God and Evolution

There are a lot of questions we could discuss in relation to these ideas.

Here's one to start with:

In an evolutionary context, if we consider certain human beings to be at the “leading edge” of the 14 billion year course of cosmic evolution, does anything exist that is (spiritually) higher or more advanced than those beings?

Re: God and Evolution

Hi Bruce

Just to clarify what may be an obvious point, but given that we know nothing about other possible dimensions and precious little about other planets, when you say “the 14 billion year course of cosmic evolution” I'm assuming you mean in the context of this planet and this dimension and not of the entire universe, right?!

James

Re: God and Evolution

Hi, James, that's a good point.  It's something I hint at in my “Reconsidering Enlightenment” thread, where Wilber defines (vertical) enlightenment as being one with the highest structure to have emerged so far in Kosmic evolution, and refers specifically to his map of human attainments.  I pointed out that there's no way we could know, at this point, what other “structures” have emerged in the rest of the universe, so it would seem presumptuous for anyone without such knowledge to claim to have realized ultimate vertical enlightenment and to have made the entire evolutionary Kosmos “object” of his Supreme Self. 

But, since that is the rhetoric being used in current “evolutionary spirituality” teachings, I am leaving that presupposition “in place” for now, as part of the question…

Re: God and Evolution

Thanks for the clarification Bruce.

So, leaving that presupposition in your question,  I would have to agree with you that it is indeed to presumptuous to use language that places oneself as one of the most evolved beings in the entire universe.

This is one of the reasons I have a negative response to the language used in Andrew Cohen's advertising. I wanted to include some examples here of one of the more recent pieces of Enlightennext info I received that contained this kind of language, because I usually save them for reference. But I must increasingly  be less tolerant of the language used because it turns out I've deleted it!

I should point out that I find the discussions and articles on Enlightennext are mostly free of this presumption. It only seems to surface in the advertising blurbs. Curious.

David also pointed out to me on another thread that Cohen has previously made reference to what you have just said, i.e. that there's no way we could know, at this point, what other “structures” have emerged in the rest of the universe.

So any seemingly presumptuous statements Cohen or his advertisers make should in fairness be considered in the light of his qualifying statements made elsewhere. I just wish he would make them more regularly to avoid confusing or putting off readers like me.

James

Re: God and Evolution

Thanks for your response, James.  Extending the question a bit, and keeping it close to the title of this thread:  acknowledging that there might be other sentient beings elsewhere in our galaxy or the larger universe that are more advanced than we are, would we then say that those individuals represent the “spiritual leading edge” (in an evolutionary worldview), or are they also subordinate to a non-evolutionary spiritual ultimate, like God?

In other words, does Evolutionary Spirituality align itself with an Involutionary model – where the origin of all things is in a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent being or divinity, with evolution marking the long “return” to the supreme, ultimately advanced estate of that being – or does does Evolutionary Spirituality align itself more with a scientific evolutionary view, in which case advanced human beings (or other aliens) would be the ultimate “spiritual intelligences” in existence?

Re: God and Evolution

Great, I had guessed that was your real question! :-)

From what I've read I sense that ES aligns itself with the latter but has residues of the former! This is perhaps because, as Tom has pointed out elsewhere, Ken in his enthusiasm for eastern spirituality has also unwittingly imported some aspects of the world views of those he says have been doing the “research” into structures of human consciousness (e.g.Tibetan monks). And they, of course along with Christian monks (!), seemed to have more of a belief in a “return to an ultimately advanced state” than, say, an understanding of an open-ended development to who knows where.

James

Re: God and Evolution

“does anything exist that is (spiritually) higher or more advanced than those beings?”

In dualistic terms, human beings are the most advanced development of evolution in the whole of the known universe. (There is nothing more complex than the human brain.) So viewing it like this, then human beings are the cutting edge. The only item more “spiritual” (as in “foundational”) is the Condition responsible for this development. Whether or not the process has directionality or if it is a completely blind play is up to each person to decide. Personally I lean towards the latter, but I can't be 100% sure of course. Mainly because of the apparent “fine-tuning” of the natural law.

Viewing it in terms of truth however, God is the only reality. And there is nothing that God is not. So from this “perspective”, there is no higher or lower, no spirit and no non-spirit, no humans and no God. No up and down, no being and no becoming.

Re: God and Evolution

Dawid: There is nothing more complex than the human brain.


We don't know that.  Orcas have larger brains than we.  Elephants too?  Dolphin brains are close, maybe larger.

Orcas are called killer whales because they've been observed to kill for no apparent reason.  The inference is they're bored.  Boredom is IMO a hallmark indicator of high mental functioning.

Dawid: blind play

If directional movement exists, how could it be blind?  Isn't it more consistent to say it's necessary?

Dawid: And there is nothing that God is not.


Not sure how you can know that.

Re: God and Evolution

Hi Bruce, good question.  It seems to me the notion of “spiritual leading edge” carries certain unquestioned assumptions.  One large such assumption is that both human being and God fundamentally are or equate to consciousness.  The human leading edge, being the leading edge of consciousness, is thus the leading edge of God.  I'm not convinced the assumptions underlying this equation are true.

First, consciousness looks to me to constitute one identifiable function in an overall larger context, that is, one function of a larger structural organization many or most aspects of which are not consciousness.  If that's true—if matter is not just consciousness, if “consciousness” is an abstracted distinction bearing perhaps only this-level relevance—are quarks conscious?—then one must include the non-conscious as part of the leading edge, ergo God is not just consciousness, so why the bias to consciousness?  

Second, there may exist “universes” that subsist on entirely different bases than ours—universes, say, without “matter” or “gravity” or “light” or “bodies” or “energy” or “evolution” or “consciousness.”  If there do exist such universes, not to mention a God beyond them, why the bias to consciousness?  Consciousness could be a hair on a gnat's leg compared to manything else.  How's that for witnessing?  Goes slightly elsewhere than “meeting the transcendental Self,” ey?

In terms of this universe, and its structure and evident directionality, I don't have much difficulty saying the spiritual leading edge can be measured by reference to consciousness, though consciousness for me is never separate from everything else, and might be just a convenient “show-place” where effects register in an observable, consciously communicable way.  Nice redundancy there.  The real action might lay largely elsewhere.  I mean, why did you wake up feeling the way you did this morning?  Or, why did you have X experience when?  What are the exact operative factors?  God knows!  There's alot going on under-consciousness.

As to involution and returning to God, I don't buy that little tale.  But neither do I buy reincarnation, or fairies, or Greek gods, or Ramana's two-brain theory.  So my company in these realms can get a little thin on those points.

I do think a coherent notion of manifest as being out-from-implicate can be devised.  Bohm did a good job in that regard.  For my part, I've always felt I'm up from somewhere.  Never have known where.

And FWIW, I'm not convinced that anything really “evolves.”  All could be but variations and appearances of that which is implicit in matter itself, consciousness and life included.  Presumably the real possibility of life's appearance really existed before life?  How long before?  But I'm not wedded to a non-evolutionary hypothesis either, so the “new” might be absolutely new (something I tend to doubt without evidence or argument, which aren't available in any event).

Re: God and Evolution

One more assumption worth questioning, IMO, is that which underlies the notion of “leading edge,” the assumption being there's only one leading edge.  There could be forty.  Or four hundred.  If there exists more than one leading edge, the assumption “leading edge” can be seen to carry a certain egoism, however unconsciousness (not in itself unusual).  But then, so might the consciousness bias or equating “timelessness” with God, etc, themselves carry egoism.  How?  By overestimating one's importance, which is a good working definition of ego.

Re: God and Evolution

Yes, good point – I was going to point out something similar in the Reconsidering Enlightenment thread.  In a cosmic evolutionary context, there could be any number of evolutionary pathways, any number of leading edges of development, so this also problematizes (or relativizes and complexifies) vertical enlightenment models.

Re: God and Evolution

Indeed it does problematize things.  The mind loves to simplify this complex world, if only to be able to talk about it a little, or to have a peg on which to hang one's hat.  I personally think throwing evolution into the spiritual mix can change one's orientation, just as throwing evolution into other disciplines did.  I thus view combining evolution and self-sense as an interesting challenge, an opportunity.

E.O. Wilson reformulated behavioural ecology along evolutionary lines and called it sociobiology.  I considered the move a stroke of genius, though really no more than a simple extension of the Darwinian paradigm beyond “forms” to behaviour, particularly social behaviour.  But even staunch evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould took deep and long-lasting offence to this move (tried to get Wilson removed from Harvard). Why?  Probably because an evolutionary understanding undercuts notions of human specialness, requires one to incarnate.

I find similar resistance in spiritual circles to adopting an evolutionary stance.  Though this resistance draws from a different vocabulary, I see a similar motivation underlying it.  I think there's a German term for it …. earthlingnessfear.

J'digress.  Because evolution forces one to take a historical, developmental perspective, I think it forces a certain integration.  My two cents.

Re: God and Evolution

“If directional movement exists, how could it be blind?”

I said that either the process has directionality, or it is blind.

”Not sure how you can know that.”
 
My definition of God is not very ordinary. I define God through the example of neither existence nor non-existence. A car is analytically unfindable, yet what remains after ultimate analysis is not an utter non-existence (only the utter non-existence of the inherent existence of car). This ineffable not-utter-non-existence is God/Truth-Suchness to me. And because there is no center there is only that. This is the pantheistic part.
 
The panendeistic part comes in when I claim that God also is Truth-Condition/Structure. Is because nothing is caused causelessly; the universe is not chaotic. If you open the kitchen door, it doesn't sometimes lead to the toilet or outer space. You, Tom, can't be pregnant. If you grow corn, the corn will not taste like chocolate or rhubarb. This non-chaos is Structure, and that structure I call God as Truth-Condition.
 
“…the assumption being there's only one leading edge.  There could be forty.”
 
Logically there can only be one leading edge at any one time, now can it? I guess that depends on how we define “leading” and “edge” though.

Re: God and Evolution

Dawid: I guess that depends on how we define “leading” and “edge” though.


Dawid, I think you answered your own question, or began to.  An edge can have many sectors of varying independence.  Any such sector could be on its own terms leading.

Re: God and Evolution

Yes, we could be in for a big surprise one day if we get visitors from other planets telling us what to do!  :) Perry Farrell had a song about that.

Yes, thank you for remembering, James. Andrew says, “As far as we know” we're the leading edge, and part of the point is that because we are the leading edge as far as we know we should take responsibility for things.

Ken, I believe, once said that he thinks it is most likely that there are creatures on other planets with more intelligence, but I can't find it now. He makes some reference to it here, though.

But I think the map can lead one down roads that aren't the most humble, right? It can lead into a kind of narcissism, if one isn't careful. The second face of God does ameliorate that a little, but in another sense I think it has the potential to worsen it.

I believe, though, that the deeper psychic for sure is more intelligent than the ego, but we can also take a developmental perspective on that that avoids that particular metaphysic. At any rate, though, there comes a time, at least, when the deeper psychic is more intelligent than the ego.

But, of course, calling it the “deeper psychic” is just one interpretation. It could indeed be an interior abduction by aliens from outer space or ascended masters or even God!

Andrew Cohen has spoken about the greater intelligence of the deeper psychic:

Re: God and Evolution

David, in your understanding (particularly of Andrew's teachings), what does the 2nd Face of God refer to? 
 
Regarding the deeper psychic, does Andrew believe its intelligent responsiveness depends on structural development, or is it independent of it?  If it is non-materialistic, is he suggesting that the intelligence of the deeper psychic does not depend on the brain?

Re: God and Evolution

Another question we could discuss is whether the evolution in God-ideas correlates with observable mental developments.    Does anyone know of a book discussing the history of God or such?

One line of investigation I'm enjoying is this.  In the last two or more centuries God has been associated with particularly one side of the basic polarity apparent in language.  Hartshorne was perhaps the first to systematize this observation.  In his view, the polarities we encounter in language bear a recognizable structure.  For instance, one term of a duality will include the other such that grammatically the more inclusive term will be usable as an adjective in relation to the other term if used as a noun, but not the reverse.

Take the terms universal and particular and notice this curious one-way grammatical direction: whereas you can say “particular universal” with meaning (“red”), you cannot say “universal particular” (“universal this-red).

This observation, IMO, shows the dualism we encounter in thought and language has an asymmetrical structure. 

Another observation shows that inclusive terms are generally positive, included terms negative.  Take again the example of particular and universal.  “Particular” might be termed a positive or quality-designating label requiring for its full meaning reference to, and knowledge of, an actual particular.  “The particular dog” makes sense only if one is shown the dog in question.

“Universal,” by contrast, is negative, or quality-stripping.  “Dog” is a universal, but points only to the minimum qualities necessary for distinguishing “dog” from whatever is being distinguished.

These observations—including/included, positive/negative—point to a structure in duality.

Quite interestingly, if you use these observations to categorize words of duals, you get an ordering something like the following (I'll use a small list):

relative       –    absolute
finite           –    infinite
temporal      –    eternal
effect          –    cause
contingent   –    necessary
later           –    prior
concrete      –    abstract

Now notice the correlation I began this post with.  In the last two or more centuries, God has been described using terms drawn from the included, negative side of the basic duality.  God is absolute, infinite, eternal, the first cause, necessary, prior to all and, dare I say, abstract.

Here are some of my speculations to date regarding this observation.  Included/negative terms are abstract and concern later, higher mental functions requiring considerable mental development.  In Piaget's basic scheme, abstract mental operations are late-developed evolutionary products that require considerable prior stage development for their appearance.

My guess is that identifiable differentiations in the evolution of the God notion could likely be correlated with stages of human mental development.  I personally believe the Buddha appeared in 500 BC and not before because the human mind was prior to then insufficiently developed, particularly in its abstracting capabilities.  “Emptiness” is highly abstract and negating.  Eckhart Tolle's “beingness” or Wilber's “suchness” are likewise highly abstract and negating.  So, too, “formlessness,” “unmanifest,” “uncharacterizable”—these are all abstract negating terms.

Of course, we don't know where mental evolution will lead next, so we cannot say what new mental structure will appear to produce a new “God” or even higher-than-absolute abstraction.  I personally think our present notions of “the absolute” will look like kindergarten, stage-specific talk in short time (centuries, millenia, whatever), just like now we no longer believe in pre-formal operational nature-spirits.  Development is the key here.

Re: God and Evolution

Great stuff, Tom.

 Does anyone know of a book discussing the history of God or such?

Have you tried Nietzsche's 'Genealogy of Morals' yet? its about, well, ethics and its trace through history, including its implementation on societies and the role of the church in that matter. Still worth a read! :-)

Re: God and Evolution

Does anyone know of a book discussing the history of God or such?

Karen Armstrong has a well-known book on the topic:  A History of God.

Re: God and Evolution

Thanks, Christophe, I'll look into that book.

As just one further sideline question, one might be moved to ask how God, or Spirit, these presumably denoting the all-inclusive, could be confined to included terms only?  Something's wrong with that equation.  Hint: what is called God or Spirit is more mental-functional than we might like to admit.

Re: God and Evolution

Bruce, thank you for the Armstrong tip.

Another implication of the curious asymmetrical structure of duality is that posited symmetries should be investigated, for they're likely wrong in some way.  It is true that each term implies its opposite and that this implication is symmetrical: particular implies universal as universal implies particular.  But the movement from one pole to the other differs.  Universal negates from particular and not vice versa.

If one were to ask where in the universe one finds asymmetry, the obvious answer is time.  It seems to me that the curious structure of duality, its asymmetry, reflects time at some deep level.  One can see a hint of this in the terms in the above list “later – prior.”  That which is later includes that which came before, the prior.  Thus do we likewise see that later versions of God include prior versions in some manner.  The absolute, in this sense, changes with time, depends on time and relativity, in which it is included, for any expression of it.

BTW, this asymmetry suggests the Tao symbol is wrong.

Re: God and Evolution

Bruce: David, in your understanding (particularly of Andrew's teachings), what does the 2nd Face of God refer to? 
 

That's an interesting question, Bruce. I often ask it myself.  :)

I would like to talk to him about that in greater detail than I have. He doesn't talk about it that much at all, in my experience. He emphasizes responsibility and intention much more, more like Almaas' path of inquiry as opposed to Aurobindo's more passive approach (Aurobindo writes that both active and passive approaches are possible; I think it may depend on type).

Andrew's is more active, and I can just remember a few instances where he has spoken about it briefly. Usually I gather that he feels his audience is needing to enact something more Teal than Indigo (getting serious about spiritual practice, starting a meditation practice, participating in the process rather than postmodern self-indulgence, etc.) and is still in need of differentiating from Amber views of God (which could possibly have one leaving things up to God rather than taking responsibility for things). Sometimes he probably sounds like an complete atheist to people who just see him for one night—“There is no one up there! There is no one up there!”  :) That was a few years ago.

I haven't heard him offering anything like a second-face-of-Spirit injunction very often, and when I have it's kind of a second-third face hybrid. His teaching is always evolving, though, so I can't really speak for what he is doing right now in long retreats or in private with his students.

My sense is that for him it means a second-person approach to the evolutionary impulse (the second-third hybrid), as it seems to with Wilber and Almaas.

I don't know whether she was speaking about the same referent because I haven't read or heard her speak very much, but I once read Gangaji saying that surrender and discrimination are two sides of the same coin, and I think that's the paradox that those others are working with as well.


Bruce: Regarding the deeper psychic, does Andrew believe its intelligent responsiveness depends on structural development, or is it independent of it?  If it is non-materialistic, is he suggesting that the intelligence of the deeper psychic does not depend on the brain?


He thinks the responsiveness he is reffering to depends on structural development and the brain, as Wilber does.

He is basically talking about some Indigo responsiveness or something, what the deeper psychic looks like when it “comes to the fore,” as Aurobindo put it, or what the evolutionary impulse looks like at a particular structure.

My sense is that he likes Wilber's take on things theoretically. I can't recall any theoretical disagreement between the two of them, maybe a difference or two about dharma.

~    ~    ~

It's occurred to me also recently—speaking generally, not just to Bruce—that we would do well to differentiate carefully between the dharma Wilber sometimes offers and the meta-theory.

He will basically play the role of guru or Integral Life Practice teacher at times and talk about emptiness, awareness, and such, but this isn't the meta-theorist speaking.

He will also speak differently as an Integral Life Practice teacher depending on the group he is speaking with, whether it's a Mahamudra Buddhist group, a Christian group, an evolutionary enlightenment group.

I just think certain things might clear up a little if we always considered what role he is playing. Sometimes even in books he plays the role of guru or Integral Life Practice teacher rather than that of the meta-theorist.

Re: God and Evolution

I forgot about this online teaching excerpt, “Effort and Surrender.”  The paradoxical title suggests a hybrid first-person/second-person teaching or self-power/other-power dynamic, but we get the third-person perspective when he discusses the differentiation between ego and evolutionary impulse. He takes all three perspectives on it in this paragraph:

“Taking responsibility for the intention to evolve demands tremendous effort and profound surrender, simultaneously. When the evolutionary impulse awakens in the human heart and mind, it inevitably begins to conflict with every part of the self that resists change. Only an individual who has a rare degree of intention and surrender is going to be able and willing to make the necessary effort to resist the conditioned tendencies that he or she has been identified with for a lifetime. Emotionally and psychologically, it is an enormous challenge to consciously override that which feels most familiar in favor of a mysterious impulse to reach for something that cannot be seen or known. So the trust or surrender would be expressed as the willingness to use effort to override or transcend the ego’s irrational refusal to change.”


Sometimes people who get into nondoing don't claim responsibility or don't see that in some respect or level they are still “making choices,” so he is trying to bring awareness to that dynamic, as well as to the perspective that breaking old personal and cultural habits won't always come easily.

Re: God and Evolution

“so I can't really speak for what he is doing right now in long retreats or in private with his students.”
 
Thank God.

Re: God and Evolution

Here's one of Almaas' definitions of God:

God is not something different from Being, or true nature. It is one significant potential of the wholeness of Being, a particular way that this wholeness can manifest itself in our perception and understanding. Being can be impersonal, simply the true nature and ground of all; it can also be personal, as the creative Reality that is constantly generating manifestation and relating to it in a personal way. Furthermore, God is not separate from creation. The world is the creation of the personal God, but it is also the face of God. The world, in all its dimensions and forms, is simply the appearance of the body of God, and also God's mind and heart. The world is a theophany. The two facets, world/cosmos and God/Being are intimately related. The world/cosmos is the experience of God/Being and God/Being is the nature and source of the world/cosmos. They are two facets of the same Reality. We can think of God/Being as true nature apart from the forms it manifests, which is one way some traditional teachings conceptualize the situation; but then the world/cosmos is the inseparable creation of God/Being, its external facet. In either case, there is no separation. In fact there is perfect coemergent nonduality. (Inner Journey Home, pg 453)

Re: God and Evolution

And here are some of his comments on evolution:

Recognizing that Presence manifests itself in various qualities and forms which are constantly changing, reveals that Essence is not static, but is in constant transformation. Being is dynamic. This dynamism manifests the richness of Being, inherent in us as the potentialities of ourselves, and because of this nature is our nature, it moves our experience towards greater optimization. In other words, the dynamism of Being impels and guides the self towards a greater revelation of its potentialities, towards manifesting its primordial wholeness. So it is an evolutionary force than moves the self towards greater clarity, luminosity, creativity, depth, expansion, individuation, richness, and so on. (The Point of Existence, pg 483)

It is this ontologically given, and spontaneously functioning, evolutionary dynamism of the self that we see driving human psychological evolution, which is experienced directly in self-realization, but lost sight of in the experience of the ego-self. The dynamism of Being drives the evolutionary thrust of the self at all stages of its development, but it is also the dynamic center and source of any activity and creativity in the state of self-realization. (The Point of Existence, pg 485)

Re: God and Evolution

It seems to me Andrew Cohen's and Almaas' definitions of God bring into the definition left-side terms in my list above.  Their definitions illustrate in current form how conceptions of God evolve.

I might add a personal note.  Saying the universe is God's body, or the texture of Spirit, or the third face of Spirit, to me limits God to this universe.  What of, say, a universe not built of, say, matter?  Would God be associated with Being?  Be the ground of Being?  Being could well be a this-universe notion.  We probably do not know how anthropomorphic we are.

And why assume there was no such other “universe” before the big bang of ours?  For that matter, why assume there was nothing of our present universe before that big bang?  This universe could be infinitely timed, stretching through an infinity of big bangs—Roger Penrose thinks so, and he's actually devised a theory to show how that could work.  Why assume that “before the big bang” was nothingness, one's original face, etc.?