Agnostic Science and Religion_Frank_Busch

8/8/2019 Agnostic Science and Religion_Frank_Busch

1/4


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


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


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

Documents

Agnostic Science and Religion_Frank_Busch