Sacred Nature

Some thoughts inspired by the book Sacred Nature by Karen Armstrong

When experienced deeply and receptively, there is something about the world which is mysterious and awe-inspiring. There is an intelligent process going on. Some people have described this process as sacred or divine. To my mind, describing it as sacred or divine means one is recognising that there is a meaningful, beautiful process occurring - a process that we can never fully grasp in a conscious or scientific way. 

I'm not just saying this because it’s a nice comforting story and to alleviate my fear of death, but because this is something that I (and seemingly other people throughout history) have felt in their bones. They've felt it stronger than they’ve felt anything else. They can’t necessarily explicate these experiences in a linear way, but this doesn’t mean they are any less true or meaningful. In fact, I feel the most profound and beneficial truths cannot be rationalised or talked about in a linear, one-dimensional way. They can only be hinted at poetically and esoterically. Just because mystical experiences can’t be empirically proven doesn’t mean they should be dismissed. 

If we are receptive and sensitive enough to feel this mysterious cosmic process, then we realise how inseparable we are from everything else. Our usual feelings of isolation and insignificance dissolve and we begin to experience reality as it is. If enough people managed to have these experiences and interpret them accurately, then enough people would respect nature. They would not see nature as separate from themselves. They would feel a deep compassion, gratitude and thoughtfulness toward the whole world, including every being within that world.

I agree with the premise of Sacred Nature. Armstrong suugests that the world (primarily the Western world) needs to conceive of and feel nature to be sacred. This is something we used to do more, before the Enlightenment. We need to rediscover a reverential connection to the natural world. We need to humble ourselves to the mystery of the cosmos. 

Organised religion has done a lot of damage. But in our technological age, with our understandable distate of organised religion, we have swung too far the other way. As a result,  many rigid atheists have themselves become dogmatic. They have adopted the same narrow, linear ways of thinking that religious fundamentalists adopt. Dogmatism is the real thing to be challenged, and dogmatism can manifest in many areas.

I love the way Armstrong spends time looking at some of the Romantic poets and how they venerated nature. In terms of venerating nature, Wordsworth is unparalleled. Armstrong discusses Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey ode, a deeply profound and intelligent piece of poetry. I used to think of Romantic poetry as a bit flowery and off-putting, but upon reading it recently and learning more about it, I'm realising just how impressive much of it is. In his Tintern Abbey ode, Wordsworth sees nature as imbued with a force that "impels all thinking things, all objects of all thought, and rolls through all things". Wordsworth's experience of nature is a participatory one, where his very ability to think is pervaded by the same force which gives rise to the natural world.

Armstrong's argument is laid out carefully and intelligently. In the introduction, she spends time looking at how our ancestors concieved of nature in a participatory way and how they saw the whole of nature, the whole of the phenomenal world, as alive and intelligent. This includes even inanimate matter. People nowadays tend to scoff at this kind of thing. We no longer think of inert matter as intelligent or alive. But our modern way of thinking about matter isn't necessarily helpful or true. 

Crucially, our early ancestors did not think of God as a distant and distinct being, but saw God as a cosmic presence, a "force imbuing all things". This is the kind of God I can get behind. When we think of 'the stuff of the universe' as unintelligent and inert, this can lead to the attitude that we, as supposedly intelligent beings, somehow have dominion over it. But if we rediscovered a more animistic way of looking at nature, which sees everything as sacred, we would no longer disrespect nature in the way we've been doing.

Armstrong then moves on to the value of myth and suggests that rational, secular thought by itself cannot sustain a healthy society. Myths represent a deep, nuanced way of understanding the world. Through allegory and symbolism, myths can touch upon truths that secular thought alone cannot reach. This isn't to say we should go back to the past and it also doesn't mean we should take myths to be literally true. In fact, the whole point of a myth, in my view, is that it is not a one-dimensional, literal explanation of something. Myths are more complex than this. I think the main take away here is that the linear, scientific way of understanding the world isn't sufficient by itself. We require other forms of understanding to do justice to the nuances of existence and to enrich our lives.

There are aspects of Sacred Nature, however, that I’m not sure about. It would have been beneficial to explore the negative effects of organised religion more, even just a cursory mention would’ve been sufficient. This would have contributed to a more nuanced argument. I think because the book discusses religion at length, it seems remiss to have neglected discussing the dogmatism of organised religion and the violence that has been inflicted on others as a result. This last point is particularly relevant here, as there is a whole chapter in the book devoted to the importance of ahimsa (non-violence). To respect nature we must also respect other people, even if they disagree with us. There are also a few times when Armstrong says "in order to save the planet". I disagree with this statement, in the same way that George Carlin would've disagreed with it. It is arrogant to think to think that we, as a single species, have the power to destroy or save this planet. The planet is far more powerful than us. We might do harm to the planet and the other species on it, but we can't destroy it.