There are many definitions of religion, and not all of them specify that religion must entail a belief in a deity. For example, a broad definition of a religion was given by the anthropologist Clifford Geertz. He defined a religion as " a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Here is another rather similar definition: we can define a religion as a set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and life, or a recommended way of living, typically stemming from the teachings of an authority, along with norms, taboos, ethics, rituals, roles or social organizations that may arise from such beliefs.
Such a definition covers every religion I have learned about, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism and Scientology. Interestingly, under such a definition, Darwinist materialism may also be defined as a religion.
Darwinist materialism does constitute a system of beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and life, by teaching that all of the blessings of nature are accidents produced by blind natural processes, and that reality is fundamentally material rather than spiritual. It also seems to teach a recommended path of life, by teaching or implying that activities that humans have so often engaged in (such as religious activities or spiritual activities or the study of the paranormal or the search for design in nature) are a waste of time, and by guiding people into a particular groove of speech, thought, and conduct that wins the approval of materialists.
Darwinist materialism does constitute a system of beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and life, by teaching that all of the blessings of nature are accidents produced by blind natural processes, and that reality is fundamentally material rather than spiritual. It also seems to teach a recommended path of life, by teaching or implying that activities that humans have so often engaged in (such as religious activities or spiritual activities or the study of the paranormal or the search for design in nature) are a waste of time, and by guiding people into a particular groove of speech, thought, and conduct that wins the approval of materialists.
But should we really classify Darwinist materialism as a religion? One
way to help sort out this question is to make a list of some of the
tendencies that religions typically have. We can then ask: how many
of these tendencies do we see in Darwinist materialism? The checklist
below is a fairly good one.
Revered founder? | |
Sacred text? | |
Priests, ministers or similar authority figures? | |
Chapels, temples, or similar buildings where the faithful congregate? | |
Creation story? | |
Miracle stories? | |
Life-after-death eschatology? | |
World transformation eschatology? | |
Belief in superhuman power? |
Let's
look at how many of these traits Darwinist materialism has.
The
first item in the checklist is “Revered founder?” It is a
hallmark of religions that the founder of the system of thought is
treated as some kind of some special fountain of wisdom. A believer
in a religion might dismiss some thought as shallow or dubious if he
thinks that thought came from the mind of some ordinary person, but
he may think that same thought is a pearl of wisdom if it came from
the founder of his creed. Does Darwinist materialism have this
“revered founder” characteristic? It would seem so, and the
revered founder is Charles Darwin. An example of the fanboy zealotry of materialists towards Darwin was a statement on page 158 of the book The Inflamed Mind by Edward Bullmore, in which (referring in general in biological explanations) he states, "Ultimately, the answer must always be Darwin."
What
about the “sacred text” characteristic? The Darwinian materialist
does not regard any book as being divinely inspired, but it would
seem that Darwin's The
Origin of Species
book serves as a kind of sacred text of Darwinian materialists. So
we can check off the first two
check boxes on our checklist:
What
about the third item on our checklist, “Priests, ministers or similar authority figures?” In
a religion such as Catholicism there are priests who wear special
garb, and in Protestantism there are ministers who serve a similar
role as apostles of the belief system. Is there anything similar in
Darwinian materialism? It would seem there is: the professors of
evolutionary biology and similar professors such as professors of
neuroscience.
Consider the activities of two young men, Rod and Bill.
Rod decides to become a minister in a church. He is indoctrinated for
years in a regimented minister-schooling environment in which allegiance to the belief system of his teachers is demanded. After graduating, he then spends lots of time standing before assemblies of other
people (parishioners), preaching the teachings of his belief system.
Using lots of specialized jargon, Rod may also spend a lot of time in
scholarly writing to advance the beliefs of his church, contributing
to things such as religion journals and theological books. If a
heretic arises in his church to dispute the accepted teachings, Rod
may act as a kind of "defender of the faith" by reasserting the claims of the ideological orthodoxy he was instructed in.
Bill,
however, decides to become a professor of evolutionary biology. He is
indoctrinated for years in a regimented professor-schooling
environment in which allegiance to the belief system of his
teachers is demanded. After getting his graduate degree or PhD, he then spends lots of time standing before
assemblies of other people (university students), preaching the
teachings of his belief system. Using lots of specialized jargon,
Bill may also spend a lot of time in scholarly writing to advance the
beliefs of his scholastic tribe, contributing to things such as journals and books. If a heretic arises to dispute
the accepted teachings, such as someone suggesting there is purpose and design in living things, Bill may act as a kind of "defender of the faith" by reasserting the claims of the ideological orthodoxy he was instructed in.
Clearly
there are so many similarities between Rod and Bill that we can say
that professors of evolutionary biology act as a kind of priesthood
of the Darwinian materialist belief system. We may also note that
special-status groups such as the National Academy of Sciences (with
about 2000 members) can be compared to the college of cardinals of
the Catholic Church (with about 200 members). The “Department of
Evolutionary Biology” buildings in universities and colleges
function just like chapels for the Darwinian materialist system.
Instead of having ritualized meetings at chapels or churches, believers in Darwinist materialism have ritualized meetings at places like
university lecture halls and TED talks. We can therefore add two
more checks to our checklist:
The
next item on our checklist is “Creation story?” The creation
story of organized religions are well known, such as the biblical
story that God made the heavens and the earth (along with its life
forms) in six days. Darwinist materialism offers its own creation
stories, such as the idea that life began from a random combination
of chemicals, and that all biological innovations arose from random
mutation and what Darwinists call "natural selection" (although they don't believe this actually involves a selection in the form of a conscious choice). You might protest that these are
scientific facts, not just creation stories. But neither of
these claims is a scientific fact. There is zero evidence that life
ever arose by a chance combination of chemicals, and no one has ever succeeded in attempts to
produce living things (or the protein molecules that are the building blocks of living things) from combinations of mere chemicals in a laboratory simulating the early earth. We have no proof that any single macroscopic biological
innovation ever appeared because of random mutations, natural
selection, or a combination of random mutations and natural
selection. The creation narratives of Darwinian materialism can therefore
be classified as creation stories rather than scientific facts, the
term “creation story” not necessarily meaning something
untruthful.
As
for whether Darwinist materialism involves a belief in miracle
stories, some would argue that the Darwinian origin accounts are just
such things. It can be argued that to believe that random mutations and natural
selection (essentially just survival of the fittest) can produce something as immensely complex as a vision system (or a very complex protein molecule with hundreds of amino acids arranged in just the right way to produce a complex functional capability) is to believe in a miracle of luck, something as miraculous as falling trees in a forest conveniently forming into a large log-cabin hotel. But
the point is debatable, so for now let's just put a question mark on the “Miracle stories?” line of our checklist, updating it as follows:
So
we have an outcome in which Darwinist materialism is starting to
resemble a religion, but at least the last three rows on our
checklist are unchecked. However, in recent years we have seen a
growth of what is called transhumanism. And it seems that the
transhumanists are determined to propel Darwinist materialism into a
system of thought in which the last three items on this list are
checked off.
The
transhumanist offers a strange version of a kind of a
life-after-death eschatology. Transhumanists tell us that at some
point in the future, people will be able to upload their minds into a
computer or a robot. Transhumanists refer to such a thing as a
“digital afterlife.”
Just
as some Christians tell us that the planet will soon be transformed by the
Second Coming of Jesus or some rapture in which the faithful ascend
into heaven, the transhumanists tell us that the world will soon be
utterly transformed after a “superintelligence explosion” results
in the creation of superhuman electronic minds far superior to human
minds (and after humans upgrade themselves into genetically or electronically enhanced supermen). This is a kind of world transformation eschatology, as the creation of such super-minds would presumably lead to a transfiguration of global reality as dramatic as we might expect under the Second Coming of Jesus.
Although
the transhumanist does not tend to believe in any divine authority, he may well believe in superhuman extraterrestrials with god-like powers. Also, the transhumanist believes that there will soon be a superhuman power on Earth,
once there appears superintelligent computers or robots far smarter
than men (as well as genetically or electronically upgraded humans who will be superhuman powers). Of course, all of these tales of future wonders such as
mind uploading, digital afterlives and the appearance of supermen and superintelligent robots are very
much a new type of miracle story. So when we add these miracle
stories to the other tales of random mutation miracles of luck and the tale of a miracle of luck in which incredibly organized life first forms from mere unorganized chemicals, we
have a system of belief in which there seems to be multiple miracle stories. So
in the case of transhumanist Darwinist materialism, the checklist now looks like this:
So
transhumanism puts the finishing touches on the materialist religion.
The end product (which can be called transhumanist Darwinist materialism, or more concisely transhumanist materialism) is something that really must be described as a
full-fledged religion. It has all the main hallmarks of a religion.
Having written a rather long blog post already, I will not now get into the weighty question of whether transhumanist materialism is a believable religion. I will merely note that a discussion of various considerations relevant to such a question can be found in the past and future posts of this blog.
Having written a rather long blog post already, I will not now get into the weighty question of whether transhumanist materialism is a believable religion. I will merely note that a discussion of various considerations relevant to such a question can be found in the past and future posts of this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment