Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

An Eastern Orthodox Theological Basis for Interplanetary Environmental Ethics

2011; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 9; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/14746700.2011.587666

1474-6719

Vladimir V. M. Tobin, A. Randall Olson,

Theology and Philosophy of Evil

Abstract As a result of our technological advances in space exploration, human enterprise is no longer limited to the confines of planet Earth. Although several philosophical approaches to environmental ethics have already been advocated for human encounters with other planets such as Mars, it may be argued that various religious worldviews will significantly influence these suggested value systems. In this article, we present an Eastern Orthodox Christian interpretation of Creation and explore the theological meaning of the human vocation as Priests of Creation. An appropriate application of these two principles provides a theological basis for an interplanetary eco-praxis. Key words: Extraterrestrial environmentsEastern OrthodoxyEnvironmental ethicsInterplanetary explorationEco-praxisReligious worldviewsEastern Christianity Notes 1 Margaret S. Race and Richard O. Randolph, “The Need for Operating Guidelines and a Decision-making Framework Applicable to the Discovery of Non-intelligent Extraterrestrial Life,” Advances in Space Research 30 (2002): 1583–1591. 2 Margaret S. Race, “Communicating About the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life: Different Searches, Different Issues,” Acta Astronautica 62 (2008): 71–78. 3 Bron Taylor, “Environmental Ethics,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, ed. Bron Taylor (London and New York: Continuum 2005), 597. 4 Alan Marshall, “Ethics and the Extraterrestrial Environment,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 10 (1993): 227–236. 5 Dan McArthur and Idil Boran, “Agent-Centered Restrictions and the Ethics of Space Exploration,” Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2004): 148–163. 6 Roger S. Gottlieb, “Religion and Ecology—What Is the Connection and Why Does It Matter?” in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology, ed. Roger S. Gottlieb (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3–21. 7 Ted Peters, “Anticipating Detection of Life in Space: AstroEthical Scenarios,” Journal of Lutheran Ethics 8 (2008), available from http://www2.elca.org/jle/print.asp?k=814. 8 A. Randall Olson and Vladimir V.M. Tobin, “An Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Microbial Life on Mars,” Theology and Science 6 (2008): 421–437. 9 Elizabeth Theokritoff, “Creation and Priesthood in Modern Orthodox Thinking,” Ecotheology 10.3 (2005): 344–363. 10 Theokritoff, “Creation and Priesthood.” 11 Marshall, “Ethics and the Extraterrestrial Environment.” 12 Linda Billings, “To the Moon, Mars, and Beyond: Culture, Law, and Ethics in Space-Faring Societies,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (2006): 430–437. 13 Marshall, “Ethics and the Extraterrestrial Environment.” 14 David S. McKay, Everett K. Gibson Jr., Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta, Hojantollah Vali, Christopher S. Romanek, Simon J. Clemett, Xavier D. F. Chillier, Claude R. Maechling and Richard N. Zare, “Search for Past Life: Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001,” Science 273 (1996): 924–930. 15 Mark Lupisella, “The Rights of Martians,” Space Policy 13 (1997): 89–94. 16 Lupisella, “The Rights of Martians.” 17 Charles S. Cockell, “Planetary Protection—A Microbial Ethics Approach,” Space Policy 21 (2005): 287–292. 18 Cockell, “Planetary Protection.” 19 Charles Cockell and Gerda Horneck, “A Planetary Park System for Mars,” Space Policy 20 (2004): 291–295. 20 Richard York, “Toward a Martian Land Ethic,” Human Ecology Review 12 (2005): 72–73. 21 Charles Cockell and Gerda Horneck, “Planetary Parks—Formulating a Wilderness Policy for Planetary Bodies,” Space Policy 22 (2006): 256–261. 22 Cockell and Horneck, “Planetary Parks.” 23 Ibid. 24 MacArthur and Boran, “Agent-Centered Restrictions.” 25 Ibid. 26 Jacques Arnould and Andre Debus, “An Ethical Approach to Planetary Protection,” Advances in Space Research 42 (2008): 1089–1095 27 Arnould and Debus, “An Ethical Approach.” 28 The expression “process of being” may sound somewhat strange to the modern ear, but in Biblical thought, particularly in the Old Testament, to be is not simple a state of existence, it is rather a dynamic process of becoming. This is the significance of the Hebrew verb, haya (to be), which implies what we might call an evolutionary nature in all things. This is not evolution in the Darwinian sense, but it does imply growth and forward movement as opposed to static existence. 29 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006), 11–31. 30 Collins, Language of God, 201. 31 De Fide Orthodoxa, I.1.i. 32 Dem. Evang. 4.13.2–3, quoted in G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: S.P.C.K., 1959), 35f. 33 It should be noted in passing that this distinction has never been accepted by Western Christianity, and it still remains one of the theological differences between East and West. 34 This idea is clearly set out in Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1.20: “For since the creation of the universe, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and Godhead, may be perceived, intelligible by means of created things.” 35 This may appear as a somewhat simplified description of the origin of the Hebrew priesthood, and indeed to an extent it is. In reality, there were in ancient Israel a number of distinct priesthoods, some of them, no doubt, taken over and adapted from earlier Canaanite priesthoods. The Scriptural account of the connection of the Levitical priesthood with the Sinai Covenant was intended to show that priesthood was an integral part of the sacred nature of the newly founded nation. Such an “historical” account is not concerned with the actual facts and specific details of what happened in history, but rather what was the essential meaning of the wider event. The final impact of attributing a Sinai origin to the priesthood is to underscore the fact that priesthood is an essential element of the sacred community and inseparable from it. The fact that other, originally non-Levitical, priesthoods entered into the system means that they were essentially grafted into the Hebrew tradition and adopted, as it were, as part of it. The same thinking is applicable to the Christian community and its priesthood, especially as it is understood in Orthodox tradition. 36 The priestly aspect of the Christian community is especially underscored in the Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. Basil, where it is stated that Christ “won us unto Himself as a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” 37 One needs to be wary of misinterpretation of the passage from Genesis here quoted. The Hebrew terms translated as “subdue” and “have dominion”, kavash and radah, are basically synonyms and can be used in a hostile sense and can even imply the use of force. The same may be said of the Greek verbs, katakyrieuō and archō, used in the Septuagint rendition of the passage. In this context, however, while it is obvious that man is to impose his rule over the earth, it must also be noted that this rule has been given to him by God to control and govern His Creation. There is no implication here that the Creation may be raped or wantonly and arbitrarily used. The constant use of the formula, “And God saw that it was good,” throughout the Creation narrative implies that man, to whom the Creation is entrusted, must show it due respect and reverence. Moreover, the Book of Deuteronomy well illustrates the Hebrew ideal of humane treatment of animals. For example, in Deuteronomy 25:4 it is stated, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox which treads out the corn.” In other words, the ox is to be permitted to have some enjoyment as a result of his work. Yet another instance of God's desire for peace, harmony and order in Creation may be seen in Isaiah 11:6–9 which ends with a portrait of the ideal situation for the Creation: “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” 38 Olson and Tobin, “Microbial Life on Mars,” 434. 39 Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, translated from the Russian by the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius (London: James Clarke and Co., 1957), 106. 40 The Latin expression, do ut des, means literally, “I give so that you may give.” Applied to religious practice, it implies that the one making the sacrifice does so in order that the deity may give something in return and this fulfills the wishes of the worshipper. In brief, it represents sacrifice as a bribe. 41 The Latin term pontifex, derived from pons (bridge) and facio (to make) means literally “bridge-builder.” This expressed one of the chief roles of the priest: he is the one who bridges the gulf between the world and God, thus making communication possible. 42 See, for example, Hebrews 4:14f; 5:1–10. The eternity of Christ's priesthood is especially underscored in chap. 10 of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 43 Theokritoff, “Creation and Priesthood,” 354. 44 Ibid. 45 Confessiones, I.1. 46 Theokritoff, “Creation and Priesthood,” 348. 47 Ibid., 357. 48 Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, rev. edn. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1995). 49 John Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew I (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Erdmans Publishing, 2003), 219. 50 Anestis G. Keselopoulos, Man and the Environment: A Study of St. Symeon the New Theologian (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001). 51 Mark Lupisella, “The Rights of Martians.”