Throughout Christian history, official theologians--whatever I mean by that--as well as the common person have often reasoned using a "God of the gaps" logical method. As in, "We can't explain or imagine how this could be, unless God..." William Paley's 'Clock Maker' analogy to counter the then growing momentum of evolutionary theory is the classic example: eyes and other parts of animal bodily function are simply too complex to imagine developing without a maker, like a clock is simply too complex to imagine without a clock maker. Paley, accidentally, proved the follies of backward and unimaginative thinking, especially for religious persons. When a "God of the gaps" is debunked, as it regularly has been, religious persons who hold such theology are put in the awkward position of either rejecting their God or rejecting reality (both of which, as far as I'm concerned, are the same). Yet despite the routine defeat of the "God of the gaps," of backward and unimaginative thinking, Christians and perhaps persons of other religions still, on the whole, haven't learned the lesson. We still reason, discern, decide and act based only on what we know and not on what is unknown but could be.
I'll get around to the environment and global climate change, but I think this is a grand opportunity to bring up a pet thought experiment of mine: what if there are aliens? What will Christians do then? After centuries of claiming that God created our world and we humans specially, if people from some faraway galaxy who don't look at all like us show up, then I imagine that most people will choose one of three options: 1) the world is ending because the aliens are going to attack us and it will look like Revelation; 2) the Bible must be wrong, so God must be wrong; 3) rapidly scramble to invent some other theology and look, rightfully, terribly silly to the rest of the world. None of those options are great. It would be better to instead create a theology now that incorporates the possibility of other intelligent lifeforms in the universe. Otherwise we'd be left with a classic no-good-terrible choice. If developing a theology that thinks ahead to incorporate the possibility of aliens sounds like a compromise, well, it's certainly not as much a compromise as rapidly scrambling if an alien were to greet us. So as not to risk the rejection of God or the rejection of reality, we shouldn't reason, discern, decide and act only on what we know now but should instead reason, discern, decide and act in ways that also incorporate the unknown and what could be.
This brings us to the inimitable problem of global climate change. Of course, there are those who still deny the severity of the problem or even that it exists. Doing so is, logically and frankly, silly. If we're concerned about jobs, then combating the problem will simply transfer jobs from one set of industries to another set; and the risk of not combating the problem is great. If the danger is as great as scientists say, then my three and one-year olds are entirely screwed. If the scientists are right, it is the greatest problem and threat to human existence. Why not look ahead to the problem now? Indeed, why didn't we look ahead to possible damage of the environment generations ago?
As Christians it seems we have taught the world that what is, is good and will last forever, and what is not, is bad and won't ever come. If those are the conditions under which we reason, discern, decide and act, then we needn't ever plan for harmful consequences. We can roll out new technologies with great expectations for increased production and luxury but without worry about any possible footprint. Carson's The Silent Spring and the so-called revolution it sprang don't seem to have dented prevailing modes of thought. Yet because of Carson's work and the now unanimous scientific record on global climate change, we know that we should have known better. Any time we introduce into nature a chemical or gas that is unnatural, non-native, or in higher quantities than nature typically produces, we should stop and think far longer than we ever have. To you and me that probably seems commonsense now but it wasn't before. Still, though, we should have known better. Of course, we didn't know better, because we were and are operating under a false mode of reasoning, discerning, deciding and acting. The weight of Christian theology and living for the past two thousand years has convinced us that it's impossible to know better except in hindsight. Because we've hidden behind bad theology and reasoning, we're now in a dreadful state. "We should have known better" can't help us now.
Regardless, I have hope. The reason for my hope may sound rather pessimistic to you, however, so prepare yourself. I have hope because of a clever story by Isaac Asimov, "Night." Asimov's story is of a people who have never experienced night because of their three suns but now, for the first time in hundreds and hundreds of years, all three suns will set at the same time and there will be night. It's the end of the world!... or so the people think. Thus, naturally, most people descend into chaos. One scientist, however, has been doing his research and discovers that, actually, this is not the first time a developed civilization on that spot has experienced a night. That previous civilization--and perhaps there were more than one--also descended into chaos thinking that the world was ending. The scientist's discovery, of course, proves that night is not the end of the world and the people should instead plan for ways to endure the night and come out the other side intact. Like with most other things he wrote, Asimov's story is brilliant. It's also relevant. There are people out there, myself included, who believe, with some supporting evidence, that developed civilization appeared prior to the last ice age. The Sphinx in Egypt, for instance, could date to many years prior. Unfortunately, we are too obsessed with one of two story lines to accept such a dating: either we believe that humans have progressed over time and that we, right now, are the height of human progress, and therefore everything before now must have been worse, making the Sphinx and other similar buildings and sites a great mystery; or we mostly agree with the first argument but can't deny the existence of certain structures and, therefore, there must have been aliens. Both are ridiculous. Humans have always been humans and thus capable of great things.
All of this is important, while possibly sounding crazy to some, because whether the alternative history of the Sphinx and human civilization is correct--that, because humans are wonderful creatures, we could have developed civilizations in an advanced way with advanced knowledge well before our history books, which deny human greatness, tell us, possibly even prior to the last ice age--we are on the brink of destroying ourselves again. If you've ever seen the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, you should know that the science present in that movie is accurate. Indeed it is possible that the climate change so much, particularly if our oceans warm, that certain climate functions simply cease and the Earth responds with a massive counterattack. As the movie hints at, there is evidence that is how the last ice age began, suddenly and ferociously. Suddenly and ferociously enough that most signs of civilization would disappear. Again, whether any of this is correct or not, we are on the brink of destroying ourselves and we are ignoring the danger. Whether an ice age suddenly destroys us or if we gradually come to be living in a desert, but only realize it at the last second, it seems to me that we won't have much time to react before our night begins. Yet part of the reason I've come to believe in an alternative history of humanity that respects our potential as creatures is that we can then use Asimov's story as a source of hope: yes, we will destroy ourselves, but we can leave notes and traces behind so that future scientists can discover what we've done and experienced and do better the next time around; to analyze what went wrong and develop technology and 'progress' harmoniously with our environment. Our night is not far away, we are not responding quickly enough, but we can start preparing for the future beyond.
I thank shows like Ancient Aliens and other related 'alternative' history programs for reminding us of the type of technology that past civilizations have used. Obviously, we could all do without the assumption that humans are and were not capable of advanced knowledge and techniques, including a spiritual and intellectual connection to nature to discover the places with strange phenomenon. We need not assume that aliens must have created a star gate in those places or handed down knowledge because we humans are amazing and spiritual beings. Instead we can simply admire in awe what we've done and try hard to learn from our past accomplishments.
Learning from our past accomplishments, rather than merely gawking at them as unsolvable mysteries or the work of aliens, would teach us that the Egyptians and other civilizations hardly ever built anything grand and awesome, from the pyramids around the world to Stonehenge to the Sphinx to Pumapunku, without some nod to deep natural knowledge. Spirituality often also plays a major role at these places, thus tying together nature and spirit, the body and soul. There also exists evidence that many ancient structures and techniques were intended either to produce zero impact energy or connect us to or remind us of the natural electronic and life-giving energy present on our amazing planet. Whether any ancient structures or techniques were ever able to harness natural energy or not almost doesn't matter. What matters is the clear intention to use what already exists rather than producing anew. What matters is the clear intention to preserve and enhance our relationship with the environment that gives us life.
Let's say that we have progressed in knowledge as well as technology since the ancients. If that is the case, then obviously what might have been out of reach for ancient Egyptians, of actually harnessing real energy from the planet without damaging it at the same time, should now be within reach. At the very least, we can promise future civilizations, after our planet has reset and we humans are hopefully still alive but in a reduced state and can discover our notes and traces, that indeed they can and will develop technology capable of producing energy without harming the environment. Of course, past humans may have tried the same, if I'm right about things, and future humans may not care what we have to say to them. I can imagine our future selves saying, "Well, no worries, we can use coal-powered factory plants because we'll do so in moderation and not destroy the planet," a hundred years before things get well out of hand. Still, if our future selves are able to put human history in perspective by looking back at us, then waiting a couple of hundred years before using energy-producing technology or chemicals of any kind might not be that big of a deal. They might be convinced to wait in order to ensure longevity rather than short-term gain.
No one can predict what someone else will do, obviously, especially given a different background, but leaving behind notes and traces of what we've done and what should be done to avoid our fate would at least give our future selves a chance. If we are unable to protect ourselves, as looks more and more likely, by living in greater harmony with our planet and our spiritual nature, then we at least need to help future civilizations make that a fixture of society. Civilization cannot long continue ignoring our human spirituality or our natural connection to our environment.
Where do Christians come back into the story? Well, let's first acknowledge that faith in Christ may not survive the destruction of our planet because that destruction will be associated with Christianity. Our way of doing theology has been so poor that it has led us to believing that God created the world for us that we might use it however we want no matter what. We have long misinterpreted the "dominion" and "subdue" in our creation story. Those words, as well as the general tone and meaning of Genesis 1-3, actually command that we care for the earth as it was created, that we take on the role of co-creators with God to maintain and sustain the beauty and abundance of our world rather than plunder it for our own gain. Hence, while many complain that the Hollywood movie Noah, with Russell Crowe, is not biblically correct, it actually is in many ways that we have since forgotten (not to mention that it follows the Book of Enoch rather closely).
Having acknowledged our theological and practical wrongdoing, Christians must begin doing theology a new way and be the voice of Creation reasoning. Simultaneously we must incorporate the unknown and mysterious into how we reason, discern, decide and act, acknowledging that our God Three-in-one is a mystery and has always asked us to be okay with mystery (think of Job, especially, but also the creation story itself), as well as use that theological grounding to strongly teach, remind, and encourage our fellow journeyers that we humans and the world around us are capable of great things--and capable of great destruction.
Christians are perhaps best poised to fill this role of modeling and encouraging harmonious environmental living that is spiritual and life-giving in every way. When we don't misinterpret our creation story, we see that God's creation plays a central role in our relationship with God throughout the Bible. Sinful acts have consequences for nature as well, often with the earth crying out; on the other hand, the earth participates in salvation as well. We believe that what God created was created so that we might have a divine space in and on which we could walk with God. Our faith is not the only one that calls for a bond between human and earth but it is the only one, as far as I know, that suggests the bond should be central to who we are and how we relate to the divine as well as encouraging a striving with the divine. Whereas Buddhism, and other faiths, does teach living harmoniously with the environment, it does not also teach that our inclination to strive forward is good. Buddhism instead teaches an emptying. Christianity could learn a lot from Buddhism, and indeed the two faiths are more similar at their core than many adherents realize, but Christianity acknowledges that at the core of our soul is a desire to strive. What our faith intends to do is channel that desire into holiness and away from mere ambition. That channeling becomes critical in our relationship to energy and the planet: ambition focuses on extraction and production, while holy striving focuses on growing in tandem.
Unfortunately there is little hope for us in the next hundred or so years, but we hold out hope and faith that it is possible to grow in tandem with the world created for and around us and with one another. Christians are well poised, if we change how we reason, discern, decide and act, to be the people that lead the way. We can, in a far off future that we must start planning for, encourage technological progress but with greater reflection and a different focus. And if we Christians are unable to be that people, then I hope and pray that the majority of people will remember, through collective memory and any notes and traces we leave behind, that future civilizations live and act more reflectively, spiritually, and with the unknown constantly in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment