Comments on: does environmental science lead to environmental action? http://www.sustainablechina.info/2009/04/03/does-environmental-science-lead-to-environmental-action/ researching religious values for ecological sustainability Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:20:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Seth Clippard http://www.sustainablechina.info/2009/04/03/does-environmental-science-lead-to-environmental-action/comment-page-1/#comment-343 Seth Clippard Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:39:50 +0000 http://www.sustainablechina.info/?p=228#comment-343 I think that's a important distinction to make and I couldn't agree more. But it does pose a problem for the type of multicultural environmental ethics that people like Tucker and Callicot seem to be promoting. Which leads me to wonder if the discussion of an environmental ethic is not problematizing scholar's ability to build tradition-based ethics that are addressed to a specific traditions worldview. I have lately been trying to discern whether a Buddhist environmental ethic requires one to focus on a specific Buddhist tradition. As I see it now, a Thai Buddhist EE would not be very similar to a Chinese Buddhist EE (although the latter might be an aspect of a larger Chinese Environmental ethic, combining aspects of Confucian and Daoist thought). I think that’s a important distinction to make and I couldn’t agree more. But it does pose a problem for the type of multicultural environmental ethics that people like Tucker and Callicot seem to be promoting. Which leads me to wonder if the discussion of an environmental ethic is not problematizing scholar’s ability to build tradition-based ethics that are addressed to a specific traditions worldview. I have lately been trying to discern whether a Buddhist environmental ethic requires one to focus on a specific Buddhist tradition. As I see it now, a Thai Buddhist EE would not be very similar to a Chinese Buddhist EE (although the latter might be an aspect of a larger Chinese Environmental ethic, combining aspects of Confucian and Daoist thought).

]]> By: james http://www.sustainablechina.info/2009/04/03/does-environmental-science-lead-to-environmental-action/comment-page-1/#comment-335 james Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:35:21 +0000 http://www.sustainablechina.info/?p=228#comment-335 Hi Seth, and thanks for your comment. I agree very much that the Buddhist tradition has a lot to say about the relationship between knowledge and practice, and tends to emphasize the latter over the former: meditative practice leads to enlightened understanding, and not generally the other way around. On the other hand Protestantism has generally configured this relationship the other way. Right belief leads to right action. This methodological and pedagogical priority has thoroughly imbued the Western academy and also environmentalism. Environmentalists tend to view their opponents as uneducated and unthinking, whereas they should really view them as unfeeling and wrong-acting. Hi Seth, and thanks for your comment. I agree very much that the Buddhist tradition has a lot to say about the relationship between knowledge and practice, and tends to emphasize the latter over the former: meditative practice leads to enlightened understanding, and not generally the other way around.

On the other hand Protestantism has generally configured this relationship the other way. Right belief leads to right action. This methodological and pedagogical priority has thoroughly imbued the Western academy and also environmentalism. Environmentalists tend to view their opponents as uneducated and unthinking, whereas they should really view them as unfeeling and wrong-acting.

]]> By: Seth Clippard http://www.sustainablechina.info/2009/04/03/does-environmental-science-lead-to-environmental-action/comment-page-1/#comment-334 Seth Clippard Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:32:26 +0000 http://www.sustainablechina.info/?p=228#comment-334 This post makes a very astutue observation, and one which is perhaps a bit counter-intuitive. It does highlight the difficulties of the question: what is one doing when one studies the environment? The series on religions and ecology out of Harvard illustrates that there is a definite focus on doing something--on changing people's behavior. I think a challenge here for scholars is that it is almost necessary that they cross that divide between research and involvement. However, this becomes tricky in Religious Studies in the face of the dictum "study religion, but don't DO religion." When one attempts to do something about the environment through the resources of religions, what position does that put the scholar in? Did this situation present itself during your course? I also found your reflections on action versus knowledge apropos to the Chinese Buddhist question: if we are already enlightened, what need is there for practice? If knowledge itself was a transformative as some have suggested, why do those of us who are "environmentally enlightened" still leave such a large footprint? This post makes a very astutue observation, and one which is perhaps a bit counter-intuitive. It does highlight the difficulties of the question: what is one doing when one studies the environment? The series on religions and ecology out of Harvard illustrates that there is a definite focus on doing something–on changing people’s behavior. I think a challenge here for scholars is that it is almost necessary that they cross that divide between research and involvement. However, this becomes tricky in Religious Studies in the face of the dictum “study religion, but don’t DO religion.” When one attempts to do something about the environment through the resources of religions, what position does that put the scholar in? Did this situation present itself during your course?

I also found your reflections on action versus knowledge apropos to the Chinese Buddhist question: if we are already enlightened, what need is there for practice? If knowledge itself was a transformative as some have suggested, why do those of us who are “environmentally enlightened” still leave such a large footprint?

]]>