Monthly Archives: December 2021

December 30, 2021 –  Richard Dawkins and Teilhard on Evolution

4 Replies

   How can Richard Dawkins illustrate Teilhard’s insights into evolution?

Today’s Post

      Last week we began a series which looks into two contemporary facets of Teilhard’s insights into ‘evolution’ to explore how they reflect both Teilhard’s optimism as well as how his vision for the future is being born out in contemporary thinking and events.

This week we will begin this series by addressing the perspective of Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins and Evolution

Richard Dawkins is a well-known evolutionary biologist, best known for his insights into the role of genes in biological evolution.  His criticism of religion and his defense of atheism is also well known.  In his book, “The God Delusion”, he examines thousands of religious beliefs, mostly those of Christianity, to show examples of illogic, superstition, contradictions, and anti-science content.  From this perspective, he seems to represent a most unlikely common ground with that of Teilhard, much less to provide insight into the larger picture of how the evolutionary processes of the universe continue through the human person.

That said, however, we will look at three aspects of his two books, “The God Delusion” and “The Selfish Gene” which seem to bear out Teilhard’s insights: universal evolution, the genetic replication process, and the continuation of evolution in the human species.  This week we will look at the first.

Dawkins and the Evolution of the Universe

In his book, “The God Delusion” he pauses for a moment in his seemingly endless diatribe on religion to regard a wider view of evolution itself.  In nearly all his writing, he seems content to regard evolution as a process which begins with the cell and continues through the ‘Natural Selection’ of biological species.  He is positioned well within the general scientific population which regards evolution as an Earthly process which occurs along the lines proposed by Darwin.  This perspective restricts ‘evolution’ to a process beginning some four billion years ago, some eight billion years after the ‘Big Bang’ and continues to trickle in the human species.  Dawkins adds some facets to this perspective which opens the door to the wider and deeper insights of Teilhard.

In one section of the book, he refers to a discussion with theologians at Cambridge University on the cause of existence, addressing the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

“Time and time again, my theologian friends returned to the point that there had to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing. There must have been a first cause of everything, and we might as well give it the name God.  Yes, I said, but it must have been simple and therefore whatever else we call it, God is not an appropriate name (unless we very explicitly divest it of all the baggage that the word ‘God’ carries in the minds of most religious believers). The first cause that we seek must have been the simple basis for a self-bootstrapping crane which eventually raised the world as we know it into its present complex existence. “

   Earlier, he seems to also acknowledge that complexity does indeed emerge over time, but once again seems to limit such emergence to the ‘life era’:

“Natural science …explains how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance.”

   Many of my atheist friends suggest that in these statements, as an atheist Dawkins cannot possibly be agreeing with the idea of ‘God’.  Of course, if one defines God as a ‘supernatural person that creates, judges, rewards, and punishes’, they are correct.  On the other hand, if God is identified not only as a Deist “first cause”, but one which “eventually raised the world as we know it to its present complex existence”, the Deist God is neatly replaced by the God of Blondel and Teilhard.

His caveat that we must “very explicitly divest it of all the baggage that the word ‘God’ carries in the minds of most religious believers” must be also recognized.  Once again, in such a theology as Blondel and Teilhard propose, this is exactly what they set out to do.  To Teilhard, the best way of making sense of our complex language of Christianity is to do just that, and he offers the ‘reinterpretation paradigm’ of interpreting religious statements through the ‘lens of evolution’ to do so.

Dawkins even echoes Teilhard’s ‘lens’ of such reinterpretation when he says

“Other theories (of religion) miss the point of Darwinian explanations. At the very least, (these theories) need to be translated into Darwinian terms.”

   Not that Dawkins has suddenly become a theist.  He takes on Teilhard’s concept of God as he quotes Carl Sagan:

 “If by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God.  This God is emotionally unsatisfying…it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

   And of course, he is right.  Restricting God to the agency of gravity (it is of course necessary for cosmic evolution) is like restricting a cake recipe to sugar.  Neither Dawkins nor Sagan acknowledge their own admiration of the marvelous workings of the universe as articulated by Teilhard:

“..I doubt that whether there is a more decisive moment for a thinking being than when the scales fall from his eyes and he discovers that the is not an isolated unit lost in the cosmic solitudes and realizes that a universal will to live converges and is hominized in him”

   Thus, in our first look at Richard Dawkins’ approach to evolution we find not only threads of thought that resonate with Teilhard, but also seemingly contradictory aspects of his approach to evolution.

First, there is nothing in the natural sciences to explain the aspect of ‘complexity’ as a characteristic of biological evolution.  The theory of Natural Selection only explains replication and differentiation; it does not address how these processes result in increases in complexity of the results of these processes.  He does not offer examples of how ‘natural science’ explains the ‘emergence of complexity’.

Second, it is necessary to understand how complexity increases in the components which evolve in basic matter as identified in the Standard Model of Physics.  Physics and Chemistry articulate how matter ‘develops’ in the evolution from the quark to the amino acid compounds which are necessary to the workings of the cell, but they do not explain how they ‘complexify’ as they do so.

Thirdly, we will see how he himself understands that the theory of Natural Selection does not offer a complete understanding of how the human species continues its evolution, and suggests another slightly different process at work as well.

Next Week

This week we began a look at how contemporary non-religious thinkers can show insights into evolution that not only resonate with Teilhard but can quantify his insights.

Next week we will continue our exploration of Dawkins’ thoughts with a look at how biological evolution, explained by science as ‘Natural Selection’ takes on a more universal aspect when his insights are focused on its roots in the molecular processes of DNA.

December 23, 2021 –  Teilhard’s  ‘Lens of Evolution’ and Understanding Human Life

1 Reply

   How can understanding evolution contribute to a deeper understanding of reality?

Today’s Post

   Last week we concluded our multilayered look at ‘mysticism’, raising it from the image of a single person experiencing the ‘ecstasy’ of being intimate with the ‘ground of being’ that is present in everything to one in which human persons come to be what they can be through the ‘enstatic’ experience of a clearer knowledge of what lies in the liminal space between what is real and what we know about it.

This week we will embark on a series which looks into this ‘liminal’ space through Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution, but this time by following the insights of contemporary authors who excel at this skill and seeing how Teilhard’s unusually optimistic forecast for the future is indeed unfolding beneath our feet as we tread the path.

What is Evolution and How Do Humans Fit in?

Nearly all of the approaches that we have taken in our look at ‘making sense of things’ have been based on the fundamental perspective in which the universe as seen as a system which has been in the process of coming to ‘be what it is’ over a long period of time.  Teilhard and others refer to this process as ‘universal evolution’ even though there seems no general acceptance of this term in either Science or Religion, our two great systems of ‘making sense of things’.

Many scientists avoid the term in referring to the development of the universe from the ‘Big Bang’ to the biological cell, and few accept the use of the term to address the continuing ‘development’ of human cultural systems.

While Christianity has come to decrease its resistance to the term, many of those comfortable with it still insist on supernatural influence.

Thus, if we are going to try to use Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution’ to ‘make sense of things’ from a universal perspective, it is necessary for a clearer understanding not only of the term itself but more importantly of how it can be seen to be active in human life.

As Teilhard sees it, the entire universe itself is evolving.  From his scientific vantage point this perspective is valid since everything which emerges in an evolving universe can be seen to do so due to some event from a pre-existing simpler thing.  He presents his case in great detail in his book, “The Phenomenon of Man” in which he sees evolution occurring in three phases: ‘pre-life’, ‘life’ and ‘thought’.   ‘Pre-life’ is period of the ten or so billion years following the ‘Big Bang’ postulated by Physics.  The ‘life’ era spans the period on this planet from the appearance of the cell to the appearance of the human, and the era of ‘thought’ begins some two hundred thousand years ago with the first human.

Teilhard’s unique insight is to see evolution as a single process which is active in each era, underpinning the appearance of the ever-increasing complexity which can be seen at work in each step.

The characteristic of complexity, as he sees it, takes on many forms as it increases from the activity by which more complex molecules emerge from combinations of less complex atoms all the way up the evolutionary chain to the activity by which relationships among human persons result in human ‘psychisms’ which not only move their cultural groups toward greater cohesiveness, but bestow on the participating individuals a greater measure of fullness.

His recognition reflects a true ‘widening of vision’, now become ever more capable of grasping both past and future, both material and spiritual, both singly and collectively, in a way that recognizes the presence of a universal agency in the universe.  This agency not only underpins the part we play, but more importantly, the fullness which is possible to us as we play in it.  To him, “fuller being comes from closer union and closer union comes from fuller being” at every stage of evolution in the history of the universe.

Teilhard developed his approach to such a holistic insight into evolution from his paleontological research and the general grasp of the universe as ‘dynamic’ in nature as the discovery of physics exploded in the early 20th century.  In his lifelong journey to understand the concept of increasing complexity in terms of what had become a static understanding of God, he never ceased his efforts to reinterpret both the languages of Science and Religion into a ‘language of the real’.  Such a language would permit “a clearer disclosure of God in the world”, one in which both the ‘phenomenon of Man’ and the ‘phenomenon of existence’ could be understood in common terms.

In the late nineteen forties, when he wrote his masterwork, “The Phenomenon of Man”, his projections of the future evolution of the human species seemed very idealistic.  The world had just seen not once but twice, the most catastrophic conflicts in human history.  Not only had these conflicts left much of the developed world in ruins, they raised the specter of total human eradication as a possible next step.  Even today, our increasing political, ecological, and cultural polarization sees his optimistic views of the future of humanity as highly ungrounded.  Many in the Western religious camp increasingly see the state of humanity so ‘fallen’ that only supernatural intervention can save it.

Thus, the question can be asked, “With all of this, how can Teilhard’s optimistic projections be seen as valid today?”  Are there any contemporary insights, grounded in objective data, which show Teilhard’s projections to be on target?

The answer is ‘yes’, and we will pursue them in two parts.

The first set of insights comes from Richard Dawkins, noted professor of human and biology sciences who, while contributing to the study of evolutionary biology, is also well known for his anti-religious fervor.  However, we will see in looking into his books, “The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion”, show his wider view of life and how human evolution can be seen to resonate with that of Teilhard.

The second set of insights comes from Johan Norberg, historian of ideas, who first takes an objective ‘evolutionary measure’ of human evolution in his book, “Progress”, then in his second book, “Open”, addresses the human structures that have emerged in history that have provided the scaffolding of human society to emerge into its current complex state.

Both books reflect both Teilhard’s optimism as well as a quantification of his projections, and we will address them in the coming weeks.

Next Week

This week we began a series which looks into two contemporary facets of Teilhard’s insights into ‘evolution’ to explore how such reflect both Teilhard’s optimism as well as a quantification of his projections.

Next week we will explore the insights of Richard Dawkins, noted professor of human and biology sciences, to see how his grasp of evolution can be seen to not only agree with Teilhard,

December 16, 2021 –  Mysticism as Active in Human Evolution

Leave a reply

   How can mysticism be seen as a key ingredient of human evolution?

Today’s Post

Last week we looked at mysticism as a skill required to move into the future.  This week we look at the part such a skill plays in human evolution.

The Mystical Role in Human Evolution

We have addressed mysticism as a skill which is required to move into the future.  It is a key evolutionary skill, without which human evolution would simply be replaced by an endless repetition of replication followed by decay.  (Indeed, as we have seen, many materialists consider this to be exactly what is happening.)

If we can agree that coming to recognize that whatever perception that we have of reality falls short of whatever is ‘real’, one of the challenges of life is pursuing a bridge to close this gap.  Human history is filled with examples of both failing to do so and of those where success has led on to a clearer understanding of life and our part in it.   The many historical attempts to solve the enigma of the ‘one and the many’, manifested in the cacophony of governmental experiments which attempted to tame human self-centered tendencies while reaping the harvest of human capabilities for collaborative labor, speak volumes of attempts to develop the skill of building this bridge.

Richard Rohr addresses the role of mysticism in developing this skill.

 “Charles Péguy (1873–1914), French poet and essayist, wrote with great insight that “everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” Everything new and creative in this world puts together things that don’t look like they go together at all but always have been connected at a deeper level. Spirituality’s goal is to get people to that deeper level, to the unified field of nondual thinking, where God alone can hold contradictions and paradox.”

   This journey from mysticism to politics frames the path of human evolution.

Teilhard offers another perspective on this path.

“Truth has only to appear once, in a single human being, for it to be impossible for anything ever to prevent it from spreading universally and setting the whole world ablaze”

   Teilhard’s understanding of the slippery term, ‘truth’ is very simple.  As he sees it, it is simply that understanding of reality which is most consistent with the reality itself.  The more the gap between our inner grasp of reality and the reality itself is narrowed, the more confidence we can have in our understanding of it.

We have referred frequently to the statistics assembled by Johan Norberg in the quantification of our human evolution in terms of human welfare.  In Chapter Four, this data was summarized in the nine categories of

Food                                                      Sanitation

Life Expectancy                                 Poverty

Violence                                              The Environment

Literacy                                                Freedom

Equality

In his identification of objective historical data which shows how human welfare has increased in each of these categories, we can see aspects of the mystical basis of our journey to the future in play.

In each of the nine cases, for the specific advances which he documents, an individual or group of individuals must first become aware of some specific phenomenon, wonder as to its causality, try to replicate it, and eventually be able to reliably cause it to happen.  The first two steps are intuitive in nature, then transferring to the empirical state in the last two.  The first two begin with a single person, or with a small ‘psychism’, and as the movement to the second two occur the ‘reach’ of the idea extends.  As we saw from Péguy above, “everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.”  Paraphrasing this in our terms: “Every idea begins with an intuition about reality which becomes articulated into the standards by which we govern ourselves.”

In the case of a tenth category, that of ‘fuel’, this can be clearly seen.  The phenomenon of ‘fire’ was experienced long before it could be caused.  The ability to control heat, of course, had obvious value to human welfare, and as Teilhard notes, the ‘truth’ of this value spread inexorably among early humans.  The next steps continued the spiral of development between awareness and articulation, as the need for greater thermal efficiency grew along with the need for surviving the inevitable downsides of each new articulation.  The deforestation related to wood burning was replaced by the asphyxiation of coal burning, then by the atmospheric damages from gas:  all resulting in ever more efficient fuel offset by new ecological risks.  Each step requiring new insights into our reality followed by new articulations of these insights and new effects on human evolution requiring new insights.

Thus, the ‘mystical skill’ of humans can be seen as the essential aspect of our spiral path to the future as it is followed from our intuitional peering into liminal space through our conscious articulation into ‘ideas’ and finally emerging as the set of social norms encoded into our cultural practices.  This winding path is the social counterpoint to Teilhard’s understanding of cosmic evolution: “fuller being from closer union and closer union from fuller being”.

Next Week

This week we ended our series addressing human mysticism from a secular perspective.

A key theme in this blog has been the seeing of reality, both of ourselves and the environment we inhabit, through Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution’.  In doing so, we have seen how such a seemingly secular perspective can open traditional Western religious beliefs to a new and deeper bearing on human life, one which is not only more relevant to it but more intimate with the source of life which underlies our being.   Next week we will begin a series which looks into three facets of his idea of ‘evolution’ to explore how such a perspective can offer this insight.

 

December 9, 2021 –  The Enstatic Mysticism of Teilhard

Leave a reply

How is mysticism a key to the continuation of human evolution?

Today’s Post

Last week we continued our look into Cynthis Bourgeault’s insights into ‘enstasy’, and saw examples of it in scripture and in the works of Elaine Pagels.  This week we will look into how mysticism can be seen in both our ‘personization’ and in the continued flow of human evolution.

The Mystical Role in Personization

We have seen how Teilhard understands the progress of universal evolution as captured in the process of ‘complexification’.  He further sees this process leading to the emergence of ‘personization’ as he sees the ‘reflexive consciousness’ of the human as the point of greatest complexity reached thus far.  To Teilhard, not only does ‘true union differentiate’, and ‘fuller being result from closer union while closer union results from fuller being’, but that in these recursive dances the continuous rise of complexity takes on the unique aspect of ‘personness’.  What role can mysticism be seen to play in this unfolding?

As we have seen frequently thus far, Teilhard exemplified the enstatic mode, continuously weaving the profound insights of Christianity into a common cloth with the profound insights of Science.  As we saw above, Cynthia Bourgeault, who introduced the concept of enstacy to our conversation, showed how Teilhard’s insights into the evolutionary foundation of the human person led to his insights on the uniqueness of the person.  She also noted the potential danger of the other face of the ‘liminal space’.

“Teilhard’s evolutionary vision is profoundly enstatic.  He fought ecstasy all his life- the siren call, as he took it, of the Asian traditions to dissolve into the One, to fund union at the point of undifferentiated simplicity.”

She notes elsewhere that ecstasy and enstacy are not necessarily opposites but work differently in the human person.  In the traditional treatment of ecstasy, the person is pulled away from Teilhard’s psychism in order to come into contact with what is most real within us.  In the great stories of Christian mysticism, the mystic’s first step is to pull away from the trappings of society.  Some see this happening in the early days of the church as the ‘Desert Mothers and Fathers’ sought to escape the hierarchical church’s need for orthodoxy.  But no matter what the cause, the mystical life was a clear ‘siren call’ from the depths of the soul.

Teilhard’s concept of the psychism, on the other hand, recognizes that we can be called into fuller being as we undergo closer union.  Teilhard, reflected in Bourgeault’s development, notes that both enstasy and ecstasy require a ‘peering into liminal space’ for the vision that can move us to fuller being, but it is only the translation of the inner sight into fuller articulation that causes this to happen.

It should be noted that the great mystics often return from their ecstatic visions with such articulations.  For example, we saw above Hildegard’s understanding that her visions were instances of a natural human capability of ‘resonance’ with the divine.

When we explore this resonance, we are peering into the liminal space between what we know and what is real, by seeking what is still left to be understood.  To the extent that we understand, we activate our potential not only to understand more fully, but to become fuller ourselves.  Such mysticism is not only an aspect of the potential by which we become more fully what we can be, but by which the evolution of our species becomes more fully resonant with its environment.

Not only are the things we see in liminal space yet to be understood, they are potentials yet to be actualized.  Thus, when we look into liminal space, it can be said that we are looking into the future.

As we have explored it here, mysticism is simply a skill which is, as Audre Lorde put it in her poem “The Unsayable’

“…the way we give names to the nameless so it can be thought.”

Giving the ‘nameless’ a name so that it can be thought is bringing an intuition into the empirical state in which it can be objectively considered.  An insight into the future thus becomes a tangible way of preparing for it.   Seen from the perspective that we have been developing, mysticism can be seen as the building of planks to be installed on the bridge that we are building to the future.

Next Week

This week we began to address mysticism as a skill which is required to move into the future.  It is a key evolutionary skill, without which human evolution would simply be replaced by an endless repetition of replication followed by decay.  (Indeed, as we have seen, many materialists consider this to be exactly what is happening.)

Next week we will take yet another look at human history to see how it shows the slow increase in the ‘skill of mysticism’ at work in the building of our bridge to the future.