Science and Religion

"For the most part, theologians still think and write almost as though Darwin, Einstein and Hubble never existed. Their attention is fixed on questions about the meaning of human existence, human history, social justice, hermeneutics, gender issues or the individual’s spiritual journey... except for a smattering of ecologically interested theologies, the natural world and its evolution remain distant from dominant theological interest." John F. Haught, Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect of Religion in the Age of Evolution

Here I fully support Haught in his assertions. He sums it up: "in the West, the findings of evolutionary biology and cosmology continue to lurk only at the fringes of contemporary theological awareness." I can only reply with a resounding "Yes!" Here he hits the nail directly on the head. It is as if there is a need to preoccupy oneself with distractions, to keep busy within one’s area of interest, without coming to terms with the profound implications of scientific discovery. Is it to some degree not a confession that God is dead, that “yes I understand my traditional understanding of God is rendered impotent or in need of drastic reformulation by these discoveries but, I will continue to work and write as if it were not.” -Theology- here becomes an approach, complete with normative ways of speaking and operating, always within a closed framework lending itself to more or less acceptable statements and interpretation by the theological community. Haught, as much as one might disagree with his concept of religiosity, is at least willing to take the implications of evolutionary science seriously and reformulate his understanding of God and ultimate reality. He endeavours to unify his knowledge, rather than compartmentalize it, proposing a synthesis that brings together truth findings from various disciplines.

Here is a place to start. I don't believe, however, it will be sufficient to the end. I say this because I earnestly believe that once the implications of modern science are understood, traditional conceptions of God will have to be completely reformulated, thereby altering those foundational understandings from which so much of the Church is built upon. For some this is to be avoided at all costs, even to the point of militant action. So be it. For some, force is an expediency, whether it is based on illusion or not.

What are the alternatives? I will briefly mention a few honest thinkers here:

1) Conway Morris: The existence of life as fundamentally mysterious.
He doesn't develop this in his Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, but one possibility could be a "religion" centered on the category -Mystery-.

2) Edward O. Wilson: A new religion based on scientific knowledge.
"The true evolutionary epic, retold as poetry, is as intrinsically enabling as any religious epic." For him, the sense that “something is going on” outside of natural causes or explanations is nothing more than a reflection of a brain evolved to “believe in the gods”. Moral and religious sentiments are the product of evolution. Even the underlying structures of religious hierarchies are determined by this evolutionary process. Traditionally male dominated authority structures are mirrored nicely in animal hierarchies such as canine or simian groups. He has said that, “Religions reflect the human organisms that nourish them.” I see here a lot of potential and fidelity to the event of Truth in science.

3) John Haught: Religion that is cognisant of scientific findings, using evolution in particular as a model of not just biological development, but cosmological and universal as well.
This should not be confused with Wilson's proposal. This is not the founding of a completely new religion, but one that is a synthesis of science and theology, two areas of human knowledge which are fundamentally interested in -truth-. (I think a good argument could be made that what Haught proposes is indeed a new religion which is unacceptable to a majority of Christians/Muslims, but I see here a man who cannot ignore the truth of scientific discovery, while maintaining fidelity to his faith).

Icarus Fall

The only rational course for those who had no other object than the attainment of truth was to accept Darwinism as a working hypothesis and to see what could be made of it. T.H. Huxley- On the publication of Origin of Species

Palaeontologists have known of the existence of intermediate “avian” species for some time. The earliest birds evolved from dinosaurs over 125 million years ago. Their present-day descendents are indeed considered “living dinosaurs” by some scientists (I’ve often observed turkeys nearby, running at speed, and cannot fail to have the eerie sense that I’m seeing something incredibly ancient in their reptilian-like gait). Those who claim there is no evidence of “missing links” or transitional fossils between species is either profoundly ignorant, or wilfully deceptive (or shall we say, ideologically motivated). Two such intermediate species are Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, fundamentally, two dinosaurs with feathers. These two basal “birds” are quite similar, though separated by one major difference: Archaeopteryx lacks the avian-like highly vascular bone structure of Confuciusornis. Archaeopteryx’s bones are parallel-fibred, common in reptiles. Confuciusornis, so it seems, was one step closer to its avian descendents than Archaeopteryx. (The significance of Confuciusornis for this reason cannot be overstated. No doubt the media will eventually catch up with the scientific research and Confuciusornis will be getting more publicity in the future). Neither creature could fly, but both could likely glide. This was due to scapular orientation, i.e. they couldn’t raise their arms high enough for the recovery stroke, a crucial requirement of flapping flight. That would come later.

For some time I have studied evolutionary science. First I was a sceptic, one who decided to approach the science critically but fairly. Then I was convinced. The evidence is just too great. Species evolve over time: including the species from which humans evolved. Upon hearing this admission, anyone who is still immersed in the ideological and cultural background I came from will feel as though they have been hit by a thunderbolt, or perhaps they will quickly dismiss these statements. That is fine. In the future, however, I plan on posting tidbits about my own personal research into human origins. So my friend: “if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.”

La Fidélité au Réel

Then was there again spoken unto me as a whispering: "It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come with doves' footsteps guide the world.
Thus Spake Zarathustra, 44.

For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
1 Thess. 5:2- St. Paul.

It has been rightly said that Nietzsche owed Paul a great debt, the very man he poured so much contempt upon. Here the Event cannot be predicted. The very act of naming it has already denied its realization, has missed the mark. It is as the Old Man once said:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Thus the Event loses its universal character through the act of prophecy. It is not the Event, but a simulacrum of the Event which here presents itself through the words of the prophet. There is no sign which precedes it: it must catch us unaware. As the immortal Badiou has said, “The universal is always an incalculable emergence, rather than a describable structure.” For Badiou, every universal is singular, or is a singularity, not a regularization of the particular, but a singularity that is subtracted from identitarian predicates (though which obviously proceeds via these predicates). The universal originates in the Event, and the Event is intransitive to the particularity of the situation. So, to take Badiou’s examples, political universalism depends entirely on fidelity (or infidelity), not to a certain doctrine, but to The French Revolution, the Paris Commune, Oct. 1917, etc.

Here at last I ask the question: Has the Church not been guilty of delegitimizing the Event, of attempting to complete the singularity, a singularity that in order to remain universal must remain open and incomplete? It should not be forgotten that Paul again and again recalled to his listeners the fact of Christian telos, of realities’ openness to the eschaton, and of Christian hope, which continually longs for what it does not possess. It is precisely this longing, this recognition of the openness of life and existence that displays its fidelity to the Christian Event. Here there is no recognition of that presumption so common in the Church. Here one finds mirrored (not a mere feigning) the fundamental commitment, and decision, not to a particular event, but to “a possession forever”, the result: the infinite generic multiple of the Event.

Proud Owner of a Frost

This gorgeous man has been hugely influential in my life. This particular painting was done by my sister and will soon grace one of the walls of my home (much to the chagrin of my wife! mwahaha!).

I'm putting in a plug for my sister here, who will paint for anyone who wishes, in whatever colour one wishes, a portrait of their most beloved personage. I think it's totally cool that anyone can own one of these original (rather bloody good -check out the Obama painting-) paintings of pretty much anyone they would like for quite a reasonable fee. I for one, will definitely be requisitioning more (perhaps more spouse friendly) original works like this. Thanks Marcia! These are really very cool.

http://www.etsy.com/shop/marciafrosty

Existentialism

I refute this notion of existentialism that we are "thrown into" existence, that we find ourselves suddenly in this or that place or time, that even at the dawn of consciousness we find ourselves suddenly with a story or interpretation. No, this idea too easily suggests that "I" somehow pre-exist, that it is "I" who am thrown into something, that there is something or Someone there to throw in the first place. It makes too much of consciousness, as if it arrives a completed project from somewhere else. I detect here also the modern mechanical notion of the human subject.

I counter this with the immortal Watts who rightly criticizes the mechanistic worldview of modernity, the implication of the notion of the great Architect who constructs the universe, the idea that reality is a kind of machine. Human consciousness is not uploaded to a body, or installed into a biological machine, ready to run like a software program. No, for Watts organisms should not be said to be "put together", but to grow, like (using Watt's example) an acorn into an oak tree. In this sense development is organic. We see these perspectives played out in the difference between a child asking "How was I made?" (the typical Western question) and "How did I grow?" (the Eastern child's equivalent- to generalize). Consciousness then is as organic as the brain it arises from. It is not "thrown into" existence, it grows out of it and is it.

This then is the solution (elaborated by Watts) to the state of mind produced by our human confrontation with the vastness of the cosmos (see comments previous blog). For the one who believes in a separation, a fundamental difference between what's "out there" and that which is the essence of the human subject, there can only be fear and trembling when faced with such vast cosmic being (as separate from my own being). But when one realizes that humans themselves grow out of this cosmos, as an oak tree out of an acorn, or an acorn out of an oak tree, does the fundamental attitude not shift? The cosmos loses its sense of otherness, becoming instead the very ground of our existence, the very substance of the human subject. To put it another way: We are the stuff of stars.

Dust and Shadow

This is the deepest visible-light image of the cosmos. Just let it soak in a bit. There are nearly 10,000 galaxies here. That's about 800 trillion stars. Each one of those little discs is a galaxy. Each galaxy contains billions of stars. Has one picture ever contained such things? The Earth orbits a star in a galaxy similar to some of those galaxies, but the light from that star would hardly be visible in such a panorama of suns and space. Its light would add nothing to the display of 10,000 galactic ensembles. God help us from looking into that void. I can hardly bear it. "Pulvis et umbra sumus": We are but dust and shadow...

Defining Evil

What is Evil? The word is tossed about as if we all know what we're talking about when we use it. Bush caused a stink when he referred to nation states as Evil, the so-called "axis of evil". What did he mean by this other than a categorization of those political entities that resist American hegemony as evil? People refer to Charles Manson as evil, Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Other people refer to Jews as evil, capitalism, communism, racism. People speak of the "evils/ills of society", child molesters, CEO's, Pat Robertson, white sharks, pitbulls, saturated fats, should I continue?

Here I challenge Christians to formulate a precise definition of Evil. Will it include notions of "sin" (what exactly is "sin"? how is it different than "evil" or is it?), of the devil? Of what substance is Evil? Does it have substance apart from human action or thought? If not, does it have any being at all? Well I'll leave it to those who would try a definition to flush these things out.

To get the ball rolling I will offer a brief definition here following my glorious Badiou. This is not a Christian definition I might add, though there's no reason why Christian interpreters couldn't appropriate some aspects of it (with some limitations). The following propositions should be taken together:

1) That Evil exists

2) This Evil should be distinguished from the violence human beings use to persevere in their own being (this violence should not be categorized as either Good or Evil).

3) Evil is a simulacrum of truth. It is therefore the exercise of terror directed at everyone.

An example from the field of human sexuality: There are certain sexual passions which imitate the amorous event. It is precisely for this reason that they bring with them terror and violence not just to the individual human subject, but the human subject universal (the torture of even one small child is an act committed against humanity).

4) Evil is the betrayal of an ethic of a truth at the critical moment.

5) Evil is to want, at all costs and under condition of a truth, to force the naming of an unnameable.

For example: The Nazi naming of the community and collective as "Jew", a naming done for the purpose of persecution and murder. Another example might be the naming of "Indian" (not PC) or "Native" in popular discourse. Is it often not a false designation for a large and diverse group of people for the purpose of labelling and control?

These comments are preliminary. I look forward to hearing from you.

Olympic Fever

Well Olympic fever is hitting the nation. Not everyone has caught the bug though. Major protests are being organized in Vancouver by various anti-poverty and anti-capitalist groups. Check out this website for the reasons why (click on the title of this blogpost).

On Religious Conflict

The latest clashes in the Nigerian city of Jos between Christians and Muslims have left 200 dead. Jos finds itself located in Nigeria about midway between the Muslim North and the Christian South, its population almost equally divided religiously as well. The latest round of carnage was sparked by the proposal of a new mosque near a Christian dominant neighbourhood. The city has seen past bloodshed and death over Christian/Muslim tensions. There are just over 71 million Christians in Nigeria according to a 2008 census. That's more than 3x the number of Christians in Canada (2001 StatsCan census). There is almost an equal number of Muslims in Nigeria.

Anyone who thinks religious conflict is a thing of the past, or only a thing that happens "over there" is in for a surprise. The fact is, most of the world's population (about 6.8 billion) is religiously inclined (about 86%). Numbers are growing everyday, and as populations are forced into closer and closer living situations, sparks are bound to fly. It doesn't take a prophet to see that incidents like the one in Jos will only become more common.

For people who listen to Western Muslims and Christians condemn the violence with dismissals like "This isn't Islam!" or "This isn't the spirit of Christianity!" it becomes more and more confusing. If this isn't what these religions stand for, why is there such a vast number of people calling themselves by "Muslim" or "Christian" engaging in conflict? Can it be social and economic factors? This is the usual move by Western liberal media. One can't honestly question aloud whether violence isn't inherently part of the religious paradigm itself, at least not in the media. Until these kinds of conversations are openly held in a public forum without labeling those who participate as intolerant how can we ever get beyond the Western-centric bias that religion is a private matter?

To a Friend on Seeking Truth

I noticed that you changed the subtitle of your blog ("...thirsty for Truth"). This is a very brave thing to do.. But once starting out on this course don't hesitate to go to the very end. Is truth that important? If you answer "yes": let nothing stop you.

Why this preface? Because the whole framework of this discussion assumes the very thing which is up for question. Nothing can be taken for granted here; neither God, nor heaven and hell. In my opinion, Hell is as firmly established by the history of the Church and Scripture, as any notion of the Devil or God as Father. When you're finished emptying Hell, next will you turn to challenge the notion of evil personified: the Devil? I feel this is the next logical step. After discovering the Devil is a Persian notion which came from Zoroastrianism and leaked into late Judaism during the exilic period (remember the Serpent in the garden was no more than that: a crafty animal like many ancient mythological creatures, and remember too how long the Jews were in Babylon surrounded by their gods), where will you turn next? Perhaps Sin has no real being, no real substance, (show me sin-in-itself) and what Jesus really saves us from is inauthentic lives (postmodern)!

This is a domino game and the further you go the more pieces of your life will be scattered across the floor. Are you prepared to go to the very end? Any true seeker of truth will now take that leap from the precipice. Of course, to the end! When truth becomes more important than Church doctrine, tradition, than a great host of good men and women, Truth will teach you what you must suffer to have her. But there is some comfort in finding yourself among that company of Immortals who have dared...

To Truth! If you dare.