We all see that the Earth is bleeding and that the natural environment suffers in an unprecedented manner from the onslaught of man. The problem is now too evident to deny, and the solutions proposed are many but for the most part insufficient. The ecological crisis is neither just environmental pollution nor a socio-technical problem. It is a crisis of the whole life system. The pollution of water and environment through the destruction of natural resources, ozone shields and forests, are only symptoms and consequences of the problem, but not the problem itself. The problem is essentially a theological-ethical one related to humanity's role in the creation. Any political, ecological, economic and social analysis and prescription falls short if it is not visioned by ethical-theological perspectives. Therefore, we must deal with the macro-ecological aspect of ecological crises. We must develop a new theology of environment that challenges the prevailing paradigms of humanity-creation relations, namely, anthropocentrism, domination and exploitation, and promote a renewed relationship and a new covenant with the creation. Without falling into the trap of environmentalism as a new form of religion in itself, we need a new ecotheology and eco-ethic that heal and protect the creation in its original goodness and integrity and restore the right place and true vocation of humanity within it. Such a theology necessarily implies a clear shift from anthropocentrism to theocentrism, from domination to accountability, from self-centeredness to a holistic spirituality. It is a fact that the turning of environmentalism into a religion itself and the return of cults of the Earth in the present-day context are themselves significant in that they point to the need in the souls of human beings for the religious understanding of nature eclipsed in the modernism of the West by modern science and neglected until quite recently by the mainstream religions themselves.

Ecological crises triggered a new climate for transdisciplinary research on problems of sustainability. "Sustainability" became a global keyword for quality of life and conservation of resources, challenging the paradigm of social transformation embodied in older interdisciplinary concepts of modernization and development. And it is here that we find ourselves encountering the inevitable challenge of religious studies in connection to environmental crises. It is here that we need an `Ecotheology`. Ecotheology is the most `transdisciplinary` form of the study of religion. Transdisciplinarity in itself raises the question of not only `problem solution` but also `problem choice`. One major problem choice is sustainability. What is required in building an analytical framework for transdisciplinary research of ecological sustainability is nothing but a greater understanding of normative/metaphysical issues such as meaning of life, purpose of life, and truth of life. And this is where religious studies in the form of ecotheology come in.

The key actors in transdisciplinarity are motivations, epistemologies and worldviews. Motivations (that is what we want) engender epistemologies (that are ways to find out how to get to what we want), which in turn generate worldviews (which are conceptions of what exists, as disclosed by the epistemologies that get us to the things we want). Finally, worldviews create anthropologies, using that word loosely to refer to the feel of life as it is lived within the worldviews that our motivations and epistemologies create. Now this paper is itself a transdisciplinary merge of motivation and worldview that shaped my own `anthropo`logic as a result of years-long teaching of Ecology and Religion in a Religious Studies/Islamic Studies Department in a Turkish University. Teaching the Confucian concept of jen and chun-tzu, or the ahimsa of Siddharta Guatama Buddha to majority Muslim undergraduates, and comparing these concepts with their Islamic concepts such as al-insaan al-kamil, tazkiya al-nafs, âyân al-sâbitah, as well as the Vedic idea of purusha and prakriti corresponding with what Islamic spirituality calls ar-Rahmaan (the most loving) and ar-Raheem (the most giving-merciful), and on the other hand reminding them of the differences between and impact of Newtonian physics and Quantum physics on our ideas of nature and existence indeed bring forward a great challenge of transdisciplinarity of knowledge. For example, while both Confucianism and Islam assume human nature as originally good, the modern secular Western view focuses on the darker side of human nature. In Confucian teaching, the idea of maxima moralia assumes that each and every human individual is potentially capable of becoming, and is morally obligated to become, a perfected person, a chün-tzu (the Confucian type of a moral personality) or even a moral sage, through consistent daily practice. The conceptual similarity between the Confucian and the Islamic view of human ecology is striking in that while the Confucian teachings propose the idea of chün-tzu, Islamic spiritual anthropology proposes al-insan al-kâmil, in both of which the concepts mean `mature human being` with a delicate awareness of his/her environment. The opposite character is disliked, and Islam calls it `bedoin`, someone who has not developed an inner awareness for his/her environment. But interestingly, the word bedoin is masculine which describes mostly manly characters. By implication, women are considered to have been created by God more `environmentally friendly`. Through the classic scriptural sources such as the Tao Te Ching, the Quran, and the Analects, the heritage of all humankind, we will be able to enlarge our intellectual and historical vision, while becoming sensitized to the values of our own, often unexplored, roots. Then we have the chance to realize what Huston Smith calls `the way things are` (reminding one of the Buddhist principle of thataghata, or the Islamic notion of al-fitrat).

Transdisciplinarity with its generic definition as "a common system of axioms for a set of disciplines" is the science and art of discovering bridges between different areas of knowledge and different beings. It is now linked with comprehensive paradigms (e.g., general systems, feminism, Marxism), broad interdisciplinary fields (e.g., area studies, cultural studies), and synoptic disciplines (e.g., philosophy, geography, religious studies). In contrast to the one-dimensional reality of classical thought, transdisciplinarity acknowledges multidimensionality. So does the field of religious studies. Transdisciplinarity breaks free of reductionist and mechanistic assumptions about the ways things are related and systems operate; normative social values uninformed by stakeholder and community inputs; and the expectation that science delivers final estimates with certainty. So does the new science. Ecotheology essentially emerges out of this breakthrough towards transdisciplinarity in knowledge. Ecotheology as transdisciplinary knowledge of religion also poses challenges for our perceptions of what a modern university might/should be. Universities themselves pose important questions for the future of both science and religious studies. Nothing is more obvious than that the sciences possess an almost miraculously effective way of knowing, one whose precision and proofs are unrivaled anywhere else in academe. It is not surprising, therefore, as Huston Smith points out in Why Religion Matters, to find other divisions of the university trying to adapt scientific methods to their own ends, with disastrous results. But the adaptations must first be documented, for we are normally unaware of their extent.

With respect to the social sciences, Robert Bellah (co-author of Habits of the Heart) registers their domination by science so clearly that I shall quote him at length:

The assumptions underlying mainstream social science," he writes, are `positivism, reductionism, relativism, and determinism. . . . By positivism I mean . . . the assumption that the methods of natural science are the only approach to valid knowledge, and the corollary that social science differs from natural science only in maturity and that the two will become ever more alike. By reductionism I mean the tendency to explain the complex in terms of the simple and to find behind complex cultural forms biological, psychological or sociological drives, needs and instincts. By relativism I mean the assumption that matters of morality and religion, being explicable by particular constellations of psychological and sociological conditions, cannot be judged true or false . . . but simply vary with persons, cultures and societies. By determinism I mean he tendency to think that human actions are explained in terms of "variables" that will account for them.

This is also emphasized by Eric Schumacher in his classic work, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, albeit from a more Buddhist perspective.

This reality of sharp separation of the sciences from the humanities has created a particular mechanistic perception of nature and environment in general. We need to ensure that university undergraduates, through the study of science, learn about their connectedness to nature and about the urgent need to protect the ecosystem of which we are all inextricably a part. We all live by values and beliefs, and all people search for meaning in their lives. Undergraduates should examine various belief systems, reflect on the values they hold, and, in their general education studies, learn how religion consequentially has shaped human history. Students cannot know the history of art without discovering religious inspiration, from Hindu cave paintings and Buddhist art, to the majestic cathedrals of the Middle Ages that so inspired many artists, to the Blue Mosque in Istanbul where Pope Benedict XVI felt especially inspired during his visit to Turkey in 2006. Students cannot know literature without knowing how religion has shaped great writers and poets, from Homer and Euripides, to T. S. Eliot, or Fariduddin Attar, Rumi, Iqbal, and Tagor. On this ground we need to prepare our young generations and build an ecological awareness for a more sustainable future.  Without engaging religious studies in addressing global crises such as the ecological crisis, the only area of expertise we produce will be a techno-expertise for technopolis.  Earth will not be healed by changes in a technology that cannot but treat the world of nature as pure quantity to be manipulated for human needs whether they be real or imaginary. All such actions are no more than cosmetics with an effect that is of necessity only skin deep. We do not want to live in a `civilisation of recycling`. Recycling is not a solution but an end. If we become more aware of our destructive consumption then we will have less and less recycling. A human ecologist cannot be merely a scientist, but his or her science must be combined with an altered attitude towards life and the world in general. Only an ecotheological knowledge of religion with a transdisciplinary approach can do the service.