Amswer154

	Sign In Sign-Up

Amswer154

Question154

If you deconverted from Christianity or Judaism, do you still think that 'man has dominion over Earth and its creatures' or do you think that this is species chauvinism?

Well, I don't know that a slow move from blase Reform Jew to atheist Jew necessarily counts as a "conversion". But, I'll answer the question, anyway. ;-)

No, I don't think that humanity has "dominion over Earth". Not in a divinely entitled sense, anyway. We're just another animal, after all. Albeit a dangerously aggressive and intelligent one. But, I don't believe that opinions on the subject can be neatly divided along religious/non-religious lines.

It would be very easy (and self-congratulatory) to say that atheists have an intrinsically greater respect for the natural world than their poor, unenlightened theistic neighbors. But, I've seen atheists right here in a.a. who've dismissed ecological concerns and animal rights with casual contempt. People who wouldn't be caught dead babbling about the ensouled vs. the unsouled, will instead, substitute that nouveau (yet almost as slipperily indefinable) "s" word, "sentience" to justify treating the rest of the planet's inhabitants as nothing more than disposable commodities. And those who would laugh at the idea of god ordained dominion will, instead, blather on about higher and lower rungs in the food chain and natural selection favoring those with the biggest brains in the competition for resources, so, it's our evolutionary destiny to mow all the rainforests down, yadda, yadda, yadda.

On the other hand, I've seen theists - and not just Mother Earth lovin' Pagans, but devout Christians, Jews and Muslims, as well - who feel passionately about the preservation of the planet, fight to protect wildlife and rescue abused animals. And, in keeping with the phenomenon of "selective scripture reading" they'll even credit their religions for their own eco-friendliness.

How one views these matters, I think, has far less to do with one's religious beliefs (or lack of same) than with one's *political* beliefs. From what I've seen, a right-wing Fundy and a right-wing atheist will most likely echo each other when it comes to eco and animal issues. It's like old math and new math; they may be using different formulas, but they arrive at the same conclusions. The same holds true for liberal atheists and liberal theists.

So, while I, an atheist, personally have respect for nature and non-human life and I think there are many other atheists who share that view, I wouldn't want to be so sloppy in my logic as to suggest that the one philosophy was the natural and obvious consequence of the other. That would be neither fair, nor true. (Alma Geddon #757)

We have dominion, if you want to call it that, because we have the capability to modify or destroy nearly all multicellular life on the planet.

Doesn't mean we should. I have the ability to get automatic weapons and destroy lots of people here before I get stopped. Doing so though is, though perhaps enjoyable as a thought exercise some (bad) days, a foolish idea in the long run because it has repercussions unfavorable to me.

Similiarly, we could destroy lots of the world, and we are only answerable to ourselves - and to our descendents, who we'd have them cheated out of whatever we destroy.

Humans have to do the best they can, and they have to weigh choices and outcomes. I'm not ready to destroy our species to save the whales, but I'd gladly limit it from wanton procreation. Others believe spawning unlimited children is fine and heck with the impact on resources. I've seen posts from those who maintain that as long as every human has the equivalent of a two room NYS apartment we're not too crowded. Not for me.

It all ties together. I think we have abilities, I hope we eventually get mature enough to have restraint. (Dewie Henize #122)

Dominion of mankind over other animals ? No, we can't say that. We change our environment, and this can effect other species. I wish we would value more other species not only for possible benefits that they give to us, but also for themselves. (YOELK #1309)

Seeing as how "RIGHTS" are a human invention and have no basis in nature, I'd say our "rights" are whatever we define them to be.

Personally, I'm not a conservationist because of the environmental catastrophy that would follow a critical number of species extinctions/ climatic changes. There have been mass extinctions and natural disasters in the past that rival anything we could accomplish even with a concentrated effort, and life has always bounced back with even more diversity than before.

I am a conservationist for purely aesthetic reasons. I like vast forests, clean streams, and a wide variety of plants and animals because it's pleasing to my senses and my personal tastes. (Czar #13)

Difficult question. We don't have any automatic right to plunder the earth's resources as the bible folks would believe. I think what we do should be judged on its likely consequences. Do we want certain species to go extinct? Does it matter? We really need to see the earth as a system and realise that there is no reason it will go on supporting humans regardless of their actions. I think atheists have more respect for animals because they do not see humans as being separate from them. I have heard christians say animals don't feel pain. (arky)

Absolute species chauvinism. We prey on the environment, so we have the responsibility of taking care of what we destroyed. Nature is not there to serve us, but to let us live as long as we respect it. (Angel Arnal #1443)

We do have de facto dominion over most of the animals on the planet - we could wipe them out just as easily as we can destroy ourselves. That is not to say that we have the "right" to do so or that the situation was pre-ordained in some way.

Echoing Alma Geddons finely constructed sentiments on the question I do not think that the assumption that we have the RIGHT to this dominion is any way restricted to theists(whatever the flavour) and vice versa. Dominion over the earth itself is another question and is an impossibility. There are too many variables beyond our control in that regard.

The natural extrapolation of this line of thought has to be (given that we have indeed an inordinate say in the ecological well being of the planet) whether we are exercising said power in a "responsible" way. Are we busily destroying our own(and as yet only) home? (Ciaran ONeill)

Though I am not a former religious type, I did used to believe that, when I was younger. I would not call it "species chauvinism", now that I look at it in hind-sight. Rather, it is our instinct for species preservation, which *all* species have, manifesting itself in our greater intelligence. We want to live, so we treat ourselves as more important than other creatures.

Call this species chauvinism if you want. I call it a perfectly natural manifestation of our survival instinct. I guess it makes more sense to the simple-minded to say, "Defend yourself and live because you are more important than they are," than is does to say, "Defend yourself and live because you have to." (Frank Wustner #119)

First, lets throw out that horrible term 'species chauvinism'. Yes, that's a lot better! Many people think they have dominion, but that is an illusion. The greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer were not caused by any ones deliberate, conscious action. The same goes for the deserts we have created and the species we have exterminated.

The idea of dominion is based on the crackpot theory that we are not part of nature. Actions based on stupid ideas are bound to fail. We don't even have dominion over Homo Sapiens: Did anyone ever plan a situation with so much suffering, so much needless conflict? They planned to get dominion over other people - and those efforts have created an almighty mess.

But that's all OK! These problems are forcing us all to wake up. The solutions to all these problems will lie in understanding, rather than in extending the old power trips. (Martin Thomas)

I always get a kick out of this one. People who believe "Man has dominion..." should try getting caught in a tornado/hurrican/earthquake/volcano/flood/...

Sheer nonsense. The biggest problem I've always seen with this type of believer is that they want to use it as an excuse to completely and totally ignore any and all environmental concerns. They gleefully slaughter endangered species, dump toxic wasts in lakes and rivers, mow down trees like there's no tomorrow, and cause general havoc, just on the "dominion" principle. It's a pretty convenient excuse, don't you think. It's "Gawd's will" that we destroy anything we touch. (Paul J. Koeck #360)

Click here to return to master question page.