Customer Reviews

Religion and the Order of Nature

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Seyyed Hossein Nasr was among the first contemporary scholars to bring our attention to the sacred traditional understanding of nature and critique modern thought and science that reduces the earth to quantity alone. In "Religion and the Order of Nature" Nasr brings to light the various traditional cosmologies in the world's religions through which the single Metaphysical Principle shines. Nasr also discusses the function of the human being as the imperative link between Heaven and earth. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is concerned with the environmental crisis and wants to regain a vision of the sacred in the theophany that is nature. I have not encountered a more erudite, inspired, and compassionate defense of nature, with the exception of Nasr's almost prophetic "Man and Nature" (1968).

Nasr's basic premise in this book is that the current ecological crisis stems from the fact that, about the time of the Renaissance, a large portion of humanity abandoned its traditional religion-based view of nature as a living and sacred creation of God, in favor of the view that nature is a dead machine that humans may manipulate however they choose.

Already, at this point, the reader may feel a bit uneasy--justifiably so, in my opinion. Nasr's reductionism leaves him reluctant to point out the substantial differences in the views of nature held by what he considers traditional religions. His stance is that all these religions (such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) sprang from a common source and were appropriate for those times and places in which they manifested themselves. He believes that only by a mass return to the perennial philosophy embodied in these religions can the planet be saved. Not surprisingly, although he displays a broad and thorough knowledge of many of these traditions, his favorite is his own, Islam, which he considers superior.

Anyway . . .Nasr has some sound notions about ecology and philosophy, but his prejudices are pretty evident. His work is made a little less accessible than it might be for me personally by his references to himself as one of the top authorities in his field, and by his consistent use of the editorial "we" and "our" to refer to himself and his work. (Or is that the royal "we"? With him, it's a little hard to tell . . .)