Religion without Fairy Tales, Science with Soul A personal response by Willow Songsmith I really wanted to like this book. It represents a bold, radical and far-reaching attempt at a critique of organised religion, and an envisioning of a new type of religion which would be in harmony with scientific thinking; one which would be characterised more by reason and inquiry than by dogma. As a Unitarian Universalist Pagan, with training and experience in Life Science & Ecology, this should be music to my ears! However, from the very outset (indeed from the title page itself!) I found myself struggling with the ideas and conceptions of the text. There are a great number of books that seek to affect some kind of synthesis of science and religion or spirituality, but very few come close to achieving this. The crux of the problem is that authors often fail to acquaint themselves sufficiently with the paradigms, contexts and special use of language and terminology that make up science and the scientific method. This tends to lead to the conflation of scientific ideas and data with philosophical, spiritual and even theological concepts. There are many examples of this phenomenon - the case of the Anthropic Principle comes to mind. Formulated by the theoretical astrophysicist Brandon Carter, the Anthropic Principle is concerned with why and how life has arisen in our time-space, given that a number of the laws of physics, cosmological constants and variables have to occur within a very precise and narrow window to support life. This mystery is addressed, in a nutshell, by stating that the only Universe we can see is one that supports life - given any other sort, we would not exist to see it! Unfortunately, Carter's work has been picked up, expanded upon and distorted by a number of 'popular science' authors. In particular they took his idea that the Universe must be of a type that predisposes towards life - 'must' is used here as a truism - and altered the sense of this so that 'must' became an imperative , a Teleological statement. This distorted reading found favour both with the proponents of 'Intelligent Design' and with fans of 'New Age Gaian' thinking. This points up the pitfalls involved in extrapolating scientific theories and data into a spiritual paradigm. And this, to some extent, is a trap that Frank Parkinson falls into, particularly when he is addressing Evolution. Most of us in 'The West' are products of cultures that have been profoundly shaped by the 'religions of the book'. As such, it is very difficult to think outside what Robert Anton Wilson calls the 'reality tunnel' of our history, with concepts such as a creator deity, a 'plan' for humanity, and an obligation to strive to 'better' ourselves. The Ecology lecturer at my university had to spend a great deal of time and energy in subverting these habitual thought patterns, particularly when explaining the theory of Evolution. Most people have some idea of what Evolution is, but it is difficult to really understand its workings, and the profound implications of these for philosophical, spiritual and religious thought. It is hard to look at the natural world with all its appearance of advanced design and planning and not to imagine we discern the hand of a creator. It is also wholly counter-intuitive to see that beings are not evolving towards some ideal or 'finished' state. But that is the reality - evolution is an eternal dance of 'dynamic equilibrium', an ever-changing answer to an ever-changing question. Complexity arises out of simplicity (which is, by the way, the strongest argument against the possibility of a Creator deity), but the evolving organisms are not heading towards some destination, but rather are simply living completely in the moment, being what they are as part of the interdependent web of life, and passing this along to the next generation. Frank Parkinson talks of 'looking forward to what we can be' , of evolution being 'a spectrum' with 'ends' , and asks what we should 'aim for at the other end of humankind's goal'. These concepts belong in the realm of social engineering and contain echoes of a created world, and of us 'rising above' our animal origins. Ecology demonstrates that humans are neither central to nor 'higher' than our fellow beings in the web of life. Historically, it has often been our belief that the world was created for us, or that we have some special rights over it, which has led to exploitation, degradation and ecological disaster. The religions of the book have tended to portray 'the wilderness' as something we have a duty as 'stewards' to tame and turn into 'a garden'. Colonisation, invasion and expansion have been exhorted as virtues. As Max Weber explained in his 1904 work 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', the ethics and dogma of Christianity have led directly and causally to Capitalism, and to the morass of meaningless materialism that characterises modern society. This imbues me with a suspicion of any idea that envisages one answer or path for all. Perhaps we need more humility, and faith in the processes of life itself - to allow our way forward to emerge and evolve! I see neither the potential nor the desirability of a new religion. Indeed religions continue to be more a part of the problem than of the solution, and this is, I would assert, due to the fundamental nature of religion itself. Religions can be understood as codifications of beliefs and dogma, functioning to regulate and control society, to delineate the orthodox from the heretical, that which is allowed (or even mandatory) from that which is forbidden. They explain the world and its workings, purposes and meanings. As such, their functions are largely being superseded by science and technology, which offers a much richer and evidence-based view of life - one that, crucially, is driven by change and innovation. But what then of our spiritual needs? Religion has always had its mystical and contemplative elements. These have typically been subject to suppression and sanction, or have been reserved for an elite, perhaps because they are in many ways the polar opposite of religion itself - tending to emphasise direct, subjective, non-hierarchical contact with the mystery of life. It is my contention that mysticism, mystery and mythology are the real treasures of religion . Many writers draw a distinction between scientific or 'rational' truth and 'mythic' or 'poetic' truth. As humans of the 21 st century our world is unquestionably shaped and delineated by science and technology. We are, however, very far from understanding reality writ large. We still need to celebrate the wonder and mystery of being alive, to make sense of the pain, fear and loss of it all, and to 'interface' with a larger reality that we can feel but not explain in words. Ritual, Mysticism and Myth enable this. The word 'Myth' is often used in a pejorative sense, almost as another word for 'Lie', but this serves to underestimate and misunderstand its inherent power and value. Joseph Campbell said that
"myths orient people to the metaphysical dimension, explain the origins and nature of the cosmos, validate social issues, and, on the psychological plane, address themselves to the innermost depths of the psyche. " Paul Veyne , in his book 'Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths?' wrote: "Myth is truthful, but figuratively so. It is not historical truth mixed with lies; it is a high philosophical teaching that is entirely true, on the condition that, instead of taking it literally, one sees in it an allegory." This for me is the very essence of spirituality. We can draw on the myths, mysteries and rituals of any and all sources, sacred and secular, without taking on the baggage, beliefs and dogma of religion. All religions and primal stories contain pearls of wisdom, ways of seeing reality that have an eternal relevance, but these must be harvested from the background of religious and cultural accretion. Then they can sit alongside a modern scientific worldview in a mutually nourishing and enriching way'. So - Religion Without Fairy Tales? No! That would be to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater! Fairy Tales are the living essence of religion! And 'Science with Soul'? Frank Parkinson makes a number of statements about scientists being scared of various phenomena, such as a universe with a beginning. I try to keep up to date with science writings, and have seen precious little evidence of this 'fear'. And I find the idea of comparing theological utterances (such as the quote about 'light beyond light') with scientific progress painstakingly and incrementally achieved, incredible and even perhaps offensive. It is vaguely reminiscent of the demands of the proponents of 'Intelligent Design' that ID be accepted and taught as a comparable alternate theory to Evolution. Science offers us insight into the wondrous, 'miraculous' reality of life and is, itself, an intensely spiritual discipline. It does not need to be fused with religion to achieve this, and indeed it would be a disaster if it was! I propose "Fairy Tales without Religion, and Science for Clarity and Freedom" from: http://leicesterunitarians.org/ |