• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Claremont School of Theology

You are here: Home / engaging / Killer Apes Won’t Save the Planet

Killer Apes Won’t Save the Planet

June 14, 2012 by Bo Sanders 16 Comments

The Summer philosophy group that I am a part of is reading The Faith of the Faithless by Simon Critchley. It is an wild, tour-de-force type of work that spans genres and categories. This past week it broached something that touched a nerve for me.

 The most extreme expression of human arrogance… is the idea that human beings can save the planet from environmental destruction. Because they are killer apes, that is, by virtue of a naturalized version of original sin that tends them towards wickedness and violence, human beings cannot redeem their environment.

Furthermore, the earth doesn’t need saving… The earth is suffering from disseminated primatemaia, a plague of people. Homo rapiens is ravaging the planet like a filthy pest that has infested a dilapidated but once beautiful mansion. In 1600 the human population was about half a billion. In the 1990’s it increased by the same amount.
This plague cannot be solved by the very species who are the efficient cause of the problem … When the earth is done with humans, it will recover and human civilization will be forgotten. Life will on on, but without us. Global warming is simply one of many fevers that the earth has suffered during its history. It will recover, but we won’t because we can’t.  - p. 110

This reminded me something that an old podcast interview with Michael Dowd first awakened me to. Dowd is the author of Thank God for Evolution and he has an incredible knack for articulating his unique perspective.

Dowd talks about the power of participating in a narrative. His assertion is that we are participating in the wrong narrative! If we think that humans are the crown achievement of a project that began about 10,000 years ago and was finished in a 6 day period … a project that humans were give dominion over – then we live one way. [often this dominion is mis-interpreted as domination and has resulted in everything from unchecked capitalism to environmental policies such as “drill baby drill” for instance] 

Dowd has this theory that humans who living under this narrative are participating in the earth as a cancer does in the body. Cancer is a biological part of the body. It is made up of the same matter that comprise the body that hosts it. But cancer is under the impression that the body that hosts it is a rival to be overcome and defeated. The cancer cells rally together to take over the body. They eventually multiply and expand to the point they endanger the very body that not only gave rise to it but that sustains it.

Ever since the Enlightenment and Descartes’ dualism, a certain set of the human population has believed that while humans are biologically mammals that they are not animals. Continuing on that while we originally were apart of the earth, we are above the earth. We are different than the rest of creation. While we came from the earth – from dust we came – we are not dependent on the earth for our very life. [I touched on this at my own blog in Nipples and Bellybuttons and the Imago dei ]

Because christian humans live by the wrong narrative, we behave as a cancer on the planet. In increasing size and exponential growth we consume at greater and greater levels, consuming the very body that gives host to our existence. At some point, the cancer ends up compromising the functions (organs) that give life to the organism in which it lives. Death ensues. We are not worried about because we think Jesus is coming back soon – it is the end times after all (a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever I saw one). *

Humans that are not willing to engage the ideas of emergence and evolution are living by a cancerous narrative that will extinguish the very host that gives it life. Humans that have a short view of history and a high view of their place in the created order behave in ways that are inherently cancerous to the ecosystems that support and sustain them.

 If we don’t wake up and acknowledge that we have been living by a false narrative we will eventually (sooner or later) overtake the host body’s capacity to renew itself and continue to survive and prosper. This 6 day – 10,000 year old narrative is resulting in a cancerous attitude that is killing the planet.

  • If Critchley is right, then we as killer apes can not save the planet – in fact we wouldn’t even care.
  • If Dowd is correct, we wouldn’t even try because we thought we didn’t need to. We would be living by a different narrative.

 

* The book of Revelation is a political commentary on Roman politics of the first three centuries written in the form of apocalyptic literature. 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, cancer, Critchley, eden, environment, evolution, Faith of the Faithless, garden, Genesis, global warming, God, homo rapiens, human, killer apes, Micael Dowd, planet
14 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts

I approach this more from the anti-civ critique of folks like Ellul, Derrick Jensen, Ched Myers and John Zerzan. I'm interested to read more scholarly theologians that are engaging this idea. My question is where does this lead us practically? For anti-civ folks it focuses on the inevitability of collapse and a return in some form or fashion to a hunter-gatherer type existence. I'm curious where you ultimately take this in terms of both what God intends for us as creatures and what a sustainable future might/might not look like.I'm currently reading Derrick Jensen's Endgame vol. 1, parts of his style and ideas grate on me, but I also feel compelled to engage and answer his critique in some way. 

nihilo
nihilo 5pts

How odd that some imagine a world "existing" without self aware humans to perceive it? It is like those who daydream about the mourners at their own funeral - of course the departed will not be there to observe!

Like the tree falling in the woods without a hearer to note the sound -> Creation ceases to exist in any meaningful way without self aware humans to enjoy it.

 

There seems to be a group laughing up their sleeves who are intent on 'attending' the funeral of the rest of us. They alone see themselves as "worthy" and the rest of us as damned to destruction.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @nihilo You may have over thought this 'observe' thing ;)  Yes, if there were no humans then 'creation' as we have perceived it, interacted with it, explained and experienced it would no longer exist. But the earth would still be there.

the 'Creation' would not exist as we have constructed it but the reality would still be present. My presences gives life to my perception - but not the underlying reality. 

 

I have no idea how to read your last paragraph (?)  I hope that you do not see me in that catagory. I am not laughing, I don't want to attend a funeral and I don't see myself as worthy. I have heard folks that sound like that - I'm hoping that you don't think of me that way ;)  -Bo 

willhenderson
willhenderson 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

yes, taylor & I were just talking & she says I'm an agnostic about the beginning and the end.

 

we both talked about just desiring to be apart of what the Spirit is doing NOW and being in community with God and others willing to walk with us.

 

sometimes i feel like we are in danger of taking the same approaches to certainty as those we are opposing.  certainty gives us moral high ground & we fight for it but I am not sure there is much to be certain about.  I can't be sure of the 6 day creation or evolution.  I can't be sure Revelation is what you say or if it has another solution or if it was written by someone named John, possibly the disciple and possibly with Alzheimer's or perhaps insane and it just caught incorrectly included in the canon.  

 

I think its possible for someone not to engage in the ideas of emergence & evolution and not be living in a cancerous narrative.  If we are living in the Spirit & LOVING, then I don't think we are cancerous.  I think God loves us ALL.  Even the ones that refuse to engage with us.  And I think we are all equally loved by God & that whatever is his end game includes us ALL no matter what.  He will ultimately attract us all the more we see his love.

 

So I'm an agnostic when it comes to the beginning and the end.  I think its about love & oneness & that its possible to rise above with many different theologies.  By focusing on the NOW we can reach out & save people from the hell they are in now & sometimes they can save us from our demons (as you explained it) and in doing so we move toward being one.  I feel its about emptying ourselves & being filled with God's Spirit.  The goal is to be one with each other & with God.  To become one with each other we have to keep pushing into areas where the broken are.  If you live on a ranch & just make money & live like my family has done you're not heading towards oneness.  Separation is the problem on all points.  Reconnection is the action we need to take and complete oneness is the goal. 

 

Bo, you & Tripp are my favorite theologians & Taylor & I have you to blame for our crazy ideas & thinking outside the box.  And not just cause we married sisters.  It is important to engage as you guys are to find better ideas.  Its just that I'm against certainty.  AND yes that means I'm really looking forward to Peter Rollins new book "The Idolatry of God" (Breaking our Addiction to Certainty & Satisfaction).

 

I also like @BoEberle  last statement even though I'm not sure I agree with the entirety of his post.

 

Mere facts and common sense aren't enough, we need new narratives that we live and experience together, deriving meaning in a way that is not cancerous, but actually "saving" in the most concrete way possible

 

We need to find ways to actually save in the most concrete ways possible!

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @willhenderson  @BoEberle You make some REALLY good points here - especially the 'concrete' salvation idea.   Your point about making money and living isolated is so interesting.   I am leery to push-back at all! I like your points so much.

 

Can I just suggest 2 things on the certainty thing?

A) We have nipples and bellybuttons and when you look at our mating rituals and birth-nursing arrangement .... it is clear that we are mammals. I'm fairly certain of that ;)  Now, one could say that we also have the 'imago dei' and that would be fine, so that we are different than the other mammals but it doesn't mean that we are not biological mammals. 

B) The human population is in exponential growth. Pair that with global consumerism and between China and Africa and the US (not to mention India, Brazil and Germany) ... if we continue to use resources the way that we have in the past - we will be in trouble. I'm fairly nervous about that. 

 

what cha think?  -Bo 

willhenderson
willhenderson 5pts

 @BoSanders  @BoEberle 

YES.  The Certainty comment needs some clarification.  I am in the process of breaking my addiction to certainty to I'm still in the process.  I'm also mad now that I found out that even though you can pre order Pete's new book it won't come out till Jan. 1, 2013   grrrrr

 

So I overstated my certainty cause I think I was just thinking in the religious, biblical, theological realm.  Let me state how I come to certainty.

 

I've always felt the bible, science & philosophy should be used & were helpful.  The problem is that my order was wrong.  My order was Bible, Philosophy, Science.  The problem then is I first assumed everything in the bible was certain and that all Philosophy & Science to is back it up.  Which they do allot.  I would still agree with that to a point.

 

What's happened in my "transformation" or "re-thinking" things is that I've changed the order.  Now I start with Philosophy, then Science & last of all the Bible.  I think Philosophy helps us reason the possible.  And I think that can even include miracles & things beyond what we "see" with our eyes.  Then there is science.

 

One Definition of science:

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of factors. 

truths systematically arranged and showing the operationof general laws: 

the mathematical sciences.

ALSO

systematic knowledge of the physical or material worldgained 

through observation and experimentation.

 

So to me science comes in to verify things.  We learn allot, like the earth isn't the center of the universe.  The thing is we can PROVE & OBSERVE that.  There are many studies out there but often modern science is addicted to certainty as much as we are and many scientific theories that are our best guesses become fact in the mainstream of life.  This is unfortunate because Science is awesome.  This is why I will only except Evolution as a theory because scientifically that is as far as we have gotten.  It hasn't even come close to the proof science came up with in disproving the Christians theory that the Earth was the center & didn't move.  We also can't prove a Genesis literal creation.  Philosophy then is where I come to believe in a creator because it seems the only logical conclusion to what I'm seeing.  Science & the Bible are VERY weak on this and any kind of divine design is Philosophical.  So I love Science, but I am only willing to accept as fact, theories that have been proven scientifically.  To me Evolution and the 6 days 10,000 years both stand on the same ground.  Very weak arguments & huge holes in their evidence.  That is just me.  So I sit back philosophically thinking there must be a third option cause neither of these makes sense or are fact scientifically.

 

Finally the Bible.  I used to think it was all or nothing.  That all of it was certain.  That it was black & white.  Obviously I have changed on that.  So first I push back at the bible on anything that doesn't make philosophical sense.  Like eternal conscious torment.  Second I push back where science actually can prove things.  The earth moves & is not the center of the universe is one.  Also Joshua stopping the day & making it longer.  Scientifically can't happen.  I person in the belly of a big fish?  Can't happen scientifically & doesn't make sense Philosophically.

 

So then as I mix them together I begin to develop actually a greater love for all three than I had before.  I have decided that there is more mystery than certainty & more questions than answers.  So my agnosticism about the beginning and end comes from that.  This may sound weird but to me, my faith in Christ, is mostly philosophy.  He makes sense.  Scientifically guys like Bart Ehrman have proven that he exists.  Then I also the bible that contains his story.

 

So I have chosen to believe based on all this that God is love.  And I've chosen not to be a defeatist or just to give up.  It's the mystery that brings the spice to life & compels me to move on to solve it.  The Mystery also helps me to live in the now.  Accept it.  My choice then is what I do with today or tomorrow if it comes.

 

Philosophy would say keep looking around.  Its all art.  Its all amazing.  There is allot of beauty to be discovered.  Science says that some mysteries can be solved so we don't give up.  And the bible, specifically Jesus, gives me an example of the choices that I can make with MY LIFE TODAY that seem like better choices.  Jesus to me just made great choices so I try to base my life on that & make choices in light of his priorities & the example he set.

 

The mystery, the adventure, the hope, the joy when re-connecting with God & others is so compelling I feel like the church should become more like Sherlock Holmes!

willhenderson
willhenderson 5pts

 @BoSanders  @BoEberle 

I think I'll get shorter the more I process  haha ..... pun intended.

willhenderson
willhenderson 5pts

 @BoSanders  @BoEberle 

sorry for the long post.  thinking out loud helps me & I'm long winded :-)

This comment has been deleted

Jfpohl
Jfpohl 5pts

@leadfromfringe Amen. Thank you. My pastor is a nice guy but does not understand this issue. He was not happy when I told him YEC is dumb.

Travis Mamone
Travis Mamone 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

It's interesting how this whole idea of narrative shapes our actions, much like belief itself. Seems like the more we believe in the "traditional orthodox Christian" narrative--the world will end soon so all we can do is just wait and do nothing else--the crappier life gets. But if we believe that we are part of an even bigger narrative--God is healing the world through us--then maybe, just maybe, there's still hope.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @Travis Mamone  You nailed it.  This short-term narrative that we live by in cancerous to the planet.  This is why John Cobb's most recent visit to the podcast is so powerful. His economy & ecology insights are gold!   -Bo 

Travis Mamone
Travis Mamone 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @BoSanders Yeah, I like what Cobb had to say about secularizing Christianity. At first I wasn't sure what he meant, until he talked about "inward/upward" vs. "outward."

BoEberle
BoEberle 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

We seriously happen to read all the same things at the same time, Bo. Awesome and weird. Reading Critchley for a political theology reading group, may be my favorite book of the year. Critchely is becoming my hero. It's interesting that historically, Christian ideology reflected what we must all know at some level, what Critchley has pointed out, that we are "homo rapiens." It has done this by ascribing cancerous qualities to humanity in the form of original sin, telling us we are essentially a disease that offends God. Instead of internalizing this fact, magical solutions were enacted from sacrifices to ultimately letting Christ be THE sacrifice that magically transforms us from disease ridden and destructive to beings on the train to glory. Why I love Critchley (and Clayton Crockett affirms this as well) is the recognition that religion, politics, and philosophy are all inseparable (Critchley says without religion, philosophy is nothing but refining common sense), but aside from the fundamental ontological debate about the existence of God (boring), what is important is to create alternative narratives to the predominant historical ones, for the sake of ethics and politics. The chapter on Rousseau is brilliant in that Rousseau laments Christianity for separating religion and state politics - not in the sense that we need a CHristian theocracy, but that prior to Christianity, nation states all had their own gods and tradition, but not only were they not seen as mutually exclusive to other gods, but only that kind of religion, displayed in public and experienced communally, stirs the political/ethical subject to the point of having the "binding" experience in which one is bound to a specific cause. Mere facts and common sense aren't enough, we need new narratives that we live and experience together, deriving meaning in a way that is not cancerous, but actually "saving" in the most concrete way possible. 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @BoEberle  Great 'Bo's think alike :)   that is the saying right?   anyway - glad you are holding down the Bo-fort on the East Coast!!     I had not thought to tie this in with Clayton Crockett  - what a great podcast that was .   Your use of Rousseau was helpful to me.  MUCH clearer than in the book ;)   -Bo 'West' 

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in