Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religious approaches to environmental issues
Religious approaches to environmental issues
Religious approaches to environmental issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Religious approaches to environmental issues
Christian theology states that God created the earth and gave it as a gift to humans to be shared with all other living creatures. This belief is known as the “Creation-centered approach to the natural environment” (Massaro, p.163). This approach emphasizes the value of nature by recognizing humans as being an equal part of God’s creation under which all “species deserve protection” (Massaro, p.163). With such publicly known cases of pollution like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or Bethlehem Steel’s pollution of Lake Erie decades ago, it is evident that humans have been using the environment in accordance with the Stewardship or even the Dominion model, both of which place humans above all other creations. According to Massaro, Christian theology also explains that showing “disregard for the air that others breathe and the quality of the water they drink is to sin against God” (Massaro, p.162). This type of disregard destroys humankind’s relationship with all other living organisms.
This “relationship” previously stated is the basis for the second key theme of Catholic Social Teaching. “The Catholic social encyclicals teach that to be human is to experience not only rights but also obligations to others” (Massaro, p.84). A strong advocate for solidarity, Pope John Paul II stated “To be human is to be a social being, one whose very life is and should be bound up with those in close proximity and even distant strangers (Massaro, p.84). Solidarity exists when individuals are contributing towards a common good, which is simply a goal in life that is held above the private benefits of those individuals. Catholic Social Teaching states that when the individuals of today make sacrifices for the common good of a ...
... middle of paper ...
...far into the future as possible until it becomes a burden to the current generation and that any perceived benefits gained by those future generations cannot be measure. With that in mind, burying the nuclear waste in Yucca mountain is simply too risky given natural condition, which is why the aboveground storage and passing on to future generations method is best suited for the overall benefit of mankind and the enviroment. This can only hold true if each generation commits to not only contributing towards the safe containment of the radioactive waste, but also encourages the next generation to do the same. Actions taken today with good intentions for the future can still yield negative results in that future. But, with this method, small incremental improvements can be taken over time and not burden one generation with the welfare of all generations after it.
In the journal of Environmentalism as Religion, Paul H. Rubin discuss about how environmental is similar to religion. Rubin want everyone to know that the environment and religion are somehow similar in a way, which they both have belief system, creation stories and original sin.
Judeo-Christian beliefs as based on faith, and solely that. These groups and people do not need facts to back up their convictions, and each person will believe that “their way is the right way, [and that] everyone else is wrong,” (Page 6). One of the most commonly known stories from these religions is the story of the Garden of Eden, in which Eve and Adam both partake of the fruit of knowledge and thus for are cast out, bringing evil unto the world. Many believe, that these same connections can be made to our story as a human population as it was with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were both sinners, and “we are all energy sinners,” (Page 2). Both groups of evildoers are then forced to gain their salvation, in our case, sustainability, or be forced
Annotation: This source does a great job of explaining the difference between the political view of environmentalism, and the Christian view on the environment. The source goes on to talk about how those differences are highlighted by the fact that Christians believe they are placed by God, in charge of Creation. Whereas the political view leans more towards the idea that we are equals with the rest of creation.
II was the relationship with the Church and the world. "The Church is a human
...that they believe is just and being ethical when concerning the environment, adherents will be rewarded by God. Humanity also benefits as, environmental ethics provided by the Christian teaching and beliefs allows communities to come together and discuss issues concerning the environment whilst being guided by their faith.
The meaning of ‘being human’ - Catholic people believe the meaning of ‘being human’ is a very strong part of their faith and commitment to life.The meaning of also ‘being human’ to the catholics is having a purpose in life, this could be through a number of connections to the world and faith such as being spiritual, physical, social, emotional and intellectual “God is spirit”. Each of these connections have many different meanings and effects on every person within the world. They believe that being human means that they have a responsibility to share equal rights to all people within the world. Overall the catholics believe that everyone deserves the equal right to have the same opportunities and rights in life and to show true faith to their religion through many connections such as being spiritual, physical, social, emotional and intellectual.
The framework question, “What do we owe to each other?”, addresses complex issues of human existence. No matter the response, the answer is subjective, related to one’s own personal experiences and their understanding of morality and inequality. Yet, an individual’s answer can be further influenced by academic study and helping others in need. Philosophy, theology, and service influence the understanding of the question, “What do we owe to each other?” by allowing one to explore problems of human morality, experience human connection through theology, and feel sympathy for others.
The majority of this piece is dedicated to the author stating his opinion in regards to civilization expanding beyond its sustainable limits. The author makes it clear that he believes that humans have failed the natural environment and are in the process of eliminating all traces of wilderness from the planet. Nash points out facts that strengthen his argument, and quotes famous theologians on their similar views on environmental issues and policies. The combination of these facts and quotes validates the author’s opinion.
Whipple, Chris G. (1996). Can Nuclear Waste Be Stored Safely at Yucca Mountain?. Scientific American. 274(6). 72-79.
The articles “The Environmental issue from hell” by Bill McKibben and “The Obligation to Endure” by Rachel Carson both talk about the environmental consequences that people have caused. However, McKibben writes about Global warming and argues that it is a moral responsibility to preserve the earth, while on the other hand, Carson writes about pollution of the earth caused by man. McKibben article makes good points and supports his claim with facts which makes his article valid. Carson supports her idea with adequate information and factual evidence which also makes her article valid.
In addition to the potential dangers of accidents in generating stations, nuclear waste is a continuing problem that is growing exponentially. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for about 600 years and disposing these wastes or storing them is an immense problem. Everyone wants the energy generated by power plants, but no one wants to take responsibility for the waste. Thus far, it is stored deep in the earth, but these storage areas are potentially dangerous and will eventually run out. Some have suggested sending the waste into space, but no one is sure of the repercussions.
“The Historical Roots of Our Ecological crisis” has been the spark of a long standing debate about the impact of religion on environmental degradation. Comparing White and Whitney’s respective essay’s brings together two different perspectives ultimately shaping ones opinion on this subject of matter. Conclusively I can say Whitney’s points are valid and interesting as they identify the crucial flaws that White fails to take into account. Unlike most response papers, Whitney’s agreements with White are superficial in the broadest sense. The points that contend White’s thesis are all points that I agree as they pertain to the generation that I live in and I can see where her ideas stem from in day to day life.
God has not abandoned the world. It is His will that His design and our hope for it will be realized through our co-operation in restoring its original harmony. In our own time we are witnessing a growth of an ecological awareness which needs to be encouraged, so that it will lead to practical programs and initiatives. An awareness of the relationship between God and humankind brings a fuller sense of the importance of the relationship between human beings and the natural environment, which is God's creation and which God entrusted to us to guard with wisdom and love (cf.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
Modern Catholic social teachings trace its beginnings to the writings of Pope Leo XIII. His insight on Christian philosophy, politics and the social order and applies to teachings in current injustices in the economic order. Leo XIII’s teachings were also critical participation in the developments of modern social and economic life. He rooted his social ethics in the supreme value of the human person and added that all political and social structures need to respect and respond to this primary and moral claim of human dignity. While the Church and the political community are autonomous and independent of each other in their own fields, the Church is “at once the sign and the safeguard of the transcendental dimension of the human person”.