9/2/2009—In an essay in the book, The Future of Man, Teilhard de Chardin issued a challenge to secularists. In the essay, "The Grand Option", Chardin asked how we assess the future of humankind? He gave his alternatives, which he called “the human spiritual categories”. The challenge to secularism is to contemplate reality with requisite seriousness. Chardin offers four choices. He believes that they define the basic possibilities. He also believes that to each choice, “there must necessarily correspond a universe of an especial kind.” That is, only one choice is really true to the kind of universe there is.
The first choice is in answer to the question whether the state of Being is good or evil. Is it better to be than not to be? Chardin calls this optimism or pessimism. Is the universe pointless? Is humankind going to get anywhere? If not, why not end things now?
Although Chardin notes the modern temper toward meaninglessness, he does not take it seriously, given the growth and expansion of consciousness. There has been progress in the universe from inorganic to organic, to consciousness, to self-consciousness and so forth. This justifies optimism.
The next question is, optimism of withdrawal or of evolution? Do we engage the world or refrain from engaging? Chardin chose engagement because of his faith in the spiritual value of matter.
The final question is evolution toward divergence or convergence, plurality or unity? Chardin chose unity over against what could be called the capitalist cult of individualism (not Chardin’s term). We do not perfect our creativity in opposition to others but in association with others.
So, take your pick. Is the universe ordered or disordered? If ordered, is it exhausted or still young? If young, is it divergent or convergent? This is secularism, not religion. But it is a particular kind. It is hallowed secularism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does stacking false dichotomies on top of each other somehow make them better?
ReplyDeleteYou might want to take a look at the full text of Medawar's review.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html
But are they false dichotomies? They are incomplete, but are they false. Start with the first one. Is the presence of self-conscious, morally aware beings in the universe an accident? Or was it instead, somehow built into the natural world once certain conditions, certain to be present somewhere in the universe, were fulfilled? (Not necessarily by a God). That is a stark dichotomy. And it has important implications. But is it false?
ReplyDeleteI just looked at Medawar in full. Thank you, Recall. Let me follow up on the above comment from the essay. Here is how Medawar accounts for the basic movement of evolution: "It may, as I have hinted elsewhere, turn out to be of the nature of nucleic acids and the chromosomal apparatus that they tend spontaneously to proffer genetical variants --- genetical solutions to the problem of remaining alive --- which are more complex and more elaborate than the immediate occasion calls for; but to construe this 'complexification' as a manifestation of consciousness is a wilful abuse of words." Why am I wrong to attribute this tendency to plan, or consciousness? The only reason is that an attribution of that kind is ruled out by Medawar in advance as unscientific. But to say it is the nature of cells to evolve toward complexity is not an explanation of anything. I am not claiming that God does this. I am saying, with Teilhard I guess, that the movement toward consciousness is hardwired into reality and that is a strong suggestion of meaningfulness in the universe.
"Why am I wrong to attribute this tendency to plan, or consciousness?"
ReplyDeleteI think the lack of any rational basis for the assertion is why most people object to it.
"Why am I wrong to attribute this tendency to plan, or consciousness?"
ReplyDeleteI think the lack of any rational basis for the assertion is why most people object to it.
Recall, I'm going to use this quote again on the blog, but it is apropos to your use of "rational". Werner Heisenberg, who I suppose is to be classified as rational, is quoted as asking this, "Is it completely meaningless to imagine, behind the ordering structures and principles of the world as a whole, a 'consciousness' whose 'intention' these would express?" Your answer is, Yes, apparently. But it was not his answer, at least not unambiguously.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Heisenberg. So what?
ReplyDelete