Seven years ago, the Swedenborg Center of Concord opened its online portal with a post entitled Integrating Science and Spirituality – Why is This Important? At that time, my assessment of the situation was that:
“Pre-eminent scientists… have felt compelled to attack all religion as irrational superstition. Many religious adherents have raised strident voices supporting biblical literalism and demeaning scientists’ claim to truth.” Gantz (2011)
In the years since, the public acrimony has, in my opinion, softened. I do not claim that this website and its 147 subscribers can take any credit for that, but we can take heart that progress has been made in healing the divisiveness and in recognizing the possibilities for integrating our scientific and spiritual understanding of the world and life. This post outlines some of the signs of progress.
The 2017 FQXi essay contest is underway, with nearly 200 entries on the topic “Wandering Towards a Goal: How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?” George Gantz has submitted an essay, titled “The How and The Why of Intention,” that explores the questions of emergence, causation and intention. How one answers these questions depends on a metaphysical premise — is creation random or purposeful? Mr. Gantz argues that this question is logically undecidable and beyond empirical determination, but that there is strong evidence of a cosmic intentionality flowing through the universe. He concludes that this flow is love. The universe loves us, and we should love it back, with humility and gratitude for its many gifts, including the gift of our imperfect and necessarily limited empirical understanding. Mr. Gantz’s previous FQXi essays include The Tip of the Spear (which won 4th place) and The Hole at the Center of Creation.
A new article in Humans and Nature by Christopher Boehm suggests that, contrary to the position of many strict Darwinians, evolution may not be random. “I propose a kind of purpose that could reside inside of, and not outside of, evolutionary process.” As an example, he points to purposeful human decisions that have influenced evolution. “Purposeful decisions enhanced altruistic tendencies, just as they reduced bullying and helped to domesticate us as a species.”
This article is a good update on the relevant arguments, but in my view it hardly goes far enough in admitting the powerful role that purpose plays throughout the entire evolutionary dynamic. In a previous post I wrote: “If, in fact, natural selection answers the question of the development of empathy and perhaps even of religious impulses, what is the role of religion? On the other hand, is it not also possible to see the unfolding of empathy and the religious impulse through natural selection as an affirmation of God’s continuing and divine influence – as evidence for God, rather than a conventional, materialist refutation? Rather than being a random process, the emergence of empathy is the “coming-into-being” of a spiritual potential contained within creation.”