Filozoficzny spór o rolę chrześcijaństwa w kwestii ekologicznej

Książka Filozoficzny spór o rolę chrześcijaństwa w kwestii ekologicznej stanowi cenne opracowanie z zakresu filozofii ekologicznej i antropologii filozoficznej. Centralny dla tego opracowania problem badawczy dotyczy wyjaśnienia genezy i natury kryzysu ekologicznego. Historycznym tłem tego dyskursu stała się filozoficzna rekonstrukcja burzliwej dyskusji wokół klasycznego artykułu L. White’a The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, przypisującemu chrześcijaństwu dominującą rolę w tworzeniu antyekologicznych fundamentów cywilizacji naukowo-techniczej. Ryszard F. Sadowski, SDB przedstawił bardzo rzetelny przegląd tej dyskusji oraz próbę sformułowania własnego stanowiska w sprawie roli chrześcijaństwa w genezie, naturze i sposobach rozwiązywania problemów ekologicznych. Rekonstrukcja filozoficzna wielowymiarowego sporu, umożliwiła precyzyjne wydzielenie kilku dopełniających się aspektów analizy ontologicznej, antropologicznej, epistemologicznej i semantycznej. Tyłowy Spór, jak większość kontrowersji filozoficznych, nie został rozstrzygnięty; został przeniesiony jednak na inny poziom, na którym będziemy mieli do dyspozycji precyzyjnie wyłożone racje, argumenty, kontrargumenty oraz perspektywy praktycznego rozwiązania kwestii ekologicznej w duchu filozofii chrześcijańskiej.The controversy regarding the role of Christianity in the ecological question presented in this monograph was initiated on December 26, 1966 with the lecture given by Lynn T. White, Jr. during a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Lynn White presented a paper entitled The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, published a few months later under the same title in the prestigious scientific journal "Science". The essential premise of this text can be summed up in the statement that Christianity bears the main, if not the sole responsibility for the contemporary ecological crisis. This is due to the fact that Christianity supplanted animist religions and, thus, contributed to nature's desacralization and deprivation of human protection and respect which had hitherto been induced by its divine character. Moreover, Christianity dominated the European culture which adopted the biblical worldview and the place and role of man in in it, which in turn, granted humanity an unlimited power over the world, pointed to its radical otherness in relation to the rest of creation and gave assent to an arbitrary use of nature's resources. Devoid of any value, nature could become an object of unrestrained implementation of human purposes. Moreover, Lynn White claims that such an approach towards man's relationship with the natural environment is consistent with the plan of the Creator contained in the Bible and it determines the style of the human presence in the world. Lynn White argues that such an approach led to the formation of exploitative relationship with nature and enabled the development of Western science and technology, which ultimately formed the basis for the modern ecological crisis. Thus formulated, the issue initiated a lively debate that has been going on for almost fifty years. The debate involved a large group of scholars who took a stance on White's opinion which, in time, began to be defined as the Lynn White thesis. Those scholars address White's arguments on the basis of their scientific specializations and, thus, expand the prospects of the ongoing debate. The present study is not, however, limited to the analysis of the role of Christianity in the perpetration of the ecological crisis, but it shows the role of Christianity in overcoming this crisis. Hence, the title contains the phrase 'the ecological question', which comprises both the causes and the ways to overcome the ecological crisis. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to present the philosophical dimensions of the titular dispute over the role of Christianity in the environmental question, namely: 1) assessment of the allegation that Christian tradition gave rise to the modern ecological crisis; 2) illustration of the role of Christianity in diagnosing and overcoming this crisis. Achieving the target was made possible through a consistent use of the research method defined as a critical analysis of source literature and synthesizing its results. Difficulties encountered in this method related basically to the fact that the motifs directly associated with the titular topic are dispersed in the vast literature on the role of Christianity in the environmental question. Categorization of specific philosophical planes also posed a problem, due to the fact that not all participants in the debate were prepared to use philosophical arguments. However, the studies have shown that the differences in the stances of the dispute are the result of underlying philosophical differences that are ultimately determinative of the view on the role of Christianity in the ecological question. In pursuing the objectives of my study, I also encountered difficulty in the classification of individual stances to the group of either proponents or opponents of the Lynn White thesis. The subject matter, the sources, as well as the adopted research method, determined the structure of the present study, which presents in five chapters the results of the research on the philosophical dispute over the role of Christianity in the ecological question. The first chapter is entitled Intellectual Background of the Dispute. It points to the key mode of identifying the character of the ongoing debate, its sources, and dynamics. Its elaboration is possible through a humanist reflection on the contemporary position of civilized humanity. The second chapter is entitled The Origin of the Dispute. An adequate presentation of the titular dispute must take into account the cultural conditioning of the environmental crisis, underlying the model of civilization, which brought upon mankind and the world the prospect of death. There are many indications that the genesis of the dispute about the causes of the crisis can be traced back to the confrontation of the modern and the Christian worldviews. A gradual displacement of the Christian vision of the world by modern thought initiated a process of civilization changes that ultimately led to today's ecological crisis. The third chapter entitled The Standpoints of the Dispute is divided into two parts, which present the differing stances of both proponents and opponents of the Lynn White thesis. Among a large number of the parties to the dispute, six proponents of White's stance are, as it seems, representative of the whole group. The list of the people who blame Christianity for causing the ecological crisis begins with Lynn White, who was the first to explicitly blame Christianity for the crisis and, thus, initiated the debate which still reverberates today. Apart from White, the group includes Arnold J. Toynbee, Max Nicholson, Ian L. McHarg, Donald Worster, and John Passmore. The group of opponents of the Lynn White thesis presented in this study consists of seven members, whose stances represent the views of a large group of Lynn White's adversaries as well as of his followers. This group may include Robin Attfield, John Baird Callicott, James A. Nash, Elspeth Whitney, Kieth V. Thomas, Lewis W. Moncrief and Yi-Fu Tuan. This chapter presents the views of various participants in the debate, without their detailed analysis or evaluation. A positive presentation of individual standpoints (chapter three), and a thematic analysis of specific issues raised in those standpoints (chapter four) may give an impression that some issues have been reiterated. It seems, however, that the benefits of clarifying to the Polish reader the respective stances of the debate participants far exceed the possible risk of objection regarding too meticulous repetitions. The fourth chapter of the present work entitled Planes of the Dispute presents the philosophical references of particular viewpoints presented the dispute over the role of Christianity in the ecological question. This chapter provides a critical analysis of the participants' stances presented in chapter three and reveals the ontological, anthropological, epistemological and semantic planes of the ongoing dispute. The analysis highlights a diverse range of philosophical references made by the participants in the debate; they are relatively easy to recognize at ontological and anthropological levels, but more problematic at epistemological and semantic levels. The discussion on the ontological plane revolves around such issues as: desacralization of nature, the intrinsic value of non-human beings or the place and role of man in the world. The anthropological plane is revealed in the discussion about the human condition and the role of human nature in shaping the relationship of man to the environment. The epistemological plane covers such topics as: the argumentation of particular standpoints in the dispute, causal efficacy of ideas, Christian influences on Western science and technology and the complexity of the causes of the ecological crisis. The semantic plane, on the other hand, is manifested by the contemporary and historical interpretation of the biblical texts on creation, referred to by a number of participants attending the dispute. The fifth chapter entitled Attempts to Settle the Dispute presents a Christian perspective on the ways to overcome the titular debate. It takes into account the theoretical findings of the philosophical analysis presented in chapter four and proposes practical recommendations for the cooperation of all participants in the ongoing debate over the role of Christianity in the ecological question. For this reason, the structure of this chapter covers the issues from the field of practical philosophy, with particular emphasis on its social and moral dimension. This allows to complete the presentation of the role of Christianity in the ecological question which includes a controversy surrounding the causes of the ecological crisis, their appropriate diagnoses and contribution of Christianity towards the consensus about the creation of human-friendly environment and environment-friendly humanity. The proposals to settle the dispute include: Christian inspirations of the idea of sustainable development, the moral dimension of the ecological question, social involvement of Christians to overcome the crisis, and stewardship as a Christian style of the human presence in the world. The findings of the present study are organized in accordance with the structure of the overall work entitled Philosophical Dispute over the Role of Christianity in the Ecological Question. This means that these findings may be presented in the order of particular chapters of the study. The first chapter pointed to readily observable dynamics of the ecological question and its corresponding humanist perspective. This perspective enabled me to present the titular problem in a manner that reflects its actual problematics, to carry out its analysis and determine the prospects for a solution. The second chapter defined the genesis of the dispute as a direct result of the confrontation of the modern worldview with the, widespread at that time, Christian view of the world. The third chapter pointed to the methodological substantiation for the symmetric juxtaposition of the proponents and the opponents of the Lynn White thesis. This was made possible by locating and ordering the threads and thoughts of individual participants of the titular dispute dispersed over manifold literary works. The main findings of the undertaken research are associated with the fourth and fifth chapters of the present study. The results of the research conducted in the fourth chapter reveal the radical character of Lynn White's stance. There are many indications that through such a radical formulation of his views, White exposed himself to somewhat obvious criticism. His limiting the causes of the ecological crisis, which - as it is demonstrated by the modern research - is extremely complex and determined by many factors, seems to be difficult to understand and justify. Furthermore, his neglect to take into consideration the influence of human nature on the style of human presence in the world as well as his complete omission of the political, social, economic, and historical conditioning of the crisis with a simultaneous limitation of this conditioning to the cultural factor, ultimately reduced only to Christian tradition, must raise reasonable doubts as to the reliability of his argumentation. Such objections are put forward by recognized scholars who suggest that by initiating the debate on the role of Christianity in the ecological question, White sought to popularize the topic of the history of technology in the Middle Ages. Such opinions are voiced, among others, by historians Elspeth Whitney and Alex Roland and an environmental anthropologist Patricia Townsend. It is, moreover, difficult to agree with the proponents of the Lynn White thesis concerning their interpretation of biblical texts as well as opinions on the value of non-human nature and the place and role of man in the world. The views on these issues attributed to Christianity are not supported either by Christian doctrine or any scientific research. Assigning to Christianity the key role in the development of Western science and technology, which, allegedly, constitutes a direct cause of the environmental crisis, is also dubitable. The critics of that view accuse its proponents of neglecting the impact of ancient Greek philosophy and its unique conceptualization of nature. In their view, the reasons for the development of science and technology in the West should be traced back to a specific superimposition of two important factors: mathematization of nature, which took place in ancient Greek philosophy and biblical appreciation of physical labor. According to Baird Callicott and Reijera Hooykaas, pointing at Christianity as the only source of science and technology is a grave simplification, which cannot be accepted. The results of the research carried out in the fifth chapter pointed out the possible ways to overcome the ongoing dispute by showing Christian contribution to the attempt at overcoming the growing crisis. Indication of Christian inspirations of the idea of sustainable development and its convergence with Christian thought, seems to be a very important factor in the popularization of this idea. It also provides the necessary arguments to convince Christians who constitute a large part of the population, to encourage governments and local authorities to the implementation of sustainable development at national and local levels. This is also an important argument for the adaptation of lifestyles to the idea of sustainable development, which can thus begin to function even at the level of the individual and the family. It is very important in this process to show the moral dimension of human references to nature, as well as educate the societies towards responsibility and solidarity, which does not refer only to poor communities suffering the consequences of the lack of respect for nature on the part of rich societies. Christian teaching on responsible style of human presence in the world more and more clearly emphasizes the moral dimension of man's attitude to nature in view of the responsibility for the posterity. Social commitment of Christian members of the society to the protection of the environment which could have been observed in the last few decades is one more proposition towards settling the titular dispute. Many appeals, petitions and various documents addressed to both the faithful, and the representatives of the world of politics and business and, even, the so called, ecological lobbying undertaken on the part of Christian religious leaders, makes Christianity an important partner in the fight against the ecological crisis. Particularly noteworthy is the Christian proposal for a new style of human presence in the world, which is defined as stewardship. The harmony between man and nature, man and other people as well as man and the Creator together with responsible treatment of God's creation, which takes into account a sense of solidarity between generations, seems an important Christian proposal giving proper consideration to the future welfare of the humanity as well as the non-human nature. The diagnosis of the crisis proposed by Christianity is consistent with the diagnosis of philosophical anthropology. They both focus on the issue of a human being caught in the ecological crisis. Man is, in fact, the perpetrator of the crisis and, at the same time, the only entity able to overcome it. While Christianity points to human sin as the source of the crisis, philosophical anthropology emphasizes the role human nature itself claiming that it conditions a myopic behaviour such as the abuse of man's power over nature leading to its irresponsible destruction. Moreover, Christian proposals to overcome the crisis are in line with those postulated in philosophical anthropology. Christianity associates its hopes in this respect with the shaping of an environmentally friendly man of conscience, who will be able to make the right choices and impose upon himself some limitations in relation to nature. Philosophical anthropology, similarly, places its hopes in the shape of a renewed man, a homo oecologicus whose presence in nature would rest on the principle of responsibility and sustainable development. The results of the study indicate that although we cannot agree with the radical view of White and his followers assigning the sole responsibility for the ecological crisis to Christianity, there is some evidence that confirms at least partial contribution of Christianity in disrupting the harmonious relationship between man and nature. Christian tradition was one of the factors creating the atmosphere which influenced the development of Western science and technology and promoted human privileged position in relation to the rest of creation, which ultimately had some impact on the current state of the environment. It seems, that there is a lot of truth in the statement of Eugen Drewermann that the Christian doctrine, however partially, but nevertheless, contributed to the ecological crisis, although this effect was not intentional . Some Christian ideas, somewhat indirectly, bring about adverse ecological effects due to their emancipation from the theological context and placement a foreign cultural context in isolation from the original religious significance. The objection raised against Christianity that it weakens human care of 'this world' because it directs man's thoughts to the 'other world' as his ultimate goal, may serve as an example here. Christian history provides many instances confirming such an attitude to the world. However, it has never been officially promoted by the Church, and it has even been often reviled. It does not, however, change the fact that certain groups of people inspired by Christian thought, adopted this type of attitude towards the world. One can draw a ready analogy here between Christian thought and its side effects that contribute to the deterioration of the environment and an unplanned impact of an artist's work that it may have after leaving the workshop of its creator. In both cases, there appears a question of the author's responsibility for the way in which his art functions after the act of creation. Yet, it is often said that the work of art begins to live its own life, independently of the artists' intentions and, sometimes, even contrary to them. Therefore, a question arises, whether it is justified to blame Christianity for the side effects of some of its ideas which, taken out of their theological context, begin to exert their impact on culture, inspiring various civilizational processes. The dispute initiated by Lynn White's seminal lecture on the role of Christianity in the ecological question contributed to the recognition of Christianity's ecological potential and had a positive effect on changing the attitudes of Christians to nature. Due to the Lynn White thesis and the issuing debate, we were able to discover the influence of religion on the development of human relation to the world and led us to expanding the area of humanist reflection on the ecological crisis. The analysis of the still ongoing debate over White's postulates leads to a reflection that too much effort is devoted to finding the guilty of the crisis and, at the same time, too little to the search for the allies and the people able to develop constructive solutions. Max Oelschlaeger's illuminating thought that: "the pervasive idea that there are 'green saviours,' who occupy the environmental high ground and 'evil exploiters' who are rapaciously abusing nature is not useful… Creating a binary opposition between 'good guys' who protect nature and 'bad guys' who destroy it assigns blame to some groups and excuses others…" seems of much relevance in this context . And, as experience teaches us, it is rather rare when in an ongoing dispute only one party bears the entire blame, while the other is completely innocent. What may give us hope for our own success and the success of the future generations is building the broadest possible coalition of the defenders of the life community on Earth and avoiding the waste of time and energy on barren disputes. While examining the further prospects for the research on the role of Christianity in the environmental issues, one should take into account that the dispute discussed here concerns the role of Christianity assigned to it by Lynn White. His approach, however, by no means exhausts the issu