Today’s Post
Last week we took a look at the potential synergy between religion and science as seen by Jonathan Sacks, who understood it to be not only possible but necessary.
Sacks also returned us to the underlying theme of this blog when he introduced a secular concept of religion:
“Science needs religion, or at the very least some philosophical understanding of the human condition and our place within the universe, for each fresh item of knowledge and each new accession of power raises the question of how it should be used, and for that we need another way of thinking.”
This week we will look at how this statement is a key insight into “The Secular Side of God”.
The Secular Side of God and Continuing Human Evolution
We have seen how Johan Norberg in his book, “Progress”, offers significant metrics on the unprecedented two hundred year uptick in human welfare that has occurred since the mid eighteen hundreds. We also saw how Norberg sees the two characteristics of human freedom and relationships as essential to this increase. Norberg never mentions God or any of the beliefs common to the God religions in his exhaustive listing of the metrics of human welfare, nor does he go into the ‘noospheric risks’ that we explored last October.
Five things, however, seem clear.
One – Evolution is proceeding under our feet, without conscious and explicit management, and that it is proceeding in the direction that Teilhard postulates (increased complexity). Such complexity can be seen and even measured in the characteristics of human welfare that Norberg lists.
Two – As Norberg cites, the characteristics of freedom and relationship are essential for these metrics of welfare to unfold.
Three – Even though traditional religion is rife with superstition, dependence on hierarchy and desire for power, its prime focus is the human person and the relationship among persons. This can be seen in the fact that nearly all religions contain some version of the ‘Golden Rule’ which identifies the key to harmonious relationships as a positive self-image. We have seen how Jefferson extends this recognition of the worth of the person into a building block of a governmental paradigm which underlays the most evolutionary successful societies on Earth.
Four – While science spasmodically (and often contradictory) attempts to address the human person, as Sacks observes:
“To the extent that there is a science of human behavior, to that extent there is an implicit denial of the freedom of human behavior.”
This leaves religion, warts and all, as the only “philosophical understanding of the human condition and our place within the universe.” The trick is to reinterpret it (such as Jefferson did) to clarify those ‘understandings’ which will underpin our continued evolution.
Five – Since “The past is no guarantee of the future”, we have no guarantee of the future of our evolution. There are, as we have seen, potential pitfalls, and if these noospheric risks are not managed properly, evolution cannot be expected to continue.
We have seen how Jefferson made use of the core message of Jesus to formulate his position on the importance of the human person to the structure of society. In doing so, he was thus was the first to envision an ‘attachment point’ between the ‘spiritual’ themes of Western religion and the evolving ‘secular’ themes of Western culture, which had been seen as in opposition for the first half of the two hundred years of evolutionary uptick that Norberg maps.
Knowledge, Power and Evolution
Restating Sacks ’assertion:
“Science needs religion, or at the very least some philosophical understanding of the human condition and our place within the universe, for each fresh item of knowledge and each new accession of power raises the question of how it should be used, and for that we need another way of thinking.”
This reflects Teilhard’s insight that to manage our voyage through the noosphere, we must understand it. But Sacks goes a little deeper by quantifying this search for understanding in terms of ‘items of knowledge’ and ‘accession to power’. As he sees it, both facets of our voyage require us to answer the question “how should it be used?” Understanding of the noosphere involves more than the empirical insights of science. As Sacks sees it, it is more important to our continued evolution to understand their meaning.
In this approach, Sacks understands religion in one sense as a “philosophical understanding of the human condition and our place within the universe.” This is quite different from the traditional understanding of religion as ‘truths to be adhered to’, and much more in line with the underpinning of the beliefs that apply to Norberg’s assessment of human welfare.
As an example of how such a ‘noospheric risk’ can present itself, consider how many times in recorded history a despot has come to power by distorting “items of knowledge” to “accede to power” by using news designed to incite fear (such as Hitler’s campaign to blame Jews for Germany’s woes) as a step to power. Trends such as this can be seen today in the demonization of ‘the other’ in the many arguments on immigration.
As we saw in the posts on morality, Teilhard saw the need for religion’s understanding of morality to be reinterpreted in light of human evolution. Sacks articulates why this is necessary, and, like Teilhard, understands that managing our existence requires us to understand how such things as information and power must be managed properly.
Beginning to understand such a ‘Secular Side’ of what religion has traditionally referred to ‘God’ is a first step toward unlocking religion’s great potential to partner with science as tools for continuing our personal and collective march into the future.
The Next Post
This week we have seen how Jonathan Sacks returns us to the theme of this blog, “The Secular Side of God”, with his reinterpretation of religion as a “philosophical understanding of the human condition and our place with the universe.”
Next week we’ll begin to review what we have seen in this blog that addresses such a reinterpretation.