Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts

Friday, September 18, 2009

#55. "All we have to do..."


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ARCHIVE. For a list of all my published posts: 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We take care of what we value. That's the main point of the very different thinkers, Jakob Wolf and Heather Eaton, whose ideas I described in my two most recent posts.


This post is a followup. It's about the importance of personal experience in taking care of the Earth in this time of environmental crisis. From their distinctive perspectives and in very different languages these two thinkers agree that neither western science, with its intentionally rationalist thought, nor the western religious tradition, with its disdain for the Earth, can help much.

As I described in post #53 (Bridging the Gap), from a philosophical point of view, Professor Jakob Wolf of the University of Copenhagen says we need a third thing. He calls it the "phenomenological apprehension of intelligent design in nature."

He makes clear why science can't provide us with a sense of what's important to us. That's simply not what science is about. It's neither what science was invented for, back in the time of the ancient Greeks, nor what science has been doing for the last five centuries.

As I described in post #54 (We Take Care of What We Value), Dr. Heather Eaton of St. Paul University in Ottawa comes from another starting point, but she too agrees that neither science nor religion are sufficient in themselves.

"The ecological crisis has not made much of a dent in the western religious consciousness," says Dr. Eaton. "The Christian tradition has not been able to deal effectively with evolution." The insight that the earth is our home is "an enormous challenge to our ecologically dysfunctional patriarchal religious traditions."

What's needed in this time of environmental crisis, Dr. Eaton says, is the coming together of humanity's ancient religious traditions with the much more recent evolutionary cosmology of 20th-century science. It's their convergence that we need.

Why? Because "we take care of what we value" and what leads us to ethical responsibility is personal experience.

Whether we call it "the apprehension of intelligent design" or "the experience of the sacred"-- or use more familiar words like "reverence," "mysticism," or "contemplation"-- it's that experience that we need if we are to contribute to the healing of the Earth.

===

Probably most of us don't respond positively to Professor Wolf's term, the "phenomenological apprehension of intelligent design"-- even though he makes very clear that it's nothing more than a philosophical name for the personal experience of nature's intelligibility.

It's difficult to relate to the idea well, as he says, because the term has been "compromised" by Christian fundamentalists in the USA who use it in support of their creationist views.

For many of us, Dr. Eaton's words speak more strongly when she says that to heal the Earth we need to recover the age-old basis of all religious experience "in the experience of the sacred."

But most of us aren't much more comfortable with a term like "the sacred"-- or even with the traditional religious words such as "contemplation" and "mysticism"-- than we are with Dr. Wolf's "phenomenological apprehension of nature's intelligibility."

===

What about "wonder and awe"?

Those are good words. I think we need to hold on to them; they may be the best we have to talk about the experience of the sacred.

But even "wonder and awe" has been compromised in our day by the similar-sounding phrase "shock and awe" used by America's political and military leaders to describe what they hoped would happen when they invaded Iraq.

When it comes to "awe," our only everyday use is the exclamation even my five-year-old grandson says often, "Awesome!" And while we know what the experience of "wonder" is, we also know that it's not what we mean when we describe something as "wonderful."

"Sacred" is the one word we still use to describe things that are important to us. When we hear something mocked or treated more lightly than it should be, for example, we tend to say (or maybe just think quietly to ourselves), "Is nothing sacred?"

Clearly, we use "sacred" to refer to things that are of value to us. So our experience of the Earth-- as sacred-- is important for its healing simply because, as both Dr. Eaton and Dr. Wolf each in their own way say, "we take care of what we value."

In this time of environmental crisis, their point is a very practical one.

===

A major problem, however, is that in our culture the experience of wonder and awe is usually considered a purely personal matter. It is "acceptable as a private experience," says Dr. Eaton, "yet it is often belittled, ignored or dismissed as socially relevant."

Obviously it's not a purely personal matter, however-- not if dealing well with the environmental crisis depends on it. Dr. Eaton points this out even in the very title of her paper: sacred awe and wonder is at the nexus of religion, ecology and politics.

As I mentioned in the previous post, her paper, "This Sacred Earth: At the Nexus of Religion, Ecology and Politics," isn't readily available in print form, but she gave me an OK to share it with friends. If you would like a copy, send me a note: sam@macspeno.com.

===

One of the main reasons why the experience of the sacred isn't readily understood in our culture is because, as Dr. Eaton says, "the primary mode of knowing in Western societies is analytic" and, as a way of being aware of reality, "analysis has its limits."

The experience of awe and wonder is a different kind of awareness.

The fact that there are different kind of conscious awareness is something I've talked about in many previous posts. Because there are four distinct kinds of conscious knowing, this perspective is often referred to as a quaternary or mandalic understanding. I described it in detail in post #29 (The Four-fold Mind).

I've made use of it (in post #30) to talk about the traditional ways of being religious, in a half-dozen posts (#40 through #45) to describe the Sophia/Wisdom perspectives at the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and (in posts #35 and #36) to help make sense of the many aspects of the Immense Transition we are presently experiencing.

These four functions of the conscious mind were spelled out explicitly early in the 20th century by Swiss psychologist C. G. Jung. Today they are known to almost everyone in terms of the Myers-Briggs personality typology. It's even on Facebook. (You can find "What's Your Myers-Briggs Personality Type?" on the Facebook Apps page-- along with "Which Teletubbie Are You?")

Long before C. G. Jung, Myers-Briggs and Facebook, however, the fact that we have a four-fold mind was known to the people of many earlier cultures.

On the Native American Medicine Wheel, for example, each of the mind's functions is pictured by an animal and associated with one of the four directions, the four seasons and the four times of day. I've made use of that imagery in many posts. I think it's one of the best tools we have for our self-understanding.

It is especially helpful in understanding wonder and awe.

===

Our ability to experience the sacred via awe and wonder is pictured on the Medicine Wheel as a shamanic Black Bear. It's an image of the same function of the conscious mind which C. G. Jung calls "Intuition," the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant refers to as "archetypal intuition," and Jakob Wolf calls "phenomenological apprehension."

Black Bear is located on the west on the Medicine Wheel, directly opposite the Gold Eagle of the east. It's this Gold Eagle awareness-- Jung calls it simply our "Thinking function"-- which deals with the rational cause-and-effect workings of patterns in nature and is the very essence of scientific analysis.

It's because "the primary mode of knowing in Western societies is analytic," as Dr. Eaton says, that the experience of the sacred via our Black Bear (Intuition) ability isn't readily understood in our culture. We need to balance our Gold Eagle (Thinking) ability with our Black Bear (Intuition) capacity if we are to heal our home, the sacred Earth.

===

Jung calls Black Bear (Intuition) "the religious function" because it doesn't make distinctions as Gold Eagle (Thinking) awareness does. It makes connections. Native Americans express this experience of the sacred with the phrase "All my relations!"

One of the most helpful understandings I know of the mind's Black Bear (Intuition) ability comes, rather surprisingly, from the eminent 20th-century German Jesuit theologian, Karl Rahner. He calls this capacity we have to experience awe and wonder "self-transcendence."

As a conscious person in the material cosmos, says Rahner, each of us experiences ourselves at a deep level as being utterly open to all things. We don't have any limits; we are connected with everything that exists; we simply do not exist apart from the infinite unbounded reality underlying the whole universe. I've described this more fully in post #34 (Talking About Us).

Obviously, many people in Western culture are not at ease with such an understanding of themselves. But it's much more familiar to people in Asian cultures, and it is one of the reasons why westerners, in this time of Immense Transition, are turning to the religious traditions and spiritual practices of the East.

===

So, this is not only a time of Immense Transition due to the discovery of the new scientific cosmology, it is also a time of Great Turning for the world's religions themselves. We live in nothing less, says Dr. Eaton, than a "new religious moment" in the history of the world.

And because of the environmental crisis, says Dr. Eaton, "it is pressing for all religious traditions to reclaim their roots in the natural world."

She notes that, East and West, "Each tradition has an awareness that the natural world is a primary place of revelation and religious experience" and that "it is only in recent history that this has not been so."

With regard to the West, for example, she says that the Christian faith in its recent history "has belittled the earth as a religious reality." And that this "diminished Christian awareness of a sacred indwelling presence in the natural world" is "one of the central causes of the ecological crisis and the excessive domination and exploitation of the earth."

Christians are "faced with the task of allowing their theological understanding to be transformed," and as Dr. Eaton notes, this task is "an enormous challenge to our ecologically dysfunctional patriarchal religious traditions."

===

But it's not the western religious tradition alone that's being challenged by the environmental crisis. All the world religions , she says, "need to reclaim their heritage"-- to rediscover their roots in the world of awe and wonder.

If we are to heal the Earth, we have to "reacquaint ourselves with the divine presence revealed within the natural world." Because we take care of what we value, "to encounter the sacred in the natural world moves us to resist its destruction."

The question, then, is a very practical one: How do we "reacquaint ourselves with the divine presence revealed within the natural world." How are we to "encounter the sacred"?

Dr. Eaton says simply, "Awareness of the power of wonder and awe is available to anyone who spends time in the natural world."
Is it as simple as that?

I think it is.

===

The experience of the sacred isn't considered socially acceptable but, as Dr. Eaton says, "the capacity for awe remains omnipresent." Awe and wonder is a normal aspect of human experience. It's in our hearts. It's part of our DNA.

C. G. Jung says it. Native Americans say it. Karl Rahner says it.

There's one catch. In Dr. Eaton's words: "To marvel at the natural world requires a transcendence of our superficial worldviews and beliefs."

We may be potentially open to everything, as Rahner says, but we'll never actually experience awe and wonder if we don't literally spend time with nature. We need to "phenomenologically apprehend, " as Jakob Wolf would say, the intelligible patterns operating in the natural world.

Dr. Eaton quotes the famous Jewish theologian who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at Selma in 1965, Abraham Heschel, about the difference between what happens to us when we do, and don't, spend time in nature.

"Away from the immense," says Rabbi Heschel, "cloistered in our own concepts, we may scorn and revile everything. But standing between earth and sky, we are silenced by the sight. We can never sneer at the stars, mock the dawn or scoff at the totality of being."

When we spend time in the world of nature and find ourselves aware of our connectedness to everything-- when we experience that all things are "our relations"-- we simply cannot sneer, or mock, or scoff at our own experience. We just need to let the experience happen.

===

For many years, my wife Anne and I have included on our Christmas cards a few words from Teilhard de Chardin's essay "In Expectation of the Parousia" found at the conclusion of his early work, The Divine Milieu.

Teilhard's words are his way of expressing the profound idea that Heather Eaton and Jakob Wolf are trying to spell out for us.

His words may sound simplistic. But in terms of taking care of what we value, they are profound.

How do we experience the Earth as sacred?

Teilhard says, "All we have to do is let the heart of the earth beat within us."


+++

To send a comment: use "Click here to send a comment" (below) or click on "Post a Comment" (at the bottom).

To email a link to this post to a friend, with your own message, click on the little envelope with an arrow (below).

If you would like to be notified when I publish a new post, let me know; I'll put you on the list.

+++

ARCHIVE TECHNICAL PROBLEM: Since I started this new series of posts, each time I publish one, an earlier one vanishes from my Archives list; they're still there, just not visible. Until tech support can deal with this, I'm putting links to those "missing" posts here.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

#53. Bridging the Gap


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ARCHIVE. For a list of all my published posts: 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

One of the reasons why the word "convergence" in my blog title sound so strange is because many people still think science and religion are opposed to one another.



They're not. Obviously they are two very different things.

But while most of us assume that we know what the difference is, it's not easy to put that difference into words. What this post is about is an attempt to state the difference between science and religion clearly and to spell out the practical importance of bridging the gap between them.

I think the effort is worth it because once we're clear about the difference, we can have a much better understanding of their relationship and also of their surprisingly important practical consequences for our current environmental crisis.

===

As a start, history helps a lot in getting that difference clear. From the evidence of archeology and anthropology, religion seems to be as old as humanity itself-- several million years. Science, on the other hand, began only recently-- about 500 years ago.

Even if we think of science as having begun back in the time of ancient Greeks and Babylonians, it's still recent in comparison with the several million years of human history.

Five hundred years out of two million years is a very small fraction: 500/2,000,000ths. It looks even smaller as a decimal: 0.0025. As a human enterprise, science has been around only ¼ of one percent as long as religion.

And yet, in that short time our misuse of science has totally transformed our existence and even the very Earth itself. That our home planet has become inhospitable is what we mean by "the environmental crisis." So whether we care about religion or not, it's obviously important that we understand just what science is, if we are to be part of the healing of the Earth.

===

The best thing I've seen dealing with the difference between science and religion is a recent talk given at the annual conference of the Metanexus Institute held this year in Phoenix, Arizona, in July.

If you're unfamiliar with Metanexus, it's a Philadelphia-based global endeavor dealing with science and religion. I mentioned it in post #39 (Hebrew Thought); it has an excellent e-publication which you might like to check out: The Global Spiral.

This year, several of the conference's major addresses were made available on line prior to the beginning of the conference. It seems Metanexus thinks along the same lines as the journalist-author David Crumm. I quoted him in post #51 (A New Series of Posts).

He says that five hundred years ago, "global change came through movable type and pamphleteering. Today, it's the Internet and blogs." To effect social change in our day, Crumm says, we need to "publish quickly and often."

So, a word of congratulations and thanks to Metanexus for having such a fine collection of topics and speakers, and for making their papers available on line-- even before they were officially presented at the conference!

===

The talk dealing with the difference between science and religion was given by Dr. Jakob Wolf, a Lutheran pastor and professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen.

His paper is one of the most enjoyable essays I've read in a long time. It's intelligent, honest, and free of the ponderous academic style that is so deadly for easy understanding and delight. I'm planning to give a summary in this post of a few of his main ideas.

Dr. Wolf makes two especially significant points. One is about our critical need for a clear understanding of how science and religion are related. The second is that, in order to have that understanding, we also need a clear description of what is known in modern philosophy as "phenomenology."

"Phenomenology," needless to say, isn't an everyday word. But it's a necessary concept if we are to understand how science and religion differ and why that difference is important.

Professor Wolf's basic point is explicit: science by definition is a search for causes and explanations of how things work, while religion has to do with our valuing of things.

If you are thinking, "Well, OK, but that's not anything new," I agree. 
Hang in there! One of the things that's so valuable about Dr. Wolf's presentation is that he spells out just what it means to say that "science intentionally reduces things to the simplest explanations of how things work." In our day, that's an especially important concept.

===

He begins by noting that science is a human project. It wasn't accidental; it was deliberately invented by earlier thinkers as a way to understand the world that didn't depend on the pre-scientific view that whatever happens in human life is the result of the whims of the gods.

A familiar example of events being determined by the gods' arbitrary whims is the story of the wanderings of Odysseus. You may remember how, in the Odyssey, the god Poseidon causes the wind to blow Odysseus off course on his way home from the Trojan war. It took Odysseus 20 years to get back home simply because he had displeased Poseidon.

In that pre-scientific perspective, there were no clear patterns to the way things worked. The Greeks of antiquity, however, developed “a radical new idea, that the phenomena in nature do not occur as a result of the free decisions made by the gods."

Since its beginning science has been defined by this restriction: only the mechanical laws of nature and chance occurrences are considered valid scientific explanations. The ideal of science is still the same today: to understand how specific causes, without outside interference, results in specific effects. Science is intentionally and deliberately mechanistic in its perspective.

Scientific researchers work hard to figure out how things work and to make use of that understanding to make things work better. An example familiar to everyone of the good use of our understanding of the working of things is the miracle of modern dentistry.

===

Religion, obviously, is something very different from this mechanistic view of how the world works. Religion simply is not about trying to understand the mechanical results of specific causes.

However-- and this is a key idea-- the very basis of science is the assumption that specific causes produce specific results, and that, when we work at it, we humans can figure out (at least some of) the patterns to how things work. Another way to say that is that the designs which we see in the world's workings are humanly understandable patterns.

Although it has taken a great deal of effort, over the last five centuries scientific researchers have been able to figure out how some of those intelligible patterns work: how stars are formed, how living things reproduce, how language is learned by young children.

But it's important to see that the human enterprise we call science assumes the intelligibility of nature. While research scientists try to figure out the cause-and-effect details in the patterns found in things like planetary formation, embryological growth, and speech development, that fact that those patterns are intelligible isn't science. 

It's something else.

===

In Europe, the understanding that there are intelligible patterns to how things in nature work is referred to as "intelligent design." But, as Dr. Wolf says, in the United States, the term has been taken over by Christian fundamentalists to promote their creationist views.

That's a problem, he says, because "intelligent design" is a very positive idea. It's a deep and rich concept and "it would be a tragedy to lose it."

But while it's obviously not a scientific concept, he also insists that neither is it a religious concept. It's something else, a completely different aspect of our human attempts to make sense of the world. The study of that "something else" is known as "phenomenology."

Because phenomenology is so important for an understanding of the difference between religion and science, I am going make a probably-foolish attempt to explain just what "phenomenology" means as I understand it. Bear with me. I think it's worth it.

===

Phenomenology is a branch of modern philosophy that has to do with how we understand things. It is our attempt to "understand understanding," as the biogenetic structuralists like to say. Readers of earlier posts know that I wrote about Biogenetic Structuralism in many of them; if it's new to you, you might want to check out a few, for example: #8 (Background to Biogenetic Structuralism) or #10 (Overview of Biogenetic Structuralism).

In everyday speech, the word "phenomenon" refers to something which is unique or special. If a cow gives birth to a two-headed calf or weather conditions result in snow with a bluish tint, those events are said to be "phenomena." But we're more familiar with the word being used as an adjective-- as when we say of something really special, "It was phenomenal!"

In the philosophical sense, in contrast, a "phenomenon" is anything we can observe-- any object, event, person or process that we can be aware of. So in this technical sense, every observable thing is "phenomenal."

It's important to note that while phenomenology is a human endeavor-- just as science is-- it's not an attempt to understand the cause-and-effect patterns to how things work. Rather, it is an attempt to understand how our perception of things works.

Phenomenologists refer to our perception of things-- our observing, knowing, being aware of events, processes, persons-- as our "apprehension" of them. The point of all this is that our apprehension of design in nature is not the result of thinking about those patterns but is the direct result of our immediate experience of the fact that the phenomena have patterns.

===

Dr. Wolf notes that everyone-- "even the most hardcore Darwinists"-- agrees that natural phenomena have patterns. No one-- "not even militant atheists," he says-- denies that there are patterns to how things work: "the perception of design in nature is as old as human reason itself. It is spontaneous, involuntary, universal, and not even a matter of choice."

One more idea. It may sound like double talk at first, but it's not. The fact that we can see patterns to natural processes like the formation or stars or the development of an embryo is itself a phenomenon. In slightly different words: the human ability to see that some phenomena in nature are intelligible is also an intelligible phenomenon.

The point is that our apprehension of design in nature (which is the direct result of our immediate experience of phenomena having patterns) is something completely different from our effort to figure out how those patterns work.

So, the apprehension of design is not "science."

But it's not "religion," either.

It's something completely different from both-- a “third” thing. And it is, as Dr. Wolf says, what "bridges the gap" between science and religion.

===

While science is our effort to understand the intelligible designs we apprehend in nature-- in terms of random, unconscious and impersonal forces-- religion interprets those designs as a result of a creative intelligence or a divine mind.

Dr. Wolf lists some of the common interpretations which humans have come up with in our recognition of the intelligible patterns we observe in nature, things like pantheism, stoicism, neo-Platonism, pan-en-theism, deism and, of course, theism (which is where theologians jump in!).

When we keep in mind that both science and religion are based on the "phenomenological apprehension of design," we see that, while science makes use of the phenomenological perception of intelligent design to figure out how the patterns work and religion interprets the intelligence in the designs as coming from a creative consciousness, religion and science are in fact two totally different things.

===

At this point, you are probably saying to yourself, "OK. But, so what?"
Well, in fact, many significant things follow. One is that the "phenomenological apprehension of design" isn't as unusual as the phenomenologists' name for it might make us think. It's a down to earth experience familiar to all of us. We just call it other names.

Another is that the "phenomenological apprehension of design" has some important implications for our understanding of those Sophia/Wisdom perspectives which I've mentioned in many previous posts as being at the core of the western religious tradition.

I'll share some thoughts about both of those ideas in future posts. Here, I will offer just one very practical response to that "So what?" that may have been in your mind.

===

Wolf notes that it's almost impossible in the United States to be sympathetic to the idea of design in nature because, as he says, the idea of design in nature has been compromised by American fundamentalists' use of it to promote their creationism views.

But the whole point of Dr. Wolf's talk is that "it would be a disaster if we abandon the idea of design in nature. It is a philosophical idea that we in no way can afford to lose."

Why not? He spells it out nicely.

If we have only science and religion, and the idea of design in nature fits into neither of these categories, we tend to lose it as a valid concept for expressing our experience of nature.

But neither institutional religion nor scientific rationalism provides us with that experience of nature. And in this time of environmental crisis, it's our experience of nature that makes all the difference. Dr. Wolf talks about the environmental situation in terms of "ethics."

He notes that theories are never ethically indifferent, that they have practical consequences. Here, the fundamental connection between theory and ethics is that the different ways in which we experience things determine the ways we treat them.

If we see the creatures of nature only as the results of unconscious processes and random events (in the way which science-- by conscious intention-- does), then it is impossible, as he says, that they have any intrinsic value.

But "if they do have a value in their own right, it is outrageous to damage them."

And the one thing that justifies this "ethical" view of nature is our phenomenological recognition of intelligent design in nature.

Neither patriarchal religion nor mechanistic science-- but only our personal experience of nature as an expression of intelligent design-- can inspire each of us to personally contribute to the healing of the Earth.

sam@macspeno.com


+++

PS. Two articles in today's (23 Aug 09) New York Times are relevant to this post. One is by Thomas L. Friedman, the other by Robert Wright.
In "Connecting Nature's Dots," Friedman quotes Map Ives, director of sustainability for Wilderness Safaris in Botswana, about reading "Mother Nature’s hieroglyphics." It's an excellent example of what Jacob Wolf means by "apprehending intelligent design."

Director Ives says, “If you spend enough time in nature and allow yourself to slow down sufficiently to let your senses work, then through exposure and practice, you will start to sense the meanings in the sand, the grasses, the bushes, the trees, the movement of the breezes, the thickness of the air, the sounds of the creatures and the habits of the animals with which you are sharing that space.”
Friedman adds, "Humans were actually wired to do this a long time ago."

The point of his column, says Friedman, is that "We’re trying to deal with a whole array of integrated problems-- climate change, energy, biodiversity loss, poverty alleviation and the need to grow enough food to feed the planet-- separately." But "We need to make sure that our policy solutions are as integrated as nature itself."

Poverty fighters, climate-change folks, food advocates and biodiversity protectors "all need to go on safari together."

===

The other article is "A Grand Bargain Over Evolution" by Robert Wright. 

It's also about apprehending design in nature. Although it's longer and more complex than Freidman's, it's well-worth working your way through.

The sections about the "intrinsic creative power" of natural selection and about seeing intelligible design in plants and animals are especially helpful. "Unlike a rock," says Wright, "an organism has things that look as if they were designed to do something."

Most helpful is the section in which he talks about "seeing the same kind of pattern in the development of human culture."

He says, "The technological part of cultural evolution has relentlessly expanded social organization, leading us from isolated hunter-gatherer villages all the way to the brink of a truly global society. And the continuing cohesion of this social system (also known as world peace) may depend on people everywhere using their moral equipment with growing wisdom-- critically reflecting on their moral intuitions, and on the way they’re naturally deployed, and refining that deployment."

Good stuff. I hope you can get to read it.

+++

To send a comment: use "Click here to send a comment" (below) or click on "Post a Comment" (at the bottom).

To email a link to this post to a friend, with your own message, click on the little envelope with an arrow (below).

If you would like to be notified when I publish a new post, let me know; I'll put you on the list.

+++