The CoEvolution Of Spiritual Ideas

There have always been ways in which religion can evolve. How many new branches of Christianity have appeared since the fall of Rome? Lots, and one common thread is that the branches have been very much modern at the time they arose. We think of the Jewish scripture being complete for thousands of years, but most interpretive Jewish writing showed up in the Talmud much more recently. This is not to say that religion is flexible, but then again neither is society, and religion is a MUCH better barometer of culture than science (which is in theory independent of it).

Aedes,

I agree, and there is a golden opportunity for the major religions of today to be leaders in the development of environmental concerns. Most of my experience with Christians has been one of their denial of the impending crisis. They have the numbers, the ability to influence, the ability to be the catalyst for change, the question remains, will they step up to the plate. I would not say that science is independent of society, as a major source of knowledge it has the ability to effect transformations in our thinking, religion needs to be less defense towards science, but can it. It has been one hundred and fifty years since the publication of the origin of species, one hundred and fifty years of Christian assault upon its premises, it has utterly failed. The same people that I know in my personal life who refuse to accept evolution, are the same people whom deny global warming.

Or other major concerns, especially issues of poverty, war, disease, etc. I think that humans in general have an innate sense of charity, but it's so much better institutionalized within religion that a lot of good can be channeled.

I think it's more that politically (in the US at least) a single political party (the Republicans) has been the voice for fiscal conservatives (business) and social conservatives (including people who are religious). This means that social conservatives who are not necessarily pro-big business have been de facto supporters of the same issues in order to get their politicians elected. But it's really not Christians who are as a movement opposed to environmentalism -- it's businesses, who don't want regulation, and who find innovation very risky. It's also state governments who make more money selling their land to industry than to preserving it as parkland. I suppose that if social conservatives associate environmentalists with pot-smoking hippies who live up in trees, then maybe they'd have some distaste for it from a social point of view. And for the proportion of Christians who are skeptical not just of evolution but of ALL science, I can imagine some skepticism about environmental science. But still, it's more likely the political affiliations of religious people rather than their religious understanding is what creates this bias.

Sure, but people have always turned to science for practical solutions to practical problems. It is less of a reflection of our cultural streams than a reflection of our inventiveness. I agree that these things aren't entirely separable, but in truth science doesn't have the social and communal effects that a church or temple can.

This can be solved with good education. Evolution and creationism are not speaking the same language, so society shouldn't indulge creationism as an equal theory. Creationism is a traditional belief derived from religious teachings, and evolution is a scientific explanation derived from observations. This is true no matter which you believe. If they aren't speaking the same language, then they should not be seen as adversaries. And even if Christian fundamentalists see evolution as an adversary, their arguments only need to be answered when it comes to policy matters like what we teach in school. Abrasive people like Richard Dawkins make things far worse. Congenial people with interesting stories to tell, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, made things far better.

Yet we've been around as a species for hundreds of thousands of years. Culture also needs to evolve. In 200 years we've had an explosion of population, an explosion of technology, and an explosion of scientific understanding like never before in the hundreds of thousands of years of our history. Furthermore, the story isn't done yet -- we're still inventing and learning and creating.

So it's no wonder that we've not yet caught up as a culture. This is brand new. Yes it's 150 years, but that's only around 7 generations. And part of the postmodern experience is to look at all this with incredible irony, because we've had some mind-boggling failures like the Titanic, like both World Wars, that are kind of signature moments of what happens when we don't come to grips with our size and power before it's too late.

My grandparents were born in Eastern Europe in the 1910s and 1920s, and they had no electricity at the time and very little technology. My 10 month old son likes to play with my Blackberry and my iPod. What a difference. We need more time and a lot of patience.

Aedes,

Interesting, yes with my new found direction I am going to have to develop I think a wider deeper perspective, otherwise my good intent will not fly. The dark clouds upon the horizon tend to make me even less patient, and want to rush off in all directions. Your worldview seems well grounded. Great post, thanks Aedes!

Not only an opportunity, but a responsibility as well. Some religious leaders have noticed this obligation. Buddhism's history of environmental protection is thousands of years old.

There is a bit of light, here. Even among fundamentalist Christians, we see more and more youth less interested in combating abortion and more interested in addressing environmental crisis and poverty.



Wasn't there an environmental adviser to Reagan who was unconcerned with environmental destruction because he thought the end times were near? Sad stuff.



The trend seems to be toward recognizing the environmental crisis. It's tough to get the message out: television loves insanity, so we end up with Falwell style talking heads screaming about sin and impending doom. Perhaps if our media was responsible we could watch thoughtful ministers discuss the importance of recycling and helping the poor.

Didymos Thomas,

I guess really the hope does lie with the young. I did watch one minister on televison whom made it very much apart of his message to his congregation that it is in their spiritual tradition to be the keepers of the creation, but, he was getting alot of flak from other churches and other sects. I do not often watch televison so I thought it might be more prevalent as I hit upon it rather spontaniously. This would be a most welcome development, perhaps it has to reach some critical mass before it catches on, time it seems though is of the essence. I think with many the fact that the information, the warnings, are coming from the same source as evolutionary biology, perhaps some of them have demonize the scientific community. I have one friend whom thinks Charles Darwin was just an evil man with anti-social tendencies--Oh well,

Charles Darwin wasn't the first to think about evolution (he got the idea from his grandfather!) and he's certainly not the final word considering the knowledge we now have is an exponential explosion from his work as well as the separate (at the time) field of genetics.

Makes one wonder why he's such a flashpoint for people. We could teach evolution perfectly well without ever mentioning Darwin's name. Evolution is about a body of data and the direction it all points.

... I think for the same reason that Newton's name remains so attached to the idea of science - both were at the right time during significant paradigm shifts ... if nothing else, Darwin deserves credit for building such an extensive and credible argument that it pushed the scientific community over the cusp decades earlier than would have been the case otherwise ... btw, happy 150th! :baloons: ...

Oh, of course, his work is one of monumental elegance, thoroughness, insightfulness, and importance. But still, a lot has happened between then and now, and there thing about science is its practice is really not rooted in its own history. I mean I've taken care of a million people with heart disease without ever thinking about Harvey discovering the circulation of blood, which is one of the seminal discoveries in all of medicine (and certainly cardiovascular disease). Same with Darwin -- an astonishing, astounding contribution at the time, but right now in 2009 you don't need to even think about Darwin to attain our current understanding.

200th!

... that, too! :happybday: