1. Is reverence for nature anti-science?
From the perspective of debate skills, Wang Yongchen, the original representative of the reverence for nature side, is obviously not up to standard. From the beginning, she flatly denied that respecting nature was anti-science, and openly opposed "people-oriented". However, after some of her previous words and deeds advocating feudal superstition were exposed, she placed herself in a self-contradictory state and immediately fell into a dilemma that she could not justify.
In the ensuing debate about tigers eating humans, she was almost speechless and defeated. Later, she changed to emphasize that reverence for nature is an attitude, not a means, and admitted that reverence for nature is not feasible. The implication seems to be that I am telling the other party that when I say I am in awe of nature, I am just talking about it, and I will not do anything specific. Although she did not admit her mistake publicly, I think her attitude of admitting that it was not actionable was acceptable.
If you think about it, since it is not feasible, we should respect the river god, but we will not marry him; we should respect the mountain god, but we will not prevent others from climbing mountains; we should respect the river, but we will not oppose the development of the Nu River; this way What's wrong with her being in awe of nature? Many other supporters of reverence for nature are making a fuss about the definition of the word reverence, trying every possible means to redefine the meaning of reverence, thereby pioneering the attitude of reverence.
There are also some articles that are relatively superficial. For example, an article titled "Promoting science to the altar is also anti-science." It can be said that it has almost no meaning in the debate on whether reverence for nature is anti-science. . Since you know that science is anti-science when it is put on a pedestal, then wouldn’t it be even more anti-science if people who fear nature put things like stones on the pedestal?
Xin Puli (associate professor at Tsinghua University), another supporter of reverence for nature, disagrees with the statement that reverence for nature is not feasible. It should be said that this professor is still at a higher level than Wang Yongchen, and reverence for nature can certainly be implemented. In the past, living people were put into the river to give to the river god to marry, and now they are desperately opposing the construction of dams on the Nu River, which are all concrete actions to respect nature.
However, although the professor did not dare to openly criticize "people-oriented", he pointed out in the same article that "on environmental issues, the so-called "people-oriented" slogan is insufficient in practice. Operational.” Therefore, Professor Xin is actually a representative of the practical school that respects nature.
Qin Hui (Professor of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences of Tsinghua University), another author of the article "There is no contradiction between respecting nature and being human-oriented", is even more clever. He tried his best to downplay the opposing views of both sides of the debate. He used the "law of negation" to emphasize that "reverence for nature" is indeed a reflection on "science" - it can also be expressed as anti-"scientism", but it is by no means "anti-science", nor is it a return to superstition. This is a very mysterious expression. Indeed, according to the law of negation of negation, the reverence for nature that opposes the scientific transformation of nature under the banner of opposing scientism should no longer be a simple return to feudal superstition, but is indeed a sublimated modern superstition.
Because it cannot be denied that awe itself is a form of superstition. In addition, Professor Qin’s assertion that “‘reverence for nature’ is the new version of the ‘people-oriented’ humanistic spirit that has ‘advanced with the times’” is somewhat rhetorical and unreasonable. Obviously, Wang Yongchen and all those who "revere nature" clearly want to emphasize the nature-oriented spirit, but the clever Professor Qin grasps the humanistic characteristics of the spirit and cleverly confuses nature-oriented and people-oriented. According to this logic, shouldn't all religious superstitions be the highest level of people-centeredness?
He also said in the article, "If in the Western Middle Ages, reason was suppressed by "faith", science became the slave of theology; but now, emotions are suppressed by "rationality", and the soul has become the slave of "science" "Slave, then in China, faith and reason do not have that much authority, and science and theology are also subject to something."
Professor Qin's way of mediating the debate between the two sides is to emphasize the difference between science and theology. The debate is far less important to China's current situation than other things that he dare not say. This cleverly leads the debate on the relationship between man and nature elsewhere.
In fact, I think that many awe-minded people in this debate are limited by the influence of the term science, and they dare not admit that they are anti-science. In fact, this is not necessary. Since we must respect nature, we must oppose all disrespect and fear of nature, regardless of whether such disrespectful activities are scientific or not.
Reverence for nature itself is not necessarily related to anti-science. However, because science will not respect nature, but also transform nature to some extent. If a person who fears nature is a loyal person, then he will definitely oppose science’s transformation of nature, and thus he will inevitably oppose science.
On this issue, Fang Zhouzi gave a very appropriate example. He said that if an asteroid hits the earth at the moment, scientists will use science and technology to destroy the asteroid. At this time, if those who respect nature object, it will not only be anti-science, but also anti-humanity.
2. Religious superstition also has its historical role
In fact, there is nothing wrong with opposing science. Since it is sincere reverence, we must oppose all disrespectful behaviors, including science, of course.
What’s the harm in admitting to being anti-scientific? In the "metaphysical debate" in history, metaphysicians dared to openly debate science. In order to protect nature today, why don’t our reverent people dare to openly admit that they oppose science that does not revere nature?
Besides, awe itself represents a kind of superstition, which is incompatible with and runs counter to science. If ancient people's fear of the harsh living environment gave rise to the feudal superstition of reverence for ghosts and gods, then today's fear of nature's revenge on human development has given rise to modern superstition of reverence for nature.
The famous physicist Einstein once predicted: "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It will be a religion that transcends personal gods and is far away from all dogma and theology. This kind of religion, The inclusion of both natural and spiritual aspects, as a meaningful unity, must be based on religious concepts arising from the practice and experience of things - whether spiritual or natural."
Currently, there are still many controversies and disagreements about ecological ethics around the world. However, in the spirit of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend, it seems that we should not deny the emergence of this subject and its significance. The history of the struggle between science and religious superstition can be said to have been accompanied by the development of human society and has never been interrupted.
Objectively speaking, in the ideological field, the feudal superstition of fearing ghosts and gods is still very popular in the world. The total number of loyal believers of various religious superstitions in the world is probably far more than The number of unbelievers. In China, whether it was the "scientific debate" of the last century or the "battle between awe and science" triggered by this tsunami, there will be no final winner. Just as idealism and materialism are interdependent in struggle, the concept of social development also requires the unity of opposites.
Throughout history, science has brought about the progress of human civilization and created huge wealth for mankind; while various religious superstitions have also played an important role in adjusting people's morality, restraining people's desires, and maintaining social stability and harmony. He has made great contributions. In the future society, science will still be the main force guiding the development of human civilization, and religious superstition, expressed as awe of nature, will also play its role in restraining people's desires and adjusting people's moral concepts.
3. Religious superstition cannot become a stumbling block to social development
Although religious superstition has its positive historical role in history, like any religious superstition, if it is not treated appropriately constraints, it will also become a stumbling block to social development.
In terms of ideology, aweists often promote agnosticism and animism, pursuing mystical and anti-scientific tendencies. They believe that some catastrophic phenomena in nature are "induced by heaven and man", promote "sacred mountains" and "holy water", and advocate "reverence for nature"; they are good at using metaphors, personification and other rhetorical techniques to promote their ideas.
For example, "The earth (nature) is the mother of mankind", "Animals are all friends of mankind", "Nature will be angry" and so on. They often rely on novels, poems, essays, myths and religious rituals to hype and sensationalize. They like to cleverly use literary language and advertising techniques to express their feelings of compassion and compassion. Although they lack scientific and logical rigor, they are extremely inflammatory. It is especially attractive to young people who love literature and are passionate about environmental protection. This is also an important reason why among those who believe in "revering nature", there are more writers, artists, humanities workers and young students with a romantic temperament, while there are fewer scholars who are accustomed to rational thinking and engage in natural science research.
In practice, religious superstitions that revere nature often promote idealism. Describe the original nature as an ideal state, talk about the "beauty, integrity and stability" of nature, regard the achievements of human beings in transforming nature as useless, and praise the illusory "idyllic life"; they are divorced from reality and pursue the lofty artistic conception excessively. They excessively pursue "animal rights" and "natural rights" when the issue of human rights to survival and development has not been resolved; the "awe-minded" devote themselves to the environmental protection movement with the enthusiasm, sincerity and persistence unique to romantics. , many of them even reach the level of obsession and selflessness.
They carry out publicity by establishing non-governmental organizations, giving lectures, carrying out activities, holding meetings, writing articles, etc. These activities have made certain contributions to the enlightenment and improvement of the environmental awareness of the broad masses of the people. At the same time, they boldly exposed and criticized various violations of environmental protection laws and regulations in society, which attracted the attention of society and leading cadres at all levels to environmental issues and promoted the progress of environmental protection work. These are all positive aspects. .
However, at the same time, many of them lack rational scientific thinking and inevitably go to extremes. They often ignore or even fiercely oppose the legitimate development requirements of people in underdeveloped areas, becoming a stumbling block to social development. .