I have frequently criticized religion on this blog. But I might add that religion is not the only anti-progressive force in the world—there are other enemies of the future. Some oppose progressive ideas even if they are advanced by the religious. Consider how political conservatives, virtually all of whom profess to be Christians, denounced Pope Francis’ role in re-establishing Cuban-American relations, his criticism of unfettered capitalism and vast income inequality, and his warnings about the dangers of climate change. Or consider Pope Leo’s critique of Trump’s policies, which were also criticized by the current American regime. (Plutocrats and despots hate change too, especially if it affects their wallets.) The beneficiaries of the status quo don’t want a better world—they like the one they have.
How then do we make a better world? What will guide us in this quest? For there to be a worthwhile future, we need at least three things: 1) knowledge of ourselves and the world; 2) ethical values that promote the flourishing of conscious beings; and 3) a narrative to give life meaning. But where do we find such things?
Knowledge comes from science, which is the only cognitive authority in the world today. Science explains forces that were once dark and mysterious; it reveals the vast immensity, history, and future of the cosmos; it explains our evolutionary origins and the legacy that leaves upon our thoughts and behaviors, and it tells us how the world works independently of ideology or prejudice. Applied science is technology, which gives us the power to overcome limitations and make a better future. If you want to see miracles, don’t go to Lourdes; look inside your cell phone.
Ethical values do not depend on religion, as can easily be demonstrated, and the idea that people can’t be moral without religion is false, no matter how many people think otherwise. Instead, ethical values and behaviors arose in our evolutionary history, where they may also find their justification. Yes, some moral-like behaviors sometimes favored by evolution have also been prescribed by religion—cooperation and altruism come to mind—but the justification of these values is biological and social, not supernatural. We are moral to the extent that we are because, for the most part, it’s in our self-interest—we all do better if we all cooperate. And everyone can endorse values that aid our survival and flourishing—even our godlike descendants.
Finally, to truly give our lives meaning, we need scientific narratives to replace outdated religious ones. We need stories that appeal to the educated, not ones based on superstition, mythology, or obscurantism. With the death of religion imminent, we need to look elsewhere for meaning and purpose.
And one such narrative already exists. It is the story of cosmic evolution, of the cosmos becoming self-conscious. Nature gave birth to consciousness, and consciousness comes to know nature. Through this interaction of the universe and consciousness, reality comes to know itself. Surely this story is profound enough to satisfy our metaphysical longings. And, it has an added benefit over supernatural accounts of being based on a scientific account of the world.
What is our role in this story? We are the protagonists of the evolutionary epic, and determining its course is our destiny. We should willingly embrace our role as agents of evolutionary change, helping evolution to realize new possibilities. We are not an end, but a beginning. We are as links in a chain leading upward to higher forms of being and consciousness. This is our hope; this gives our lives meaning.
I don’t know if we can make a better future, but I know that no help will come from the gods. Turning our backs on them is the first step on our journey. It is time to put the childhood of the species behind us.
Maybe Confucious would know. But, he is long dead, so, I guess we can only muddle through.
how I long for some wisdom.
So much to unpack here Prof. Messerly.
Almost like poetry, you provide the framework with just a few insightful, and incisive, lines.
Knowledge. The foundation of everything.
But we need to add bricks and mortar to the foundation to create a livable building.
I envision the bricks and mortar to be, as Paul and you allude to in the comments, as wisdom. Wisdom assembles the knowledge into something workable.
Unfortunately, unlike knowledge, wisdom is not deterministic.
It is also malleable.
Much of what I thought in my younger years as “wise” I am no longer certain of.
In fact, some “Truths” have disappeared completely!
To continue the metaphor, Ethical Values are the roof.
To share my house, I must offer cover from rain and snow, relief from the sun, and a sense of security that the final enclosure offers.
Was it Aristotle who spoke of the importance of Virtue? Can I consider Ethical Values as possibly the supreme Virtue?
For my house to have meaning beyond myself, it must be shared.
And I must share ethically. (do I lessen suffering by stealing from the homeless in the next town over in order to feed my neighbor? I am then merely deciding who suffers, rather than lessening it)
Lastly, is the universe conscious?
We are conscious. Does that make the cosmos so?
Or does it liken to the cells in my liver. They have evolved to perform a function that keeps my overall organism alive, which enables my consciousness. But they themselves are not conscious. They just follow the chemical/genetic algorithms that have arisen from evolution.
Or should I think of the conscious beings populating the Cosmos as collectively imparting the Cosmos with consciousness? Some reach the level of agency and volition. Which, however minutely, changes the future for their immediate habitation.
(a tiny perturbation to the Universe’s liver?)
All I have just typed may be nonsense, but it does make my walks more interesting!
One last thought.
Somewhere in my misspent youth, in order to heighten our sense of unique value, I was taught the idea that “god” resides inside us.
If the Cosmos is “conscious”, one could think of it as God. (sans the white beard)
Would that then mean we would be better served as thinking of ourselves as “inside God”?
Perhaps those of us taught the Abrahamic concept of subduing the Earth would then be more humble?
Some have postulated that God is an emergent phenomenon–sentience evolves first, then individual consciousness and morality, then (perhaps) a collective or “divine” consciousness arises, to which we contribute and of which we are a part. If thought of in this way, we could say that we are “in” God — enmeshed as a microcosm of a much larger, more inclusive reality, of which we are either totally ignorant of or only partially aware. Furthermore, if this larger, emergent entity or process is not conceived of as all powerful, then the problem of evil is largely solved because if an omnipotent God is not totally in control then he is not responsible for a stray bullet that accidentally kills a child caught in the cross-fire during a gang street fight.