Evolutionary Religion Defined The explorations on this website suggest a strong connection between religion and an evolutionary cosmology. That is, in order to think meaningfully about religion in the 21st century, we need to recognize that we live in a universe that evolves. One can debate the specific mechanism of evolution (traditional Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, even contemporary non-materialist interpretations such as that of Teilhard de Chardin), but the reality of the process of evolution (both biological and cultural) is assumed here as a necessary component of our understanding of religion and its possible future expressions. In a sense, then, like many contemporary explorations into religion from a non-traditional point of departure, we are working from the perspective of what is sometimes called evolutionary religion. But here is the problem with “evolutionary religion”: there is no clear definition of what it means! Hence, before proceeding further, in this post we hope to at least partially clarify what is meant by evolutionary religion. Immediately, however, we run into a challenge: there are two quite different ways in which “evolutionary religion” is being defined and used. Those two different definitions are for the most part compatible but, as we hope to clarify below, one definition tends to restrict itself to a descriptive function, while the other moves beyond empirical description to suggest that evolution itself has a spiritual dimension. The first definition sees religion as the product of the evolutionary process; the second definition sees the evolutionary process itself as an actual manifestation of Spirit, meaning that in the broadest sense, evolution is a spiritual phenomenon. In an effort to sort out and clarify this distinction, we will differentiate these two basic interpretations of evolutionary religion as weak/descriptive evolutionary religion and strong/spiritual evolutionary religion. “Weak” and “strong” are not used here in evaluative, critical terms to suggest a difference in qualitative value. Rather, the terms are used with reference to the intended scope of the two definitions, as should become clearer below. Weak/Descriptive Evolutionary Religion Weak, or descriptive, evolutionary religion asserts that religion changes or evolves over time, generally in the direction of a fuller understanding or sense of Spirit, and this evolutionary quality of religion is understood to be the product of an evolutionary process (biological and cultural) that has produced conscious beings which have the capacity to perceive (however dimly and imperfectly) the existence of a spiritual dimension to the Cosmos. Evolutionary religion of the weak/descriptive sort does not negate the possibility of discrete acts of divine revelation such as those which form the basis for most traditional religions, but it does suggest that belief in such events is not necessary to be a religious believer. Weak/descriptive evolutionary religion is a naturalistic account of religion with a twist: whereas as naturalism is usually equated with materialism or physicalism, weak evolutionary religion suggests that the “natural” process of evolution in the Cosmos has resulted in at least one species (humans – and perhaps more elsewhere in the Universe) which has developed the capacity to sense or intuit that the totality of the “natural” world includes more than just the dimension of matter/time/space/energy: the totality of the Cosmos includes Spirit, and this is known (again, quite dimly) not through a discrete top-down act of divine revelation in the past but rather through our evolved human capacity to perceive the spiritual dimension of the Cosmos. Weak/descriptive evolutionary religion is exemplified by the recent work of contemporary philosopher J.L. Schellenberg, both in his more strictly philosophical works and in a shorter work accessible to the general reader, Evolutionary Religion. Schellenberg situates the ever-changing nature of religion in the context of a fully informed temporal contextualization, which is to say, a recognition that the human species is at a very early stage of its historical existence, and as such should be seen as an “immature’ species which has only begun to penetrate the nature of Spirit. As humanity matures, our understanding of Spirit will expand, and religion will change – perhaps in rather dramatic fashion. But even though Schellenberg asserts that religion is the product of an evolving and progressive understanding of Spirit, he does not characterize the evolutionary process itself as a spiritual one. Strong/Spiritual Evolutionary Religion By contrast, strong/spiritual evolutionary religion does not hesitate to describe the evolutionary process as a spiritual process which is somehow driven by a spiritual force toward a spiritual goal. There are several examples of strong/spiritual evolutionary religion, but three of the most notable ones are found in the works of Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo, and Ken Wilber. We will touch on all three in future posts, but for now, just to provide a stronger sense of what strong/spiritual evolutionary religion is all about, let’s take a brief look at Teilhard Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a French priest and paleontologist. In many ways, Teilhard was a paradox, as evidenced for instance in how he remained a faithful ordained Catholic priest throughout his life while building a successful secular career as a paleontologist, all the while developing an evolution-based theology that reflected such a radical departure from traditional Christian dogma that he was forbidden to publish or teach by the Catholic Church. Only after his death were Teilhard’s extensive writings on an evolutionary interpretation of religion transformed from mimeographed sheets secretly shared among a largely hidden but growing community of sympathizers to mainstream publication and both widespread acclaim and harsh criticism (by both traditional Christians and materialist scientists). The foundation of Teilhard’s thought is the acceptance of an evolutionary cosmology: the starting point of Teilhard’s theology and the theme that runs through every page is the recognition that we live in a Universe that has evolved over a period of close to 14 billion years. Teilhard may have remained a committed Catholic, but his writings contain scant references to Bible passages or church dogma. Where references to Bible passages and Christian dogma are found, they are often in the context of a cosmicized interpretation that traditional Christians are not likely to recognize. Teilhard believed that an honest, empirical, rational examination of evolution, free from any sectarian religious prejudice, demonstrated that there is an orderliness, or teleology, to the process. Specifically, over long periods of time (and with periods of regression), evolution eventually produces increased levels of complexity in the Universe (from simple particles to elements to compounds to unicellular life forms to multi-cellular life forms to, eventually, entities with sufficient complexity for something new to emerge in the Universe: consciousness, thought, subjectivity, interiority). In the human species this evolved consciousness includes an awareness of the non-physical, or spiritual dimension of the Cosmos. In a sense, in humanity, the Cosmos awakens and becomes conscious of itself. Religion is the product of humanity’s attempts to make sense of this awakening sense of Spirit. Teilhard saw no evidence to suggest that this evolutionary process (which he called the law of complexity/consciousness) would cease with the emergence of the human species, and suggested that evolution will continue in the direction of increasingly complex entities with increasingly expansive consciousness, culminating in what he called (some would argue rather ambiguously and mysteriously) the Omega Point (bear with me here: Omega Point is perhaps the fuzziest piece of Teilhard’s thought, so we will need to wait until a later post to tackle it). Teilhard believed that we can’t explain either the orderly, progressive nature of evolution, or the emergence of a non-physical reality (consciousness) from matter, in purely materialist terms. For Teilhard, the explanation requires acknowledgment of a Spirt which initiates, drives, and is the goal of the process: God – although a God that might not look very familiar to traditional theists. Remarkably, while Teilhard was developing his evolutionary theology, the one-time anti-British Indian revolutionary, Aurobindo Ghose, developed a remarkably similar model of evolutionary spirituality, apparently without knowledge of Teilhard’s similar and near-simultaneous work. More recently, the prolific but controversial transpersonal/integral thinker Ken Wilber has proposed his own evolutionary spirituality model, largely free from any sectarian connection to an existing religious tradition (unlike Teilhard who, at least nominally, remained a Roman Catholic Christian, and Aurobindo, whose evolutionary vision was rooted in the Hindu Vedanta tradition). Differences between these three (and other) proponents of a strong version of evolutionary spirituality are many, but Teilhard, Aurobindo, Wilber, and other strong spiritual evolutionaries all agree that evolution and religion are entirely compatible, and that the evolutionary process itself is the result of the gradual emergence of Spirit in the Cosmos. Religion is not about faith in an event of supernatural revelation in the past, but rather about recognition of the ongoing and ever-expanding presence of Spirit in the Cosmos, culminating for the moment, at least in our little corner of the Universe, in a species that has achieved the epistemological capacity to intuitively sense the presence of Spirit. Going Forward As we explore evolutionary religion in future posts, we will always do so from at least a weak/descriptive angle, and at times we will explore various expressions of the strong/spiritual evolutionary religion model. In all cases, we will be examining religion from the point of view that in order for religion to remain credible to a fully informed 21st century sensibility, it must be accepted as something that, like consciousness, evolves over time. We have arrived at a key point of transition from the traditional static Axial Age religions of the past to a post-Axial form of evolutionary religion whose contours have barely begun to emerge, leading to a situation of considerable confusion and uncertainty for those who reject the religions of the past but do not see any viable alternatives emerging. But they will emerge.
0 Comments
Defining a “fully informed 21st century sensibility”
Introduction On this blog site and in the forthcoming book, Thinking About Religion in the 21st Century, we frequently refer to a “21st century sensibility,” and suggest that in light of that sensibility, religion in the coming years will change dramatically as certain aspects of traditional religions, founded 2000 and more years ago in the Axial Age, lose their credibility. So given the significant role of this phrase, perhaps we should take a moment to define what is meant by a “21st century sensibility.” First, let’s clarify what a 21st century sensibility does not mean: it certainly is not meant to suggest that humans in the 21st century have achieved some superior state of enlightenment. Intellectually, morally, spiritually, and in many other ways contemporary humans remain very imperfect creatures with a remarkable capacity to think irrationally, make mistakes, do great harm to each other, do perhaps even greater harm to the non-human parts of the planet, and just in general, think and act in a manner that is indicative of a very imperfect species. As traditional Christian theology would put it, humanity continues to provide ample evidence of our “fallen” status. But amidst that general continuation of human imperfection, there clearly are certain ways in which humans today think and act differently than humans did during the Axial Age when the existing world religions originated. Humanity, while still far from perfect and, one might argue, a threat to the existence of the entire planet, has nonetheless changed in some meaningful ways, and it’s those meaningful changes (existing side by side with the perennial human flaws) which we are referring to when we reference a 21st century sensibility. Specifically, we would suggest that this sensibility includes (but is not limited to) the following components: 1. Historical awareness Humans in the 21st century display a widespread historical awareness. We recognize that things change over time. This change includes human institutions, including religion. In order to understand the nature and value of something, it is necessary to investigate its historical context and development: what were the circumstances that led to its origin, what circumstances influenced its changes over time, etc. As applied to religion, this entails a considerable skepticism about the belief that religious texts, doctrines, rituals, and authority structures have a divine origin. Indeed, an entire field of study, the History of Religions, developed in the twentieth century based on this basic premise. Any credible perspective on religion must take into account this historical dimension. 2. Scientific awareness The explanatory power of science in explaining phenomena in the world of matter, or the “natural” world, is so overwhelming that the acceptance of scientific explanation in the 21st century hardly needs elaboration here. As applied to religion in the 21st century, however, acceptance of this role of science means that any credible religious perspective must be compatible with the scientific explanation of the natural world. Science works as an explanatory device for understanding the realms of matter/energy, and a credible religion must acknowledge this. 3. Post-mythic consciousness The existing traditional religions emerged at a time when myth (stories about superhuman beings performing super-human tasks) was commonly used as an explanatory device, especially with regard to aspects of the world which were seen as mysteries. Lacking an explanation of why the sun consistently rose in the East and set in the West according to a rather precise pattern, stories were created about a god (Apollo, Surya, and many more) who rode or otherwise controlled the orderly movement of this heavenly body. But mythic explanations have been supplanted by scientific explanations with regard to natural phenomena, and a credible 21st century religion must accept this fact. Religion which is rooted in supernatural explanations of scientifically explainable natural phenomena is not credible to a fully-informed 21st century citizen. This does not mean that religion has no basis! To the contrary, this entire site, and Thinking About Religion in the 21st Century, are both an extended argument in support of religion, but a religion that is credible to a 21st century sensibility. This means a religion that is grounded not in mythic explanations of natural phenomena but rather in faith in the basic assertion that we live in a Universe in which meaning and value are real, fundamental, ontological elements. A 21st century spiritual outlook is one that affirms that while there is indeed a transcendent meaning to our existence, that meaning and its related moral value can no longer be effectively described and communicated through ancient mythic language. 4. Critical sensibility The notion of a critical sensibility is not so much something different from the above three components of a 21st century sensibility, but rather a category that underlies all three. By “critical”, of course, we do not mean negative criticism per se, but rather an orienting perspective that always looks for deeper explanations and does not settle for how things look at first glance or how things are commonly understood by the prevailing unexamined beliefs and ideals of one’s culture. Whether looking at natural phenomena or human/cultural phenomena, including religion, a 21st century sensibility seeks to understand the origin and nature of things, incorporating the categories of historical, scientific, and post-mythic consciousness which we have described above. This is problematic for certain aspects of traditional, Axial Age-based religions. A 21st century religion must be one that can stand up to such critical scrutiny, and traditional religions, at least in certain ways, cannot do so for many contemporary citizens. Hence, as we have proposed from the beginning: religion needs to change, and in some ways radically so. 4. Cross-cultural/global perspective The existing religions all originated at a time when communication between distant cultures was non-existent for most humans and severely limited even to the elites who had sufficient wealth and power to travel long distances. This meant that, 2000 years ago, it was easy to believe in the god of your own culture since you had little or no exposure to any alternatives. But dramatic changes in transportation, communication, and literacy are slowly but steadily transforming humanity from a localized to a global species. Given this accessibility to the ideas, values, practices, etc. of other cultures, it is irresponsible for a 21st century citizen to narrow-mindedly cling to the notion that only his/her culture holds the “right” ideas. We live in the context of global knowledge, and our consciousness should reflect this accordingly. When applied to religion, this global consciousness means that allegiance to claims of religious exclusivity by traditions which emerged in isolated cultures of the past loses all credibility. The religion of the future must be a religion that incorporates elements from any and all traditions. The religion of the future must be globally-grounded, not parochial, and to the extent that traditional religions refuse to recognize this, they are likely to wither away. 5. Global moral sensibility Over the centuries, the human sense of moral responsibility has moved in a slow but ever-widening circle. Whereas early humans might have felt a sense of responsibility only to their family, this eventually expanded to a sense of moral responsibility to larger units, from tribe to clan to ethnic group. With the emergence of the classical civilizations, we see moral responsibility extended beyond kin and tribal connections to members of one’s larger socio-political unit, such as a nation-state or empire. But in a 21st century sense of moral responsibility, that sense of responsibility is extended, at a minimum, to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Moral responsibility has assumed a global scope. Some would further suggest that a truly contemporary morality extends beyond the human species to other sentient beings – animals, plants, perhaps the entire biosphere, as we see in the ecological/environmental ethics that, while virtually unknown a mere century ago, are now quite commonplace, taught to children as early as kindergarten. As applied to religion, this means that a credible, morally acceptable 21st century spirituality must be one that includes such a global morality, and existing religious traditions, which emerged in the Axial Age with a more confined and restrictive sense of moral responsibility, may find it difficult to remain relevant in the coming years and decades. So what’s the point? We are suggesting that these components of a “21st century sensibility” are representative of how increasing numbers of people are thinking today. Certain ways of thinking have become widespread in the early 21st century to a degree which simply was not the case as late as the mid-20th century. The “average” sensibility has changed. What could once be found in the thought of exceptional individuals is now found in the general population. As applied to religion, this means that there are certain aspects of the way that many people think today that are incompatible with components of the traditional Axial religions. Consciousness has evolved. Hence our view of the world has evolved. And now religion, or our understanding of Spirit, must play catch-up and similarly evolve. To the extent that we are simply honest with ourselves (intellectually, morally, and spiritually) at the beginning of the 21st century, adherence to many traditional religious texts, creeds, doctrines, and practices won’t work. But the alternative isn’t disbelief: rather, the alternative is a form of belief that is appropriate to our time, a 21st century spirituality which is still in its infancy. |
Archives
June 2024
Categories |