Throughout American history, humans have never had a positive and unified way to name and interact with nature. Many prominent thinkers disagree on a definition for nature, different interpretations often lead to destruction masked as “progress” (Marx 14). But not all definitions of nature are so damaging. Ursula Goodenough, a biology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, wrote The Sacred Depths of Nature to create a new religion based in nature. Goodenough’s treatment of “nature” illustrates her unique interpretation of the word. Goodenough understands the word nature to mean life, and life means biology. She uses this appeal to scientific reasoning to inspire humans to care for the world we live in. And while she recognizes that …show more content…
While Bradford believes that humans are separate from Nature, Goodenough uses Darwin’s theory of evolution to show that humans are as much a part of Nature as any other living thing is. In fact she says, “we are connected to all creatures. Not just in food chains or ecological equilibria. We share a common ancestor. We share genes for receptors and cell cycles and signal- transduction cascades. We share evolutionary constraints and possibilities. We are connected all the way down” (Goodenough 73). Goodnough does not simply believe humans share the same space or the same food as nature, we are a part of it. But humans are not completely part of nature either, as Spencer suggests. Goodenough writes that our ability to use language and be self aware are unique and, “apparently the only time in evolutionary history that such capacities have developed” (Goodenough 163). So humans are biologically separate from the rest of nature as well. Thus Goodenough comes to the conclusion of First and Second Nature by using science. She reveals that humans cannot be completely included or excluded from the definition of nature, so the truth must be somewhere in between. This is where Religious Naturalism …show more content…
She writes, “We are also, whether we like it or not, the dominant species and the stewards of the planet. If we can revere how things are, and can find a way to express gratitude for our existence, then we should be able to figure out, with a great deal of work and good will, how to share the Earth with one another and with other creatures [and] how to restore and preserve its elegance and grace” (Goodenough 171-172). Goodenough is proposing that we use Second Nature to protect First Nature, rather than destroy it. She uses diplomatic examples to show that global politics can be a Second Nature tool for First Nature’s benefit. She quoted Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation, who spoke in front of the United Nations (Goodenough 87). He instructed the world’s leaders to remember that we are biologically part of First Nature as well, and that we cannot let Second Nature destroy the Earth (Goodenough 87). She uses her interpretation of nature to show that human Second Nature need not be a destructive force. This goes one step farther than Marx’s definition of First and Second