Today’s Post
Last week we continued our look at the ‘Theological Virtues’ by addressing that of Hope, which we saw as one of the attitudes that we take when we set about mapping the dimensions of human life, ‘articulating the noosphere’ in terms of sacraments, values and morals.
We noted that “Faith and Hope intersect in a present which we all too frequently experience as ‘dangerous.’” At this intersection, drawing on the energies of life which are ‘gifted’ in the flow of evolution, we become able, as Blondel puts it, “.. to leave the paralyzing past behind and enter creatively into our destiny”.
This week we will look at this significant intersection in a little more detail.
Faith and Hope: From Interpolation to Extrapolation
Faith can be seen as an interpolation of the past. Looking back on our experience, we begin to better understand what we are capable of, and in doing so we begin to increase our confidence in our capability to act.
Hope can be seen as an extrapolation from this experience to an anticipation of what can be accomplished in the future if we but trust our experience. Hence Faith and Hope can be seen in the two ever-recurring stages of our lives: our pasts becoming our futures in the evanescent moment of the present.
We can find examples of this intersection of our “currents of life” from the three great thinkers that we have explored in this blog: Maurice Blondel, Carl Rogers and of course, Teilhard.
Blondel was one of the first theologians to recognize that science’s discovery of the immensity of the past and the dynamic nature of the universe provided both an opportunity as well as a hermeneutic for reinterpreting legacy Christian teachings into a form not only congruent with the findings of science but offering a greater relevance to human life. From science’s discovery of a universal unfolding, he recognized that the human species was better understood when seen in the same dynamic light as that of science, and whose individual ‘becoming’ is fueled by the same energy which underpins the entire universe. In effect, he remapped the empirical insights of science into new spiritual insights, interpolating from science’s view of the past to extrapolating to a religiously optimistic view of the future. Of course, from Blondel’s viewpoint, this was a religious reinterpretation, from science to religion, from science’s impersonal grasp of the distant past to religion’s deeply personal grasp of human life, and hence from past to future.
Rogers, as we saw in the post on “Secular Meditation, Finding Self” also used empirical information to come to his conclusion that the human person was, at the most basic level, good, positive and trustworthy. This was quite orthogonal to the then common Freudian perspective which saw the basis of personal existence, the id, as a dangerous and decidedly untrustworthy force in the human psyche. Once again, we see in Rogers an interpolation from past, empirical data (in this case Rogers’ extensive case notes) to an extrapolation to an optimistic, hopeful human future. We saw earlier in this post a list of the characteristics that Rogers observed in his patients as they underwent a process toward healing. This time, however, Rogers offers a scientific, empirical reinterpretation.
Then of course, we come to Teilhard. Going well beyond either Blondel or Rogers, Teilhard draws on the same scientific empirical findings, and expands them to the entirety of the life of the universe. His first step in doing so was to unbind science’s understanding of evolution from the narrow perspective of the theory of Natural Selection and open it up to the immensity of universal evolution. This unprecedented vision understood the metric of ‘complexification’ as the basic measure to plumb both the universal depths of time as well as the long, slow accretion of ‘fuller being’ which emerged with it.
He begins by articulating the many stages now understood to have emerged during the ten or so billion years preceding biological terrestrial life. He then shows how they are connected in evolution by a rise in complexity, a steady, reliable force which acts on all the entities in all the stages leading to the cell. Having established this basis of universal ontological continuity, he goes on to show how it continues through the biosphere, and eventually emerges in the present noosphere . In doing so, Teilhard offers an extrapolation from scientific findings to an interpolation, an insight as valuable to the clarification of science as it is to the reinterpretation of religion.
Teilhard and The Continuity of Past to Future: “Spirituality”
This insight into the basis of universal ontological continuity, providing as it does an integrated perspective inclusive of both spirit and matter, science and religion, and ultimately the human person and evolution, is Teilhard’s great contribution to a comprehensive perspective of the universe. In doing so, he departed substantially from Science’s materialistic menagerie of pre-life stages disconnected from life stages, and its current schizophrenic approach which inhibits the placing of the human person into a cohesive view of the universe. To Teilhard, these eras can now be seen in a single, connected context, one in which the human person is no less a product of evolution than the stars that glow in the sky. He also offered a reorientation of Religion’s accumulated closet of dualisms. In a single, cohesive, integrated approach to the universe as ‘becoming’, he showed how the action of God can be seen as the basic life blood of evolution, and hence in which each individual life partakes of this universal bounty of universal life.
This grand vision deconstructs religion’s great and seemingly indissoluble dualisms. One example of such deconstruction (healing?) is his explanation of ‘spirit’ vs ‘matter’, found in ‘Human Energy’. First, he lays out the dualism itself:
“For some, heirs to almost all the spiritualist philosophies of former times, the spirit is something so special and so high that it could not possibly be confused with the earthly and material forces which it animates. Spirit is a ‘meta-phenomenon’.
For others, on the contrary, …, spirit seems something so small and frail that it becomes accidental and secondary. In the face of the vast material energies to which it adds absolutely nothing that can be weighed or measured, the ‘fact of consciousness’ can be regarded as negligible. It is an ‘epi-phenomenon’.”
Then he dissolves the dualism by identifying spirituality as the underlying phenomenon which is essential to universal evolution:
“…spirit is neither super-imposed nor accessory to the cosmos, but it quite simply represents the higher state assumed in and around us by the primal and indefinable thing that we call, for want of a better name, the ‘stuff of the universe’. Nothing more; and also nothing less. Spirit is neither a meta- nor an epi- phenomenon, it is the phenomenon.”
He then restates his conclusion, this time answering the assertions outlined in his mapping of the dualism:
“Spirituality is not a recent accident, arbitrarily or fortuitously imposed on the edifice of the world around us; it is a deeply rooted phenomenon, the traces of which we can follow with certainty backwards as far as the eye can reach, in the wake of the movement that is drawing us forward.”
It is worth noting that in this brief exposition, Teilhard not only deconstructs the traditional religious dualism of spirit/matter by moving them from ‘either/or’ to ‘both/and’, placing them in a dynamic, ‘becoming’ context in which they are simply different facets of a single phenomenon as it moves from past to future. He also heals science’s dualistic mind/body treatment of the human person by recognizing that the state of evolution characterized by ‘consciousness aware of itself’ is simply the latest manifestation of a complexity which has been increasing in the universe since the ‘big bang’. He addresses this process in the last part of the quote from “Human Energy”:
“The phenomenon of spirit is not therefore a sort of brief flash in the night; it reveals a gradual and systematic passage from the unconscious to the conscious, and from the conscious to the self-conscious. It is a cosmic change of state.”
So, in this example we can see how Teilhard goes about his ’interpolation/extrapolation’ process, drawing on Science’s study of deep time and evolution to understand the thread of universal life to which our essence is connected, then to extrapolate to a future which we can trust to offer a continuation of such ‘increased complexity’.
He offers an approach to Faith not based on (but also not, as it turns out, orthogonal to) belief in scripture or the church’s ‘Magisterium’, but on a recognition that the fourteen billion year rise of complexity which (so far) has resulted in our own individual person can be expected to continue in our lives if we can but trust and cooperate with it.
And this is where Faith and Hope can be seen to intersect in our lives.
The Next Post
This week saw how the intersection of Faith and Hope can be seen to intersect in our lives, from the insights of Blondel, Rogers and Teilhard.
Next week we will move on to a look at the third of the Theological Virtues, that of Love.