1. Without a single higher authority on how we should behave, how do we determine how our relationships with the non-human world should look?
I guess I should first start by saying that morality isn’t monopolized by religion – how we should behave doesn’t stem from a higher authority but rather with our natural instinct of empathy. As social animals we empathize not only with our immediate families but with our “tribes” and then less so with outsiders. Every religion in the entire world has some variation of the categorical imperative:
“Whatever you do, consider your consequences as if they were universal law”
So if *every* human group known as a “religion” has come up with a form of this independent of one another, I don’t see how it has to be monopolized by religion – it is obviously something that is inherently inside of us to do. Thus the idea that atheists even need to be questioned about “how do you know how to behave” is completely moot.
Having said that – it doesn’t really answer the second part of your question because they’re independent. I can’t speak for all atheists or those who don’t have a higher power, all I can do is argue that there is both intrinsic and altruistic value in applying the need to preserve the world that is outside or our social group.
I would argue that the non-human world has value in and of itself… so whether or not we’re religious… we have an obligation to respect that intrinsic value. There is an ethical dilemma situation that professors often put 1st year environmental studies students into. “If you were the last person on earth, there would be no humans after you, and there was a tree in front of you and an axe…would you have a problem with cutting it down.” There is obviously no benefit to cutting down the tree, and no humans to use that tree once it is chopped. There is no promise of extended survival for one’s self if the tree is cut so people tend to say no. But then the prof usually asks why, and doesn’t let you answer for any selfish or personal reason. The end result is the idea that you don’t cut the tree down, because it is an organism. It has value in itself and attempts to live on its own, the tree doesn’t “want” to die. This idea about nature, not being utility but being something on its own, is a vital mindset that the world needs to adapt to save ourselves. This idea of “oh its just a tree” or “oh it was just the dodos” needs to disappear. If not for the intrinsic value of nature then for the the altruistic, which I’ll get into now.
There is no benefit to being wasteful and there is moral obligation to think of future generations. A philosopher Thomas Hurka wrote a wonderful book called Ethical Principles. In it he argues that, ethically because of utilitarianism, inherent empathy or whatever you want to call it we have an obligation to not harm people. This doesn’t only include people that are here in our country at this time, but it includes all people, all over the world and for future generations. We in fact, he would argue, need to take care of everyone for as long as we can. Because of this (he argues the following with climate change, but I’ll apply it to a different level) it is morally wrong for humans to create laws that harm humans. Because environmental degradation harms humans, it would thus be wrong to create laws that would take out necessary resources for life. …With this, even with my very dumbed down version of his paper it is easily persuaded that we need to avoid environmental degradation, and change our current practices so that our future looks more environmentally promising.
So, part a of your question – we don’t need a single authority to tell us how to behave because we have inherent human tendency to be empathetic toward those in our social group and humanity. Part b it is bad for society and morally wrong for humans to degrade the environment on a survival and empathetic level.
2. Do you feel that secular worldviews are inherently more, or less, sustainable, than religious ones? Or do you think how sustainably we behave is not dependent on secular v. religious worldview. Please explain.
Just like I can’t speak for all non-believers I also can’t lump all religions together and say that being an atheist is more environmental than being a Christian or Jew or Muslim. However it isn’t always independent of religion. What I say in the following does not apply to ALL Christians or those in religion, but just to some – and I would argue that it was translated into our Western world’s attitudes.
The Western world was founded on Judeo-Christian tradition…it is in our constitutions, governments…everywhere. Unfortunately this tradition involves the idea that the world was created for the purpose and use of man to benefit, flourish and live. *Some* Christians would believe (and I would say this early tradition believed) that creation (earth, organisms, eco-systems) was planned explicitly for man to rule and use. The tradition separates humans and nature instead of looking at them as a united organism. It not only makes this dualism of man and nature but God also insists that man use earth to advance and prosper.
This however is in direct conflict with eastern religions where humans are indeed seen as a part of nature and neither rules over the other. Also some Christians would believe that because everything on the planet is part of God’s creation than we must respect and live sustainably within this global ecosystem.
So yes, some worldviews are better for the environment than others. But there are atheists who are ruthless capitalists, there are Christians who are conservationists and vice versa. But I would argue that the current ecological crisis that we’re going through, at least in the West, is at least partly due to the traditional christian view of humans being separate from nature.
3. As religion becomes increasingly unpopular (though as our conservative Metro Transt stance in Halifax has shown out here it isn’t dead yet), is there still a space in secular worldviews for the kind of reverence for the non-human, or even more-than human, that tends to make for sustainable, respectful of the environment behaviour?
Absolutely. But again, I think it something that should ALWAYS be considered no matter what world view we’re talking about. Environmentalism would actually be very important for secular people, because we focus on the lives we live on earth, as we think it is the only life we get.
“Spirituality” – I define it here as the feeling of something transcendental and sublime, and not at all necessarily supernatural – is also not something that is monopolized by religion. Many atheists are awestruck by the absolute wonder, beauty, complexity, and magnitude of so many things found in nature. Biology and ecology shows us how amazingly complex and interconnected everything is, from the smallest cell to the largest whale, and the entire global ecosystem as a whole. Astronomy and physics brings us majestic images of galaxies billions of light years away and enormous forces of nature that are at the same time capable of creating and destroying life at a whim. There certainly is much reverence in the natural world that can be derived by non-religious people. E. O. Wilson, renowned ecologist, conservationist, and atheist, wrote much on this subject.
Apart from spirituality, one can, as I mentioned before, derive this kind of reverence and respect for nature easily through philosophy and ethics. Peter Singer, one of the leading philosophers of ethics today is at once an atheist and one of the principle founders of the animal rights movement.
Comments (1) 
i think CON are really cute stories. Despite the obvious religious undertones to them, I really really like them.
Themocracy