One Cheer for Avatar’s Pantheism
Ross Douthat on Monday wrote that “Avatar” is a paean to pantheism, the belief that the true and only heaven is on earth rather than above. His basic criticism of this worldview is that it’s foolish and naïve:
The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.
Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.
Ross, characteristically, makes good points in his brief against pantheism. Certainly the post-60’s divinization of nature has misaligned the world’s priorities. Whether you’re an orthodox Catholic like me, a member of the Old Left, or a garden-variety populist, you can agree that the world’s leaders should spend less time fighting global warming and more time fighting against hunger and disease or securing a family wage for workers.
But Ross’ criticism of pantheism is two sweeping. Although pantheism is a heresy by Christian standards, it’s one that contains a kernel of truth: nature should not be subjugated or mastered, as a pure capitalist or military general might like. Instead, nature should be celebrated as an expression of God’s bounty. I’m thinking, contra David DiSalvo’s interpretation of the Old Testament, of Psalm 8, one of the rare psalms whose lines I can repeat from memory. I’m also thinking of this beautiful interstitial by R.O. Blechman, which appeared on CBS in December 1966:
Now this critique may too be naïve. Once a society seeks to embrace nature rather than conquer it, it may well be on the royal road to divinizing nature. Certainly our educated elites over the last two generations seem to have traveled down that path.
Yet overlooking or refusing to acknowledge the good in nature is also problematic for us Christians. It leaves us feeling more alone in the universe, and susceptible to indulging in a certain other heresy.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Mr. Stricherz,
Pantheism is a very simple concept, that there is no arbitrary distinction between creator and creation, they are one and the same. Rather than a god in heaven and a created earth below, heaven and earth and god are one. Contrary to your characterization, pantheism does not hold that “nature” is “god” but rather that all of existence is god, human being included. You, I, the stars in heaven, the ocean and the fish within, and everything else are all God, not separated from Him (St. Augustine was aghast at the idea that something so low and sinful as a human being could be thought of as part of God, which is why he opposed the idea). Baruch Spinoza, the Jewish Dutch philospher is the greatest exponent of Pantheism. You would have done well to have read up on him before posting on Pantheism.
You wrote:”Whether you’re an orthodox Catholic like me, a member of the Old Left, or a garden-variety populist, you can agree that the world’s leaders should spend less time fighting global warming and more time fighting against hunger and disease or securing a family wage for workers.”
Why in heaven’s name would anyone agree with that? I agree that ending hunger and disease and giving working people a living wages are things worth fighting for but so is the world with ice caps. This assertion seems a complete non sequitur to the point of the posting.
I have no idea if Avatar endorses pantheism or not as I have not seen the movie but if one is going to attack pantheism, you had best learn what it actually is. I don’t think that being or not being a pantheist, or a Christian or not a Christan has anything to do with reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Mr. LoSangeles,
Thanks for your detailed reply. As I am headed out to a Christmas party, I can’t respond in full now, but I will attempt to get back to you tonight or tomorrow.
In response to another comment. See in context »“you can agree that the world’s leaders should spend less time fighting global warming and more time fighting against hunger and disease or securing a family wage for workers.”
I can agree with davidlosangeles that this seems like a nonsequitur. It reminds me an awful lot of the Big Hollywood article dismantled on True/Slant this week.*
I agree that poverty (or wealth & power stratification) is one of the world’s greatest problems. But if you care about the poor, you need to care about global warming. Just google [global warming poverty] to see how intertwined they are.
Incidentally, the Catholic Church agrees with me–presumably the Pope is an orthodox Catholic.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_bishop_points_to_modern_social_sins/
The seven social sins are:
1. “Bioethical” violations such as birth control
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty
*http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2009/12/23/are-unauthorized-edits-a-useful-approach-to-debate/
Mr. Calton,
I can’t agree with your conclusions about global warming.
For one thing, saving polar bears and cutting carbon emissions have little to do with ensuring that poor Africans have mosquito nets and receive adequate antiviral drugs.
For another, the Vatican’s cri de coeur for “polluting the environment” is a huge umbrella under which global warming occupies a small sliver.
In response to another comment. See in context »You know I’m a fan of your column, Mark, but I have to join those who urge you to get up to speed on climate change. It should be evident by now that global warming=disease, hunger, and poverty. People don’t want to reduce carbon emissions for their own sake, nor solely for the sake of polar bears (even though some of us do value God’s creatures). Please consider, as merely one example of the effects of warming, that more than one billion people depend for their water supplies on the gradual melt of Himalayan glaciers. We have to be very careful about interfering in that system.
I know you’ve read “Caritas in Veritate,” so you know what Pope Benedict wrote in chapter four, sections 50-53. And to the point: “The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Jeff,
Fair enough; you raise a valid concern that global warming may affect the poor in the future. But surely poor Africans need mosquito nets, paved roads, and antiviral drugs more urgently than they do reduced carbon emissions, no?
In response to another comment. See in context »I wouldn’t want to rank Africa’s troubles for the purpose of minimizing some of them. And not all global warming problems reside in the “future,” though they will certainly worsen there. Right now there’s a civil war in Sudan that’s spurred on by climate change and becoming more brutal because of it:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/cvlw_env_sdn.html
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] response, Mark Stricherz, a self-proclaimed “orthodox Catholic” writing on TrueSlant, toed the company line that pantheism was heresy, but still criticized Douthat’s view and [...]