God and Nature 2026 #1
|
|
By Drew S. McGinley
The question of how humankind is morally related to the environment is a hotly debated topic. Moral values, duties, and obligations are often used interchangeably and synonymously in everyday discourse. However, they are distinct in philosophical discourse. Moral values refer to whether actions are right or wrong. Moral duties or obligations—what one ought to do—are derived from authoritative commands or standards. The modern Western concept of moral obligation to ecological systems and their preservation has its roots first in the ideas of Alexander von Humboldt, later in the conservation efforts of John Muir, and culminates in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 (1), and Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” in 1968 (2). Since then, the awareness of humankind’s moral relation to the environment—at least in the West—has been interwoven with political discourse and everyday living.
The degree to which humankind impacts environmental degradation is widely contested, and the responsibility each person has to this issue is also often disputed. Various ethical frameworks on humankind’s moral obligation to the environment have been proposed. However, a problem presents itself. The foremost ethical frameworks all presuppose a naturalistic worldview, which arguably undermines the very moral obligation to the environment they seek to establish. William Lane Craig persuasively argues that, if God’s existence is denied, moral obligations are meaningless and place no burden on a person from a naturalistic worldview. Objective moral obligations can only “be laid upon us by God’s moral commands.” God’s Genesis mandate of environmental-creation stewardship given to humankind is one such command (3). The Christian worldview, though, provides a theocentric ethical framework in which God is the creator of the material world and results in humankind having an objective moral obligation toward the health of the environment. Thus, a theocentric ethical framework summons every member of humankind to live as responsible agents toward God and his creation.
The question of how humankind is morally related to the environment is a hotly debated topic. Moral values, duties, and obligations are often used interchangeably and synonymously in everyday discourse. However, they are distinct in philosophical discourse. Moral values refer to whether actions are right or wrong. Moral duties or obligations—what one ought to do—are derived from authoritative commands or standards. The modern Western concept of moral obligation to ecological systems and their preservation has its roots first in the ideas of Alexander von Humboldt, later in the conservation efforts of John Muir, and culminates in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 (1), and Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” in 1968 (2). Since then, the awareness of humankind’s moral relation to the environment—at least in the West—has been interwoven with political discourse and everyday living.
The degree to which humankind impacts environmental degradation is widely contested, and the responsibility each person has to this issue is also often disputed. Various ethical frameworks on humankind’s moral obligation to the environment have been proposed. However, a problem presents itself. The foremost ethical frameworks all presuppose a naturalistic worldview, which arguably undermines the very moral obligation to the environment they seek to establish. William Lane Craig persuasively argues that, if God’s existence is denied, moral obligations are meaningless and place no burden on a person from a naturalistic worldview. Objective moral obligations can only “be laid upon us by God’s moral commands.” God’s Genesis mandate of environmental-creation stewardship given to humankind is one such command (3). The Christian worldview, though, provides a theocentric ethical framework in which God is the creator of the material world and results in humankind having an objective moral obligation toward the health of the environment. Thus, a theocentric ethical framework summons every member of humankind to live as responsible agents toward God and his creation.
Theocentrism stresses the value of all creation, not just humans. |
Science Is Morally Neutral
By the very nature of its enterprise, science cannot provide ethical frameworks. Science, including environmental science, presents verifiable evidence collected through observations and experiments, which are in turn developed into hypotheses and theories. These hypotheses and theories are open to refinement and challenge through further observation and experimentation. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. To explain how humans ought to respond—even when based on scientific data—goes beyond science, a fact noted by Aldous Huxley in his essay “Science and Civilisation.” Huxley explains that “Science in itself is morally neutral; it becomes good or evil according as it is applied” (4). Human application of the data moves into the realm of ethics—the realm of right and wrong, good and evil; how humankind ought to live. Science offers how it is; ethics offers how we should be. Anything beyond observation and experimentation moves into applied science, which operates through an underlying and often unspecified ethical framework. More often than not, this ethical framework of applied environmental science is 1) presupposed, if it is acknowledged at all, and 2) unevaluated against other ethical frameworks by the scientist and/or practitioner.
Most environmental science, as presented today, is guided by and interpreted through an embedded and unarticulated ethical framework of some sort. Moreover, much of the practical work of environmental science is actually an applied ethical framework utilizing environmental science as a tool toward a particular ethical end. For example, scientific observation may conclude that a species is endangered due to the degradation of its habitat; that humankind must do something to protect the species from extinction and how humankind should accomplish this protection are ethical ventures. Another example is the scientific action of observing rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and making conclusions about its environmental impact; taking steps toward limiting carbon dioxide to avert that impact is an ethical action. Why must we protect any species? Why is sustainability important? Why should we restore habitats and have green spaces? These are all environmental ethical concerns.
Wendel Berry recognizes this concern in his essay “An Argument for Diversity,” stating, “The problem with ‘scientific objectivity’ becomes immediately clear when science undertakes to ‘apply’ itself to land use” (5). Science becomes the tool of a possessor’s ethical framework. Thus, the unexamined ethical frameworks of applied science may lead us astray. Perhaps it is not too bold to say that they will lead us astray if we inadvertently apply the wrong ethical framework. Too often the ethical frameworks we use within environmental science go unnoticed and unquestioned. I believe this must change.
Environmental Ethical Frameworks
The various environmental ethical frameworks guide the application of environmental science toward differing ends. Ethical frameworks are teleological, each aiming toward an idealized end or goal. The most common environmental ethical frameworks are categorized as anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism (6). Another framework seldomly articulated but often presumed is a form of indifference to the environment, or an “environmental hedonism” that sees the environment as purely a source of needs gratification. I have not seen this idea articulated in environmental literature as an ethical framework, yet it fits the definition of an ethical framework. By coining the term environmental hedonism, I seek to describe the ethical framework that fundamentally sees the environment primarily as a resource or means to satisfy personal needs, maximizing individual pleasure and minimizing individual pain.
Other ethical frameworks are found within environmental literature, such as ecofeminism and deep ecology; however, most are nuanced frameworks that fall within the main types addressed here.
Anthropocentrism articulates the view that humankind—both present and future generations—is the most important consideration when making environmental decisions. Biocentrism broadens the ethical scope of consideration to all living things. In this framework, the value of humans and birds, for example, is equally important in the application of environmental science. Ecocentrism broadens even further the consideration, spanning all of nature: humans, animals, plants, and even inanimate natural material have equal value in environmental decision making. Lastly, environmental hedonism has little to no concern for the environment beyond it being a source of pleasure or gain.
The above frameworks are agnostic at best, and they fail to account for God as the creator of all things and his intention (or telic goal) for his creation. The telic goal of the above frameworks, then, are fundamentally amiss. The application of environmental science through any of these frameworks may actually lead to immoral acts and improper ends because God and his intentions are omitted. It cannot be understated: the ethical framework through which environmental science is applied matters.
An Alternative Framework
An ethical framework which recognizes God as creator, along with his purposes for creation, is necessary if humankind is to fulfil its moral obligation to the environment. Theocentrism offers an alternative to the above ethical frameworks. Dave Bookless, the Director of Theology for A Rocha International, has provided similar themes in explaining worldviews. He presents three worldviews: anthropocentric (or ego-centric), ecocentric, and Theocentric. His worldviews articulate how individuals answer two theological questions: first, why is there disorder in God’s creation?, and second, how can humans be a solution to that disorder? In Bookless’s presentation, the worldviews are not strictly ethical frameworks. Bookless’s worldviews explain how an individual either consciously or unconsciously interacts with God’s creation, while ethical frameworks address moral obligation and its resulting moral values (7).
Theocentrism is the ethical framework which honors God as the creator and proprietor of the natural world, the environment, and all within it. Theocentrism acknowledges humankind as part of the natural world, not separate from it. It also recognizes humankind’s moral obligation toward the environment because God appointed humankind to a stewardship role within creation (see Genesis 1). Theocentrism, compared to the other ethical frameworks mentioned above, is a change in basic assumptions when speaking of humankind’s moral obligation to the environment because it starts with the Creator and his intent for his creation—both humankind and the environment as interrelated entities. This is the starting point for how humankind should interact with the world.
Theocentrism, as an environmental ethical framework, moves beyond the subjective desires that an individual or collective may have for the environment. Instead, an objective moral obligation toward the environment originates in the very immutable nature of God himself, not in the desires and purposes of humankind. In the other ethical frameworks, moral obligations are not fixed. Individually or collectively, people relate to the environment on subjective terms, asking how humans ought to relate to the environment from their own moral perspectives. Theocentrism, however, explores how God intends humans to morally relate to the environment, considering God’s purpose for an interdependent creation of humankind within the natural world. Theocentrism challenges humankind to examine how God values the whole of his creation and not just humankind. This ethical framework seeks to honor God in our roles as stewards of and participants in the natural world. As Richard Bauckham explains, “We need the humility to know ourselves as creatures within creation, not gods over creation, the humility of knowing only God is God” (8). Fundamentally, theocentrism is humility before God as we live in and with creation.
Theocentrism stresses the value of all creation, not just humans. God declares that his creative work is “very good,” and therefore creation has value (see Genesis 1:31, Psalm 104:24-25, and Colossians 1:15-20). Environmental engagement through the theocentric ethical framework seeks to honor God by honoring the intrinsic value of not just human life but all of creation. The very idea of self-interest as a first concern is absent in a theocentric ethical framework. Moreover, the Christian understanding of stewardship must be seen through the proper lens of Christ as the exemplar of stewardship, not only through Adam and Eve’s appointment to be stewards of creation. Much could be said about Christ as an exemplar in relation to the environment, yet for the sake of brevity I will simply say: Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, promotes and embodies love, grace, justice, and self-sacrifice within the scope of the Father’s end goal, humbly praying, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). Humankind is to echo Christ’s example in humility, saying: Not our will be done, but God’s will be accomplished in our engagement with creation.
In summation, a theocentric ethical framework bids every member of humankind to live as responsible, humble agents toward God and his creation. Environmental science alone cannot provide an ethical framework for its proper application, though ethical frameworks are often presupposed in its application. I believe that the traditional ethical frameworks found within environmental literature do not provide an objective basis for moral obligation to the environment, but theocentrism does. Though a theocentric ethical framework may not tell us exactly how to apply environmental science in each instance, it does provide a framework for exploring how humankind ought to apply the environmental sciences. It is only within this framework that we can begin to discern how we are to relate to and engage with creation as participants in God’s created order.
References
1. Rachel Carson Silent Spring Houghton Mifflin Co.1962
2. Hardin, Garrett. "The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality." science 162.3859 (1968): 1243-1248.
3. Craig, William Lane. "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality." Foundations 5.2 (1997): 9-12.
4. Huxley The Hidden Huxley: Contempt and Compassion for the Masses (B. David, Ed.; p. 114). Faber and Faber. 1994
5. Berry, W. (2010). What Are People For?: Essays (p. 116). Counterpoint.
6. “What Is Environmental Ethics?” The Institute for Environmental Research and Education. (2025, June 17).
7. Bookless, D. (2014, April 29). “Noah–Beyond the Blockbuster.” A Rocha Blog; A Rocha International
8. Bauckham, R. (2010). Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation (p. 46). Baylor University Press.
Drew S. McGinley, M.S., D.Min., BCC, is a board-certified chaplain clinician and Anglican priest with over 19 years of experience providing crisis intervention and clinical support within military, healthcare, and social service sectors. He is an enthusiastic naturalist in the classic sense, committed to engaging with and exploring God’s creation wonders through both adventure and conservation activities. He is married to his wife, Jazmyn, of sixteen years, and he has two amazing daughters: Constance and Cadence.
By the very nature of its enterprise, science cannot provide ethical frameworks. Science, including environmental science, presents verifiable evidence collected through observations and experiments, which are in turn developed into hypotheses and theories. These hypotheses and theories are open to refinement and challenge through further observation and experimentation. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. To explain how humans ought to respond—even when based on scientific data—goes beyond science, a fact noted by Aldous Huxley in his essay “Science and Civilisation.” Huxley explains that “Science in itself is morally neutral; it becomes good or evil according as it is applied” (4). Human application of the data moves into the realm of ethics—the realm of right and wrong, good and evil; how humankind ought to live. Science offers how it is; ethics offers how we should be. Anything beyond observation and experimentation moves into applied science, which operates through an underlying and often unspecified ethical framework. More often than not, this ethical framework of applied environmental science is 1) presupposed, if it is acknowledged at all, and 2) unevaluated against other ethical frameworks by the scientist and/or practitioner.
Most environmental science, as presented today, is guided by and interpreted through an embedded and unarticulated ethical framework of some sort. Moreover, much of the practical work of environmental science is actually an applied ethical framework utilizing environmental science as a tool toward a particular ethical end. For example, scientific observation may conclude that a species is endangered due to the degradation of its habitat; that humankind must do something to protect the species from extinction and how humankind should accomplish this protection are ethical ventures. Another example is the scientific action of observing rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and making conclusions about its environmental impact; taking steps toward limiting carbon dioxide to avert that impact is an ethical action. Why must we protect any species? Why is sustainability important? Why should we restore habitats and have green spaces? These are all environmental ethical concerns.
Wendel Berry recognizes this concern in his essay “An Argument for Diversity,” stating, “The problem with ‘scientific objectivity’ becomes immediately clear when science undertakes to ‘apply’ itself to land use” (5). Science becomes the tool of a possessor’s ethical framework. Thus, the unexamined ethical frameworks of applied science may lead us astray. Perhaps it is not too bold to say that they will lead us astray if we inadvertently apply the wrong ethical framework. Too often the ethical frameworks we use within environmental science go unnoticed and unquestioned. I believe this must change.
Environmental Ethical Frameworks
The various environmental ethical frameworks guide the application of environmental science toward differing ends. Ethical frameworks are teleological, each aiming toward an idealized end or goal. The most common environmental ethical frameworks are categorized as anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism (6). Another framework seldomly articulated but often presumed is a form of indifference to the environment, or an “environmental hedonism” that sees the environment as purely a source of needs gratification. I have not seen this idea articulated in environmental literature as an ethical framework, yet it fits the definition of an ethical framework. By coining the term environmental hedonism, I seek to describe the ethical framework that fundamentally sees the environment primarily as a resource or means to satisfy personal needs, maximizing individual pleasure and minimizing individual pain.
Other ethical frameworks are found within environmental literature, such as ecofeminism and deep ecology; however, most are nuanced frameworks that fall within the main types addressed here.
Anthropocentrism articulates the view that humankind—both present and future generations—is the most important consideration when making environmental decisions. Biocentrism broadens the ethical scope of consideration to all living things. In this framework, the value of humans and birds, for example, is equally important in the application of environmental science. Ecocentrism broadens even further the consideration, spanning all of nature: humans, animals, plants, and even inanimate natural material have equal value in environmental decision making. Lastly, environmental hedonism has little to no concern for the environment beyond it being a source of pleasure or gain.
The above frameworks are agnostic at best, and they fail to account for God as the creator of all things and his intention (or telic goal) for his creation. The telic goal of the above frameworks, then, are fundamentally amiss. The application of environmental science through any of these frameworks may actually lead to immoral acts and improper ends because God and his intentions are omitted. It cannot be understated: the ethical framework through which environmental science is applied matters.
An Alternative Framework
An ethical framework which recognizes God as creator, along with his purposes for creation, is necessary if humankind is to fulfil its moral obligation to the environment. Theocentrism offers an alternative to the above ethical frameworks. Dave Bookless, the Director of Theology for A Rocha International, has provided similar themes in explaining worldviews. He presents three worldviews: anthropocentric (or ego-centric), ecocentric, and Theocentric. His worldviews articulate how individuals answer two theological questions: first, why is there disorder in God’s creation?, and second, how can humans be a solution to that disorder? In Bookless’s presentation, the worldviews are not strictly ethical frameworks. Bookless’s worldviews explain how an individual either consciously or unconsciously interacts with God’s creation, while ethical frameworks address moral obligation and its resulting moral values (7).
Theocentrism is the ethical framework which honors God as the creator and proprietor of the natural world, the environment, and all within it. Theocentrism acknowledges humankind as part of the natural world, not separate from it. It also recognizes humankind’s moral obligation toward the environment because God appointed humankind to a stewardship role within creation (see Genesis 1). Theocentrism, compared to the other ethical frameworks mentioned above, is a change in basic assumptions when speaking of humankind’s moral obligation to the environment because it starts with the Creator and his intent for his creation—both humankind and the environment as interrelated entities. This is the starting point for how humankind should interact with the world.
Theocentrism, as an environmental ethical framework, moves beyond the subjective desires that an individual or collective may have for the environment. Instead, an objective moral obligation toward the environment originates in the very immutable nature of God himself, not in the desires and purposes of humankind. In the other ethical frameworks, moral obligations are not fixed. Individually or collectively, people relate to the environment on subjective terms, asking how humans ought to relate to the environment from their own moral perspectives. Theocentrism, however, explores how God intends humans to morally relate to the environment, considering God’s purpose for an interdependent creation of humankind within the natural world. Theocentrism challenges humankind to examine how God values the whole of his creation and not just humankind. This ethical framework seeks to honor God in our roles as stewards of and participants in the natural world. As Richard Bauckham explains, “We need the humility to know ourselves as creatures within creation, not gods over creation, the humility of knowing only God is God” (8). Fundamentally, theocentrism is humility before God as we live in and with creation.
Theocentrism stresses the value of all creation, not just humans. God declares that his creative work is “very good,” and therefore creation has value (see Genesis 1:31, Psalm 104:24-25, and Colossians 1:15-20). Environmental engagement through the theocentric ethical framework seeks to honor God by honoring the intrinsic value of not just human life but all of creation. The very idea of self-interest as a first concern is absent in a theocentric ethical framework. Moreover, the Christian understanding of stewardship must be seen through the proper lens of Christ as the exemplar of stewardship, not only through Adam and Eve’s appointment to be stewards of creation. Much could be said about Christ as an exemplar in relation to the environment, yet for the sake of brevity I will simply say: Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, promotes and embodies love, grace, justice, and self-sacrifice within the scope of the Father’s end goal, humbly praying, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). Humankind is to echo Christ’s example in humility, saying: Not our will be done, but God’s will be accomplished in our engagement with creation.
In summation, a theocentric ethical framework bids every member of humankind to live as responsible, humble agents toward God and his creation. Environmental science alone cannot provide an ethical framework for its proper application, though ethical frameworks are often presupposed in its application. I believe that the traditional ethical frameworks found within environmental literature do not provide an objective basis for moral obligation to the environment, but theocentrism does. Though a theocentric ethical framework may not tell us exactly how to apply environmental science in each instance, it does provide a framework for exploring how humankind ought to apply the environmental sciences. It is only within this framework that we can begin to discern how we are to relate to and engage with creation as participants in God’s created order.
References
1. Rachel Carson Silent Spring Houghton Mifflin Co.1962
2. Hardin, Garrett. "The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality." science 162.3859 (1968): 1243-1248.
3. Craig, William Lane. "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality." Foundations 5.2 (1997): 9-12.
4. Huxley The Hidden Huxley: Contempt and Compassion for the Masses (B. David, Ed.; p. 114). Faber and Faber. 1994
5. Berry, W. (2010). What Are People For?: Essays (p. 116). Counterpoint.
6. “What Is Environmental Ethics?” The Institute for Environmental Research and Education. (2025, June 17).
7. Bookless, D. (2014, April 29). “Noah–Beyond the Blockbuster.” A Rocha Blog; A Rocha International
8. Bauckham, R. (2010). Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation (p. 46). Baylor University Press.
Drew S. McGinley, M.S., D.Min., BCC, is a board-certified chaplain clinician and Anglican priest with over 19 years of experience providing crisis intervention and clinical support within military, healthcare, and social service sectors. He is an enthusiastic naturalist in the classic sense, committed to engaging with and exploring God’s creation wonders through both adventure and conservation activities. He is married to his wife, Jazmyn, of sixteen years, and he has two amazing daughters: Constance and Cadence.