A creature adapted for wonder

"Religion functions at the boundary where the knowable faces the unknown and the unknowable," says Bruce Deverell, in this "guest" contribution. This post is written in response to Dan Rhoads' post on his Migrations blog, Religion and Ethnocentrism: Is Religion Adaptive?

Religion and Ethnocentrism
Is Religion Adaptive?

Mechanisms by which religion
may have positively impacted
adaptive fitness

How might they have occurred?

A response

Dan, I hope you don't mind me joining in the discussion. Our son John Bryden shared your blog site with me. I have been a bit slow to respond. My brain has not adapted to sending well thought out arguments in quick time on the internet which blogging seems to require.

I am conscious of dealing with someone from a different tribe!

My response is based on my experience of living and working in the Pacific Islands for most of our working lives (as a Protestantminister). Recently I have renewed my involvement in interfaith dialogue and have visited a Moslem Mosque and attended the combined annual meeting of the Council of Christians and Jews and the Council of Christians and Moslems in Auckland with a woman from each faith talking about preparing food for special celebrations. This involvement will keep me in touch with the religious side of the discussion.

I am also drawing on the five books that I have been reading in thepast year or two including my introduction to the book Pacific Rituals: Living or Dying (details below). I do not normally read widely on asubject but select a book which may reflect original thinking in aparticular area and stay with that over a period of time. These five books provide me with different perspectives that may be more or less pertinent to the issues you raise.

But first I try to identify clarify my understanding of religion and religious experience in a series of assertions about religion and religious experience that I have called 'thesis' statements. This is followed by some definitions of religion. (It is not clear to me from your first article what your understanding of religion is).

Religion and Religious Experience

WONDER

God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal deity,
but we die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance,
renewed daily, of a wonder, the source of which is beyond all reason.

Dag Hammarskjold, former General Secretary of the United Nations, in Markings p64

Theses

Human beings have always lived in a known world surrounded by the unknown. “Scientific knowledge is like an island in an ocean of the unknown” (statement by a bioethicist in a BBC interview).

Religion functions at the boundary where the knowable faces the unknown and the unknowable. The boundary changes with the increase of knowledge but a boundary remains. The boundary can also be thought of as a horizon. (Rosenberg)

The response of awe, fear, wonder, dread in the face of events and experiences which transcend normal knowledge, explanation and understanding is at the very heart of human experience that may be called religious. This experience is not confined to 'religious' people.

Human communities have special places, people, times, events... which are believed to be sacred (tapu) and filled with a special kind of holy power (mana). These sacred places,objects, times, words...must not be lightly played around with as they seem to have a fundamental function of giving order and meaning to society over a period of time.

Rituals are the means by which these events and experiences are symbolised, remembered and relived from generation to generation and recognised as sacred. Rituals are a focal point for understanding religions. (Pacific Rituals)

Humans are conscious beings with the ability not only to know but to know that they know (the capacity for conscious reflection), and to know that they are known. This capacity gives humans knowledge of their world involving recognising, reflecting, remembering , imagining, naming, symbolising, ritualising...

From the beginning of history humans sought to name in a personal way these difficult to understand and explain events and experiences which impinge on their daily lives. Such events seem to reveal some kind of intervening living presence and intention. Human beings want to give names to these experiences that are personal, whether they be regarded as spirits, gods, some kind of supreme being or simply forces of nature.

When religious people or scientists lose the sense of wonder they begin to find it hard to adapt – they die (Hammarskjold above).

Some Definitions of Religion

Some definitions of religion from the The Oxford Shorter Dictionary in historical order:

• religion (Latin): an obligation (as of an oath), a bond between man and the gods, reverence for the gods;
  

1. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the religious life
2. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice or rites or observances implying this.
3. A particular system of faith and worship.
4. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, as being entitle to obedience, reverences, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this relief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feelings a standard of spiritual and practical life.

A tribe is a territorial social organisation of people descended from a common ancestor. Territorial boundaries protect the tribe but they are also places where interaction takes place with others. Since they are often places of uncertainty and dispute they are often regarded as taboo areas.

Perspectives from Books I have been Reading

In this my first response I list the five books I have been reading with a brief indication of their subject matter and a hint of potential relevance to your statement that “a more rigorous explanation of the mechanisms by which religion may have positively impacted adaptive fitness. How might that have occurred?”

Then I provide a summary of Barbour's understanding of where the theory of evolution is at now. I have also included the part of my introductory essay in Pacific Rituals which focusses on continuity and change.

In each of these books I am struggling with material that is beyond me. I am like a blind man touching different parts of the elephant and trying to make sense of it all with my limited faculties!

Pacific Rituals:Living or Dying is an edited collection of essays written by undergraduate theological students at the Pacific Theological College, Suva, Fiji. The students attempted to describe traditional rituals, most still being practised, from different their island cultures. My introductory essay raises the question implied in the title as to how rituals can and do adapt to the modern world and how they can contribute to that adaptation or stifle it. (see below for an extract)

Barbour's Nature, Human Nature, and God has provided me with the opportunity to catch a glimpse of how Darwin's theory of biological evolution is itself evolving. This raises questions about how the present thinking about the theory of evolution in biology affects our thinking about how religions evolve and how they change and adapt.

Rosenberg's Abraham: the First Biographical History has given me a whole new perspective on understanding the roots of Abram's story in the Sumerian culture. Rosenberg argues that the Sumerians were clear about the boundary between the known and the unknown and as they “pushed back the boundary of the unknowable” they “allowed religion its own realm”.

Rosenberg's careful study gives an imaginative account of how Abram's family migrated from the declining civilisation of Sumer towards a more or less unknown land and future. What were the essential elements of the Sumerian culture that they took with them? How did they respond to the gods of the new land? How did they adapt the world view of the Sumerians as they arrived in the land of promise?

Rosenberg's careful and imaginative study of the changing contexts of the writing of the different strands of the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Torah, show a process of adaptation to changing events and circumstances. In particular his study of how the name of Yahweh evolved in the story portrayed in the first written strand of the Torah (The “J” or Yahwist document) provides a fascinating picture of how the naming of this somewhat elusive and unpredictable presence named Yahweh evolved in the story of Abram/Abraham. This continued in the long process of writing the Hebrew Scriptures through critical events over many centuries.

This, as well as other recent Old Testament scholarship, makes the study of the Hebrew Scriptures an important case study of the question “do religions adapt and if so how?” What about other world religions?

The French atheistic antiphilosopher Bardiou in his book Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism sees St Paul as a the “militant figure” who “is a poet-thinker of the event”. The book provides an extremely important way of thinking in terms of the universal. Perhaps the focus on events and the crucial role of how the original thinker with poetic imagination can be a deciding factor as to whether the religious response may positively impact adaptive fitness.

Paul Davies' The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? puts everything in the big picture of the evolving universe. He writes: “For life to evolve, and then to evolve into conscious beings like ourselves, certain conditions have to be satisfied”. These include: a good supply of the various elements needed to make biomass, this life encouraging setting has to remain benign for a long time, the universe must be sufficiently old and cool to permit complex chemistry, it has to be orderly enough to permit untrammelled formation of galaxies and stars, there has to be the right sorts of forces acting between particles of matter to make stable atoms, complex molecules, planets and stars. If almost any of the basic features of the universe , from the properties of atoms to the distribution of galaxies, were different, life would probably be impossible....The universe seems just right for life in many intriguing ways....”. Religions too have long periods of equilibrium which may make it difficult to adapt to change when relative equilibrium is punctuated by unexpected events.

Evolution

The theory of evolution has been evolving. Barbour has written many important books on the relation of science and religion. I have been trying to grasp hold of what this means by wrestling with Ian Barbour's book Nature, Human Nature, and God. In chapter 2 he gives an account of where the theory of evolution is at now.

The following is my summary of the key points.See Barbour pp12-14

Darwin's theory

In Darwin's day, Newtonian mechanics was looked on as the form of science that other sciences should emulate. The Newtonian viewpoint was atomistic, deterministic, and reductionist. It was believed that the behaviour of all systems is determined by a few simple laws governing the behaviour of their smallest components. Change was thought to be the result of external forces, such as gravity acting on bodies that are themselves essentially passive. Darwin agreed with the philosophers of science who held that Newtonian physics represented the ideal for all sciences, and his theory of evolution shared many of its assumptions (Barbour p11).

Expansion of Darwinism

Some biologists postulate that:

• selection occurs at many levels:
• evolution has long periods of relatively little change indispersed with bursts of rapid speciation (punctuated equilibrium);
• natural selection has many different causes;
• internal drives drives and novel actions of organisms can initiate evolutionary changes;the autonomy of biology from physics.

Beyond Darwinism

Future understanding of evolution may be enhanced by recent work on chaos and complexity, evolution as a product of self-organisation as well as chance, new advances in embryology and developmental biology, how developmental patterns are constrained by hierarchical organisation and the possibility of a paradigm shift from Darwinism to something beyond Darwin's theory.

Self organisation, indeterminacy, top-down causality and communication of information need to be taken into account in evolutionary theory.

How does the present thinking about the theory of evolution in biology affect your thinking about how religions evolve and how they change and adapt?

Rituals: Continuity and Change

This excerpt from my introduction to Pacific Rituals: Living or Dying focusses on the issues of continuity and change. It puts the issue of religious change into a community rather than an individualist context.

In oral societies particularly, continuity is preserved by a special emphasis on conservation of forms, symbols, formulaic expressions and ritual structures, and a resistance to change. "All sacred things must be kept in their place" (Levi-Strauss 1970:10). Rituals keep sacred things in place. Nevertheless living rituals are changeable. They can adapt to situation, circumstance, people and a changing world. So while rituals conserve the traditions, the values, the central symbols of a people, they can also be sources of creativity and change. They are not unthinking human activities — or need not be so.

Susanne Langer (1976) puts forward the thesis that all human symbolising activity may rightly be called thinking. In this light the complex symbolical activity of rituals reflects intelligent corporate human behaviour. And intelligence can be seen as the adaptation of the inward sense of meaning, identity and understanding to the realities of the external world. Since rituals are human activities they contain within them the possibility and promise of adaptation and change. They can be changed, and they can also be sources of change.

Devilish or Divine

Rituals have a special way of making possible and nurturing creativity in human culture and society, and facilitating its expression. This is perhaps because on the one hand the ritual puts people in touch with hidden and unconscious sources of their being both as individuals and as a community,and on the other because they provide a symbol system with which to explore and express the unspeakable. So words, music and movements of a Fijian meke, or ritual dance can be dreamed up for a special occasion or event and enable people to make sense of the new by using the forms of the old. Or a Samoan orator working with the traditional structure and language forms of the formal orator's speech can creatively transcend the formal structure, and express what has not been expressed before in a way that leads people to a new level of perception and understanding that enables them to embrace the new in a memorable way. A living ritual conserves what is potentially creative.

Not all change, however, is creatively good. There is something very ambiguous about human ritual behaviour. It is difficult to talk about this dimension without using religious terminology. Rituals can be devilish or divine. They can be seen as human creations which are the gifts of the gods. But they can also be recognised as being captured by diabolical forces which distort, confuse, destroy. The word symbol comes from the Greek word symbolos meaning to throw or cast together. Symbols bring many things together in a single complex whole. They create a sense of wholeness. The word diabolical however comes from the Greek word diabolos, meaning to throw apart, to scatter. The diabolical scatters, causing fragmentation, disorder, chaos. It is a strange contradiction that symbols can become diabolical. And what is true of symbols is also true of rituals.

Susanne Langer uses the words (1953:46) "semblance" and "illusion" to indicate the transparent nature of humanly created art forms. The symbolic forms used in different kinds of art are humanly created semblances or illusions which enable the unspeakable inner experience of different kinds of reality to be known, expressed, talked about, and analysed. So rituals too are humanly created illusions which are at the same time the gifts of the gods. Their reality is not in what they are, but in what they point to, what they represent, what they convey to us, what they put us in touch with. And what they put us in touch with is not the tangible but the intangible, not the seeable but the unseeable, not the experience of the ordinary but the experience of transcendence in and through the ordinary and the physical. For example through the illusions of gesture and dance the sense of power and presence is conveyed and through music, time takes on the dimension of the eternal. Architecture creates an illusion of cultic or cultured space and drama gives an illusion of action directed towards the future out of the past (Langer 1953, Collins 1983:98ff). Through the combination of these created illusions in ritual the transcendent is experienced in indefinable but real ways, and life itself takes on a new dimension.

Since they have this character of humanly created illusions however, rituals may also delude. When the illusion is treated as the reality there is idolatry. So rituals may lead to a deeper and truer perception of reality, but they may also lead people to live in an imaginary world out of touch with reality. They may hold people in a past which can no longer exist and prevent them from facing the realities of the present. They may make a certain kind of order possible that contains the seeds of chaos and destruction; They may project an illusory hope for the future which cannot be fulfilled. They may give an illusion of power that may lead to delusions of grandeur and to paranoia. They may let loose hidden powers which can disrupt, distort and destroy. To play around with rituals and misuse them can be dangerous. But to find in them the sacred source of that which is creative of life, wholeness, healing, is to discover a transformative power in society which enables people to live into the future out of the present through the presence of the remembered past.

Some Final Comments

My background and reading has put the issues you raise into a different and broader context. I realise that I have not responded directly to many of the issues you have raised in your first article – particularly the issue of ethnocentrism in religion. That will have to wait!

But in the light of your comment that 'the capacity for religion can be described as arising from a “loose confederacy of separate modules in the human brain”' I would like to know more about what that means. What kinds of changes take place in the brains for example of birds and humans as they adapt or fail to adapt to new situations?

Bruce

References

• Barbour, Ian. 2002. Nature, Human Nature and God. Augsburg: Fortress Press
• Bardiou, Alain. 2003. Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism. Translated by Ray Brassier. Stanford: Stanford University Press
• Davies, Paul. 2006. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? London: Allen Lane
• Deverell, Gweneth & Bruce John (eds). 1986: Pacific Rituals: Living or Dying. Suva. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
• Rosenberg, David. 2006. Abraham: The First Historical Biography. New York: Basic Books.

Secular thinker envisaged universal religion

Recent posts on this blog have been discussing the idea that religion evolves. An interesting sidelight of the subject appears in Jack Mclean's blog.

Jack notes that Eric Fromm wrote on the development of a new universalistic religion in his 1955 book, The Sane Society. It seems Fromm may have been influenced by a Baha'i he was corresponding with. Fromm is quoted thus:

The most important feature of such a religion will be its universalistic character, corresponding to the unification of mankind which is taking place in this epoch; it would embrace the humanistic teachings common to all the great religions of the East and of the West; its doctrines would not contradict the rational insight of mankind today, and its emphasis would be on the practice of life, rather than on doctrinal beliefs.

See:

Pilgrim's Notes: Eric Fromm and the Bahá'í Faith

technorati tags:religion, evolution, Marxism, universal religion, Eric Fromm, psychologist, science and religion, secular faith, globalisation, Bahai, Baha'i

Humanity's pilgrimage towards unity

One of the strong objections raised by non-believers towards religion is that it is a "tribalistic" force which is having dangerously divisive effects in the present age of the global village. This objection is worthy of deep consideration by religious believers, given that there is ample evidence in the news every day of religion playing a major part in creating civil and international conflict. Taking into account this terrible and tragic reality of the present world scene, does religion have a future?

My sparring-partner in a fruitful dialogue on whether religion has outlived its usefulness, Dan, puts it this way:

While nationalistic faiths (i.e., those that strongly define "in-group" and "out-group"; see "Tribalism" section of my Religion and Ethnocentrism essay) are probably very adaptive in warring societies, they have decidedly less utility in peaceful societies. Yet, nationalistic faiths (e.g., Christianity and Islam) appear to dominate Western, Near Eastern and Middle Eastern societies still, despite a crowded world with increasingly dangerous (nuclear) weapons in which we would do better to cooperate in.

The above paragraph was part of Dan's response to my assertion that the Muslim pilgrimage is an example of the unifying power of religion, showing that such religious institutions have historically worked to break down barriers of ethnicity and geography. To read the whole exchange, see the post, Pilgrimages and Migrations, on Dan's blog.

Dan's view that religion has become a largely reactionary and disunifying force, reflects an opinion that is obviously popular in humanist / rationalist circles. For instance, in a recent article, "Beyond the New Atheism", published by "The Humanist Online", the writer, Carl Coon, states:

I see a general theory emerging that explains religion in Darwinian terms, as one of the principal features of human culture that has bound groups together throughout the history and prehistory of our species. According to this theory, religion's forms have varied but the common denominator has been to help ensure that the individual cooperates with other members of the group. God emerges as a device that makes it easier for most individuals to understand how they should behave, and offers rewards and punishments to make them conform. In other words, God is a fiction of the human mind that survives because of its efficacy in inducing behavior that adds to the survivability of the group. It does this in part by reinforcing the "us versus them" mentality.

The problem with this evolutionary device is that when problems get global there's no longer room for a "them." We're all in it together and need universal binders, not just ones that thrive on setting select groups of people apart.

Already, in the nineteenth century, the fact that humankind had reached a new stage in its development, a stage when ancient prejudices would have to be put aside for the sake of our very survival, was vigorously proclaimed by Baha'u'llah (1817-1892), and subsequently by His appointed successor, His son 'Abdu'l-Baha (1844-1921). Baha'u'llah's call for world unity continues to be championed by the global Baha'i community, which He founded, down to the present day. Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha were well aware of the divisiveness of traditional religion that Dan and Carl Coon have pointed out. The need for obliterating inherited boundaries of "them and us" was explicitly addressed by 'Abdu'l-Baha:

In every dispensation, there hath been the commandment of fellowship and love, but it was a commandment limited to the community of those in mutual agreement, not to the dissident foe. In this wondrous age, however, praised be God, the commandments of God are not delimited, not restricted to any one group of people, rather have all the friends been commanded to show forth fellowship and love, consideration and generosity and loving-kindness to every community on earth. Now must the lovers of God arise to carry out these instructions of His: let them be kindly fathers to the children of the human race, and compassionate brothers to the youth, and self-denying offspring to those bent with years. The meaning of this is that ye must show forth tenderness and love to every human being, even to your enemies, and welcome them all with unalloyed friendship, good cheer, and loving-kindness.

('Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 20)

Again, 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote, in a letter to the Sixth International Congress of Free and Progressive Christians and Other Religious Liberals, held in Paris, 1913:

Religion, which was meant to be sweet honey, is changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which was to illumine humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and gloom. Religion, which was to confer the consciousness of everlasting life, has become the fiendish instrument of death. As long as these superstitions are in the hands and these nets of dissimulation and hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will be the most harmful agency on this planet. These superannuated traditions, which are inherited unto the present day, must be abandoned, and thus free from past superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The basis on which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to be one, and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible, complete unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of God will become unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the assemblage of the world.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)

It is hard to imagine the most eloquent of atheists expressing a more effective critique of misguided religion, than this religious leader!

In words that are even more pressingly relevant today than they were then, in the nineteenth century, Baha'u'llah wrote:

The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race... Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity.... Our hope is that the world's religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted world the remedy it requireth.

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 168)

In a talk given in New York in 1912, envisioning a transformation of society in the future, 'Abdul-Baha said:

The thoughts of man shall take such upward flight that former accomplishments shall appear as the play of children, for the ideas and beliefs of the past and the prejudices regarding race and religion have ever lowered and been destructive to human evolution. [emphasis added]

('Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 125)

The Baha'i teachings agree with evolutionary scientists studying religion, that it is indeed a phenomenon which is closely linked with the evolution of civilization, albeit the Baha'i perspective differs significantly from the strictly materialist concept proposed by Carl Coon, quoted above. The late Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi, wrote:

The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that Religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the non-essential aspects of their doctrines and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society. [Emphasis added.]

(Shoghi Effendi, "Summary Statement to the Special UN Committee on Palestine", 1947)

Shoghi Effendi also wrote:

Just as the organic evolution of mankind has been slow and gradual, and involved successively the unification of the family, the tribe, the city-state, and the nation, so has the light vouchsafed by the Revelation of God, at various stages in the evolution of religion, and reflected in the successive Dispensations of the past, been slow and progressive. Indeed the measure of Divine Revelation, in every age, has been adapted to, and commensurate with, the degree of social progress achieved in that age by a constantly evolving humanity. [emphases added]

(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 118)

It is in seeing religion as an evolving phenomenon that we can see that it has a future. Religion is not locked-in to what it was in the past.

Reflecting on the historical processes that took place when the "great religions" were born and grew, we see that particularly in their early stages, they dramatically pushed forward ahead of their times. For instance, the transformations wrought in the societies of the Middle East and Asia where Islam spread in its golden age, and the powerful social effects of practices like the hajj (pilgrimage), indicate that Islam was an overwhelmingly progressive force relative to the conditions of that age. But an organism that was once vigorous can weaken over time. We should not suppose that the creative essence of religion can be found in such forms of it as have deteriorated until merely the outward shell is left, and from which the animating spirit has departed. Such religion exists where practices established in the past continue of their own momentum, even while their original purpose has been forgotten. Institutions can die. Rituals can lose their meaning. This is not a blanket criticism of any or all religions. There are a great many followers of all the religions for whom religion continues to have a dynamic and outward-looking influence on their lives. Their belief is manifested in a myriad forms of service to humankind, and such individuals are leaders in working for charity, justice, and peace. Many a global network is made up of religious believers; even, in some cases, composed of followers of different religions banded together for some common cause of human betterment.

To my mind, the most powerful example of the renewal of the religious spirit in our own age is the birth and growth of the Baha'i Faith. The very fact that some 150 years ago Baha'u'llah drew attention to all the major issues besetting us now, including religious conflict, shows that religion and religious insight can still forge ahead of the times. Baha'u'llah called upon His followers:

Gird up the loins of your endeavor, O people of Baha, that haply the tumult of religious dissension and strife that agitateth the peoples of the earth may be stilled, that every trace of it may be completely obliterated. For the love of God, and them that serve Him, arise to aid this sublime and momentous Revelation. Religious fanaticism and hatred are a world-devouring fire, whose violence none can quench. The Hand of Divine power can, alone, deliver mankind from this desolating affliction.

(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 13)

Not only did Baha'u'llah create a body of teachings, he also established an organised worldwide community that now carries on the work that He started. It has spread to every country of the world and comprises members representing innumerable ethnic groups of every social class. The unity of this community in all its diversity gives practical expression to Baha'u'llah's vision.

Religion -- described by Baha'u'llahas "the Hand of Divine power" -- sees deep into reality and far into the future. It can accomplish results far surpassing those devised by any secular philosophy or programme.

No scheme which the calculations of the highest statesmanship may yet devise; no doctrine which the most distinguished exponents of economic theory may hope to advance; no principle which the most ardent of moralists may strive to inculcate, can provide, in the last resort, adequate foundations upon which the future of a distracted world can be built. ... Not even, I venture to assert, would the very act of devising the machinery required for the political and economic unification of the world -- a principle that has been increasingly advocated in recent times -- provide in itself the antidote against the poison that is steadily undermining the vigor of organized peoples and nations. What else, might we not confidently affirm, but the unreserved acceptance of the Divine Program enunciated, with such simplicity and force ... by Bahá'u'lláh, embodying in its essentials God's divinely appointed scheme for the unification of mankind in this age... is eventually capable of withstanding the forces of internal disintegration which, if unchecked, must needs continue to eat into the vitals of a despairing society.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 33)

I realise that "God's divinely appointed scheme for the unification of mankind" is a challenging concept to the secular mind. The word "religion" suggests images of rituals performed in temples and scholastic debates between theologians. In this guise, religion seems to be a human construct; something invented by priests, and increasingly irrelevant. But its Divine origin, its emergence out of the same unfathomable realm of pure Being that gives rise to matter and life, is clearly evident in the lives of the Founders of the great religions, including Baha'u'llah. The very appearance of these remarkable individuals at intervals throughout history is an astonishing thing. The originating genius of religion comes from Them. Theirs is an insight that is not of this world. Baha'is call them "Manifestations of God".

Briefly, the supreme Manifestations of God are aware of the reality of the mysteries of beings. Therefore, They establish laws which are suitable and adapted to the state of the world of man, for religion is the essential connection which proceeds from the realities of things. The Manifestation -- that is, the Holy Lawgiver -- unless He is aware of the realities of beings, will not comprehend the essential connection which proceeds from the realities of things, and He will certainly not be able to establish a religion conformable to the facts and suited to the conditions. The Prophets of God, the supreme Manifestations, are like skilled physicians, and the contingent world is like the body of man: the divine laws are the remedy and treatment. Consequently, the doctor must be aware of, and know, all the members and parts, as well as the constitution and state of the patient, so that he can prescribe a medicine which will be beneficial against the violent poison of the disease. In reality the doctor deduces from the disease itself the treatment which is suited to the patient, for he diagnoses the malady, and afterward prescribes the remedy for the illness. Until the malady be discovered, how can the remedy and treatment be prescribed? The doctor then must have a thorough knowledge of the constitution, members, organs and state of the patient, and be acquainted with all diseases and all remedies, in order to prescribe a fitting medicine.

Religion, then, is the necessary connection which emanates from the reality of things; and as the supreme Manifestations of God are aware of the mysteries of beings, therefore, They understand this essential connection, and by this knowledge establish the Law of God.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 158)

If religion can demonstrate the ability to meet the needs of our age, will we doubt that it has a future? If God continues to speak us through His Messengers, shall we doubt that He exists?

[This article has been edited since it was first posted earlier today.]

technorati tags:religion, atheism, bahai, Baha'i, Baha'u'llah, civilization, society, humanism, new atheism, evolution, evolution of religion, pilgrimage, history, science, faith, belief, God

Does religion meet reality?

Roger Scruton, an English philosopher, has posted a blog article, "Better off without religion?", giving a particularly clear and lucid account of the role of religion in meeting needs that are fundamental to human nature and to civilization.

A similar theme continues to be discussed between me and Dan Rhoads, on Dan's evolution-oriented blog, "Migrations", under "Is religion adapative?". This discussion went dormant for a couple of weeks, but has revived, under prompting from thoughts expressed by Roger Scruton and people commenting on his article.

These discussions are likely to be stimulating for anyone with an interest in the relationship between science and religion, and the role that religion plays in society.

Belief in God -- what difference does it make?

I find it interesting to state the basic atheist premise and the basic Monotheistic premise in very similar terms:

Atheist: “Nothing has caused existence. It just is.”

Theist: “No thing has caused existence. Its Cause just is.”

Rewording it a little differently, the atheist says, “existence is caused by nothing”; while the Theist says, “existence is caused by no thing”. The premise of Theism can be expressed as the idea that the cause of all things is not itself a thing. The theist asserts that the non-thing from which all things emerge must surely be very great, for how could this vast and complex universe have a trivial origin. The atheist replies perhaps, that the theist is trying to make something out of nothing. The atheist says that the universe itself contains whatever it needs to explain its own complexity. The believer then enquires as to whence came these amazing characteristics, since every effect must have a cause. The atheist replies, why must the universe as a whole, necessarily have a cause? The law of cause and effect applies between entities within the universe. There is no reason to suppose that the universe as a whole requires a cause.

The argument now looks suspiciously like its going round in circles. The atheist says the universe as a whole is uncaused. The believer says it is caused by an Uncaused Cause, which is to say that whatever the being of the universe ultimately rests on, it is uncaused.

I am reminded of Marzieh Gail’s statement: “Atheism expounded is nothing less than theism with some changes of vocabulary ...”

As a God-believer, I come down on the side of the Uncaused Cause. But having learned from a thoughtful blogger, Psiomniac, who has a fruitful way of raising questions for discussion, I am just going to invite comment on the following question:

Is there any significant difference between the view that the universe “just is”, and the view that it exists at the behest of an Uncaused Cause?

Nature's gifts (do we need them?)

An essay on the question, "do we need nature", written in 2003. It was written as an entry for a competition by the Economist magazine, on the issues outlined by the magazine as follows:

"Do we need nature? What are the difficult choices that need to be made in politics, economics, society and public policy? And who is right…? Those whose actions (or inactions) seek to increase man's control over nature, or those who seek to reduce man's control? Those who seek to bypass nature, or those who hope to work with it? Those who put a higher value on human development, or those who value the preservation, even the reconstitution of nature?"

Synopsis

In human eyes, nature sometimes seems to have a multiple personality disorder. It is both kind and cruel; both our humble servant and the capricious master of our fate. And we humans are likewise inconsistent. We seek to exploit nature’s resources, sometimes rapaciously, yet we worship its virginal beauty. We lord it over nature, but we fear the power of its tempests. These attitudes are evidence of a troubled relationship. Arising from our lack of understanding of nature, we are causing great damage to the global environment—polluting its air and poisoning its water. Our growing technological prowess threatens further problems.

Our conflict with nature originates from our nature as intelligent beings. All creatures thrive within their natural element: birds in the air, fish in the sea, worms in the soil. However, through science and technology, humans are able to overcome the laws that govern matter and all other life forms. The natural condition of our bodies is to walk the land and breathe the air, but we make artificial wings with which to fly, and scuba gear for breathing under water. Unfortunately, many of the outcomes of our ingenuity and enterprise are harmful to the natural environment, and therefore to ourselves.

The solution lies partly in acquiring greater scientific knowledge about nature’s processes, so as to better foresee the harmful consequences of proposed innovations. However, more significantly, we need a deeper understanding of our place in the universe. Not only does nature provide us with material resources, it also provides us with experiences that touch the soul, as poets like to remind us. There is an aspect of nature that is greater than ourselves, an immanence of the Divine. Through appreciation of this aspect of nature, we will be moved to treat it better.

Essay

Nature is a chameleon, a creature of changing colours. Nature is a nurturing mother and a ravenous beast; a treasure-store to be plundered and a sacred refuge for the sensitive soul; a wild jungle to be tamed and an eden of innocence to be preserved.

Our attitudes to nature tell us a lot about ourselves. If we see nature as the provider of infinite resources, as a whirlwind of capricious forces, as a mirror of the divine, or as the domain for scientific exploration—it is because we are beings who desire, who fear, who experience wonder, and who seek knowledge. Acting on these impulses, what we ask of nature, and the degree of our willingness to care for it in return, largely determine the character of our civilisation. There are many signs that our present global civilisation is asking too much and giving too little. The relationship between humanity and nature is under great strain; and yet the relationship absolutely must be made to work. We need to reach a better understanding of—and with—that tantalizing, ever-changing creature. We need a balanced perspective.

Daily new evidence appears of serious damage occurring to the environment as a result of human activity. One recent report was from the explorer, Jean Michel Cousteau, when he visited a chain of remote uninhabited islands north-west of Hawaii. He and the crew of his research ship expected to find an unspoiled wilderness, but instead they found tons of trash. The islands are located at a spot in the Pacific Ocean where currents converge and bring in flotsam from far away. On the beaches, Cousteau and his team found plastic toys, intact vials of medical drugs, miniature whiskey bottles, and assorted products of industry from all over the world. Numerous dead seabirds on the shores had perished due to eating morsels of plastic.

Those unpleasant products of human ingenuity washing up on remote shores highlight some of the major themes of our interaction with nature. Among them: human technological prowess and its negative effects, the complexity of the ecosystem, our inadequate understanding of that complexity, the global scope of environmental problems, and the grievous impact on the environment of our use-and-discard culture of consumerism. On the other hand, our inherent love for nature is reflected in the instinctive disgust provoked in us by hearing such a graphic tale of environmental degradation. Our relationship to nature is an emotional subject because it means everything to us. Outlined in broad strokes, nature’s gifts to us are:

• Existence: our being alive is an outcome of nature’s evolutionary processes.

• Sustenance: our food, drink, shelter, clothing, and all the resources that we use for survival and enjoyment, are provided by nature.

• Intelligence: being endowed by nature with intelligence, we have the ability to understand nature’s laws and use them to our advantage.

• Immanenceⁱ: through the contemplation of the divine beauty reflected in nature, we obtain insight and joy. Nature feeds the soul as well as the body.

When nature’s gifts are described in this way, obviously a definition of nature is being used that encompasses the whole of existence. The word “nature” has 20 definitions, according to one dictionaryⁱⁱ, the broadest and most abstract being: “the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe”. A small step down the ladder of abstraction is: “the universe, with all its phenomena”. A few rungs lower is the definition that we as human beings we are mostly concerned with, in our parochial way: “the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities”. This last definition encapsulates a crucial dilemma of the human condition: we are surrounded by nature, totally dependent on it, but somehow separate from it, for it exists “independently of human activities”.

O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?

—W.B. Yeatsⁱⁱⁱ

What separates us from nature is our scientific and technological prowess. Natural phenomena, in contrast to human beings, unalterably obey natural laws. Fire always burns, water always flows, plants simply go on growing. Even animals, although sentient and having freedom of movement, are limited in their range of activities. Humans, uniquely, fashion wheels to reduce distance, telescopes to augment eyesight, and vaccines to prevent disease. The human mind is a remarkable instrument, able to imaginatively project itself outward to distant galaxies, and peer down into the atom, in order to discover the secrets of nature through observation, experimentation and reason. So powerful is this instrument that we can even seriously pose the question: “do we need nature?” Of course we do, but the question is meaningful because we know that we are in some degree independent of nature. Probing just how far this independence goes is crucial for our self-understanding and progress.

To start such a probe we might ask: how did it come to be that humanity, a creature of nature, finds itself independent of it? A plausible answer is that the appearance of intelligent beings is inherent in nature itself. This theory runs along the following lines. As discovered by physics, the universe began with a “big bang” about 15 billion years ago. At that moment, the whole universe existed in the form of a single point (mathematically termed a “singularity”). All matter, space and time were compressed into this singularity, which exploded outwards and has continued to expand ever since. An observation by astronomers confirming the expansion is that the galaxies are not in fixed positions, but are rushing away from each other. Furthermore, not only is the cosmos expanding spatially, but it is also becoming more complex. The trend towards greater complexity is manifested in the evolution of life. Based on this scenario, it is argued that everything that has existed and will exist in the universe, including intelligent life (e.g., us), is an outcome of the properties inherent in the universe at the beginning. An analogy is that the pattern for the whole of a tree—its trunk, branches, leaves and fruit—is contained within the seed. If this view of the universe is correct, then it is natural for human beings to be unnatural!

As a result of our unnatural abilities, human intervention in nature has far-reaching effects. This is evident in cities, where concrete covers the soil—but in the country, nature is only relatively more liberated. The roof over our head may be of thatch or steel; our home may be surrounded by a formal garden or untamed weeds; our mode of transport may be a donkey (an animal under our control) or a Ferarri (a metal beast possibly under our control). The human interface with nature has thousands of such nuances. How may we judge that any of these variations is better or worse?

The choices we make are important because they determine our environment. We act on nature to create our environment, and in turn the environment influences our health and happiness, in a continuous loop. Although we can utilise and channel nature’s forces, we cannot dominate it. At times we have the illusion that we can, because of our ability to divert rivers, breed cattle, grow genetically engineered crops, overcome human fertility problems, and perform endless other feats. However, when nature is treated with disdain, it bites back. We know this from many examples constantly reported, of suffering resulting from things that go wrong. The poisoned air of big cities, the pollution of rivers, the destruction of rainforests, global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, and the unforeseen side-effects of wonder-drugs, are familiar stories. Clearly we need to be making better choices, based on a more realistic and holistic understanding of nature.

Poets have traditionally been sensitive nature’s gifts. In the springtime, when nature’s power is most lavishly displayed, they have often been moved to heights of eloquence. Yet T.S. Eliot’s 1922 poem, “The Wasteland”^iv, begins by saying that April, springtime in the northern hemisphere, “is the cruellest month”. It is an apt symbol for the discord between humanity and nature in modern civilisation. Similarly, Gerard Manley Hopkins, a few decades earlier, wrote of nature: “All is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil”.^v But Hopkins’ poem went on: “And for all this, nature is never spent; There lives the dearest freshness deep down in things”. For Hopkins, the world was “charged with the grandeur of God”. Such awe and respect for the aspect of nature which is greater than ourselves is the antidote to materialistic greed. An appreciation for the true significance of nature will empower us to rise to the best that we can be. As stated by Bahá’u’lláh:

How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed.^vi

This essay has not tried to answer specific questions on the wisdom of genetic modification, nuclear power and the like. Such questions need to be weighed up in each case by taking into account a wide variety of information from the physical sciences, economics, sociology and politics. However, when a sense of spiritual principle guides the decision-making process, it is less likely that dreadful mistakes will be made. We gain a truer perspective on nature when we seek to rise to our potential as human beings and practice virtues such as justice, generosity, wisdom, and detachment. Then, when we utilise the earth’s resources, we also remember to preserve its beauty. When we seek to channel its forces, we do so with due regard for the consequences. As we seek knowledge of its processes, we experience wonder in the face of its mysteries. We see the earth as our home for a time, and as a legacy to be passed on to future generations. We need nature, and so will they.

APPENDIX

Nature’s Nest

Like birds that flit around a mountain crest
All creatures thrive within their element
Then do we humans — need nature’s nest?

Who crazed or blessed with intellectual zest
Traverse the earth in constant discontent
Like birds that flit around a mountain crest

Unceasing in our restless human quest
To shape the world as our intent is bent
Then do we humans — need nature’s nest?

Cruelly our crude aims nature will contest
And blow us on its rocky slopes all spent
Like birds that flit around a mountain crest

But when we turn our minds to seek its best
Reveals a richer realm for our ascent
Then do we humans — need nature’s nest?

Not less than a babe at the mother’s breast
We grow in a world for us most clement
Then do we humans — need nature’s nest?
Like birds that flit around a mountain crest

Footnotes

iEntry for “immanence” in the encyclopedia at www.Infoplease.com

immanence [Lat.,=dwelling in], in metaphysics, the presence within the natural world of a spiritual or cosmic principle, especially of the Deity. It is contrasted with transcendence. The immanence of God in the world is the basic feature of pantheism. Among the most important philosophies using the concept of immanence are Stoicism and the systems of Giordano Bruno and Spinoza. In general, the great monotheistic religions have held that God is both immanent and transcendent, although individual thinkers have tended to emphasize one or the other aspect.

iiThe definitions of “nature” referred to here are from the dictionary at www.Infoplease.com

iiiLast two lines of W.B. Yeats’ poem, “Among School Children”. See The Yeats Reader: A Portable Compendium of Poetry, Drama and Prose, Richard J. Finneran, ed., Scribner Poetry, 1997, pp. 90–92

ivT.S. Eliot, The Waste Land and Other Poems, Frank Kermode, ed., Penguin Books, 2003.

vFrom “God’s Grandeur” in Poems and Prose of Gerard Manley Hopkins, W.H. Gardner, ed., Penguin Books, 1963, p. 27.

viBaha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 177