Filed in Science

The Transcendent Imperative

At a time when our spiritual traditions struggle to remain relevant in a culture dominated by scientific materialism, Andrew Cooper considers the pros and cons of a new religious model based on the psychology of “flow.”

Andrew Cooper

Wisdom Collection

To access the content within the Wisdom Collection,
join Tricycle as a Supporting or Sustaining Member

Another problem has to do with the nature of scientific knowledge itself. A Haitian adage says, “When the anthropologists arrive, the gods depart.” Science is our world’s most powerful form of knowledge, but despite its pretensions to the contrary, it is not impartial, nor is it free from the values of the culture from which it emerged. Science is an epistemic stance, one that makes possible certain types of reflection and knowledge even as it ignores others. As a mode of understanding the world, science places primary value on explanatory knowledge. This is quite inimical to a mythic stance, which holds that the world is disclosed most meaningfully in its mystery. Mythic consciousness demands that certain things—sacred things—be approached not with the distance of disinterested scrutiny but in a spirit of faith. Otherwise, the gods depart.

Then, too, there is the thorny issue of direction in evolution. The late Stephen Jay Gould, who was perhaps America’s most eminent evolutionary thinker, pointed out that, beginning with Darwin himself, evolutionists have distinguished between the fact that evolution has occurred and the theories advanced about how it has occurred. Gould himself rejected the idea that evolution possesses a sensible directionality leading toward complexity, dismissing such notions as “spin-doctored” views designed to bolster our sense of human importance: there is no directionality, in other words, just adaptation.

The issue is, for now, not resolvable, and in fact, it may stay that way. Complexity seems to be a sound and elegant interpretation of what we know, but accepting it or rejecting it is a choice. In this regard, then, it is, ironically, a kind of faith. And if we set aside arguments about competing theories of evolution, the power of the idea remains, for evolution is the modern creation story.

We humans, being the story-telling creatures we are, live and make sense of the world by means of the stories we tell about it. In placing flow within the context of evolution, Csikszentmihalyi is following a tradition, going back to prehistory, of linking human purpose to the larger designs of the cosmos. Thus the story of who we are and the story of what the universe is are bound together. But the fit is still a bit uneasy.

The seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal was, it has been said, the first in the West to recognize the severity of the religious implications of the then-emerging scientific-rationalistic worldview. He wrote of the dread endemic to a world from which God was now hidden and which was thus emptied of meaning. In such a world, religious faith was a kind of wager, a leap into the unknown. But, Pascal asserted, having made that leap, an individual would find that his or her faith would, in turn, be ratified. However different our world may be from Pascal’s, his wager is still our own.

The tension between the scientific and religious descriptions of the world is still acute. Science and religion are still far from having worked out their troubled relationship, and the question remains whether and how they can. For some in both camps, the answer is that no rapprochement is possible, as the two ways of seeing the world are believed to be simply incompatible and incommensurate. Others suggest a kind of division of labor, in which each addresses a separate set of concerns. Some believe we can, and must, find our way to a broad synthesis, something new and whole, built on, yet fundamentally different from, what has come before. This last, perhaps the great intellectual and spiritual challenge of our time, is surely a resolution devoutly to be wished. But we have a long way to go.

Traditional religious mythologies imbued life with coherence and human activity with significance. But we now know that the truths they expressed were, at least for the most part, not literal but metaphoric. Truth in science is something quite different. Its objective is to explain the world, not to confer meaning upon it. The power of science comes from its adherence to fact; engendering resonant symbolic experience is simply not its concern. Given the constraints it necessarily places on imaginative activity, one must wonder whether science is, in itself, a sufficient basis for a rich and compelling narrative of human purpose.

Share with a Friend

Email to a Friend

Already a member? Log in to share this content.

You must be a Tricycle Community member to use this feature.

1. Join as a Basic Member

Signing up to Tricycle newsletters will enroll you as a free Tricycle Basic Member.You can opt out of our emails at any time from your account screen.

2. Enter Your Message Details

Enter multiple email addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
jackelope65's picture

This is avery thought provoking discussion. Flow can not be judged from the outside and I do not believe that the flow experienced by a Trappist monk is inherently better than from the flow required to pitch a perfect baseball game. I have experienced flow running/walking in nature, surfing, playing tennis, studying & reading, meditating and so forth, but I would not rate one 'better' than the other. After all the post meditation state may be as important and beneficial as meditative absorption, which, to me, seems the point. But I do agree that flow during knowingly unethical behaviours may not prove to be of much benefit in the long run. Further increasing complexity may or may not be the eventual outcome of evolution when sometimes the change is "cooperation within a species" as Darwin stated. Often when solutions become too complex, we are just missing the point. Though I'm not necessarily convinced of any role science may have to play in proving or disproving God; God may just be totally different than anything we could imagine. Scientism is a mistake as science is deeply lost in the questions that it produces and can only be measured in the technological advances/problems that arise from its evolution. We do not even know, very basically, if we discover or invent math and science. I really enjoyed the complex issues stemming from this article and will look forward to exploring Csikszentmihalyi's research and literature further. After all, I have very little certainty on these subjects. Thank you.

kentc33's picture

I'm wondering just what the word "God" refers to for you?

Dominic Gomez's picture

re: Miller's "Faith is make-believe." In Buddhism faith equals daily life.

Kesho's picture

The best line for me was "leave room for mystery" we "just sit" our instructions from the Buddha. Thanks you Andrew Cooper. As an academic letting go of the scientific-rational thinking and reaching for something more....this is very satisfying.....

mralexander99's picture

Is this really "Much ado about nothing?"…or is it "Much ado about everything?"

sschroll's picture

Thank you for this article. Clarified some important issues and stirred life inside.

janetmartha's picture

Mucho ruido, pocas nueces.

sschroll's picture

Aramos, dijo el mosquito !!!