Pope Benedict XVI: Atheism, Secularism Responsible for Environmental Destruction
Pope Benedict XVI in Loreto, Italy
Photo: Giuseppe Cacace / Getty Images
Somehow, he managed to reason that in order to encourage Christians to behave in a more responsible manner towards the environment, it would be best to blame the secularists and atheists for all the trouble rather than chastise Christians for any of their own past errors. Given how many centuries the Catholic Church takes to apologize for their own improper actions, though, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the "final authority," and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.
Creation, matter structured in an intelligent manner by God, is entrusted to man's responsibility, who is able to interpret and refashion it actively, without regarding himself as the absolute owner. Man is called to exercise responsible government to protect it, to obtain benefits and cultivate it, finding the necessary resources for a dignified existence for all.
With the help of nature itself and with the commitment of its own work and creativity, humanity is able to assume the grave duty to hand over to the new generations an earth which, in turn, the latter will be able to inhabit worthily and cultivate further.
Source: Catholic.net
Environmental Problems
Photo: DataCraft
I'm sure he succeeded in making lots of Christians feel superior to all the nasty atheists, but it's never been my experience that such hate-mongering and such promotion of self-righteous bigotry ever inspires a group to higher standards and better behavior. Quite the contrary: it seems to inspire ever baser behavior because the identification of a scape-goat makes it easier for people to project their faults onto others and maintain a self-image of purity and goodness.
I've never personally met any atheists who are indifferent to environmental damage and degradation, but I'm sure they exist — there's nothing about atheism to prevent it or to encourage one to be environmentally responsible. By the same token, there's also nothing about atheism or secularism to encourage one to be indifferent to the environment; both are technically neutral on such questions.
On the other hand, there do seem to be more than a few Christians who at least act like they are indifferent to the environment — and what's more, they offer an explicitly Christian, religious defense for their attitudes and behaviors. First, they argue that humans were given dominion over nature, which means they have the authority to make decisions about what happens to it — and what's more, making decisions that benefit humans is precisely what nature is for. Nature doesn't exist for its own sake. Second, they argue that Jesus is coming sooner or later — and probably sooner — so it doesn’t matter what damage is done.
You don't find atheists writing letters or articles arguing that environmentalism is evil, but you will find Christians writing letters or articles arguing that environmentalism is evil — if not Satanic. Now, I'm not claiming that all Christians are like this. It may be that most aren't, I just don't know, but in America it's at least a strong minority position. Unlike Pope Benedict XVI, I'm not going to engage in hate-mongering by tarring an entire class of people because of the misdeeds of a few. I'm not going to tell atheists to imagine that they are superior just because some Christians behave in a base and immoral manner.
If I wanted to, though, Pope Benedict XVI himself would be an easy starting point for such arguments.
how an adult of sound mind
Obviously that is not a correct assumption.
It’s just not easy for me to imagine how an adult of sound mind could possibly conclude that all of the environmental damage and destruction caused by Christians over the past centuries could suddenly be laid on the shoulders of secular atheists.
…meaning the oil companies, coal-burning power plants and soft-coal foundaries in China are actually crypto-churches? Feel free to provide evidence or specific examples.
@Robert J:
(if you actually return, or are you just a hit and runner?)
Crypto-churches, indeed! Where does that relate to what was said? Are all those types of the companies in the world mentioned, run by atheists, all of them? Talk about raising straw men!
You know perfectly well what was meant in the statement, unless you can’t understand the English language. You refuse to recognize the detrimental effects on civilization and its progress that has been perpetrated in the name of religion.
Have you ever heard of ANY atheistic group, declaring wars on believers in the name of non-belief? Any atheists forcing their beliefs on a country through war? Any atheists using torture to get people to NOT believe in any god? An atheist inquisition, perhaps?
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Christians declare “It’s god’s world, he’ll take care of it.”
Some of the Christians I’ve heard insist that they don’t care what happens to the world, because they’ll
be “raptured” out of here any day now. Many of them absolutely complain about hating this world. Of course, then, why worry about taking care of it anyway?
The history if the world and civilization speaks for itself. Have you actually cracked a history book? I refer to FACTUAL history, not fantasy. The tunnel vision of most bible-thumpers always amazes me!
If the bible doesn’t say so, it’s wrong. No matter the millions of other volumes available. They cling to this ancient book of myths for their warped views, as their only source of knowledge about science, history, anthropology, archeology even questionable geography. Who knows what else, and how this has destroyed any cohesive awareness of the REAL world?
So I have to ask “what’s your point?” Do you actually have one? If so, it is what…? Inquiring minds want to know.
Is it just me; or is the Pope looking ever more close to this?:
http://www.nosferatuscoffin.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nosferatularge.jpg
Or maybe this?…
http://nighthawknews.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nosferatu.jpg
I’d say the only thing missing, in those pics, is a selection from the Pope’s “Ministry of Silly Hats”.
No?
No, that’s not what I said.
Of what, some bizarre idea that you made up out of nowhere?
You’ve got ‘pope equals melting glaciers’. Some of the nuttier TV preachers think climate change is bunk, it’s true, but some of the mainline churches (episcopal, methodist, lutheran) have taken public positions in favor of action to cut emissions, etc. Climate change comes from cars, power plants, deforestation and other things mostly related to businesses, not to churches. You’re blaming the pope. If it’s not a conspiracy theory, show some evidence. “We’ve all seen it” isn’t evidence.
Call me a “hit and run” blog commentator if you must, but know that you are presuming that I, or any other person for that matter, have the time to seek out and monitor the nonsense in perspective you are claiming. I am neither a religious zealot nor an advocate for evangelists. However, I must bring to your attention that you are specifically attacking an elderly man who you claim doesn’t necessarily have a bearing on your worldview. Never did the Pope explicitly state he was blaming atheists. You inferred that. If you want to go negotiating the gray areas of another’s thought processes it would be wise of you to actually know the specifics of literary interpretations and criticism. It appears from your writing that you do not analyze your own analyses. I say this as a conscientious objector not as an argumentative attack on your perspective. However, it would behoove you to notice your own implicit biases and sensitivities to imagined attack, as you are the one doing the verbose attacking in this situation.
What? That’s incoherent.
I didn’t say it comes from churches.
No, I’m not.
Of what, some bizarre idea that you made up out of nowhere?
If that means that you will come along to make claims that you have no intention of supporting or defending, that goes beyond mere “hit and run.”
I must bring to your attention that I am criticizing statements which represent of form of hate mongering against atheists.
He was explicitly blaming secularism and atheism. Indeed, he explicitly declared that the problem starts where belief in his god ceases, thus completely excusing true believers from any responsibility.
Feel free to support this claim — that is, if you possess sufficient intellectual honesty to ever return to support your position.
>I must bring to your attention that you are specifically attacking an elderly man who you claim doesn’t necessarily have a bearing on your worldview.
While the pope may not dictate my worldview, I have to say I’m not blind to the influence this man has on the population at large. Just because I do not share the beliefs of others doesn’t mean they don’t impact humanity–and, therefore, _me_. I am in no way a believer, but I couldn’t miss 9-11, for example. It’s a huge blindspot believers have when they ask, “why do you care what theists believe?” As though religion has no impact on anyone but the believer. I don’t know if it’s denial or dishonesty that drives that mindset, but once and for all, I do not “secretly” believe in god. But I do have to respond to the negative impact theism has on my society, because I have to live within it–and that should be more than sufficient reason for me to “care” what people believe, as beliefs inform our actions–demonstrably so.
I would add that it is the religious folks who have many children and that contributes greatly to environmental destruction through overuse of our resources, natural and otherwise. Those include an increased burden on water, sewage, and energy.
Being an atheist makes it much easier to be childfree, as there is less (not necessarily none, but it can be zero) pressure to “be fruitful and multiply” from religion. Indeed, when I made a post on a childfree message board that I was an atheist, many of those who responded wrote that they were atheists or despised how religion has pressured them to have children or has ostracized them for not having them.
I’d like some evidence backing this statement, from the article’s first paragraph:
“…the environmental damage and destruction caused by Christians over the past centuries could suddenly be laid on the shoulders of secular atheists.“
“Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature’s relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the “final authority,” and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.”
My bad, meant to include just this part:
“…the environmental damage and destruction caused by Christians over the past centuries…”
I guess the church did something terrible over the past let’s say 300-500 years. What does Austin mean specifically? And I don’t mean ‘Christians have said stupid things about how the env. doesn’t matter.’ That’s what Dean is quoting above, and I concede the point.
You’re talking about real damage and destruction, above that done by, for example, mining companies and factory farms, which have no religious affiliation. The dirtiest places on earth are those with openly atheist ideologies, for example the industrial areas of China and the old Soviet Union.
Backing for what, exactly? You didn’t even quote a complete sentence and if the full sentence is taken into account, it’s a statement about what I do not find easy to believe. So, are you trying to get support for the idea that I don’t find this easy to believe? Or are you trying to find support for the premise that Christians have caused environmental damage? Or what, exactly?
I have to be honest here, you seem to have a lot of trouble being clear. You object to things that no one has said and ask for support for statements that you can only vaguely and incompletely point to. Please, take a little more time to be clear and direct in what you’re trying to say.
Here’s the whole overlong sentence. I want some corroboration on the bolded part:
“It’s just not easy for me to imagine how an adult of sound mind could possibly conclude that all of the environmental damage and destruction caused by Christians over the past centuries could suddenly be laid on the shoulders of secular atheists.”
Specifically, what ‘environmental damage and destruction’ are you talking about? Did some catholics ground the Exxon Valdez? Are some lutherans decapitating mountains in W. Virginia? Are the over-fishing Russians trawlers actually baptists?
I don’t say anything about “the church.” The statement you quote is unambiguously clear: “Christians.”
No, I’m not.
I’m talking about damage and destruction caused by Christians. Who have the principle owners, operators, managers, and shareholders of the mining companies, factory farms, etc? Buddhists? Shintoists? Raelians?
My support is simply this: the overwhelming number of people in the West for the past several centuries have all been Christians and there is no evidence that any particular industry has been owned or managed by people with radically different demographics. This means that Christians have been the primary owners, managers, and shareholders of the companies causing environmental problems.
The pope, however, is claiming that such damage begins with marginalizing or denying the Christian god. This is not only false, but is in fact a form of hate mongering because it is an attempt to place the blame for a problem caused by all demographic groups on the shoulder of a single minority. It’s not unlike trying to blame crime on blacks, promiscuity on gays, and greed on Jews.
People of all religions and no religion have contributed to environmental problems, but in the West Christians have necessarily been behind more of it — that’s a consequence of being in the majority. An honest and serious speech from the pope would pointed this out and called on Christians to behave differently rather than try to tell them that the problem somehow “begins with” people who believe differently from them.
Austin said: People of all religions and no religion have contributed to environmental problems, but in the West Christians have necessarily been behind more of it — that’s a consequence of being in the majority.
OK if that’s your position. I’m not defending the pope’s statement. I think loading all the environmental sins of western culture on the back of christians is too much of a stretch. You would have to say ‘Christians own ExxonMobil, and ExxonMobil is a big polluter.’ Large mutual funds, banks and insurance companies own Exxon (ref. moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?Symbol=XOM), there is no pattern of religious affiliation there I know of.
A few additional datapoints:
- Chinese factories are the dirtiest in the world. Practicing Christianity is borderline illegal in China, and it is outright illegal to practice Falun Gong.
- Next dirtiest are the ex-Soviet factories, again rising from an atheist culture.
- Environmental hazards are appalling in hindu-majority India and largely buddhist Burma. I could go on.
There is no real correlation between Christian economic activity and environmental damage. The blame goes around evenly, regardless of creed.
The point taken by many US churches is similar to yours, that Christians should do better than the majority, not just be as bad as everyone else.
Were the contemporaneous non-western powers, ie the Qing Dynasty and the Ottoman Empire, more kind to the environment than their western counterparts? Very unlikely, and so there’s not much point to Austin’s article, unless you want to say we’re all bad for modernizing and for consuming too much.
And who has done that? I certainly haven’t — I’ve made absolutely no statements whatsoever about the cause of “all the environmental sins of western culture.”
Or unless I wanted to point out yet another example of hate mongering towards atheists. Then again, maybe it was just a coincidence that that just happened to concern most of what I wrote?
Austin comment 1: People of all religions and no religion have contributed to environmental problems, but in the West Christians have necessarily been behind more of it — that’s a consequence of being in the majority.
Austin comment 2: I think loading all the environmental sins of western culture on the back of christians is too much of a stretch.
And who has done that? I certainly haven’t — I’ve made absolutely no statements whatsoever about the cause of “all the environmental sins of western culture.”
What does “West Christians have necessarily been behind more of it” mean, if not that christians are more to blame for damage to the environment?
Also in comment 21, ‘hate mongering towards atheists’, what are you referring to? I don’t see any hate mongering going on here.
Do you comprehend the difference between the words “more” and “all”? There aren’t anywhere close to being the same, but you are treating them as if they were identical by contrasting the two comments above.
In the first, I point out the trivial fact that the huge majorities Christians have enjoyed in the West for the past few centuries necessitates that they will be responsible for more environmental problems in the West than any other group. In the second, I object to your implication that I or anyone else has made any claims about Christians being responsible for “all the environmental sins of western culture.”
More vs. All.
I made a statement about who is responsible for more environmental problems, not all environmental problems. You falsely suggested that I made a claim about the latter and I objected; now, in response to that objection, you’re trying to contrast two vastly different statements as if they were a contradiction.
Do you just not understand the words I am using or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my words?
I explained this in comment #17 to you.
Is Pope Benedict XVI really a nazi?
How can any cult elect a nazi as their leader?
Is it because Jesus was a nazi from nazareth?
I recently got on my site this response:
“I was wondering if you could also talk about the benefits of persecution. In my case, Christians have thrived on it. In Rome, Christianity was illegal and yet there were hundreds of churches being built. In persectued countries today like North Korea, Iraq, and China, millions of people are becoming Christians and even though under fear, they have a stronger faith than those not persecuted. 1 Peter 1:7 You don\’t have to mention this in your article, I just think it would be cool of you to do.”
I am stumped how to answer it? Are there really people out there who WANT persecution? Are they nutcases or what?
Somehow my comments don’t appear, is it under moderation?
Maybe numbers would help: These are worldwide numbers and are estimated but if you cant get Austins point after this then you are thick as a brick.
1>Christianity: 2.1 billion
2>Islam: 1.5 billion
3>Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4>Hinduism: 900 million
5>Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6>Buddhism: 376 million
7>primal-indigenous: 300 million
8>African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9>Sikhism: 23 million
theres your top 9..
Oh looky there are more chrsitians than any other group, since all groups have contributed to the global environmental problem and we can see there are more christians than anyone else, its not unreasonable to assume that the christian contribution to the problem is greater.
Those numbers are worldwide, however in the West they are even more skewed towards Christianity. So Austin is quite correct when he says Christians contributed more than other groups, its not out of malice on their part or direct lack of caring, its just because there is more of them.
So when the grand poobah hat wearer says “Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? he is full of it. Inconsiderate use of creation has been going on for hundreds of years and its pretty hard to see any Christians on record about how awful it is and how they arent going to take part.
Above numbers taken from here http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
From comment 17:
‘The pope, however, is claiming that such damage begins with marginalizing or denying the Christian god. This is not only false, but is in fact a form of hate mongering because it is an attempt to place the blame for a problem caused by all demographic groups on the shoulder of a single minority. It’s not unlike trying to blame crime on blacks, promiscuity on gays, and greed on Jews.’
Austin Cline and Pope Benedict are in the same boat (!) – they’re both wrong. The Pope is making a wacky statement, not a surprise. Austin is taking the statement personally and feeling singled out by it. This reinforces the stereotype of atheists as huffy, peevish and easily offended.
I guess it’s no longer fashionable for a pope to blame the Jews for the world’s problems, so why not blame the atheists and secular humanists?
Where am I doing this?
Don’t quit your day job to become a mind reader.
So, in order to not appear easily offended, is it your recommendation that atheists never speak out when people spread lies about atheists and atheism? At exactly what level of lying or hate mongering would you personally approve of atheists raising public objections?
I notice that you don’t actually offer any substantive rebuttals to my criticisms — all you do is complain that criticism was offered, as if any criticism is bad even when it’s justified. This reinforces the stereotype of theists as delicate, unable to take criticism, and only interested in silencing atheists.
The fact that you’ve been posting under multiples names — like Chuck Calthorp, Dean, and Robert J (just above!) — doesn’t help either.
There is more truth to that than you may realize. I don’t think it’s coincidence that many of the complaints made in recent years about humanists, atheists, and gays are remarkably similar in both structure and content to those that used to be made about Jews. This suggests strongly that there is some underlying fear or purpose behind all the complaints with the actual target being almost incidental.
dd, many believers, and Christians in particular, take persecution as a sure sign they’re on the right track. Jesus had declared that, even as he himself had been persecuted, his followers would likewise experience the same fate. This is why Christians embrace persecution, and may sometimes even get an anxious feeling of not being on the right path if no one’s picking on them and, specifically, picking on them for saying and doing things they believe God and Jesus want them to say and do. Persecution is seen as affirmation that they’re being noticeably “spiritual” (and not merely as annoying as hell) and that this is angering the “carnally-minded” unbelievers, inducing the latter to strike out at them in whatever way they can.
It appears to me that, for them, it may be that “faith is the evidence of things not seen”, but it’s still nice to have some persecution to support that evidence.
The greatest environmental disaster facing our species is human overpopulation. We could all drive hummers and fly airplanes and own big houses if there were fewer of us. Yet it is taboo to discuss human overpopulation and that taboo is put in place by Christianity, which teaches that babies are gifts from God, that large families are good, birth control is bad, abortion is bad, sex is for procreation, and we should be fruitful and multiply. Human suffering isn’t caused by overpopulation because “The poor ye shall always have with you.” I have heard Christians say that all the humans on earth would fit on the island of Manhattan and therefore overpopulation is a myth. That is a denial of science, which warns us daily that we have already far exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. Each human requires so very much more than the space he can occupy with two feet.
There is also a more subtle Christian attitude that animals were put here by God for our pleasure, for hunting and fishing, and that environmental stewardship is unnecessary because God will replenish the game. God also put the oil under the ground so we could drive Hummers. It’s all part of God’s plan, so we have no responsibility for taking care of it. Yet another excuse to pretend science isn’t real.
“Christians embrace persecution”
Thanks john, and having come to the conclusion that persecution is good they turn around and start persecuting others in order to be good to them I suppose.
““The poor ye shall always have with you.””
100 years of atheistic science has contributed more prosperity to humankind than 2000 years of Christianity. Another 100 years of atheistic science and there may be no poor people left at all. Already poor people are becoming a minority of this world.
“The greatest environmental disaster facing our species is human overpopulation.”
I am an atheist but I disagree that there is an environmental disaster or that there is human overpopulation. Pollution is the sign of life. Sterile purity indicates absence of life. Without life whats the use of sterile meaningless purity? Just because we are against pollution doesn’t mean that we should be against life. I am all for birth control and such but they should be voluntary. Look at the demographic disaster in china.
“There is also a more subtle Christian attitude that animals were put here by God for our pleasure”
And cutting down millions of perfectly good trees and covering it with crap every Christmas is surely environmental friendly?