Faith, Bioethics, and Sustainable Development: A Christian Perspective on Bioethics of Care and the Challenges of Sustainability Transitions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a theme that has received significant attention in Christian Theology and aims to advance the discussion by highlighting the role of religion and faith communities in fostering tangible actions for sustainability.

I would like to offer comments that I believe will improve the quality of your paper.

Section 2

I believe the sentence, `There is a growing literature on the potential and activities of faith communities in promoting sustainability`, needs a citation to strengthen your statement.

Section 3

I believe the introduction of this section requires bibliographic support, as not everyone is familiar with this type of knowledge.

The following passage lacks clarity: „The power of the supercomputer needed to explain the creation and existence of life could come from in depth mathematical analysis such as outlined by the 2020 Physics Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose in his books The Emperor’s New Mind – Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics [27], and Shadows of the Mind. A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness [28], leaving an atheist pathway open, although he has always been open to metaphysical debate. As a biologist Richard Dawkins has supported atheism in his books The God Delusion [29] and Outgrowing God. A Beginners Guide [30]. However, the power could also be provided by God and many scientists find that a compelling path to support their faith, including the route to drive environmental sustainability. An excellent riposte to Dawkins is by John Cornwall in Darwin’s Angel. An Angelic Response to The God Delusion”. The sentence that introduces Richard Dawkins’ support for atheism is disconnected from and deviates the initial focus on Roger Penrose work. Therefore, I recommend rewriting the passage to maintain the focus on Penrose’s work and to ensure a smoother transition to Dawkins’ work.

Section 4

I find the part of this section in which you enumerate recent events illustrating ecological disasters worldwide to be overly lengthy. The facts are already widely known through the mass media, so it would be better to provide just a few key examples to support your argument that humanity has failed to care for nature and is now facing the consequences of this failure.

You suggest that a return to certain principles of Christian faith is crucial for abandoning the "Progress Dominion Theology," which underlies many climate and biodiversity issues. You emphasize the gift of creation and humanity's stewardship over it as two key theological principles. Indeed, these principles are of vital importance when addressing the ecological crisis from a Christian perspective. However, I believe your analysis could benefit from taking a further step to offer a deeper understanding of these principles, which form the foundation of Christian ethical values and shape our attitudes toward nature as God's gift. In this context, I suggest explaining how the mandate of dominion over nature, given to the first man by God, should be understood from a theological angle.

I suggest elaborating on why, in Christian theology, creation is perceived as a divine gift to humanity and what responsibilities derive from this truth of faith. Additionally, since you reference Scripture to illustrate these principles, it would be beneficial to include specific biblical verses to strengthen your argument. There is also an extensive body of theological literature on the gift of creation and humanity’s stewardship from a Christian perspective, which you could draw upon to enhance and extend your analysis.

You write, ` That said, the Christian world has much to repent in relation to destruction of biodiversity, harm to indigenous cultures and unsustainable extraction and pollution, as recognised in Laudato Si’`. In this sentence, you mention the need for human repentance regarding the destruction of biodiversity, but nowhere have you addressed how environmental degradation is viewed as a sin from a theological perspective. How about expanding on the idea that environmental degradation can be categorized as a sin?

In the same section 4, I believe it is important to cite the pages from Pope Francis’ encyclical or other writing for the precision of references and to ensure that readers can easily verify and consult the original text for a deeper understanding of the context.

At the end of the third section, you write, `We turn next to a more detailed discussion of what Christian perspectives in general, and the Pope’s CST/Integral Ecology in particular, can bring to thought and action for sustainable development`. However, at the end of the fourth section, you dedicate only two paragraphs to presenting Pope’s Francis perspective on `Integral Ecology`. I suggest expanding the discussion of the Pope’s argument in favor of `Integral Ecology`.

The list of references must include all the studies you have cited within your paper.

Author Response

The review is excellent and helpful. Many changes have been made to cover all the points, especially by the insertion of the penultimate paragraph. However further discussion of PDT we feel might complicate the flow of the arguments. We hope we are now accurate but clearly there could be further discussions in later work we will engage with.

The response to reviewer 2 largely is covered by the new penultimate paragraph of the text.

Unfortunately the text sent to reviewers was not the latest and missed many references from the list. All is now in order.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

‘Faith, Bioethics and Sustainable Development: A Christian perspective on bioethics of care and the challenges of sustainability transitions’ is a solid review of recent developments, from the Catholic perspective, in the vitally important interdisciplinary domain of saving our planet, but the paper includes very little beyond what has essentially already been known for at least a generation.  

With due respect, this piece is more of an essay, a review, or a reflective piece than it is an Article, which, according to Religions’ website is an ‘original research manuscript’ that ‘should report scientifically sound experiments and provide a substantial amount of new information' and 'should include the most recent and relevant references in the field.’  There is really nothing new here beyond the kind of synthesis here and there that one would expect in a good review or essay.  If the authors consider going in that direction, it might be useful to include more in depth and in comparison discussions of other traditions (especially Buddhism) that have engaged—as core principles for centuries—interdependence and other key related concepts discussed in the paper.

Author Response

These helpful comments have now on faiths has now been covered in the new penultimate paragraph of the text. The initial submission missed a lot of references but all is now in order.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author, 

Thank you for addressing my suggestions for your paper and especially for expanding the discussion on Pope’s argument in favor of `Integral Ecology`.

Author Response

All the minor errors have been done and I not see any others

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is much improved.  It's still not really research, but rather a solid review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A good editor can sharpen the English grammar, etc., but should not be difficult.

Author Response

All the minor errors have been done and I cannot see any others