Rejecting Anthropocentrism -
A Core Value of Pantheism
In 1967, historian Lynn White Jr. wrote an intellectual bombshell about the environmental crisis, an instant classic which sent reverberations still felt and still widely discussed today:
“Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and re-feel our nature and destiny.”
L. White Jr., “The historical roots of our ecologic crisis.” Science. 155, 1203-1207 (1967), reprinted widely.
This conclusion forced religious groups across the spectrum to re-think their stance on environmental issues. Some even began to expand their concern for “Creation” and talk about the need for “stewardship.” White’s thesis was also a major impetus for the founding of the Universal Pantheist Society in 1975. We have tried ever since to encourage a shift away from humanity as the focal point, to embrace the intrinsic value of nature and to recognize that all species have a right to exist for their own sake. While today White’s thesis is still widely debated - and rejected by many as well - it retains strong support among many environmental philosophers. This recent (2016) comment by Michael Paul Nelson, professor of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy at Oregon State University, is a good example of this support that Pantheists will appreciate:
“White conveyed a deceptively simple yet profound message. Our current environmental crisis, he argued, is the result, not simply of our technological ability to impact and degrade the environment. Rather, our environmental crisis is first and foremost the product of our Western worldview... To be clear, it is not that technological innovation and scientific understanding are unimportant.... A culture maintaining an appropriate relationship with nature will certainly create and evaluate beautiful and novel technologies consistent with this novel worldview. A society caring about and for the world will seek to understand the conditions of that world as a way to express their care. But without the tether of a new worldview, White agued, our technologies and sciences will simply revolve around the worldview that gave rise to our environmental crisis in the first place...
“[Today], we again flirt precariously and unabashedly with a renewed commitment to anthropocentrism with our focus on ecosystems services (to humans) as a way to articulate value in the natural world. Powerful voices still seem to believe that we can leave intact the same worldview that created our environmental problems and simply tinker around the edges, working to invent new applications of technologies and politics built on new justifications, but not altering our basic belief structure. But White warned us repeatedly that we are not going to simply technologize our way out of our current environmental crisis. He wrote, ‘we shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the [Western] axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve [humans]’...
“[White tells us] that though the ‘man-nature dualism is deep-rooted in us... until it is eradicated not only from our minds, but also from our emotions, we shall doubtless be unable to make fundamental changes in our attitudes and actions affecting ecology.‘What we need,’ White argued, is instead a philosophy that is ‘a viable equivalent to animism,’ a philosophy and corresponding ethic affirming the intrinsic value of nature, and rejecting the human/nature dualism that permits hubris and anthropocentrism to emerge in the first place. White steadfastly warned us away from assuming that an enlightened prudential ethic – where we recognize that our well being is dependent upon nature – is a suitable replacement for the new philosophy and ethics we so desperately need in the future we face. Our old worldview created our problems, only a fool would assume a simple reapplication of that same worldview would also solve our problems.”
Professor Nelson concludes that while White’s message is now over 50 years old, “we need to hear it again, today, right now, more than ever. Humans, White pointed out, ‘commit their lives to what they consider good.’ When, and if, the world in its entirety becomes good itself – not just good for us – we will glimpse a new path forward.”
Excerpt from: “The Long Reach of Lynn White Jr.’s “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,’” in Nature Portfolio Ecology & Evolution Community: https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/14041-the-long-reach-of-lynn-white-jr-s-the-historical-roots-of- our-ecologic-crisis December, 2016.
"Rejecting Anthropocentrism - a Core Value of Pantheism"
Source: Pantheist Vision , Vol. 38, No. 2, Summer 2021.
“Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and re-feel our nature and destiny.”
L. White Jr., “The historical roots of our ecologic crisis.” Science. 155, 1203-1207 (1967), reprinted widely.
This conclusion forced religious groups across the spectrum to re-think their stance on environmental issues. Some even began to expand their concern for “Creation” and talk about the need for “stewardship.” White’s thesis was also a major impetus for the founding of the Universal Pantheist Society in 1975. We have tried ever since to encourage a shift away from humanity as the focal point, to embrace the intrinsic value of nature and to recognize that all species have a right to exist for their own sake. While today White’s thesis is still widely debated - and rejected by many as well - it retains strong support among many environmental philosophers. This recent (2016) comment by Michael Paul Nelson, professor of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy at Oregon State University, is a good example of this support that Pantheists will appreciate:
“White conveyed a deceptively simple yet profound message. Our current environmental crisis, he argued, is the result, not simply of our technological ability to impact and degrade the environment. Rather, our environmental crisis is first and foremost the product of our Western worldview... To be clear, it is not that technological innovation and scientific understanding are unimportant.... A culture maintaining an appropriate relationship with nature will certainly create and evaluate beautiful and novel technologies consistent with this novel worldview. A society caring about and for the world will seek to understand the conditions of that world as a way to express their care. But without the tether of a new worldview, White agued, our technologies and sciences will simply revolve around the worldview that gave rise to our environmental crisis in the first place...
“[Today], we again flirt precariously and unabashedly with a renewed commitment to anthropocentrism with our focus on ecosystems services (to humans) as a way to articulate value in the natural world. Powerful voices still seem to believe that we can leave intact the same worldview that created our environmental problems and simply tinker around the edges, working to invent new applications of technologies and politics built on new justifications, but not altering our basic belief structure. But White warned us repeatedly that we are not going to simply technologize our way out of our current environmental crisis. He wrote, ‘we shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the [Western] axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve [humans]’...
“[White tells us] that though the ‘man-nature dualism is deep-rooted in us... until it is eradicated not only from our minds, but also from our emotions, we shall doubtless be unable to make fundamental changes in our attitudes and actions affecting ecology.‘What we need,’ White argued, is instead a philosophy that is ‘a viable equivalent to animism,’ a philosophy and corresponding ethic affirming the intrinsic value of nature, and rejecting the human/nature dualism that permits hubris and anthropocentrism to emerge in the first place. White steadfastly warned us away from assuming that an enlightened prudential ethic – where we recognize that our well being is dependent upon nature – is a suitable replacement for the new philosophy and ethics we so desperately need in the future we face. Our old worldview created our problems, only a fool would assume a simple reapplication of that same worldview would also solve our problems.”
Professor Nelson concludes that while White’s message is now over 50 years old, “we need to hear it again, today, right now, more than ever. Humans, White pointed out, ‘commit their lives to what they consider good.’ When, and if, the world in its entirety becomes good itself – not just good for us – we will glimpse a new path forward.”
Excerpt from: “The Long Reach of Lynn White Jr.’s “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,’” in Nature Portfolio Ecology & Evolution Community: https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/14041-the-long-reach-of-lynn-white-jr-s-the-historical-roots-of- our-ecologic-crisis December, 2016.
"Rejecting Anthropocentrism - a Core Value of Pantheism"
Source: Pantheist Vision , Vol. 38, No. 2, Summer 2021.