This series of four essays by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, first published in 1967, gives a remarkably far-sighted and astute account of the spiritual roots of the manmade oecological crisis. In this series, he sees at the root of the modern hard sciences a fundamental urge to grasp nature, to master, conquer and control it. On the other hand, Dr Nasr worries that the religious tradition of Western Christianity is not putting up enough of a fight against the exploitation and destruction of the natural world, and is thus ceding ground among the oecologically-conscious to spiritually-destructive New Age hokum. He believes very much that Western Christendom can and should rediscover its tradition of finding the sacred within nature.
The urge for conquest of nature, in Nasr's view, originates in the nominalist turn in Western philosophy, which sought to empty the sciences of their metaphysical content and religious meaning. In this, Nasr seems to have anticipated John Milbank's critique of social theory. Though it may somewhat irk Milbank that a Muslim religious philosopher could critique nominalism in much the same way he does, their themes are nevertheless remarkably similar, and indeed he ascribes the blame to some of the same historical actors (notably William of Ockham).
Of interest to me was how highly Nasr spoke of the Greek Church Fathers whose thought had ramifications for environmental awareness: the saints Irenaeus of Lyons, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian and Maximus the Confessor in particular. It's not a coincidence that these major church figures were also some of the most metaphysical thinkers of the Orthodox tradition!
If I have one gripe with the book, it would be this: his understanding of particularly evolutionary biology is somewhat simplistic and out-of-date. The neo-Darwinists he rightfully critiques are, at best, one voice among many in that branch of science; and the process-philosophical followers of Alfred North Whitehead (whom Nasr cites favourably at several points) have gained some ground in this field, though perhaps not nearly enough. Nasr also has a remarkable detestation for the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, but from what I understand that goes somewhat hand-in-glove with his antipathy to the neo-Darwinists. But while evolutionary metaphors are egregious and noxious in other fields, particularly where they take on the shades of Herbert Spencer's cruel anthropology, that doesn't necessarily amount to a solid critique of biological evolution per se. Indeed, one would think that a set of observations noting the fundamental dependence of biological life on the elements of virgin nature, and the interdependence of life and the elements across many generations, properly contextualised, would be a major to Dr Nasr's metaphysical-religious frame of mind!
However, Dr Nasr's punchline is still dead-on. We need a new metaphysics - or rather, we need a new birth of interest in the old metaphysics. Only once we understand that nature is translucent and pregnant with the energies of the Divine, and exists to be awed rather than dissected, cut up, mechanised and exploited, can we begin to fundamentally reorient ourselves to nature.