E. Battaglia.

Diskussion 1.
Lynn White Jr.’s essay makes a clear link between monotheistic religions and environmental
abuse. His claim is that when humans began to perceive the Divine as human-like (and more
specifically, as masculine) and singular, it created a hierarchy with God at the top, followed
by humans, and then the rest of creation. By placing humans in a position above animals,
plants, and the earth itself, religion divorced people from a more immediate identification
with the land, presumably felt by polytheistic or pagan (particularly animistic) people.

1. Most of you identified humans as being at least somewhat separate from “nature.” What
do you make of White’s argument?
2. How do the literary readings (Inanna and Genesis) underscore the separation White points
to?
3. How are the two literary works different from each other, other than the fact that the
Inanna story is an earlier, pagan, and polytheistic story while the “Garden of Eden” is
monotheistic?

Antworten.
Nicole Hassett. I agree but also disagree with White’s argument. I don't think religion is the
primary thing to blame in why nature is being altered and destroyed. Most religions preach
peace and kindness, so destroying the land we live on isn’t peaceful or kind. My point of
view on religions are definitely skewed though, because I grew up Catholic so I knew how
nature was written about like in the reading about the Garden of Eden.
In the readings, both emphasize the power of nature. In Genesis, God is shown
creating Earth, plants, animals and then lastly human. He did this on different days and each
step of creating a new thing was separated. This distinction made sure that each different
step/ thing should be looked at as different things. As for Inanna, there were clear steps in
that as well, this was more describing the wonderful and lush the plants and nature there
was.
The literary works are different compared to each story, Inanna's story seems more
fluid. There was a conversation through the story and it included the different Gods. While
the “Garden of Eden” is just the story of how Earth was created. Both were repetitive, but
Inanna’s story seemed more repetitive, with having the stanza be the same sentence with a
minor change.

Raymond Bruno. I actually thought the Garden of Eden was easier to follow. I felt
like Inanna's story was all over the place which made it hard to follow.

Kelly Mooney. I also think that religion is not the sole reason that nature is being
altered, but it could be the underlying beliefs as to why people place humans above
animals, and plants.

Raymond Bruno. I do not agree with White when he said technology has ruined “mans”
relationship with nature. White further explain his reasoning by giving two examples of
plowing fields. In the older days, plows were used by two oxen and barely made a dent. This
led to cross plowing and the job was done. New technology in the 7th century allowed for
multiple ovens and knives carving out the land. White believes this form of technology
ruined “mans” relationship with nature. I do not believe this reined “mans” relationship with
nature because this is just a form of increased productivity. At the end of the day, you are
using the plow to get the ground ready for planting. When you are ready to harvest, you are
still engaging with nature.
Both pieces of work illustrate nature is controlled by scenting bigger than human
beings. In Genesis, nature is controlled by God, while in Inanna, nature is controlled by the
king. Both of these similarities go along with what White is saying in terms of nature's
relationship with people.
These pieces of work are different in that The Book of Genesis talks about how God
created earth while Inanna, talks about how two peoples love for one another and how it
affects nature. I also believe that the Book of Genesis was easy to follow while Inanna was
hard to follow.

Kelley Mooney. Yes, the updated plow allows people to engage with nature easier
while increasing productivity. These inventions provide a better experience for
humans but the oxen and land may be working harder to benefit humans. It may not
ruin relationships with nature but could technology be asking a lot from it?

Nicole Hassett. I also agree with you about how technology not ruining mans
relationship with nature. I think technology has enhanced lots of the farming abilities
that people have now. I also agree with Kelly with the production that has been
enhanced. I think that some farming communities definitely over use the land, but that
is due to the amount of food and resources that we need now. And I also agree with
you about Inanna being hard to follow, getting the main idea from that was hard.

Raymond Bruno. I wonder if there is a way to help replenish the land. You and Kelly
bring up a good point on how the land is just getting abused. If I recall, wasn't there
something in history similar to this.

Christopher Belliveau. Ray I had a similarity in discussing how I think technology is

not why "mans" relationship is ruined with nature. I believe it has to do with how
humans interact with the technology and how that is impacting nature or the
environment in today's society. I really like your example with the oxen and the plow.

Michael Paquette. I agree, there are positive ways to use technology!

Patricia Roy. From what or whose perspective is productivity a virtue? If the farmer
produces more than they can eat, what is the purpose of productivity? The story of
Inanna is about Gods and Goddesses, written about as people, but they should be
understood as beyond human.

Kelly Mooney. I can understand the connection between religion and a relationship with
nature. I agree with some point of White's argument. The way that someone interacts with
nature can be affected by and revolve back to their environment. The environment someone
is raised in may include factors like religion. I think in many instances, as divine-like and
don't give credit to the nature around them.
The literary readings this week, creation and growth of nature was a common theme.
In Genesis and Inanna, divine beings were responsible for the creation and growth of nature.
This connects to White's point as to why religion lead to environmental abuse.
Adam, Eve, and the garden of Eden are referenced frequently in many works of art.
Eve is not a divine figure, she is just a woman and her actions have no effect on creation of
nature (before the fruit). In Inanna, the Kings action's have direct effect on nature and
creation.

Shannon Pruzinsky. I think your last point is very interesting! Before Eve touched the
forbidden fruit, her actions had no great affect on the nature surrounding her, and that
was not the case for the King in Ianna's story. In my eyes, Eve was seen as apart of
nature until her and Adam had separated themselves and grabbed the fruit.

Ruth Kehinde. I agree with you when you said, “the environment someone is raised in
may include factors like religion”. With growing up, you only know what the
environment was able to teach you so if your environment used religion as a way to
destroy nature just for pleasure and satisfaction the, of course, they wouldn’t give
credit to the nature around them because that’s all they’ve ever known so how are
they able to do something different without really knowing what the differences look
like.

Patricia Roy. White’s point starts from the premise that religion and science are the
sources of our values. You could include philosophy as well, but most people don’t
really have an opportunity to study philosophy, yet they might be educated with some
scientific knowledge or within a religious tradition. If the sources of our values
routinely castigate nature, either a little or a lot, then that will surely impact our
ecology through our actions.

I think it’s important to remember that Western, monotheistic religions (which are the
ones that White is focusing on) have a history of separating many dialectics: humans
from nature, man from woman, mind from body, spirit from flesh. Christians of many
denominations are taught to beware “the world, the flesh, and the Devil”. This makes
the world (nature?) and the flesh (the body) in league with the devil and at odds with
the Good.

Shannon Pruzinsky. I agree with some of the points of White’s article, but I do not believe
that there is a direct correlation between religion and nature. I think religion is a very broad
term but overall means that there is a belief in a higher power. The vast majority of religions
practiced today are about spending love, following the path of the religion and, being a moral
person and I do not believe that destroying nature is in that sentiment.

In the other readings, nature seemed to be of a much higher importance then [sic] humans an
both of this readings made that very clear. In The Book of Genesis, humans were the last
things created on earth, long after the oceans, forests and animals. Both of the readings do
state in some way that nature was created by a higher power, which does connect to the
theory of religion and nature connection in Whites [sic] article, supporting his theory.

Both stories showed how in some ways, humans had a great impact on nature but there are
some differences between the literary works. Ianna’s [sic] story flowed much better and
showed how the influence of two humans can change nature whereas Genesis’ story
explained how the earth was created as well as the story of Adam an eve [sic]. If I had not
already know [sic] the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, I would think that the
story was more confusing and separated than Ianna’s [sic] story.
Raymond Bruno. Hi Shannon, I agree with you in that I do not think there is a
relationship between God and nature. Depending on your beliefs, God created the
earth but I do not think God is controlling how much something in nature will grow.

Sean Fitzgerald. Hi Ray, I believe the relationship between religion and nature
is more complex than God controlling nature in a sense of how things grow.
There is definitely a clear connection between nature and religion, this can be
observed in how nature is viewed in even Genesis. God created man to be
superior to nature and to be dominant of all “creeping things that creep this
earth” .T hat [sic] alone to me is a connection between religion and nature as
these promoting ideas show that man needs to view nature as something to
claim. Maybe I am seeing this wrong, I’m happy to hear your take!

Patricia Roy. Yeah, “God created heaven and earth.” “God created
man.” “God created the animals.” I mean, yeah, It is no surprise that
the most venerable sacred text, the Bible, begins with a description of
how God created the world.

But what is “God”? In the Inanna story, we see a story that is slightly
older (approx. 3000 B.C.E. as opposed to 1200 B.C.E. for the earliest
parts of the Old Testament), but one in which the gods/goddesses are
symbolic of natural processes -- life, death, the seasons, weather
changes. In Genesis, God is completely separate from the world and the
Garden, like an artist painting a picture. So, there’s no sense in that
story that God has a physical presence (although that is a part of
Christianity with Christ).

Patricia Roy. According to most Western religions, God controlling nature is

exactly the relationship. Maybe not like controlling in the way I drive my car,
but in the sense that God has created the system to work in a certain way.

Olivia Faulkner. Hi Shannon, I also agree that there is no [sic] a direct correlation
between nature and religion. I also discussed that most religions practice love and
treat nature with respect. I also had previously known the story of the Book of Genesis
so I agree that it may have been more confusing if I did not have any previous
knowledge.

Natalia Essigmann. Hi Shannon, I think it is difficult to say that the vast

majority of religions are about love and being a “moral person” (which could
mean a lot of different things), since there are thousands of religion [sic] in
existence with different foundational principles, so I am not sure if this
reasoning is the best argument for why religion is not directly correlated with
nature. Also, a lot of people would agree with White’s argument because,
according to them, it seems like that Bible is trying to say God created all life
other than Man before him in order to prepare it for him. Therefore, it was
created for Man. How do you feel about this?

Patricia Roy. Adam has one job – name the animals and plants. In a
different culture’s religion, those animals and plants might be said to
come forward and introduce themselves to Humans.
 Ruth Kehinde. I agree with your point about how Adam and Eve in
Genesis had an impact on nature due to it not being in the acts of the
divine but it is kind of confusing. However, with Ianna’s [sic] story
explained the aspect of how someone with divine power can use it
against nature

Patricia Roy. Just the notion of a “higher power” is exactly

White’s point. If the Divine is “higher” then that hierarchy
reproduces itself in how we look at the world. This view is
basically the same as Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” (not one of
your readings, but a common one and extremely influential).

I guess what is less clear to some of us is the fact that his idea of
the spiritual is not the only kind. There have been religions all
over the globe, deep in the past and in our present time, that
view the spiritual world to be present in the physical one that
the spiritual world to be present in the physical one and that the
spiritual is not necessarily “better” or higher than the physical.
There are some cultures that do not see such a separation.

So, White’s essay is about showing the trajectory of Western

thinking. What kind of world would we be living in if a
different kind of religious thinking prevailed?

Olivia Faulkner. I do not agree with every point that White made in his article. I do not agree
that there is a connection between religion and nature. Most religions do not believe in
hurting nature, they want to preserve it because some religions believe that their creator made
the Earth for them. There may be a very small amount of religious groups that do not take
care of nature but the majority of religious groups treat nature with respect. He also
mentioned technology. I do not agree with this point with either because I do not believe that
technology has ruined man’s relationship with nature.

In both of the other readings, nature is at the forefront. Nature is very powerful in both of
these stories. The strength of nature is described very differently than the way that White
described it. In both of these stories, nature was created by divine beings. Even though in the
stories they were both different divine beings, this is how they believe that nature was
created.

In Inanna’s story, the king was the divine power that created nature and in the Book of
Genesis, nature is created by God. In Inanna’s story, it talked about how two humans have
power over nature and nature growing. In the Book of Genesis, it discusses how God created
the earth day by day and it discussed the story of Adam and Eve.

Duffy Martin. I see that you don’t agree with White, but you aren’t offering any
counterpoints to bolster these opinions. It’s understandable to be uncomfortable by
confronting deep historical trends and mindsets that may differ from ours, but I think
we have to separate our initial reaction from the reality of White's argument. Even if
White is not right about how religious people view nature, what historical events
prove that? If it isn't the major religions pushing an anti-natural frame and agenda,
why is it that those sentiments are so prevalent today?