in contemporary world in regards to trinity–in which involved dynamic loving relationships of inner being of God: “God’s being is a being in relationship, without remainder relationals.” The world was punished destroying man and its environment—both human and non-human. God in His sovereign will saved Noah and all male and female kind of all species, including all other creatures in their intra and inter kind.
These relations of love are free. The freedom, which is the product–“who is the giver of freedom and the one who enables the created order to be itself: to become what it was created to be.”
Thus, it is seen that the outline of a trinitarian theology based on a correspondence between relational freedom and extra and intra God, in this sense, relates to the creatures–the world we live, through what Trenaeus called His ‘two hands’, son and spirit. In other words, the God who is free and relational in se acts immanently in creative and redeeming love, investing the created order with the same relational freedom: so the world as a contingently creation “exist in its own way, but is nonetheless dependent for its existence on the creativity of the creator.” For all living beings, including human beings are interdependent when viewed at from the ecological perspective. Therefore, ‘rule over’ or ‘dominion’ and ‘subdue it’ could be “it is important, I think, to use the word ‘relationship’ rather than ‘stewardship’. To my mind ‘stewardship’ already predetermines the character of the entity that we describe as ‘nature’ and the character of relationship of human creation to it,” as Collison opines.
But basically Christianity consists of a range of beliefs with conservative and liberal wings (perhaps three including mainline denominations). Thus, these minds are sum up as:
Conflict—the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable;
Contrast—the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions;
Contact—an approach that looks for dialogue. Interaction and possible “consonance” between science and religion and especially for ways in which science shapes religious and theological understanding;
Confirmation—a somewhat quitter but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which, at a very deep level, religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprises.
Otherwise, separation arose between science and religion in the last third of nineteenth century after evolution theory of Darwin. The relationship between religion and science has been a focus of the demarcation problem. Statements about the world made by science and religion rely on different methodologies. Religion relies on revelation while science relies on observable, repeatable experiences. Some scholars say the two are separate, as in John William Draper’s conflict thesis and Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping Magisteria, while others (Thomas Brian Swimme, Ken Wilber, et al.) propose an interconnection.
Conclusion
The scientific pursuit questioning the existence of God or non-existence is still the most basic question of life and still relevant in cosmology about the origin and purpose of the universe. The Bible said that with God everything is possible what is not possible with man. When both religion and science fail, one can assuredly rely on God as it is said that it is difficult to discuss the beginning without mentioning the concept of God and that theological possibility is still certainly alive. Therefore, there have been attempts to show that the doctrines and methods of Christian theology can be harmonized with, and even illuminate, then doctrines and methods of contemporary science. The theories of contemporary cosmology, physics and biology seem to offer the theologians ample opportunity to show Christian belief and the scientific worldview can be integrated. The main thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis are the works of Ian Barbour (1990), Davis (1992), Jaki (1978), Peacock (1979, 1990), Polkinghorne (1986, 1988), Torrance (1969, 1981, 1985). Various methodologies are evolved and adopted in all sciences and social sciences. But what will assist progress is a new openness on both of science to the dimension of mystery in its work, and of faith and theology to a vision of God’s purposeful activity that transcends the narrow frame work of anthropocentrism. Therefore, there is every need for the 21st century world community irrespective of religious background, cutting across status of the nation, region, caste, creed, sex, and so on, to all converge and address the common issue of the causes of ecological imbalances and its impact on the environment—both human and non-human environ. Anthropocentric naturally implies importance given to mankind. Man is to be judged in its relationally linkage to all creation work. This does not explicitly imply that at the cost of man’s life other beings are given importance. Simple logic that links man and nature is the existence of man and nature without which the universe cannot survive of its own as someone caring for it is essential. At the cost of caring and use/consume as is commanded that man cannot exploit the nature including animals, plants, insects, reptiles (other creatures). Over consumerism upon other creation work by man results in imbalances in ecology that affect the quality of life of man as the source of life of man, animals, reptiles, insects etc. on earth is oxygen and if natural resources like afforestation and other causes of ecological imbalance is disturbed by destruction of related sources of nature i.e., a life giving sources, it is killing not only trees and other interdependent other ecological resources(the entire environments) that maintain the eco-system but ultimately leading to killing man by starving oxygen or polluting the environment, the source of oxygen which God breathes on the nostril of man in the beginning of creation, when in the end of man’s life, such breath is deprived, so are other living and non-living beings on which interdepended on each other by all which God created. Therefore, the creation works interdepends on each and every created being including intra and enter kinds which indicate the affirmation of the present and the future science and technological advancement, and its impact on the ecological imbalances of the cosmos and particularly the planet earth. Therefore, the slogan: “Live and Let Live” is an apt description for the interdependent nature of man and other creatures of all kinds to maintain ecological equilibrium in order to sustain life on earth.
References
Charles Birch. “Nature, Humanity and God in Ecological Perspective,” Faith and Science in an Unjust World, Vol. I, p. 72.
Charles Birch and John B. Cobb Jr., 1981. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community (London: Cambridge University Press), p. 154.
Chiru, S. S., 2007. American Baptist Mission: An Integrating Agent of Nagas into Indian Union, Sunrise Publications, New Delhi.
“Greenhouse Effect”, Britannica Online Encyclopedia Multimedia.
Hallman, David, 1994. “Beyond North/South Dialogue,” In Ecotheology Voicidgees from South and North, (ed.) W.C.C. Publishers, Geneva.
Huntington, Samuel, P. 2009. Political Order in Changing Societies, Adarsh Enterprises, New Delhi.
Ian G. Barbour, 1968. “Science and Religion Today.” In Ian G. Barbour (eds.) Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue, New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row. pp. 3-39.
_________, 1970. Science and Security: The Ethics of Technology. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, pp. 64-68.
__________, 1981. Issues in Science and Religion, London: SCM Press, p. 2.
__________, 1991. Religion in an Age of Science, London: SCM Press, p. 3.
__________, 1997. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. San Francisco: Harper, ISBN 0-06-060938-9.
__________, 2002. Nature, Human Nature, and God, Fortress Press, ISBN 0800634772.
J.G.P. Collison. “Biblical Perspective on Stewardship of Earth’s Resources,” Bangalore theological Forum, vol. 18/4 (October-December, 1983), p. 153.
- Habermas, 2003. The Future of Human Nature, Oxford, Blackwell, p. 23.
Kanagaraj, J.J. “Ecological Concern in Paul’s Mission in Theology.” In Ecological Challenges and Christian Mission. (eds.) Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y. Aghamkar. New Delhi: CMS/ISPCK, 1998.
Robert E. Goodin, 1992. Green Political Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rodman, John, 1980. “Paradigm Change in Political Science,” American Behavioral Scientist 24, pp. 49-78.
Scaeffer, F.A. 1970. Pollution and the Death of a Man-the Christian View of the Ecology, Weaton: Tyndale House Publisher.
Sen, Amartya, 2011. Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press.
Terence Ball, Richer Dagger, 2003. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, 5th (ed.) New York: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 47, 237.
U.N. Conference, 1992. “Environment and Development”, Rio de Janerio, A Report.
______________, 1994. “Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama Strategy”, Japan, May 23-27, A Report.