Upload
frank-busch
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Agnostic Science and Religion_Frank_Busch
1/4
8/8/2019 Agnostic Science and Religion_Frank_Busch
2/4
16 Veterinary Times
Figure 1. Adamnames theanimals40,taken romthe AberdeenBestiary, amanuscriptsaved rom amedieval churchor Henry VIIIslibrary, and frst
listed there in1542. Medievalthinkersbelieved Adamhad the rightto namethe animalsbecause hisintellectallowed him tounderstandthe natureand purpose oeach animal.Dominion Covenant Moral generosity
In its original context, dominion meantthat humans had a God-givenresponsibility to care or the earth(conrmed by the act that thesubsequent verses command a
vegetarian diet and envisage a world inSabbath harmony). See Genesis 2.
The second concerns thenotion o covenant ound inGenesis 9. Against the prevailingnotion that humans and animalsare utterly separate, the idea oGods covenant with all livingcreatures kept alive the senseo a wider kinship.
The third positive insight ispreserved in the notion omoral generosity (seegenerosity paradigm below),which came to prominence inthe emergence ohumanitarian movements othe 19th century.
Relating to Relating to Relating to
Genesis 1:29-30:
29. And God said, behold, I havegiven you every herb bearing seed,which is upon the ace o all theearth, and every tree, in which is theruit o a tree yielding seed; to you itshall be or meat.30. And to every beast o the earth,and to every owl o the air, and toevery thing that creepeth upon theearth, wherein there is lie, I havegiven every green herb or meat: and itwas so. A rival interpretation odominion as stewardship orresponsibility can be traced back to theearliest Christian writers and came tothe ore in the emergence o 18th and19th century zoophily.
Genesis 9:9-11:
9. And I, behold, I establish mycovenant with you, and with yourseed ater you.10. And with every living creaturethat is with you, o the owl, o thecattle, and o every beast o theearth with you; rom all that go outo the ark, to every beast o theearth.11. And I will establish mycovenant with you, neither shall allfesh be cut o any more by thewaters o a food; neither shallthere any more be a food todestroy the earth.
According to the generosityparadigm, we owe animalscharity, benevolence andmerciul treatment. Crueltywas judged incompatible withChristian discipleship: to actcruelly, or even to killwantonly, was ungenerous,a practical sign o ingratitudeto the Creator44.Linzeys generosity paradigm:It is because God loves andcares or creation, andbecause, moreover, thatgreat creative generosity isshown us in Jesus Christ, thatwe have a sure moralimperative or our dealingswith ellow creatures.45
Table 2. Negative attitudes towards animals throughout history within a biblical context
interpretation o dominion. As
a consequence, the notion that
humans were the caretakers o
the natural world, rather than the
controllers o it, grew in popular-
ity and inuence. This new-ound
Christian concept o stewardship
entreated that animals shouldbe treated careully, respectully
and responsibly23.
Genesis 1:28 in context
Anyone attempting to justiy his or
her animal use by merely relying
on Gen 1:28 is wholly misguided.
Gen 1:28 has been rivolously
taken out o its context, render-
ing it useless as the basis o any
meaningul discussion. Only the
misinormed will employ the
dominion argument when trying
to justiy their animal use24.
The inescapable act about
the biblical term dominion isthat it seemingly grants humans
the right and responsibility to
rule and govern the rest o crea-
tion. It establishes a hierarchy o
power and authority in which the
human race is positioned above
the rest o the natural world.
This (mis)conception that
humans have a special sta-
tus above the rest o creation
appears to be supported by other
details o the creation account in
Gen 1. While al l other l i e
originates within the sphere o
the earth to which it is related
according to the divine com-
mand let the waters bring orth
swarms o living creatures (Gen
1:20), or let the earth bring orthliving creatures o every kind
(1:24; c 1:11-12) humans
alone do not originate in this way.
They are created by God alone
(Gen 1:26). Furthermore, and
even more signifcantly, humans
alone, among all orms o lie, are
made in Gods image25.
However, it has been argued
that dominion ought to be under-
stood to be a benevolent ruling
characterised by restraint.
To be created in the image o
God can only mean that humans
have no special essence, but a
special unction or task to act as
Gods representative or author-
ised agent on earth26. Thereore,
human rule is not absolute,but it is to be carried out in
accordance with the intention
and design o the divine sover-
eign who delegated it.
I that divine sovereign exer-
cises power benevolently, as in
act Gen 1 depicts God as doing
(bringing all o lie into existence,
considering it all good and placing
it all within a harmonious eco-
system), then humans, as Gods
representatives or agents, should
exercise the power granted
them in order to achieve the
same ends27. This concept o
benevolent rule may be corrob-
orated by comparing it to Gods
commission to the heavenlybodies (Gen 1:16-18). Finally,
human rule itsel is limited by
at least one important restraint
dominion over the animals
does not include the right to kill
and eat them (Gen 1:29-30).
Beore the ood, humans were
only given plants or ood (Gen
9:1-7), which meant that the frst
humans were vegetarians28.
Humans are still positioned
above the rest o nature with
authority over it, but they occupy
this position as Gods stewards.
The verb subdue in sub-
due the earth in Gen 1:28 also
depicts a hierarchical relationship
in which humans are positioned
above the earth and are grantedpower and control over it.
Again, this relationship has
to be seen in the context in
which biblical society was a
society where the economy
was largely based on subsist-
ence agriculture29. There, lie
presented a constant struggle to
survive, demanding extremely
hard work to coax a tolerable
crop out o the rocky, hilly soil
each year. Within this context,
it is not difcult to understand
how the human relationship
with the earth could be viewed
in adversarial terms, and how the
human task o producing ood
could be regarded as overpow-
ering the intractable ground, asgaining the upper hand over it,
and o subduing the earth in the
words o Gen 1:28.
Such a conception o domin-
ion arises not out o a context
o human power, but out o a
context o human powerless-
ness. For biblical society, the
balance o power was decidedly
in natures avour. This means
that the dominion theology in
this text could not have signifed
the kind o control o nature now
Genesis of dominion arGument put
back into conteXt from page 14
Photo:MICHAELCRAIG/UNIVERSITYOFABERDEEN.
POINT-OF-VIEW
The s imple joy of comfort .The s imple joy of comfort .
In the UK: Atopica POM-V contains cyclosporine A. For further information contact the Practice
Support Line on 0800 854100, or write to Novartis Animal Health UK Ltd, Frimley Business Park, Frimley,
Camberley, Surrey GU16 7SR. In Ireland: Atopica POM c ontains cyclospori ne A. For further informationcontact Novartis Animal Health Ireland Ltd, Industrial Park, Cork Road, Waterford. Tel. 051-377201.
Registered trademark of Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland. Novartis Animal Health Inc, 2008.
Dont let atopic dermatitis keep them separated. Atopicaprovides lasting comfort so dogs and people can enjoy a
normal life and each other again. Studies and real life
have confirmed it 1. Why keep their happiness waiting?
1. Steffan J. et al, Veterinary Dermatology, 2006, 17 (1), 3-16.
VT38.25 master.indd 16 26/6/08 12:18:49
8/8/2019 Agnostic Science and Religion_Frank_Busch
3/4
17July 7, 2008 POINT-OF-VIEW
continued overleaf
possible ater the industrial and
technological revolutions30.
Such control was not even
conceivable in antiquity, when
humanity was viewed as essen-
tially impotent beore the vast
powers o nature. This also
means that the dominion theol-
ogy, in this context, takes on
an entirely new meaning when
read by a 21st century societyin light o its new control and
power over nature31.
It is obvious that the biblical
image o dominion that our
society holds on to when try-
ing to legitimise its power over
non-humans is not appropriate
anymore or a society that sees
itsel as powerul, rather than
powerless, and or a society
whose sense o its own power
is decidedly dierent rom the
biblical society within which this
image o dominion arose32.
Genesis 2: theologyof human dependence
Gen 2 (King James version)33
presents us with an alternative to
the dominion theology o Gen 1.
Human beings are not created
with special privilege or power.
The rst human is made o
the same arable soil o the bibli-
cal hill country, as are all o the
other orms o lie; and the divine
breath blown into his nostrils is
the same breath with which all
the animals live and breathe
(Gen 2:7; 7:22).
The language with which the
role o the human in the earth
is described is not the language
o lordship, but o servanthood.
In this account o creation, the
theology o the human place
in creation is not a theology o
dominion, but a theology o
dependence34. This theology has
representatives in other parts o
scripture, o which Psalm 104
and the Book o Job are two o
the best examples35.
I, as a society, we justiy our
animal use by citing scripture, we
must take both theologies into
consideration. Hiebert points
out that there may be merit in
preserving (in our age) both
theologies, just as they were
preserved in the biblical era:
Between them they capture
the paradox o human existence.
On the one hand, we believe
ourselves, as does Gen 1, to
be particularly ingenious and
powerul among all orms o lie,
a belie that has been realised
in the 20th century like never
beore by our new ability to
control nature or good or or ill.
We have the ability to enhance
human health and longevity, and
also the ability to destroy the
human race entirely with nuclear
armaments and wastes.
Hiebert adds that in such
a context, it seems reason-
able and even necessary to
ashion a theology o human
power exercised benevolently
or the good o creation, that
is, a dominion theology in a
stewardship mould that many
have seen in Gen 1.36. Gen 2
acknowledges that humans are
only a single species in a large and
complex web o lie that we do
not entirely understand and can
never really control. The web o
lie unctioned very well without
us beore we arrived in the very
last raction o creative time. Spe-
cial attention to the dependence
theology o Gen 2 is important
because our greatest temptation
as individuals and as a race isto think more highly o ourselves
than we ought to. Our proud
and sel-centred perspective
has allowed us to exploit nature
or our ends and has brought
upon us the ecological crisis we
now ace. Perhaps what is most
needed in our day is not a new
view o power, a sanctiied
dominion theology37, but rather
a new humility and a new sense
o our dependence upon the
larger realm o creation.
In addition, the time couldbe right or decentering,38 by
which we read our texts and our
lives rom the point o view o the
whole creation, rather than rom
our human perspective alone.
Lloyd puts it this way: I we
are to enjoy nature and work;
to protect and heal it without
worshipping it or refecting its
violence then we need to
insist that it is not now as God
intended it to be. We need to
see it as good but allen. We
need to nd ways o continuingto proclaim, in a post-Darwinian
world, a doctrine o the allen-
ness o nature39.
Endnotes
1, 2. See www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/03.15/11-coopera-
tion.html
3. Nowak M A (2007). Evolution and
Christianity, Evolution and Theology
o Cooperation Project, HarvardUniversity.
4. In turn, evolution should be as
little a problem or religion as the
concept o gravity. But in the publicarena, evolution is still an issue that
keeps scientists and theologians
apart, undeniably creating tensions.Religious opposition has coalesced
into three camps. Creationists hold
that the Book o Genesis is a scientic
account o historical events on an
Earth when aged just 6,000 years old,
and thereore evolution is impossible.
According to Nowak, that may be
bad science. It runs counter to the
idea, adapted by Thomas Aquinas
and other theologians, that God is
best explained in terms o an analogy.
Proponents o intelligent design
hold that evolution is largely correct,
but that some living structures are so
complex they require the hand oGod to create. According to Nowak,
this is weak science, and may well
Say goodbye to
motion sickness.
Cerenia is the first non-sedating medication with proven efficacyto prevent motion sickness in dogs. With just one dose an hour
before travel, dogs are ready to get on the road.
Proven to prevent motion sickness in dogs
Freedom to travel with just one dose
Non-sedating
MOTI ON SI CKN ESS
FREEDOM TO TRAVEL
For further information, please contact Pfizer Animal Health,Walton Oaks, Dorking Road, Walton on the Hill, Surrey, KT20 7NS. POM-VPfizer Animal Health, 9 Riverwalk, National Digital Park,Citywest Business Campus, Dublin 24. POM
Cerenia Tablets for dogs contains 160 mg maropitant. AH132/08
VT38.25 master.indd 17 26/6/08 12:19:12
8/8/2019 Agnostic Science and Religion_Frank_Busch
4/4
18 Veterinary Times
be weak theology, since it posits a
God who is sometimes here and
sometimes away. See www.news.
harvard.edu/gazette/2007/03.15/11-
cooperation.html
5,6. Myers B (1999) Walking With
The Poor: Principles And Practices Of
Transformational Development, Orbis,
Maryknoll, New York.7. Mason sums up the history o
western philosophy as a con-
tinuous, i not consistent, move-
ment away rom sacredness toward
secularism, and rom the divine com-
munity, ensured by the sacredness o
the antediluvian (beore the ood),
dreamtime, golden age message
toward a rationalistic individualism,
and toward cultural and moral relativ-
ism [...]. Mason J (1993).An Unnatu-
ral Order: Uncovering The Roots Of Our
Dominion of Nature And Each Other,
Simon and Schuster, New York.
8. Rollin B (2000). Scientifc ideology,
anthropomorphism, anecdote, and
ethics, New Ideas in Psychology1(18):
109-118 (10) and Rollin B (2007).
Animal mind: science, philosophy,
and ethics, The Journal of Ethics, 3(11):
253-274 (22).9. Positivism is a philosophy that states
that the only authentic knowledge is
knowledge that is based on actual
sense experience. Such knowledge
can only come rom airmation
o theories through strict scientiic
method. Metaphysical speculation
is avoided. The positivist view is
sometimes reerred to as a scientis-
tic ideology, and is oten shared by
those who believe in the necessity o
progress through scientifc progress,
and by naturalists, who argue that
any method or gaining knowledge
should be limited to natural, physical,
and material approaches (see http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/positivism).
10. Rollin B (2007). Animal mind: sci-
ence, philosophy and ethics, The Jour-
nal of Ethics3(11): 253-274 (22).
11. Rollin B (2006). Science And
Ethics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Rollin examines the
ideology that denies the relevance o
ethics to science. Here, he discusses
a variety o ethical issues that are
relevant to science and how they
are ignored, to the detriment o
both science and society. Rollin also
explores the ideological agnosticism
that scientists have displayed regard-
ing subjective experience in humans
and animals. In line with Rollin,
Waldau comments that: The bias
ound in some scientifc traditions can
rival that o the least responsive o
religious traditions.
Waldau (2000). Religion and other
animals: ancient themes, contem-
porary challenges, Brill Society And
Animals3(8): 227-244 (18).12. It is my contention that the
exploitation o animals has become
part o what Pierre Bourdieu (1984)
has described as our habitus; in other
words, it is a principle that the vast
majority leave unquestioned in their
everyday lives. Swabe J (1999).
Animals, Disease, And Human Society:
Human-Animal Relations And The Rise
of Veterinary Medicine, Routledge.
13. Whereas Rollin highlights the
shortcomings o this particular sci-
entifc approach, Waldau, in a similar
example, highlights that terms used
in economics and law are equally
seen as value ree. This is true
or example, regarding the prop-
erty concepts that dominate many
contemporary legal systems. Such
arguments equate making a proft
with necessity, in which one willarrive at a situation in which it can
be stated that certain ood animal
practices are acceptable because
they produce a proft and thus are
a matter o economic necessity.
14. http://education.guardian.co.uk/
lines/idx/0,,2161693,00.html
15. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/
dominion
16. Andree C and Contrucci J (1989).
Rape Of The Wild Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
17. http://bible.cc/genesis/1-28.htm
18. Chapman J (1994). The Cat-
echism Of The Catholic Church (English
Translation): 81.
19. This illustration shows what medi-
eval people believed regarding the
relationship between humans and the
animal world (www.abdn.ac.uk/besti-
ary/history.hti#oxord).
20. This unctional approach to
animals pervaded much o medieval
peoples thinking and actions. For
example, Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274) was responsible or such a
mindset; according to him, there will
be no animals in heaven because peo-
ple will not need to work, eat or wear
clothes. Furthermore, here on earth
there is no need to preserve animals
that are seen as useless. Wolves ell
in this category, since they did notwork or humans (Paul S (1991).Man
In The Landscape (2nd edn), Texas A
and M University Press.
21. The term misothery is derived
rom Greek misein (to hate)
and therion (beast or animal), and
literally means hatred and contempt
or animals. Since animals are so
representative o nature in general,
misothery can mean hatred and
contempt or nature, especially its
animal-like aspects. One writer,
or example, has described nature
as red in tooth and claw, that is,
bloodthirsty like a predatory animal.
In another version o the same idea,
we say, it is a dog-eat-dog world.
These are misotherous ideas, or they
see animals and nature as vicious and
cruel. Mason J (1998) in Berko M
and Meany C A (eds), Encyclopediaof Animal Rights and Animal Welfare,
Greenwood Press.
22. Gerda L (1986). The Creation Of
Patriarchy, Oxord University Press,
New York.
23. Humans had a clear duty to
animals to ensure that they were ed,
sheltered and cared or adequately,
should be slaughtered as quickly and
painlessly as possible and not need-
lessly over-exerted. Maehle A (1994).
Cruelty and kindness to the brute
creation: stability and change in the
ethics o the human-animal relation-
ship in 1600 to 1850. In Manning
A and Serpell J (eds), Animals And
Human Society Changing Perspectives,
Routledge, London: 85.
24. Cunningham P F (1995). Topics
awaiting study: investigable ques-
tions on animal issues, Journal ofHuman-Animal Studies River Col-
lege 1(3) (www.psyeta.org/sa/sa3.1/
cunningham.html).
25. Anderson B W (1975). Human
Dominion over Nature, in Ward M
(ed) Biblical Studies in Contemporary
Thought: 27-45.
26. Bird P A (1981). Male And
Female, He Created Them: Gen
1:27b in the context o the priestly
account o creation, Harvard Theologi-
cal Review74: 129-159.
27,28. Hiebert T (2000). The human
vocation: origins and t ransormations
in Christian traditions. In Hessel D
and Ruether R R (eds) Christianity
And Ecology: Seeking The Wellbeing Of
Earth And Humans, Harvard Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge.
29,30. Hiebert T (1996). The Yah-
wists Landscape: Nature And Religion
In Early Israel Oxord University Press,
New York.
31. Environmental ethics will be dis-
cussed in a orthcoming article.
32. See 29.
33,34. www.biblegateway.com35. McKibben B (1994). The Comfort-
ing Whirlwind: God, Job, And The Scale
of Creation Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
36,37,38. See 32.
39. Lloyd M (1998). The humanity
o allenness. In Bradshaw T (ed)
Grace And Truth In The Secular Age
Eerdmans: 78.
40. Adam, clothed and on a throne,
gives names to the animals. In Gen-
esis 2:19-20, this takes place beore
the Fall, when Adam was still naked.
In Figure 1, Adams robes and his
gesture o blessing match those o
Christ on other depictions. Adam,
created in Gods image, responsible
or sin and mans mortality, is thereby
contrasted with God, the creator
o lie and Christ, our source o
immortality. Adam has Christ-likepowers o domination over Creation.
The etymology o animals names
explains their symbolic role in Gods
universe. The group on the top right
contains the great cats (lions, panthers
and leopards). Below them are a stag
and hind, the wild quadrupeds not
in mans charge, with two horses
or use by men. The next group
contains domestic grazing animals
bulls, ox, goats and sheep. The ox
is a beast o burden and the rest are
reared or ood. Below Adam, a goat
turns to ace a dog-like creature. The
bottom let panel contains a rabbit
or hare and two cats. In the bot-
tom right panels there are a sheep,
another dog and two boars. The lions
at the top vent their rage with orce,
fght with tooth and claw and enjoy
natural liberty. The dog, cat, boar andwild goat at the bottom are strictly
the beasts. See www.abdn.ac.uk/
bestiary/history.hti#oxord
41. Domestication and ownership o
animals is closely related to the idea
o property or money. Francione
points out that, or example, the
word cattle comes rom the same
etymological root as capital. In many
European languages, cattle was
originally synonymous with chattel
and capital. Francione G L (1995).
Animals, Property, And The Law, Tem-
ple University Press, Philadelphia.
42. Ater discussing the history o
geographical conceptions o dierent
peoples, Daniel J Boorstin concludes
that all people have wanted to
believe themselves at the centre.
Boorstin D J (1985). The Discoverers:
A History Of Mans Search To KnowHis World And Himself, Vintage, New
York: 102.
43. Scholasticism was a method o
learning taught by the academics
o medieval universities circa 1100
to 1500. Scholasticism originally
started to reconcile the philosophy
o the ancient classical philosophers
with medieval Christian theology
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
scholasticism).
44. See 21.
45. Linzey A (1995).Animal Theology ,
University o Chicago Press, Urbana
and Chicago, Illinois: 17.n
n Genesis of dominion arGument put
back into context from page 17
FRANK BUSCH, a mixed animal practitioner, writes primarily on
veterinary ethics and animal welfare issues. Frank has taken a
particular interest in veterinary ethics and has followed
veterinary medical teachings in the USA for some time. Having
previously written forVeterinary Times and VN Times on various
clinical and practical issues, his other interests include
acupuncture and small animal surgery and physiotherapy.
POINT-OF-VIEW
Hills Prescription Diet Canine i/d canned has beenre-formulated to improve the texture quality.Now available from your wholesaler.
For more information, please contact your Territory Manager,or call our free HelpLine on 0800 282438 / 1 800 626002 (R.O.I.)
Its back
and better.
VT38.25 master.indd 18 26/6/08 12:20:08