[From the Washington Post, a review (8.02.09):]
Thank God for agnostics. Over the past decade, our public conversation about religion has all too often degenerated into a food fight between the religious right and the secular left. Now comes journalist Robert Wright with a gentler approach: a materialist account of religion that manages (sort of) to make room for God (of a sort).
"The Evolution of God" is a big book that addresses a simple question: Is religion poison? ...The assumption underlying many answers to these questions--an assumption shared by fundamentalists and "new atheists" alike--is that religions are what their founders and scriptures say they are, rather than what contemporary practitioners make them out to be.
Wright rejects this assumption...Scriptures are malleable. Founders are betrayed. At least for historians, there is little provocation here. The provocation comes when Wright claims that religious history seems to be going somewhere, as if guided by an invisible hand. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all appear to have a "moral direction," and that direction is toward the good...
The key argument is that, ever since hunters and gatherers have been hunting and gathering, the invisible hand guiding human history has been working (largely through advances in technology and communication) to create non-zero-sum situations that force historical actors, often against their own inclinations, into ever-widening circles of moral concern. Jews, Christians and Muslims are led (gradually and in fits and starts) toward moral universalism not because religions are inherently good but because believers are inherently flexible--flexible enough to see when they and their enemies are in the same boat.
All this happens, it should be emphasized, on entirely naturalistic grounds. Wright, a self-described "materialist," believes that history is driven not by fiat from on high but by natural selection via "facts on the ground." In his account, Judaism gives rise to Christianity and Islam without even a whiff of the supernatural...
Yet all Wright's talk of "business models" and "algorithms" and "positive network externalities" somehow opens up the conversation about God rather than closing it down. In this oddly old-fashioned book, which recalls Hegel more than anyone else, Wright speaks repeatedly of "design" and "goals" and "purposes" in human history.
In the end, Wright allows himself to wonder whether the evolution of "God," the concept, might provide evidence for the existence of God, the reality. "If history naturally pushes people toward moral improvement, toward moral truth, and their God, as they conceive their God, grows accordingly, becoming morally richer," he writes, "then maybe this growth is evidence of some higher purpose, and maybe -- conceivably--the source of that purpose is worthy of the name divinity."
This is a good and interesting review of a more interesting book. What I find most notable about it is that Wright embraces a deterministic observation--an inference, really--more openly expressed these days by voices in evolutionary science and observers of humanity and history. That inference is that there appears a "direction," perhaps a "purpose," to the evolution of mankind, his experience in community and with religion--perhaps even a "higher purpose."--"Preaching the Gospel of Maybe," a review by Stephen Prothero of The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, The Washington Post (8.02.09). Stephen Prothero is a religious studies professor at Boston University and the author of Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- and Doesn't.
Wright posits that the evolution of religions has recurrently set the occasion for extending the “moral imagination”—shared moral empathy, even identity—among ever-expanding groups of people from different religious traditions. Focusing on the Abrahamic faiths, he explains how this has been happening over the millennia as the growth and advancement of peoples in the world pushes them closer into expanding definitions of community and the need for mutually-beneficial cooperation, what he calls “non-zero-sumness.” And yes, Mr. Wright opens the door for consideration of “direction” and “higher purpose” in it all, which for him are “moral truth” and the “source of the moral order.” But if some people of faith feel implicitly invited, even compelled, to extend his inferences further, Mr. Wright, by reasoned conviction, stops short of the scientifically unprovable: Deity.
Many people of Abrahamic religious identities will surely object to some of Wright's observations about the history and evolution of their Scriptures and narratives, their faith practices and community, and faith itself--the "evolution of God." Many will dismiss the book as misleading or unimportant--perhaps even insulting--to people of faith, because its thesis is such a modest concession in the direction of a deterministic quality to the world, and leaves them well short of the sought after validation of deistic faith--and their particular version of it. Its intellectual inferences and speculations clearly fail to embrace an omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous and intervening personal God--whether imagined as anthropomorphic (which is hard to reconcile with ubiquitous), a spirit being of some type, or something different or more abstract. Interestingly, Wright nevertheless provides an Afterword in which he speculates on what God is. (The Gospel of John's more abstract characterizations as Spirit, Logos, Love, Truth and Light resonate most with me.) And, of course, on the other end of the continuum, many atheists and anti-theists will also reject Wrights inferences outright, fearful that they go too far and imply too much.
But the closer a person of faith and prayer is necessarily drawn to spiritual or deistic abstractions, the closer Robert Wright's more abstract reflections and possibilities approach an affirming determinism not at all antagonistic to the intuition and experience of faith, Abrahamic or others. Wright clearly suggests that, among various abstractions of "higher purpose", his "the source of the moral order" is not so distant from Christian theologian-philosopher Paul Tillich's "the ground of being," or, for that matter, the estimable psychologist-philosopher William James' "belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting to it." Of course, many conservative and fundamentalist believers would sniff dismissively at the reflections of Tillich and James, too. But my point is simply that they nevertheless find a legitimate, meaningful place on the field of religious or spiritual discourse.
I would also suggest that, among the various organized religions, conceptual abstractions of "higher purpose" would likely first find resonance with notions of spiritual truth, divinity, or Deity among the most prayerfully devout, the more contemplative groups or adherents of those faiths. For, with regard to their spiritual apprehensions, epiphanies, and understandings that most defy description or explanation, conceptual abstractions alone are useful in expressing them and relating to them.
But to the the conservative and fundamentalist, Wright's inferences will most often be viewed as misguided speculations and meaningless abstractions--an intellectual construction of an ambiguous, godless determinism irreconcilable with the Scriptures, constraints and requirements of their Abrahamic religions.
Evolutionary Convergences: Direction? Purpose?
As insightful and interesting as this book by Wright is, it is not the most important to infer an inherent or overarching "direction" or "purpose" from empirical observations of the evolutionary progress of life, mankind, and human community. Notable is his earlier, highly-acclaimed book, Nonzero, which first set the foundation for Evolution of God. But for me, the more important work belongs to Simon Conway Morris (as shared in my essay/post, Conway Morris: Evolutionary "Convergences"--with a Purpose? (Hyde Park's Corner 6.24.08).
Dr. Conway Morris is chaired Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge, UK. His pioneering work on the Cambrian fauna, the "Cambrian explosion" (of life and species, that is) based on the Burgess Shale fossils was the subject of his 1998 book, The Crucible of Creation. It earned him world-wide professional recognition and respect. He is a member of the Royal Society and has been the recipient of many professional awards and medals.
But for our purposes, his more interesting and provocative work advanced the proposition that evolutionary "convergences" of form and function play a more central, universal role in the evolution of life forms on Earth--and that evolutionary "direction" or "purpose" might be inferred from it. And, yes, Conway Morris offers his conclusion on that "direction" and "purpose": the evolution of sentient, reasoning beings--and all the additional metaphysical questions of "Why?" and "What purpose?" that follow from it.
By evolutionary "convergences" is meant the tendency of evolving forms to find the same or very similar evolutionary solutions in species advancement regardless of when or on what branch of the evolutionary tree the life form evolves. Overworked examples would include camera eyes and various types of limbs for mobility and manipulation, among many others. But, most intriguing is his proposition that sentience and cognition are also convergent evolutionary solutions, and that something like intelligent humans would evolve regardless of how many times you rerun the evolutionary process of life. (This proposition was the subject of a years-long disagreement and debate between he and Steven J. Gould.)
Professor Conway Morris's case is most comprehensively presented and defended in his 2003 book, confidently titled, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. That was followed in 2008 by The Deep Structure of Biology: Is Convergence Sufficiently Ubiquitous to Give a Directional Signal?, which he organized and edited. This volume is a compendium of articles by authors representing interests as varied as micro-biology, botany, human evolution, metaphysics and faith. They offer a range of views on these questions of "direction" and "purpose," and whether there results a "deeper structure," a purposeful lawfulness in the evolutionary mechanisms and constraints in the world of biology.
Of course, Conway Morris's work and conclusions have their detractors, most prominent among them--in addition to Gould--being committed anti-theists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. For they see the implications of this work leading to more serious consideration of questions of Higher Purpose, spiritual Truth, even Deity, where my brethren in faith most often do not, or are indifferent to it. The anti-theists are concerned about credible stepping stone being laid down a slippery slope. The fact that Conway Morris is a Roman Catholic Christian likely makes them all the more uncomfortable.
Regardless, skeptics, atheists, and anti-theists will still take a measure of comfort in the fact that however provocative this research and reasoning, however appealing its more deterministic mechanisms to some people of faith, it still takes us no closer to proving or disproving the existence of God, however defined. Yet, it nonetheless reflects better how some of we faithful might envision how a creative Higher Order, Author Spirit or abstract Deistic notion--God, however imagined--might order and direct the purposes for creation. I conclude on this point as I did in my 2005 essay, What God?:
And so I am left with my epiphanies, still asking, what could be more miraculous and awe-inspiring, more beautiful, more humbling, than the complexities and unfathomable realities of evolutionary mechanisms and the progress of life? How else than through these evolving genetic, biochemical, social and psychological processes might all of creation have moved continually upward toward sentience and cognition, curiosity and questioning, the pursuit of truth and identity? For what other purpose might we be brought face to face with the history of the development of creation, and those transcendent apprehensions that lead us, than to seek the sensed Author and understandings of who we are and why we are now here?Prayer & Spiritual Experience of God: Inferences, Abstractions
Whether confronted with the science and evolutionary interpretations of Simon Conway Morris, or the insights of Robert Wright, many are nevertheless so committed to their identities and understandings that they will not or cannot be moved from them. Some cannot get past the rigidities of their faith or anti-theism, others their indifferent complacency. But there are others who will listen and consider the importance of new research findings and inferences, new understandings and insights.
Among them are those who open-mindedly seek an informed, functioning balance of existential and spiritual identity. Some don't even mind being a "fool for Christ," as the Apostle Paul used that phrase, but will not be a simple fool--the kind of fool who is closed-mindedly blinkered to information and ideas that may conflict with or challenge their beliefs and identity, particularly their religious or ideological identity. For if it is the truth they seek, they must be open to what the truth might be.
These are often people of deistic faith and prayerful dispositions, sometimes contemplative dispositions. Perhaps they are genetically predisposed (as research evidence suggests some may be). And perhaps their temperament (which is also likely genetically influenced) renders them more open to following a spiritual intuition or inclination. Of course, many are also influenced by family and religious acculturation. Regardless, many people appear to have a constructive, emotional need for faith and prayer. They feel drawn, even called to it. Many of us relate to it in just that way, and it makes us more whole.
For some, that wholeness is advanced by transcendent, sometimes transforming spiritual experience, experience that often defies fair and useful description. Often attending it is a received sense of gratitude, humility, even peace. These are most often people whose spiritual journey has delivered them to a more devout, exploratory prayer life and experience of God, experiences not bound by the limitations of rigid fundamentalism, constrained scriptural understandings, or brittle theological barriers. And they share no space with religious legalism of any stripe or degree. But they can share a Spirit of love, forgiveness and compassion, even an experience of "relationship"--and as often, a quiet, patient but engaged openness that offers more freedom and clarity of view, more insight and understanding. And it all can change you.
This more open, contemplative experience can allow us to see in the realities of the material world, and the evolution of humanity in community, the creation and work of God. Every new scientific revelation about it all, every new understanding informed by reason, can be openly considered, and allowed to find its place in the larger reality of a merging existential and spiritual life. You may also feel moved toward Wright's "non-zero-sumness," an expanding sense of commonality, even inclusiveness and community, toward all other people. For, whether you view all this as some variant of the theological, exegetical notion of "progressive revelation," or merely the evolution of our understandings of God, we by nature (or purpose) seek to reach higher, to understand more, to become more.
And on this spiritual walk to higher ground, a growing sense of humility appears essential. The more humility we can bring to this process, the more open and contemplative our prayerful time can become, it seems, and the more clear and unburdened, even transcendent, our understanding of the world and our sense of identity. And the more open we are to expanding our experience of what people of faith call the Spirit of God.
Some of us embrace a Christianity of that type: an open-minded pilgrimage with Christ and the Spirit of God, with Mystery. But we must be intellectually and spiritually honest. For the more one enters into that type of faith and prayer life, the more personal the experience and relationship becomes. And the more important it becomes to recognize how powerfully the language and traditions of faith culture and society shape how we understand those experiences. That is, they inform the inferences and abstractions we become reliant on to find meaning, direction and purpose in those experiences. If we are to be intellectually and spiritually accountable, then, we must also look beyond our personal inferences and abstractions, and those shared or recorded by others of our faith tradition. We must explore those of other faith, contemplative, and philosophical traditions--and the work of research science, too--that also inform our experience, that affirm, augment or advance our understandings.
So thank you, Robert Wright. I think you're onto something--and to Simon Conway Morris, too. But more, I'm grateful for the insights of the Psalms, Sufi and Chan/Zen poetry, and the understandings given up by my faith Scriptures and reverenced texts across faith traditions. For if we would seek some semblance of physical, emotional and spiritual balance, we must pursue well informed personal understandings of the existential and spiritual directions implied by life and humanity in community—and yes, of Higher Purpose, too. And in that process, we must also honor and wrestle respectfully with the complexities of identity, and pursue intelligently the possibility and purpose of doing something useful and honorable with it.
So yes, we should entertain that continuing invitation to be more adventurous in those inquiries and pursuits. And as essential and illuminating as research science is, we should recognize that quite often only the process of reasoned inferences and conceptual abstractions will serve. I'm certainly grateful for how they invite me to think more broadly and comprehensively, more critically, more profoundly about my experiences and understandings of humanity, spirituality, God and faith.
First written: August 2009
© Gregory E. Hudson 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment