Terra Nullius and Abel

Cain murdering Abel. Painting by
Peter Rubens, 1600.

The claim that land could be taken for use by one people because it was classed as unoccupied has been used by many nations since the late 15^th century. Terra nullius is the term by which this is known. Terra being the Latin word for land, and nullius meaning of no one, or nobody’s. The term has been used notably by European colonisers to give legitimacy to their occupation, even though people were already living on the land.

The antecedents of the term and of European colonisation can be traced to a specific time, place, and almost to one person. The date is 14 June 1452, and the place is the Vatican. The person is Pope Nicholas V and his advisors. Pope Nicholas V issued a papal bull (a public decree or similar document issued by a pope of the Catholic Church) known as the Dum Diversas. This bull authorised King Alfonso V of Portugal to conquer and subjugate ‘those rising against the Catholic faith…(namely) the Saracens and pagans’ in the Ottoman Empire. 

A further papal bull (Romanus Pontifex) in 1455 was full of praise for King Alfonso V’s victories and instructed him to capture all Saracens, Turks, and other non-Christians and place them into perpetual slavery. These two papal bulls later became the justification for the Atlantic slave trade.

Christopher Colombus, in attempting to find a route to China and India that did not have to contend with the Ottoman Empire, chanced instead upon the Americas. Colombus’ report back to Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand in Barcelona during March 1493 kick-started the so-called Age of Discovery (more accurately the Age of Colonisation and Conquest.) It also resulted in a flurry of new papal bulls by Pope Alexander VI which divided the newly ‘discovered’ lands between Portugal and the Catholic Monarchs of Spain (Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand.)

Collectively these papal bulls became known as the Doctrine of Discovery. Essentially, they decreed that the Americas were open to “discovery” because the inhabitants were non-Christian and therefore of no significance in the European mind.

The fact that other peoples were already living on these lands did not, in the coloniser’s minds, constitute possession by them. More often than not the notion of res nullius (Latin, meaning nobody’s thing) was invoked, although some theologians at the time questioned this. The idea that lands could be possessed and occupied by colonisation, notwithstanding people already living there, became entrenched in the western mind. Res nullius morphed into terra nullius (nobody’s land) and was applied most famously by the colonisers of Australia, where (notwithstanding that they had been living on the continent for some 65,000 years or more) the indigenous people of Australia were not counted in censuses until 1971, following a referendum in 1967. It was not until 1992 that the notion of terra nullius was overturned by the Australian courts.

Even though res nullius and terra nullius were coined and used extensively from the late 15^th century onwards, the concept of nobody’s land is an age-old one. It can be found in the very first book of the Bible. Many Biblical passages refer to a wilderness and most of these references do indeed indicate land in which no-one else is living. However, there is one very famous story in the Bible in which nobody’s land is invoked notwithstanding others living there.

The story of Cain and Abel is one that many people know. Let us look into this story.

Cain and Abel are twin brothers, and the children of Adam and Eve, with Cain being the older. ‘Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground’ (Genesis 4.2). The Bible tells us that as grown men the brothers bring offerings ‘to the Lord.’ Cain brings fruit of the ground and Abel brings the firstborn of his flock and their fat. The Lord accepts Abel’s offering but not Cain’s. Genesis 4.5 tells us that ‘Cain was very angry and his countenance fell.’ Cain entices Abel into the fields and in a fit of envy kills him. We then read one of the most famous passages from the Bible in Genesis 4.9: ‘Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper.”’

Let’s stop here and look beneath the surface. First, their names. Cain is a translation (via Greek) of the Hebrew qayin meaning to acquire, take, or possess something. Abel’s name derives from the Hebrew word havel meaning to be empty, as well as vapor, breath, and foolishness.  

As with many myths, allegories, and legends the characters in them tend to be representations of categories of people or their traits and behaviours. In this story Cain represents the agricultural societies of the Levant area, and Abel the nomadic herders to the south.

Read as allegory, the murder of Abel by Cain is a depiction of the agriculturally based settler cultures raiding and slaughtering the nomadic peoples so that they can acquire (there’s Cain’s name) more land to plant crops and feed a growing settler population. For those doing the raiding and slaughtering these lands were viewed as empty (there’s Abel’s name) and ripe for taking. The fact that people did inhabit the area simply meant that they had to be exterminated: they were, after all, simply nomads, roaming around an otherwise empty land.

Can we recognise the similarities between terra nullius and havel (Abel)? Both mean empty, owned by no-one.

Can we also see the arrogant superiority shown by the colonisers and the qayin (Cain)? Both mean to take and acquire unlawfully (in both cases.)

The sense of entitlement has been inherent within western/European cultures for centuries. The hundreds of indigenous and nature-based cultures who have lived as hunters, gatherers, and as nomads have suffered because of this sense of superiority and entitlement for centuries.

8,699,999 + 1

Ernst Haeckel's
"Tree of Life."
(note the position of MAN)

It is estimated that there are 8,699,999 animal species on Earth. Plus one; the species we call Homo sapiens.

That makes a total of 8.7 million species. Of these 8.7 million, it is thought that as many as 86% have not yet been discovered, let alone described. Yet, that number is only the animal species, a small fraction of all species.

If plant and microbial species are added into the count then the total number of species upon the Earth could be one trillion, or more.

Yet, that one species – Homo sapiens – has come to domesticate, dominate, or destroy many of the other species that share this planet with us.

Of all the mammals upon the Earth, we humans account for 34% of the total biomass. Mammals domesticated by us make up 62% of the total biomass. That means that just 4% of the Earth’s total mammalian biomass is made up of wild mammals.¹

Just 4%! The biomass of wild land mammals has declined by an estimated 85% since humans emerged onto the planet. 85%! The numbers are staggering.

Humanity has also domesticated chickens, which are not mammals. What about them? Well, that is a sordid tale as well. Domesticated chickens make up 71% of the total bird mass on the planet.

What of the number of species we have destroyed?

It is estimated that the average length of time for a species to exist on the Earth, before becoming extinct, is between one and ten million years, with most going extinct at the lower end of this range. The extinction rate, since the arrival of humans, is assessed as being between 100 and 1,000 times the natural background extinction rate. Another staggering number.

All the numbers and figures cited above are because of that one extra species added to the 8,699,999 total for all animal species. Just one! Yet another staggering number.

How did, and why should, one species, amongst 8.7 million animal species, come to domesticate, dominate, and destroy so many creatures?

Within western cultures the origin can perhaps be traced back to its genesis. Yes – Genesis. The first book of the Bible. Whether a person today, living a westernized lifestyle, is a religious follower of the Bible is immaterial. Western culture has its roots firmly embedded within Judeo-Christian belief systems.

Genesis 1, verses 26-28 twice repeats the phrase that humans are to ‘have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air…and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’² This word dominion has for some two and a half thousand years often been interpreted as meaning mankind has the right to subdue, control, and exploit the creatures of the earth.

Over the past couple of centuries this interpretation has come under scrutiny, with many Biblical scholars and linguists advising that the original Hebrew words limited the interpretation to meaning a stewardship or governance.

Notwithstanding the debates within Biblical scholarship, the right of dominance is the one that has firmly entrenched itself within western worldviews. By extension, this right of dominance and control led those worldviews to a belief in human exceptionalism – the belief that humans are different from, and superior to, other forms of life.

This Biblically mandated role for humankind remained a foundation of the human journey for many centuries. It was not until the middle of the 19^th century that the Biblical position on the place of humans was challenged. Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species, published in 1859, introduced humans to the Theory of Evolution. But even this theory did not dislodge the belief in human exceptionalism. If anything, it gave it pseudo-scientific credibility.

The German naturalist, Ernst Haeckel, was fascinated by Darwin’s ideas and actively promoted them. In doing so, Haeckel depicted evolution as a tree with man (sic) placed at the apex of the tree, insinuating that humanity was the inevitable and only possible outcome for evolution (see graphic). This depiction still has favour today. Human exceptionalism remains embedded within our westernized worldview.

With two such powerful influences upon westernised worldviews – the Biblical one and the evolutionary tree one – it is little wonder that the 8.7 million species upon the Earth have become domesticated, dominated, and destroyed by just one species – us.

A final comment should be made about this one species. Yes, we are one species amongst 8.7 million, but we don’t all share the same worldviews. The worldviews summarised above have been developed over millennia within western cultures. They are not shared by many indigenous and nature-based cultures. However, the process of colonisation, beginning in the late 15^th century, has all but eradicated any other worldview.

Human exceptionalism remains a dominant view throughout the world.

8,699,999 creatures continue to suffer because of this view.

Notes:

1. All data from https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass  accessed 18 November 2025

2. Text from Holy Bible, New King James Version, Genesis 1: 26-28

Questions Science Cannot Answer (and Nor Can Religion)

For science to progress it must first ask questions. Many times the answer can be found, albeit sometimes after years, perhaps decades or even centuries, of searching.

Gravity is a good example. The Greek philosophers pondered why it was that things fall naturally. Aristotle, for example, postulated that the reason for this was that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that therefore all objects fell towards it. Plutarch, on the other hand, claimed that gravity was not unique to the Earth.

In the 7^th century CE, an Indian mathematician and astronomer suggested that gravity was a force. One thousand years later, in 1687 Newton published his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) in which he described what we now know as the Laws of Gravity. It took more than 2,000 years to answer the question. Even so, science did manage to answer it.

But, what of those questions that science cannot answer? How do we answer them? Indeed, do we even want answers to them?

These are the sort of questions that occur to us when we smell a flower, look up at the night sky, or kiss another human being. Why is this flower so beautiful? How big is the Universe? What is this feeling inside?

We answer these questions with words and expressions of awe, magnificence, wonder, love, and mystery.

And, as Antoine de Saint-Exupéry answered in The Little Prince¹ what is important and what is of consequence is invisible.

It is not knowing, not having an answer, which speaks to our heart, soul, and humanity most exquisitely.

Science cannot answer such questions. Nor should we expect science to do so.

We should not expect religion to do so either. That science cannot answer some questions does not mean that God (or some other deity) must be enlisted to fill the gap.

Gaps in knowledge do not need to be filled. Indeed, it is in the gaps that we find ourselves face-to-face with our insignificance and our magnificence at the same time.

Gaps allow us to notice the beauty of a flower. Gaps allow us to contemplate, yet never fully appreciate, the sheer immensity of the cosmos.

Gaps allow us to feel the love in a kiss.

Addendum: Nothing in the above should be read as a refutation of either science or religion. Simply, that we need not look for answers where we do not need answers – we simply need to seek the wonder in the mystery.

Note:

1. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince, Pan Books Ltd., London, 1974. First published 1945

Scripture Pointing

Below are six scriptural verses. Three are from the Bible, and three are from the Qur’an. Can you tell which is which? My guess is that, unless you are a religious scholar or an ardent believer in Christianity or Islam, then you are likely to have trouble identifying which is which – Bible or Qur’an.

A.    ‘Whoever would not seek (the Lord) should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.’

B.    ‘As for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’

C.    ‘Slay the idolators wherever ye find them, arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.’

D.     ‘Remember when your Lord inspired the angels…I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve…Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.’

E.     ‘Slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.’

F.     ‘Now go and strike... and devote destruction to all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep and donkey.’

Can you do it? Can you identify which verses are from the Bible, and which from the Qur’an?

Often we hear people pointing at the verses from one or the other of these holy books in order to claim that the other (i.e. not their own) religion is not peaceful or proclaims that killing is justified.

Yet, for those who would point to passages in the holy book of the others, half of the passages quoted above come from their own holy book.

My intention in quoting these scriptures is not to disrespect the Bible or the Qur’an. Nor is it my purpose to dishonour the believers of either religion. My intent is the following:

By pointing at a piece of scripture from the holy book of the other the (often tacit) inference is that those belonging to the other religion are heathens, infidels, non-believers, idolators, or at worst - evil. After all, “they” condone killing.

The scriptural texts quoted above are not, in and of themselves, the source of these issues. The source is the willingness – even eagerness - to point the finger at others, meanwhile ignoring the fact that each of us is as guilty or blameworthy as anyone else.

Thus it is that the pointing of the finger of accusation (or blame or guilt) at other people is at the core of the mistrust, polarisation, and violence (both latent and explicit) of the world.

Those who do point the finger, at either the scripture or the person, might do well to remember another piece of scripture, viz.

‘Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged...And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye. Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck from your eye”; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.’

-        Matthew 7: 1-5 (the Holy Bible)

That is a verse we all, believers and non-believers, might well try to remember as often as possible. If we were to do so, we would find that we are indeed all brothers, all sisters, all family.

Regarding the six passages quoted at the beginning of this post, it should be noted that they are all quoted out of context. Quoting out of context is very easy to do, yet by doing so it is possible to bestow meaning on a piece of text that the full context may not support.

And, in case you want to know the source and context of each of these quotations, they are as follows:

A.    Bible, 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13

B.    Bible, Luke 19: 27

C.    Qur’an 9:5

D.    Qur’an 8:12

E.     Qur’an 2: 190-191

F.     Bible, 1 Samuel 15: 2-3

It is worth noting that the comments above are not restricted to the religious realm. The pointing of the finger of blame occurs in many fields of human endeavour.

Finger pointing is, arguably, one of the biggest barriers towards a peaceful, tolerant, and harmonious world.

Nature Disconnect in 7 "Easy" Steps - Part 3

Ernst Heackel's 1879 "Tree of Life"
with Man (sic) at the apex 

Part 3 of "Nature Disconnect in 7 'Easy' Steps looks at the most recent steps taken in our disconnection from nature.

Step 6. The Reformation

If any vestiges of links between nature, the earth, and religion still existed by 1500 CE, then the Reformation went some way towards clearing them away. Although primarily the Reformation was a period of upheaval within European churches, and a splitting of the Catholic and Protestant faiths, what emerged by the end of the period was the separation of church and state.

The affairs of the spirit became entirely the realm of religion, and the affairs of everyday activity that of the state and secularism.

Over the course of two or three centuries secularism itself split into a number of variations, including atheism, political secularism, secular philosophy, humanism, naturalism, and materialism.

One outcome of secularism was that, in intellectual circles at least, the universe came to be viewed in a materialistic manner. Notions of the soul and any thought of an animated (or spirited) world were negated.

This materialist view of the world took us one further step away from nature. Furthermore, it paved the way for an even greater step to be taken with the Scientific Revolution.

Step 7. The Scientific and Industrial Revolutions

Although the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions could be considered as two separate steps, I am presenting them here as a single step as the Industrial Revolution in many ways was the applied form of scientific theories developed during the Scientific Revolution.

To say that this was a step is also rather prosaic. Stride might be the better term, as that word tends to imply something of greater purpose, length and/or significance.

The Scientific Revolution served to firmly infuse three long-lasting metaphors within human consciousness: 1. Nature as a machine, 2. Nature to be tamed and conquered, and 3. Homo sapiens exceptionalism.

In 1605 the German astronomer and mathematician, Johannes Kepler, wrote to a friend stating that his aim was to show that the ‘celestial machine (can be) likened to clockwork.’¹ The implication is obvious. There is no life, no animation, no essence, in a machine that runs like clockwork. Robert Boyle, the Irish chemist and physicist, took up this refrain later that century stating that, ‘The world is like a rare clock.’

By characterising nature as a machine, the early pioneers of the Scientific Revolution stripped away any mystery, wonder and vitality from nature. The door was opened to enable people to tinker (as might a clockmaker) with nature.

Moreso, the machine characterisation led inevitably to the second metaphor – that nature was to be tamed and conquered. For, if nature was nothing but a machine, then any relic of a wildness trait had to be purged.

For at least one of the major scientists of the time, Francis Bacon, the imagery was violent and contained disturbing sexual innuendo. Bacon genderised nature as female, but not in the wholesome manner of earlier personifications. The scientific method for him was to discover ‘the secrets still locked in (her) bosom… (so that) she can be forced out of her natural state and squeezed and molded.’

Bacon was vehement in his desire to conquer nature. He exhorted his fellow scientists, and indeed humanity generally, to ‘storm and occupy her castles and strongholds and extend the bounds of the human empire.’

The third metaphor – human exceptionalism – is not a metaphor that has its origins in the Scientific Revolution; however, it does find a novel expression in the scientific method.

Human exceptionalism – the notion that humans are different from, and superior to, all other life forms – can be found in early scriptural writings and monotheism. What science offered the notion of human exceptionalism came as a result of discoveries in evolution. The Theory of Evolution arose not during the classic period of the Scientific Revolution (the 16^th and 17^th centuries CE) but during the 19^th century CE. It did however, owe its instigation to the scientific method developed during the Scientific Revolution. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (published in 1859) was promoted by the German naturalist Ernst Haeckel as the tree of life in his 1879 publication The Evolution of Man (see graphic above.) Haeckel’s depiction of evolution as a tree placed humankind at the apex of the tree, suggesting that humanity was the inevitable and only possible outcome for evolution. This depiction still has favour today, with humanity’s superiority being at least tacitly assumed.

Thus, although the Theory of Evolution dislodged creationism as the process by which life on Earth has been formed, it did not (until very recently) dislocate humanity from the place of primacy in the scheme of things.

Although we do not go about our daily lives thinking of the world as a machine, or that we must conquer nature, and assert our place of superiority, these three metaphors continue to influence our behaviour and beliefs at a subconscious level, both individually and collectively. Furthermore, the three metaphors are still actively promoted in popular science.

As recently as 1986 Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s foremost popularisers of the scientific method and the discoveries of science, titled one of his books The Blind Watchmaker. Although Dawkins’ purpose was to espouse evolution rather than intelligent design, he still retained, and promoted the metaphor that nature is nothing more than a mechanical interaction of moving parts.  

Our fascination with technology (the child of science) since the Industrial Revolution has further entrenched the metaphor of nature to be tamed and conquered. When combined with human exceptionalism, technology has been the tool by which humanity has sought to improve the world. This arrogant desire to improve upon nature can be seen most clearly in responses to climate change. Technology will save us is a familiar, if not explicitly stated, refrain. Technological solutions (e.g. geo-engineering, electric vehicles, space shields, colonising Mars, wind and solar farms) are simply the latest examples of the three metaphors at work.

The 7 “Easy” steps outlined here have taken us, collectively, a long way from our natural connection with nature. Will our next steps remove us further, or is there a chance that we may begin to retrace our steps?

If you have read through all three parts of Nature Disconnect in 7 ‘Easy’ Steps then you will appreciate a few corollaries that must be stated as a result.

Corollary 1. Each step did not have a clear and defining beginning. Furthermore, each step is ongoing. The Agricultural Revolution has not ended, nor have the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions.

Corollary 2. There are other events and times that could also be considered as steps. One significant one, that I have not addressed here, is the impact of colonisation with its decimation of indigenous and nature-based peoples and the consequent dismissal of indigenous worldviews more attuned with nature.

Corollary 3. Although it is possible to outline these steps and their impact, casting blame and criticism upon those who undertook these steps is pointless and self-righteous. Our responsibility today is to learn from hindsight. The lessons from this hindsight will be addressed in a future blog.

Corollary 4. Associated with Corollary 3 is the recognition that each step along the way was most likely seen as a good idea at the time. Most likely, those who initiated each step probably thought they were bringing benefit to humanity.

Notes:

1. Many of the quotations in this section are found in: Jeremy Lent, The Patterning Instinct, Prometheus Books, Lanham, Maryland, 2017

Nature Disconnect in 7 "Easy" Steps (Part 2)

Yahweh

Last week's blog considered the first (of 7) steps in how we became disconnected from nature. This week presents the next 3 steps.

Step 3. Greek Duality,

Around 2,500 years ago, and concentrated very much in Greece and surrounding areas, a number of philosophers made important contributions to western philosophy. A key element in the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, and dozens of others, was the idea of duality. Plato it was who synthesized much of Greek thought into the dualism of body and soul.

Plato’s dualism however, was not value-free. Plato prized and privileged the soul over the body. He envisaged the soul as being trapped in the prison of the body. In one of his Dialogues Plato writes that, ‘we must get rid of the body and contemplate things by themselves with the soul by itself.’ The body, and by inference, all nature, was to Plato of little worth in this dualistic conception.

Plato’s student, Aristotle, was forthright in his conclusion that, ‘it must be that nature has made all things for the sake of man (sic).’

The Greek philosophers took us another step away from nature, and their dualistic thought quickly transformed spiritual ideas and concepts.

Step 4. Patriarchy, and Sky-gods

Greek dualistic thinking was being developed during roughly the same time period as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) was being written. The influence of dualistic thinking on the writers of those texts should not be underestimated. Along with the undeniable fact that close to 100% of writing at this time (in both Greece and the Middle East) was undertaken by men, there was little impeding the step away from Earth-based gods and goddesses, towards sky-gods who were predominantly male in concept.

In doing so, the Earth and nature-based goddesses (primarily) were being systematically debased, disregarded, and discounted. None moreso perhaps, than Gaia (the personification of Earth in Greek mythology) driven out of human beliefs by the arrival of the sky-gods and later monotheism. More latterly though, Gaia has made somewhat of a rebirth via the Gaia hypothesis co-formulated by chemist James Lovelock and microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s.¹

Not only were goddesses being banished, but, centuries later, so too were those who remained loyal to the natural rhythms of the world and the female spirits that dwelt in nature. From the middle of the 15^th century through to the middle of the 17^th century, in Europe, it is estimated that up to 60,000 witches (predominantly women) were burnt, hung, or drowned because of their holding to the cycles of nature and the reciprocity in that relationship. 

Patriarchal thinking along with the dualism of body/soul (or body/mind) took the cultures of Europe and south-west Asia another step away from connection with nature.

Step 5. Monotheism and Transcendence

For many thousands of years the peoples living in Mesopotamia, the Levant, SW Asia, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean had been worshipping a number of gods and goddesses. The emergence of male-dominated sky-gods (referenced in the previous section) foreshadowed the appearance, in the first millennium BCE of monotheism.

The single God of the Bible appears to have been the joining together of two gods: Yahweh, a warrior god of the Levant, and El, the father of all other gods in Canaanite pantheons. From beginnings as pantheism, religion in this part of the world moved through polytheism, to monolatry (the practice of worshipping one god, but recognising that others exist) to an out-and-out monotheism and rejection of all other theologies. The prophet Isiah, for example, writes, ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other: There is no God beside me.’

This creed – that there is one and only one god – seems to have emerged only in this part of the world. The Biblical scholar, j. Snodgrass, a little sardonically, remarks that, ‘In three million years of humanity on earth, the idea that a father-god did it all himself popped up in (just) one spot three thousand years ago.’²

However, it wasn’t simply monotheism that took us a further step away from nature. It was the notion of transcendence that came with it, leading towards the idea that paradise was no longer here on earth, but was located in Heaven and the after-life.

(An aside: There is a scene in the doco-film Living In The Time Of Dying³ in which the Native American elder and author, Stan Rushworth, is being interviewed by the film’s host, who is of European heritage. In answer to a question, Stan wryly declares, ‘We are born into Paradise, you guys were kicked out.’ It is a poignant comment on the difference between the worldview of many indigenous and nature-based peoples and that of the dominant culture that arose in Europe and SW Asia.)

The denial of Paradise on Earth was a further step dislocating us from nature and intensified Plato’s distaste for the body.

Although those living during the first millenium BCE and the first millenium CE probably did not consider monotheism as having a significant impact upon how we related to the earth, the magnitude of the step can be clearly seen from our present-day privilege of hindsight.

Next weeks blog will consider the last two steps leading us away from a connection with nature: The Reformation and the Scientific Revolution.

Notes:

1. The Gaia hypothesis proposes that the Earth is a living, single, self-regulating, synergistic, complex system.

2. j. Snodgrass, Genesis And The Rise Of Civilization, USA, 2014.

3. Available for viewing at https://www.livinginthetimeofdying.com/  See also, my review of the film here. 

Lotus and the Cross - Overlaps

There are estimated to be well over 4,000 religions, faith groups, and denominations in the world. Can they all be right, correct, and/or true? Similarly, can they all be wrong, incorrect, and/or untrue?

If you were inclined to test these two questions, by “trying out” each of the religions then, if you lived to be in your 70s say, you would need to check out more than one a week. As that is not possible, then how do you and I decide which religion to choose, including the option of no religion?

Such decision making would suggest that the religion we opt for is less a matter of pure choice, and more one of: the religion we are born into, our cultural heritage, the environment, our upbringing and education, the period in history into which we are born, our country of birth, and our friendships, inter alia.

And that in turn makes it unwise and unhelpful to claim that the religion I adhere to is the only correct one.

However, the fact that well over 80% of the world’s people belong to one or another of these 4,000 suggests that some sort of spirituality is core to the human condition. Furthermore, a large section of the 16% or so of the world’s population who are unaffiliated to any religion are not necessarily non-spiritual.

If there is a spiritual element to the human condition, and if religion is one way of expressing that, then there are likely to be similarities and overlaps in the beliefs and values of these religions.

That being the case, it would be helpful to seek out and acknowledge these similarities and overlaps. With so much polarisation, discord, and distrust in the world, discovering the common humanity in our religious beliefs must surely be healing.

I recently read The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha by Ravi Zacharias. I was highly disappointed, as, far from attempting to seek such healing and the overlaps between Christianity and Buddhism, this book was a blatant and baseless attack upon Buddhism. Early in the book, Zacharias asserts that ‘Jesus and the Buddha cannot both be right’ (see my introduction above) and that they are ‘diametrically opposed beliefs.’ Thus, Zacharias has immediately set up antagonism where harmony and shared humanity could have been explored.

Hence, what follows is an attempt by this author to make amends and to offer some overlaps between Buddhism and Christianity.¹

Sowing Karma

If someone has heard anything of Buddhism, then one of the likely concepts they will have heard of is karma. This is the idea that one’s present is shaped by one’s past. Some have referred to this as “fate,” although that is an extremely limited understanding of karma.

The concept of karma predates Buddhism and was well known in India at the time of Buddha’s birth. Buddha elaborated upon the concept. Literally translated, the term means action, and recognises that our actions support or undermine our habits, thoughts, and behaviours and thus point to what habits, thoughts, and behaviours we will display in the future.

This concept is remarkably similar to the advice Paul makes to the Galatians when he notes that ‘Whatever a man (sic) soweth, that shall he also reap.’ Here, Paul is unquestionably suggesting that the habits, thoughts, and behaviours we embody today will become the habits, thoughts, and behaviours we experience in the future. Paul was reiterating the writer of the Old Testament Book of Job who noted that ‘they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.’ Thus, the concept is well publicised within the Bible and Christianity.

The two – karma and sowing/reaping – are similar.

Greed and Desire

Zacharias claims that Buddha ‘unshackled (people) from desire’ implying that there was nothing inherently problematic with desire.

Indeed not, and this assertion is a gross misunderstanding of the Buddha’s teachings on desire. Buddha did not advise against desire, but did note that craving for desire is harmful. Buddhism does not reject nor deny desire but does recognise healthy and unhealthy desire. The Pali word Tanha is used to describe the unhealthy aspect of desire and means to desire more than is attained.

Effectively, this could be summarised by the word greed.

Greed is warned against within Christianity, with the writer of the Gospel of Luke proclaiming, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed.’

There is much overlap between the Buddhist notion of Tanha and the Christian notion of Greed.

Personification of Evil

One of the well-known stories about Jesus is that of his being tempted by the Devil during his solitary 40 days and 40 nights in the Judaean Desert. Jesus resists each temptation, and the Devil departs, enabling Jesus to begin his evangelism.

Similarly, Buddha meditated for seven weeks beneath a Bodhi tree and during that time was tempted on numerous occasions by Mara, a similar (but not synonymous) personification of Evil as that of the Devil.

Like Jesus did with the Devil, Buddha resisted Mara, and famously responded to Mara’s challenging of Buddha’s right to resist and to sit calmly amidst temptation, by simply touching the Earth with his right hand. At this, as with the Devil in Jesus’ case, Mara vanished.

Both Buddhism and Christianity have a personification of Evil that can be resisted.

A Dissimilarity

The above three examples show clear cases of overlap between the thought (theology?) of Christianity and Buddhism. There is one area of dissimilarity that should be mentioned. Sadly, it is an area of dissimilarity that Zacharias fails to recognise which leads him into a dubious argument between his characters of Jesus and Buddha.

Zacharias has Buddha claiming that ‘I was concerned with one fundamental matter – Truth.’

This was not Buddha’s primary concern, and there is no evidence for him claiming this. Buddha was primarily concerned with the existence of suffering, and how suffering² could be dealt with. Indeed, the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths are all about the existence of suffering, its causes, that there is a remedy, and what makes up that remedy.

However, this dissimilarity does not invalidate the contention that there are a number of overlaps between Christian thought and Buddhist thought.

If we are to obtain harmony and cooperation in the world, then we should be acknowledging and celebrating these overlaps, not seeking to find areas of disagreement or dispute.

Notes:

1. The writer of this blog is familiar with both Christianity and Buddhism. I was brought up within the Presbyterian and Anglican church systems and in my late teens and early 20s was a member of a fundamental Christian church. At that time I attended a Bible School for approximately two years. Whilst at University I was exposed to Zen Buddhist thought. Since the early 1990s I have studied Buddhist thought and practice, as well as maintaining a regular meditation practice. As well as these two religious groundings I have a good understanding of atheist concepts also, often referring to myself as an atheist from my late 20s onwards. 

2. Suffering is an insufficient, and poor, translation of the original Pali word, dukkha. The Pali term dukkha might more fully be translated as: unease, discomfort, pain, unhappiness, as well as suffering. Hence, dukkha has a much wider meaning than does our modern understanding of suffering.

Sacred to Ecclesial to Secular... and Back Again. (Part 2 of 2)

Part 1 of this blogpiece very briefly traced the journey from the sacred to the ecclesial and on to the secular within the European cultural tradition. Part 2 will briefly describe where this journey has brought us to and whether there are any signs of a return to Earth once again being viewed as sacred.

Viewed entirely through secular eyes the world becomes a collection of individual pieces that move and operate according to “scientific” laws. The Scientific Revolution (heralded in by the publication of Nicolas Copernicus’ heliocentric view of the heavens, in 1543) placed human beings largely as observers of a mechanistic, linear, objective world.

The Age of Discovery (alluded to in Part 1) and the subsequent tidal wave of colonisation of almost all parts of the globe by Europeans brought to the entire globe this highly secularised way of perceiving the world.

The Industrial Revolution (beginning - also in Europe - in the 18^th century) did nothing to impede this world-as-object view. Indeed, this revolution took this view and ran with it. If the world is nothing more than a collection of disparate objects, then using those objects for the benefit of humans is the proper thing to do.

Cracks in this mechanistic view began to appear within science itself with the emergence of quantum mechanics and relativity theory only a little over 100 years ago. With respect to the purposes of this blogpiece the major importance of these scientific fields was the dismantling of the notion of the independent observer. A corollary of this was the recognition that the world, including us humans, was not a disconnected place.

One of the foremost of these scientists, Albert Einstein, recognised this when he stated that:

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He (sic) experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

Later in the 20^th century, other scientific branches (e.g., biology, meteorology, ecology) would begin to come to similar perceptions. Although such recognitions were being made within the scientific community, the world as a whole continued to consider the world as secular.

The inventions of the Industrial Revolution and the technologies it spawned saw a rapid rise in material wealth and well-being (although many were excluded.) However, this has come at the enormous expense of the ecosystems of the world.

Environmental Movement

Although there had been many precedents, it was not until the mid-20^th century that a widespread global environmental awareness began to infiltrate this secular world-view. Many consider the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962 to be the book that heralded this movement. Early environmentalism was still trapped within the secular model and tended to think of the environment as something out there. The environment was seen as needing protection, needing to be saved, or conserved. There was little sign that a return to a sacred view of the world was on offer.

Arne Næss, the Norwegian philosopher, published a paper in 1973 in which he coined the term deep ecology to mean a view that was more spiritual and intuitive than that of the mainstream environmental movement of the time. He claimed “that you feel, when you are working in favour of free nature, you are working for something within your self, that ... demands changes. So you are motivated from what I call ‘deeper premises’”

Deep Ecology took awhile to make an impact, and today it still struggles to sway mainstream environmentalism, especially as the climate change movement (with its tinge of anthropocentrism) has become almost synonymous with environmentalism.

Are there any other signs of a re-sacralising of the Earth?

Yes. The emergence of eco-psychology, especially since the 1990s, has had an important role in recognising that the human psyche is fundamentally shaped by our participation in, and partnership with, the more-than-human world.

Eco-spirituality (in many forms) has also been growing in recent years. Within the Christian faith the recent rise of Green Christianity has emphasised the concept of stewardship rather than ownership (or dominion) in Genesis 1.

Indigenous societies around the world have been offering a potent critique of secular Eurocentric world-views for decades. Notwithstanding the near total genocide that many of these cultures endured through colonisation, many have retained a strong connection with their strong nature-based values and insights. Some of us from within the European tradition are starting to wake up and to listen and learn.

In Europe there has recently been keen interest in re-discovering and re-kindling some of its pagan heritage. Much of this paganism had a strong sense of the sacredness of life and the Earth.

Nature Deficit Disorder is a term coined by Richard Louv in his 2005 book Last Child in the Woods. In this book, and other writings, Louv lucidly outlines the intimate connection between our well-being and the amount of time we spend in nature. This, and the Japanese practice of Shinrin yoku (Forest Bathing) clearly bring to mind and body our deep need for a sacred connection with nature.

So, yes, there are indications that there may be the beginning of returning to our sacred roots, and our place in the wholeness (holy-ness) of nature.

Addendum: Nothing in either Part 1 or Part 2 of this blogpiece should be read as directing culpability at any particular institution or person. It is futile pointing the finger of blame at Christianity or the scientists of the 16^th and 17^th century. Nor does it make sense to mete out judgement upon the inventors of new technologies in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

This blogpiece simply suggests an arc by which there has been a shift from a sacred view of the Earth towards a mechanistic perspective. Sadly, that arc has brought us to a position where the fate of humanity and the more-than-human world is at the mercy of humans.

Blaming and shaming serves only to further entrench the schisms between us. Polarisation can never allow us to heal ourselves. And, if we cannot heal the divisions between us, what chance do we have of finding wholeness (holy-ness) in the world?