"A Grand Bargain Over Evolution"

Following on his book "The Evolution of God", which I have reviewed here, Robert Wright tries to reconcile science and religion. Wright's reconciliation seems to be approaching the Baha'i belief in their essential harmony; he is just coming from the other direction. That is, from the vantage of a devoted materialist.

There were two passages that I found especially interesting. In the first one he suggests that evolution, given long enough, was destined to produce some kind of species with roughly our level of intelligence and moral capacity.

"For starters, there are plenty of evolutionary biologists who believe that evolution, given long enough, was likely to create a smart, articulate species — not our species, complete with five fingers, armpits and all the rest — but some social species with roughly our level of intelligence and linguistic complexity. And what about the chances of a species with a moral sense? Well, a moral sense seems to emerge when you take a smart, articulate species and throw in reciprocal altruism. And evolution has proved creative enough to harness the logic of reciprocal altruism again and again..."

Moreover, if moral capacity inevitably evolves in tandem with intelligence, then it must be treated as a universal truth, not unlike mathematical truths, which exist independent of the species becoming aware of them.

"Mr. Pinker has noted how the interplay of evolved intuition and the dynamics of discourse tends to forge agreement on something like the golden rule — that you should treat people as you expect to be treated. He compares this natural apprehension of a moral principle to the depth perception humans have thanks to the evolution of stereo vision. Not all species (not even all two-eyed species) have stereo vision, Mr. Pinker says, but any species that has it is picking up on 'real facts about the universe' that were true even before that species evolved — namely, the three-dimensional nature of reality and laws of optics.

Similarly, certain intuitions about reciprocal moral obligation are picking up on real facts about the logic of discourse and about generic social dynamics — on principles that were true even before humans came along and illustrated them. Including, in particular, the non-zero-sum dynamics that are part of our universe.
As Mr. Pinker once put it in conversation with me: 'There may be a sense in which some moral statements aren’t just ... artifacts of a particular brain wiring but are part of the reality of the universe, even if you can’t touch them and weigh them.' Comparing these moral truths to mathematical truths, he said that perhaps 'they’re really true independent of our existence. I mean, they’re out there and in some sense — it’s very difficult to grasp — but we discover them, we don’t hallucinate them.'"

The second passage that I found interesting concerns the question of higher purpose. Even if moral capacity is a universal truth that will manifest through evolution given enough time and opportunity, does this imply higher purpose? Is the human process of uncovering universal truths meaningful in the grand scheme of things? To this question, Wright uses a popular analogy used in Baha'i thought. While individual organs have limited functionality, they do serve the higher purpose of the organism to which they belong. Likewise, as humans evolve culturally, socially, and morally, is it a stretch to imagine that they too are evolving to better serve a higher order creative process? Call it a "meta-natural selection" on a universal scale.

"As Mr. Dawkins pointed out, we can now explain the origin of organisms without positing a god. Yet Mr. Dawkins also conceded something to Paley that gets too little attention: The complex functionality of an organism does demand a special kind of explanation.

The reason is that, unlike a rock, an organism has things that look as if they were designed to do something. Digestive tracts seem to exist in order to digest food. The heart seems to exist in order to pump blood.

And, actually, even once you accept that natural selection, not God, is the 'designer' — the blind watchmaker, as Mr. Dawkins put it — there is a sense in which these organs do have purposes, purposes that serve the organism’s larger purpose of surviving and spreading its genes. As Daniel Dennett, the Darwinian (and atheist) philosopher, has put it, an organism’s evolutionarily infused purpose is 'as real as purpose could ever be.'
SO in a sense Paley was right not just in saying that organisms must come from a different creative process than rocks but also in saying that this creative process imparts a purpose (however mundane) to organisms.

There are two morals to the story. One is that it is indeed legitimate, and not at all unscientific, to do what Paley did: inspect a physical system for evidence that it was given some purpose by some higher-order creative process. If scientifically minded theologians want to apply that inspection to the entire system of evolution, they’re free to do so."

Wright is careful to acknowledge that this wouldn't be proof of an existence of a god, but it does definitely open up the possibility of higher spiritual truth.

"The second moral of the story is that, even if evolution does have a 'purpose,' imparted by some higher-order creative process, that doesn’t mean there’s anything mystical or immaterial going on. And it doesn’t mean there’s a god. For all we know, there’s some 'meta-natural-selection' process — playing out over eons and perhaps over multiple universes — that spawned the algorithm of natural selection, somewhat as natural selection spawned the algorithm contained in genomes.

At the same time, theologians can be excused for positing design of a more intentional sort. After all, they can define their physical system — the system they’re inspecting for evidence of purpose — as broadly as they like. They can include not just the biological evolution that gave us an intelligent species but also the subsequent 'cultural evolution' — the evolution of ideas — that this species launched (and that, probably, any comparably intelligent species would launch).

When you define the system this broadly, it takes on a more spiritually suggestive cast. The technological part of cultural evolution has relentlessly expanded social organization, leading us from isolated hunter-gatherer villages all the way to the brink of a truly global society. And the continuing cohesion of this social system (also known as world peace) may depend on people everywhere using their moral equipment with growing wisdom — critically reflecting on their moral intuitions, and on the way they’re naturally deployed, and refining that deployment."

This last paragraph is cool; he suggests that there is room at this stage for some advanced, universalistic theology, one that promotes unity on a global scale. A theology not unlike the one contained within the Baha'i Faith.

"Clearly, this evolutionary narrative could fit into a theology with some classic elements: a divinely imparted purpose that involves a struggle toward the good, a struggle that even leads to a kind of climax of history. Such a theology could actually abet the good, increase the chances of a happy ending. A more evolved religion could do what religion has often done in the past: use an awe-inspiring story to foster social cohesion — except this time on a global scale."

Baha'i Activities and the Use of the Internet

Since the mid-1990’s, the development of the internet has opened onto the world a series of innovations that have radically altered many aspects of its ordered life. Search engines like Google or Yahoo have ushered in a new era in the way information is gathered and disseminated. Napster turned the music industry up-side down. Blogging now presents an unprecedented challenge to the hegemony of the mainstream media. Twitter has been cited as a key tool for Iranians protesting the recent election. Online fundraising allows political candidates to rely on a broad base of small donors rather than a small set of wealthy special interests. And this is to say nothing of such contemporary giants as Facebook or YouTube. The established order of things existing at the end of the twentieth century has been shaken up and, a decade into the twenty-first, is increasingly being restructured using web-based tools.

Simultaneously, the Baha’i world has undergone dramatic changes in the way it organizes itself and inter-relates the three participants of its plans: the individual, the institutions, and the community. Though the spirit and mission of the Cause remains the same, the outward forms by which it surges forward are unlike those that have been seen in the past. Baha’i activities are increasingly open to the public. And more often than not, only a portion of their participants are enrolled members of the community. Whereas the Faith was once dominated by and directed towards adults, now young people are playing a more central role in the conduct of its affairs. A culture of learning, experimentation, and ceaseless endeavor has imbued the Baha’i world with a dynamism that rivals or surpasses even the proudest moments of Baha’i history. However, there is one easily overlooked aspect of this framework of action: its stalwart indifference to the internet. Sure, participants can consult more frequently over email. Nowadays, individuals are more likely to read the guidance of Baha’i Institutions on websites than through paper copies mailed to their homes. Certainly, Facebook has opened up new ways of connecting people and organizing activities. But for the most part, the current framework of action operates the same way if one has an internet connection or not.

So why is this?

At this moment, I see three main reasons. The second and third suggest, against the prevailing mood in the world today, that use of web-based tools is not necessarily a mark of social progress. Perhaps, the reader will approach this issue from other directions.

Firstly, the backbone of the current framework, the sequence of courses developed by the Ruhi Institute, was developed before the advent of personal computing. And its entire purpose was for reaching out to the isolated rural communities where large numbers were entering the Baha’i Faith. If this is the Baha’i world’s primary model, then clearly the internet would not become a conspicuous instrument within its activities.

Secondly, and this is related to the first point, a high degree of replicability from community to community is essential to the mode of systematic learning at the heart of the current framework. Participants in different parts of the world can learn from each other very easily because everybody is laboring to achieve the same goals, through the same sorts of activities, with more or less the same set of materials. Junior Youth animators use "Breezes of Confirmation" in all corners of the world. And the basic aims of these groups, regardless of location, are all spelled out in "Releasing the Powers of Junior Youth," the fifth book in the Ruhi sequence. What is learned in one community can be transmitted through Baha’i Institutions (and certainly directly over the internet as well) to Baha’is across oceans and continents laboring along similar lines. At this juncture, there is still an enormous gap in technology between the global north and the global south, and within the global south between urban and rural communities. If Baha’i activities for this age group were conducted primarily over the internet in one part of the world and face-to-face in other parts of the world then it would be difficult for either set to learn from the other. They would be doing entirely different activities, and most likely, towards very different ends. Not only would communities be limited to their own process of trial-and-error, this could endanger the unity and cohesion of the global Baha’i community.

Thirdly, the reality Baha’is seek to transform is still best dealt with through face-to-face interactions. This isn’t a question of authenticity, as if face-to-face interactions are more real than those over the internet. Both just as easily concern an engagement with the real conditions of our collective existence. But rather, a great many of the issues facing the world today are best dealt with, not by connecting people across nations and hemispheres, but rather down hallways and across streets. Individuals might spend less time seeking social or spiritual change over the internet if their immediate surroundings were not so barren in that regard. A like-minded friend in Denmark may be a good person to chat with online. It’s easier at first to strike up a conversation with him than with the cranky neighbors next door. But he can’t look after your kids in an emergency. He can’t drive you to the airport, or help you round up kids for a neighborhood children’s class. But the cranky neighbors next door can do these things; perhaps they won’t at first. But with perseverance, the current framework of action facilitates activities that can rapidly transform neighborhoods from places of isolation and mutual indifference to vibrant sites of personal devotion and collaborative action. These activities have ripple effects that can transform the life of a given locality beyond the immediate confines of its core activities. This is because, first and foremost, this framework advances by people developing interpersonal relationships. But this is done by focusing on people who are already close-by, rather than searching the corners of the earth for new contacts. For that reason, web-based tools are likely to play little more than a marginal role in the development of such activities.

These are some of my thoughts on the question. I’d like to hear those of other people. In closing, I’ll offer a second question: What future role might the internet play in the current framework of action, or those that may come after?

Addressing Criticism of the Baha'i Faith

I have a twitter account which I regularly check for mentions of "Bahai". Most of the mentions are from Baha'i's posting inspiration quotes and links to blog posts, or updates regarding the situation in Iran. Some however are from skeptical onlookers who take a negative view of the Faith. One tweeter in particular seemed to have special vitriol for the Baha'i Faith, which he mentioned as being hypocritical, especially regarding gender equality and homosexuality. I went to his blog and read through his posts, one of which can be found here. While reading through them, I thought of two things. 1) much of his argument against the Baha'i Faith is based on an incomplete understanding of the teachings and history of both the Baha'i Faith and other faiths. 2) however, based on the intellectual standards of post-modern liberal democracies, some of his arguments are rational and fair. And, I suspect, they will become more and more common as the Baha'i Faith makes its way into the public consciousness. As Baha'is we will have to be especially careful not to think about and argue the merits of our faith based upon a dichotomous worldview. Paul Lample, a member of the Universal House of Justice, describes it this way in his excellent new book "Revelation and Social Reality".


"Observers may seek to impose a liberal-fundamentalist dichotomy (or relativist-foundationalist) when assessing the development of the Baha'i Faith. So too, without caution, the tension between liberal and fundamentalist influences can enter the Baha'i community, shaping attitudes and understanding, and ensnaring Baha'i's in competing claims made about the nature of Revelation, of knowledge, and of truth. Legitimate questions, posed out of context, create the illusion of irreconcilable differences

What will be required, it seems to me, is an exerted effort on our part to not get sucked into a defensive mode of apologetics. Instead we should change the nature of the conversation that accounts for their particular concern but places it in the context of truth discovery through consultation. Paul Lample continues...


Rejecting the false dichotomy of liberalism and fundamentalism, therefore, does not impose uniformity or diminish the diversity of views within the Baha'i community; rather, it preserves the entire spectrum of individual interpretation as an asset in the search for truth. All views are welcome save those that persist in extremes of orthodoxy or irresponsible freedom, since these extremes are in themselves threats to the process of free investigation...In consultation, there is the freedom to say what one thinks and the freedom to give up one's opinion after hearing the ideas of others. In this way, diverse views are harmonized to achieve unity of thought and action"

Ultimately, the process of free investigation must be channeled through consultation to achieve unity, which in turn is ultimately grounded in divine revelation.

Thoughts?

Update: Per responses on the last sentence, let me restate what I meant.
Ultimately, the result of an individuals free investigation must be channeled through consultation to achieve unity....

A Sense of Direction: paths of service

The core activities are paths of service generating movement in two directions. They are paths taken into the world from the heart of the community, and they are paths taken into the community from the world.

Is spirituality an intrinsic part of being human?

Is spirituality an intrinsic part of being human?

Two recent authors have challenged the fundamentalist-materialist position of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that is so entirely unsympathetic to the religious, or more accurately the non-rationalist. They are Reason, Faith and Revolution, by Terry Eagleton and The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong. (They are reviewed HERE by Paul Vallely in the Independent.)

Here I want to appreciatively critique a passage from Chapter 2 of Eagleton's book (p 83). The passage says;

Transcendence, however, did not simply go away. In one sense, this is precisely what Ditchkins (Dawkins + Hitchens) is complaining about; but the matter is more complex than that. The less plausibly religion seemed to answer to the human desire for a realm beyond science, material welfare, democratic politics and economic utility, the more robustly literature, the arts, culture, the humanities, psychoanalysis, and (the most recent candidate) ecology have sought to install themselves in that vacant spot. If the arts have accrued an extraordinary significance in a modern era for which they are, practically speaking, just another kind of commodity, it is because they provide an ersatz sort of transcendence in a world from which spiritual values have been largely banished.

The issues I have are;

1 Transcendence is a, more or less, normal part of being human like the mystical, of which transcendence is an essential part, like philosophizing, like sexuality, like breathing. It couldn't go away unless every new human was subjected to a radical lobotomy. The 'more or less' depends on how crass or sensitive the individual's education has been.

2 Instead of 'desire for a realm' I would prefer something like 'intrinsic state of being'. That which Dawkins and Hitchens would expunge is not a faulty behaviour but an essential part of being human - possible hard-wired, associated with the structure and functioning of the right hemisphere of the brain.

3 Eagleton, like Armstrong is a successful critic of those he calls Ditchkins and a successful champion of this other 'thing' that isn't the rational mind. But the 'thing' is not an aberration, a sop, a weakness, a behavioural defect, a culturally-induced pattern - it is a universal part of being human. Eagleton needs a better term for this 'thing', this part of being human that provides certain states being and engaging and knowing. He might do well to study Armstrong's use of, and explanations of, 'mythos'. However with her use I would plead that it start intra-personally otherwise it gets easily pushed out to being a thing in the social and cultural inter-personal world.

4 Failing to place mythos as art of being human leads Eagleton a set of judgments that are Ditchkins-esque in their severity. His list of literature, the arts, culture, the humanities, psychoanalysis, and (the most recent candidate) ecology are not vehicles for ersatz transcendence but vehicles for the real thing - because the transcendent or mystical experience is part of being human - from nature mysticism to sexuality.

5 To bring in, in this context, the horror of arts commodity-fication clouds the most important argument.

At the community level 60-80% of our friends are artists. They aren't all crippled by commodity-fication. One or two perhaps but the possession of spiritual values is not synonymous with being religious, nor is the absence of conventional religiosity any bar to possessing spiritual values - as the Marxist Eagleton fully demonstrates.

Even at the Tate level of the arts commodity-fication is not primarily the issue. 'Art now doing the job that philosophy used to do' is as much the case as 'art is now doing the job that religion used to do'. Then there is the issue of what gets in and what doesn't get in. This is the prerogative of individual gate-keepers called curators, who along with particular critics, determine the particular kinds of discourse that will be presented. They only indirectly serve 'the market'.

Transcendence, mystical experience and the possession or non-possession of spiritual values exist because we are human, and in the world with others. Good religion feeds these aspects of being human - and rationality for that matter. Bad religion blocks or distorts them.

Eagleton fails to establish that -''beyond-the-reasoning-mind part of being human which I feel is essential for the full success of his arguments. This is for want of a term such as mythos and secondly because he doesn't start with the psycho-spiritual reality of what it is to be human.

Armstrong does so much better in this via her 'we-need-a-balance-of-mythos-and-logos' arguments in her 'Case for God', something I will celebrate in future posts.

I deal further with these and allied issues in my Spiritualizing Pedagogy: education as the art of working with the human spirit

As to the question, 'Is spirituality an intrinsic part of being human?' my answer is yes - good religion feeds these deeper aspects of being human - including rationality. Bad religion blocks or distorts them. As to the differences between the two that also is the subject for further pieces.

A Manual for Pioneers

a découpage from Rúhíyyih Khánum's book of the same name

First, there is no time.
Having arrived somewhere as a pioneer
by one of two doors, the head or the heart,
there is a deep hunger:
who are you, why are you here,
where are you going?
It is the immemorial human story.
The next step is the spiritual spark.
We are not the judges
of other people's hearts!
All of us suddenly find that we
are cleaving to our own kind
with a sense of relief, self-righteousness;
one must always be on one's guard.
Patiently, gently, politely, lovingly,
we are fundamentally united—
this is the essence of deepening.
From now on it has to be “we.”
This is a very profound difference,
the path of wisdom,
the real oneness.
We see how inextricably interwoven
are the prayers, the motive,
and the mysterious inner process
of acceptance
of the Manifestation of God.

Ruminations on Robert Wright's "Evolution of God"

I just finished reading "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright, an intriguing and exhaustively well researched book. Wright is a devout materialist who, to the dismay of many of his atheistic friends, sees a directionality in religion and human history towards something which can meaningfully and objectively be ascribed as moral truth and divinity. In introducing his book and worldview he states:

"In this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future, from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things-human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on...On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the "illusion," in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusory."

He uses this explanatory framework to explain the evolution of religion from early pantheism and polytheism, to more recent monolatrism (belief in many gods, but worship of only one) and monotheism. By doing this he recognizes a clear trend in history, one that is leading to a universalistic theology. To do this however, he deconstructs many of the religious texts using recent religious and archaeological scholarship. For example, he suggests that contrary to popular belief, Judaism has highly polytheistic origins. It was only due to geopolitical circumstance that brought it first into monolatry and finally monotheism.

He suggests that many of the attributed sayings of Jesus, especially those concerning universal love (ie. "love your enemies"), were added after the fact by Paul and others as a expansion strategy in the highly cosmopolitan Roman empire. He points to the fact that the earliest gospel of Mark, written approximately four decades after the Crucifixion, has many fewer miracles, universalistic sayings, and theological underpinnings than the later gospels, written five to seven decades after. The introduction of the "Logos" in John might have been influenced by Philo's attempts to reconcile Jewish and Greek traditions.

He suggests that the timeline of the Quran matches almost perfectly with the plight of Muhammad. For example, the earlier attributed writings include a greater moral consideration for even polytheists, possibly because his group was small and he needed to reach out to others. His later writings are much more militaristic and intolerant, possibly because he commanded great military power and he no longer needed to compromise his theology.

The bottom line in his whole book is that religion is an expression of facts on the ground. To say that one religion causes people to be tolerant or intolerant is not correct. There is room in all scriptures for tolerance when the believers see themselves in non-zero sum situations with their neighbors. There is also room for intolerance when believers see others as a threat to their livelihoods and beliefs. He gives the example of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In his mind, the "New Atheists", who point to this as an example of why religion is bad, are mistaken. Instead the root causes are highly non-religious, having much more to do with zero sum claims to land and historical grievances.

He ends the book on an optimistic note, asserting that the direction in history clearly points to the development of a peaceful global civilization, and concurrently, a more universalistic theology. In fact, he states that given the pace of technological advancement, this is the only choice if we are to avoid catastrophe.

In the conclusion he writes,

"At the core of each faith is the conviction that there is a moral order, and for the Abrahamic conception of God to grow in this fashion (universalism) would be yet more evidence that such an order exists. For Jews, Christians, or Muslims to cling to claims of special validity could make their faiths seem, and perhaps be, less valid...

Is it crazy to imagine a day when the Abrahamic faiths renounce not only their specific claims to specialness, but even the claim to specialness of the whole Abrahamic enterprise? Are such radical changes in God's character imaginable? Changes this radical have already happened, again and again. Another transformation would be nothing new

Surprisingly, he also affirms the validity of personal conceptions of God as proxies for an abstract conception of higher purpose. In the afterword he goes into the implications of his narrative for belief in God. Instead of trying to summarize it, I will quote it at length.

"Given the constraints of human nature, believers in God are interacting with the moral order as productively as possible by conceiving its source in a particular way, however imperfect that way is. Isn't that kind of like physicists who interact with the physical order as productively as possible by conceiving of its subatomic sources in a particular way, however imperfect that way is...

Maybe the most defensible view-of electrons and of God-is to place them somewhere between illusion and imperfect conception. Yes, there is a source of the patterns we attribute to the electron, and the electron as conceived is a useful enough proxy for that source that we shouldn't denigrate it by calling it an "illusion; still, our image of an electron is very, very different from what this source would look like were the human cognitive apparatus capable of apprehending it adroitly. So too with God; yes, there is a source of the moral order, and many people have a conception of God that is a useful proxy for that source; still that conception is very, very different from what the source of the moral order would look like were human cognition able to grasp it...

So you might say that the evolution of the human moral equipment by natural selection was the Logos at work during a particular phase of organic aggregation; it was what allowed our distant ancestors to work together in small groups, and it set the stage for them to work together in much larger groups, including, eventually, transcontinental ones.

If you accept this argument-if you buy into this particular theology of the Logos-then feeling the presence of a personal god has a kind of ironic validity. On the one hand, you're imagining things; the divine being you sense "out there" is actually something inside you. On the other hand, this something inside you is an expression of forces "out there"; it's an incarnation of a non-zero-sum logic that predates and transcends individual people, a kind of logic that-in this theology of the Logos, at least-can be called divine. The feeling of contact with a transcendent divinity is in that sense solid."

As a Baha'i, this book is especially interesting for two reasons. First, Wright's understanding of the progressive evolution of God is very similar to a Baha'i understanding of "progressive revelation". Both would agree that religion changes based on the cultural and scientific capacity of people, and that the destiny of religion today is to be universalistic in nature. A difference would appear to be the emphasis on "revelation" that Baha'is place on religious evolution. For Baha'is, we live in a cycle of "revelation", in which God reveals new teachings through a "manifestation" of God. When this happens a new energy is manifest in the universe, and new capacity for spiritual and scientific development is made possible. While this would seem to contradict Wright's materialistic explanations of religious evolution, a more subtle understanding of "revelation" might seem to bridge the gap. Wright dedicates a whole section of his book to the thinking of Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a Jewish philosopher in the time of Christ who, according to Erwin Goodenough, "read Plato in terms of Moses, and Moses in terms of Plato, to the point that he was convinced that each had essentially the same things."Philo endeavored to bridge the gap between Judaism and Greek philosophy by developing the concept of the Logos. Wright uses Philo's approach to bridge the gap between "revelation" and a scientific account of human evolution in his own mind.

"The Logos...had in Philo's view given history a direction-in fact, a moral direction: a history moved toward the good. a Logos-driven history would eventually unify humankind in political freedom; the Logos would work 'to end that the whole of our world should be as a single state, enjoying the best of constitutions, a democracy.' At the same time, Philo believed the Logos had existed before humans or the earth or, for that matter, matter. Prior to creating the universe, God formulated the Logos the way and architect might conceive of a blueprint....First God conceived the Logos in his mind. Then, upon creating the world, he, in a sense, uttered the Logos, infusing matter with it. He spoke to the universe at its beginning, and, via the ongoing guidance of Logos, he speaks to us now...The Logos is humankind's point of contact with the divine. This is how the Logos reconciles the transcendence of God with a divine presence in the world. God himself is beyond the material universe...Yet...the algorithm...is an extension of a designer, a reflection of the designers mind...The job of human beings, you might say, is to in turn cooperate with the divinity. The Logos, he said, was reflected in the Torah, the Jewish law...it didn't just tell you how to behave in order to harmonize yourself with the principle that governs the universe...the rules of living laid out in the Torah were part of the Logos.

So if "revelation" is seen as a manifestation of a Logos, a design manifesting itself in the world through the process of biological and cultural evolution, then Wrights concept of progressive evolution is compatible with the Baha'i view of "progressive revelation".

The second reason this is so interesting to me is that it comes from the point of view of a skeptical materialist. Wright became known for writing about evolutionary psychology, yet comes to almost the same theology as the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is believe in the harmony of science and religion, and often it is easy for us to claim this without fully accounting for the scientific interpretations of spiritual experience, and spiritual evolution. If, like Philo, we can continue to develop a language that fully accounts for the knowledge inherent in both the scientific process and revealed scripture, then we can collectively manifest this principle.

Pre-Baha'i Scripture in the Baha'i Faith

Recently, I’ve found myself spending more time in the Bible. This usually happens every year or so. For a while I will immerse myself in the Good Book and then once I’m satisfied I’ll go back to focusing on the Baha’i Writings. Typically, I end up ruminating for a while on the status of pre-Baha’i scripture within the Baha’i Faith. The question always centers around two seemingly competing dynamics implicit to the idea of progressive Revelation. Baha’u’llah conceives of the previous dispensation as different stages in the development of one common faith. So, on the one hand, this means that they are all united. Just as Christians regard the Book of Exodus and the Gospel of Matthew as two repositories of the Word of God, so too do Baha’is regard the Book of Isaiah, the Qur’an, the Baghavad Gita, and the Hidden Words as separate parts of one enormous body of revealed writings. But on the other hand, each Dispensation is revealed for that specific period of history. It is binding upon all to turn their eyes to the most recent instances of Divine Revelation. In Catholicism, there is a tradition of prioritizing different books of the Bible. Whenever contradictions arise the New Testament always trumps the Old Testament. And when there are contradictions within the New Testament, the four Gospels trump the other books. Baha’is are encouraged to learn the Qur’an. But they’re encouraged to do so on the assumption that they already have a firm knowledge of the Baha’i Writings. The multidudinous instances of the Word of God are all united. But they do not sit on an equal basis.

Undoubtedly, in the future, there will be Baha’i scholars who will devote the bulk of their attention to these earlier Dispensations. Even though, they may be pursuing it as a project within the Baha’i Faith, they may focus their energies on learning Sanskrit or Hebrew, write dissertations on the introduction of Mahayana Buddhism to China, or explore the confluence of ideas between two indigenous traditions. This may seem like a qualitative break with the contemporary approach of encouraging Baha’is to focus first and foremost on the Baha’i Writings. But in fact, it has more to with the quantitative dimensions of the faith.

Let’s suppose that 0.01 percent of a Baha’i community’s energy should go to exploring the tensions and overlap between the Gospel of John with the other three Gospels. (I personally think it should be closer to 0.03- 0.04 percent. But that’s just me) ;) If there is a community of forty people, devoting equal amounts of energy to the faith and there is one person who devotes a fifth of her energy to that question then that means the community overshoots that proportion by a scale of five. Perhaps, it would be better if that person focused on the more vital issues confronting that community. But let’s say in a few generations time, that community swells to 40,000 and there are twenty people devoting half their time to that question. If that’s the case, then the community needs to quadruple the energy it devotes to the issue if they are to meet that proportion. They may even need to have some people focus on it exclusively in order to keep things balanced.

In other words, the small size of the Baha’i community right now means that we must be very vigilant about how we prioritize our efforts. But as we grow, endeavors undertaken by Baha’i communities will blossom and become more and more diverse. For now, what matters most is that Baha’is focus on the vital functions of the faith, so that as we grow we can advance the process of more fully setting in motion the noble and ambitious vision Baha’u’llah sets out in His Writings.

More on this later…

On Behalf of the Village: neighborhood children's classes and the Baha'i child

As more communities begin to focus their attention outwards to the needs of children in their neighborhoods, one concern is repeatedly (and understandably) heard from parents who are also longstanding Baha'is —“what about my children?” The lessons in Ruhi Book 3 seem to focus almost exclusively on universal qualities of the spirit, and contain very little factual information about the Faith itself. While the second set of lessons from Book 3a revolve around the lives of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, few communities are aware of these lessons, and even fewer are implementing them in their classes. The same is said of junior youth groups. On the surface, it would appear our community has turned its collective back on a uniquely Baha'i education.

For the moment, let us set aside the many valuable arguments in defense of the Ruhi curriculum—that our children are immersed more than ever in the study and internalization of the Creative Word, that they are learning the essence of administration by beginning to consult, at the most basic level, on the application of the Writings in their lives, that they are learning to appreciate the spiritual rather than the material reality of the Manifestation of God from a remarkably early age. In fact, let us assume to be true what we so fear, that the children of Baha'is no longer receive the sort of Baha'i education as has been so valuable in past years. What then?

First, an honest look at the Baha'i education of the past. It was extremely effective—for some. These lucky children were enabled by nature, family support, chance, or grace with the inner strength and confidence to stand up to a society that contradicted every lesson taught at Baha'i School. Their knowledge of the principles of the Faith, of its noble history and peerless Administration gave them sufficient hope to carry on as co-constructors of the World Order of Baha'u'llah. What a wonderful accomplishment this was!

But what of the rest? What of those who were too timid, too isolated, too violently thrashed by the gales of materialism to resist their force? Many of these children, now grown into adulthood, were raised lovingly by the most devoted Baha'is, and their absence from among us is a constant source of heartache. As Baha'i individuals, communities, and institutions, we did our best to prepare these children for the world, and we failed.

Why? We did nothing wrong in attempting to educate the youngest members of our community. But it is not enough for us to prepare our children for the world, we must also change the world for our children.

Baha'is are often known to cite the African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child." But we need to realize that the Baha'i community is not a village. The village is where we live, eat, and work. The village is where our children meet their friends to play. The village is the neighborhood. And while the Baha'i community must work in love and unity for the education of its children, it cannot negate the profound influence of the village on these children's material and spiritual lives. Instead, the current global Plan is intent on the transformation of the village itself, so that this influence might reaffirm rather than destroy the faith of the child, whether or not she ever identifies as a Baha'i.

What might happen to the difficulties Baha'i children face in leading double lives when their classmates at school are the same ones struggling to exemplify moral and spiritual qualities in a neighbor's living room each week? What might come of their struggles with strangeness and isolation when they are regularly engaged in prayer and spiritual exploration with friends from many backgrounds and faiths? Are these not the very problems we had always hoped that a solid Baha'i education would solve?

Certainly, we cannot hope to establish genuinely successful children's classes on a massive scale by focusing too heavily inward, on the needs or our own children alone. But the love we bear them can act as a bridge between us and the love they have for their schoolmates and companions, kindling in us a passion for building a better world for all children, everywhere.

So we must ask ourselves: are we ready to extend our gaze beyond our doors and into the street, to work and strive on behalf of the village surrounding us? Because this is the task ahead of us.

It is only then that we can hope to raise a child.

Gospel and Invitation

Through a series of three parables Jesus outlines a vision of social justice and redemption centered on the concept of invitation. The Gospel of Luke introduces the scene. “Now it happened that on a Sabbath day he had gone to share a meal in the house of one of the leading Pharisees; and they watched him closely.”[1] The reader should not mistake the concrete difference between “leading Pharisee” and “high priest.” To be a Pharisee is to be part of a particular Jewish reform movement. It’s not an official clerical position. Pharisees aren’t quite the establishment. But neither are they “with the people” so-to-speak. A man is present at the gathering who is afflicted with dropsy. Jesus addresses his other guests the question “Is it against the law to cure someone on the Sabbath, or not?” When they don’t have an answer for him he goes ahead and cures the man. He then addresses them again. “Which of you here, if his son falls into a well, or his ox, will not pull him out on a Sabbath day without any hesitation?” Once again, they have no answer for him. Jesus follows this with three parables each centered on the invitation of guests to a banquet.

In the first parable Jesus takes up the way people choose seats for themselves at dinners. The Gospel of Luke notes that Jesus “had noticed how [the guests] picked the places of honour.” He advises his listeners not to take seats of honour when they sit down. He states: “A more distinguished person than you may have been invited, and the person who invited you both may come and say, ‘Give up your place to this man.’ And then to your embarrassment, you will have to go and take the lowest place.” Instead, Jesus advises that a guest should seek out the lowest place so that the host might say, “my friend, move up higher.” Jesus recapitulates the parable with his signature promise: “For everyone who raises himself up will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be raised up.” With this parable Jesus highlights the spiritual danger of trying to exalt oneself in the eyes of others.

He continues this same theme with a second parable in which, this time, the listener is placed in the position of the host. Jesus begins: “When you give a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relations or rich neighbours, in case they invite you back and so repay you.” This last part is the most striking. The problem that would arise from inviting these people is precisely that they might invite the listener back. By repaying their host, the occasion becomes a package of goods and services that are exchanged for others. It is not a free gift from one’s generosity. It is just another way of working oneself up the social ladder. In place of this Jesus advises: “No, when you have a party, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; then you will be blessed, for they have no means to repay you and so you will be repaid when the upright rise again.” The element of exchange is retained. By inviting the downtrodden the host is repaid, but not with goods and services circulating within society. Instead, the host is redeemed on the Day of Resurrection. Jesus expands the scope of exchange beyond the confines of the world’s material dimension. In so doing, he opens up a vision of social action based squarely on the power of free generosity. Because one who lives by the Gospel is not motivated by material means, the social incapacities of the poor are no barrier to doing the right thing. In a world today where money secures a person’s ability to accumulate even more, and upward mobility is increasingly cut off by the very limitations one hopes to surpass, these are words to act by. Self-interest is inadequate to promote economic equality. The power of free-giving is essential to any pursuit of a more just society. Direct financial donation, is for a number of reasons, not the best way. But certainly, the gift of one’s creativity and sacrificial service in pursuit of new patterns of collective life can achieve a great deal. O Son of Man! Bestow My wealth upon My poor, that in heaven thou mayest draw from stores of unfading splendor and treasures of imperishable glory. But by My life! To offer up thy soul is a more glorious thing couldst thou but see with Mine eye.[2]

Jesus then offers the other guests a third parable. In this final parable he places God in the place of the host. A man has a great banquet and invites a large number or people. He sends his servant to gather them in. But rather than responding enthusiastically, they make excuses.

The first said, “I have bought a piece of land and must go and see it. Please accept my apologies.” Another said, “I have bought five yoke of oxen and am on my way to try them out. Please accept my apologies.” Yet another said, “I have just got married and so am unable to come”

Instead of waiting until the next day to take care of their personal material affairs, the invited guests reject the generous offer. The host was by no means pleased to hear this. In a rage he instructs his servant: “Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in here the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.” His servant tells him that even after this has been done there is still room. The host then states: “Go to the open roads and the hedgerows and press people to come in, to make sure my house is full; because, I tell you, not one of those who were invited shall have a taste of my banquet.” Though at first they were the recipients of a privileged invitation, the host now ensures that as many people will enjoy the gifts they apathetically disregarded.

Give without hope of personal benefit. Look rather to God’s generosity, rejoicing therein.

[1] Lk 14.1-14
[2] HWA 57

a Significant Advance

It seems to me that a significant advance in the process of entry by troops can consist of a community growing by 10-20% in the span of a year. But that's just accounting for enrollments and assumes that there is a vibrant, sustainable pattern of Baha'i life to which they're being introduced.

Just a thought.

The Process of Authenticity Pt. 2/3

In the first part of this essay I spoke about opportunity to explore consciousness as a way past societies implicit philosophical and social determinism. It can be found here.

In the second part, I will review some of the writings of two of my favorite writers, Martin Heidegger's "Being and Time" and Paulo Freire's "Pedogogy of the Oppressed" on the nature and empowerment of "being", a term similar to that of "consciousness" and "ontology", all terms which will be used somewhat interchangeably.

Martin Heidegger, "Being and Time"

In "Being and Time" Martin Heidegger lays out the distinction between the study of the being of an entity, or ontology, and the study of the totality of entities, or ontic inquiry. He makes an example of the positive sciences, which are good at ontic inquiry, that is quantifying and categorizing the world. They are not, on the other hand, good at exploring the meaning of things. This might seem pseudo-metaphysical, but it actually preempts Thomas Kuhn’s breakthrough and widely acclaimed thinking on how paradigm shifts can fundamentally change the nature and boundaries of normal science, and catalyze scientific revolutions. For Heidegger, the "level which a science has reached is determined by how far it is capable of a crisis in its basic concepts". For science to reach this level of maturity, both the subjective bias and the conceptual capacity of the scientist must be acknowledged, explored, and discussed in the production of theory. The opportunity to experience a crises in our basic concepts is not just limited to science. It can happen in many aspects of our lives in two ways. We can ignore it until it hits us surprisingly and violently, or we can actively reflect and consult upon, even augment conceptual deconstruction and then evolution. Heidegger explores this human capacity in his description of the “being” of humans, which he calls Dasein. He defines Dasein as:

"an entity which does not just occur among other entities. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very being, that being is an issue for it...Understanding of being is itself a definite characteristic of Dasein's being. Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontilogical...Dasein understands itself in terms of existence-in terms of a possibility of itself: to be itself or not itself. Dasein has either chosen these possibilities itself, or got itself into them, or grown up in them already."

So in other words, we are beings who are aware of our own consciousness; we can think reality in terms of existential possibility, which can be pursued to a greater or lesser degree. Our fundamental limitation however is that our vision can be constrained by the limitations of our perceived 'world':

“In understanding its own Being, it has a tendency to do so in terms of that entity towards which it comports itself proximally and in a way which is essentially constant-in terms of the 'world'. In Dasein itself, and therefore in its own understanding of Being, the way the world is understood is, as we shall show, reflected back ontologically upon the way in which Dasein itself gets interpreted."

It can also be constrained by the limitations of our percieved history and upbringing.

"It is its past, whether explicitly or not. And this is so not only in that its past is, as it were, pushing itself along 'behind' it, and that Dasein possesses what is past as a property which is still present-at-hand and which sometimes has after-effects upon it."

But are we really limited by our immediate surroundings and upbringing? We can be. The ontological task is difficult because we are constantly pursuing this in terms of the world in which we find ourselves, and in terms of our historical inheritance. We are searching for authenticity, one that is impossible without the said constraints, but one in which we must rise above.

"In each case Dasein is its own possibility, and it 'has' this possibility, but not just as a property, as something present-at-hand would. And because Dasein is in each case essentially its own possibility, it can, in its very Being. 'choose' itself and win itself; it can also lose itself and never win itself; or only 'seem' to do so. But only in so far as it is essentially something which can be authentic-that is, something of its own-can it have lost itself and not yet won itself."

The very possibility of self discovery and authenticity is what can also deprive us of it. This implies that other beings, whether they are plants, animals, even rocks, can neither win, nor lose themselves. They exist but they do not reflect upon their existence. This limits their capacity of self discovery, but also protects them from the depths of self degradation and forgetfulness.

Paulo Freire, "Pedogogy of the Oppressed"

Paulo Freire was also interested in the ontological quest, and he spent most of his life seeking ways to restructure education and development in the promotion of it on a wide social scale. The biggest problem with development schemes in his mind was the oppression of an individuals being.

"To deny the importance of subjectivity in the process of transforming the world and history is naive and simplistic. It is to admit the impossible: a world without people. This objectivistic position is a ingenuous as that of subjectivism, which postulates people without a world. World and human beings do not exist apart from each other, they exist in constant interaction."

He was anxiously concerned with "oppression" which often meant real colonial and post-colonial subjugation, but also referred to a state of mind, not unlike Heidegger’s description of self-forgetfulness. This state of forgetfulness was not only prevalent among the oppressed, but also the oppressors, who lose their humanity even as they steal it from others. The next stage of cultural evolution requires a process of "humanization", in which all people have the opportunity to find their true and authentic selves.

"At all stages of their liberation, the oppressed must see themselves as women and men engaged in the ontological and historical vocation of becoming more fully human. Reflection and action become imperative when one does not erroneously attempt to dichotomize the content of humanity from its historical forms."

The problem, in his mind, was the very structure and expectations of society, beginning with the ideology and methodology of education, which in his mind was oppressive.

"The teacher student relationship often involves a narration that treats "reality as if it was motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic completely alien to the existential experience of the students. His task is to 'fill' the students with the contents of his narration-contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance. Words are emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow, alienated, and alienating verbosity." The "banking" concept of education treats the teacher as a depositor of knowledge, and the student as the receptacle which will go about receiving, filing, and storing the deposits...it is the people themselves who are filed away." "The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed upon them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them."

So in the words of Heidegger, students are treated as ontic entities, capable of storing information but unable to develop a critical consciousness about them or the conceptual frameworks in which they are derived. To change this condition, he developed what he called the "pedagogical approach", which in his words involves:

"co-intentional education. Teachers and students (leadership and people), co-intent on reality, are both subjects, not only in the task of unveiling that reality, and thereby coming to know it critically, but in the task of re-creating that knowledge. As they attain this knowledge of reality through common reflection and action, they discover themselves as its permanent re-creators. In this way, the presence of the oppressed in the struggle for their liberation will be what it should be: not pseudo-participation, but committed involvement."

Like Heidegger, Freire likened this to the process of authenticity. We live in a world which has brought about the possibilities of human consciousness, and is in turn defined by that consciousness. To become authentic is to live humanely and manifest the ability to name the world, and change it.

"Authentic reflection considers neither abstract man nor the world without people, but people in their relations with the world....The world which brings consciousness into existence becomes the world of that consciousness." "To exist, humanely, is to name the world, to change it. Once named, the world in its turn reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new naming."

On a collective level, a process of dialogue is required.

"Dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world in order to name the world...Dialogue is an existential necessity. Dialogue requires a profound love for the world and its people, and a great humility...not arrogance. The love must not take the form of domination, manifesting as sadism in the oppressor and masochism in the oppressed, but a commitment to others. Arrogance cause somebody to project ignorance onto somebody else and not perceive their own. Above all, dialogue further requires an intense faith in humankind, faith in their power to make and remake, to create and re-create, faith in their vocation to be more fully human. Finally, true dialogue cannot exist unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking-thinking which discerns an indivisible solidarity between the world and the people and admits of no dichotomy between them-thinking which perceives reality as process, as transformation, rather than as a static entity-thinking which does not separate itself from action, but constantly immerses itself in temporality without fear of the risks involved."

In an attempt to describe the historical process that he is engaged in, he outlined a theory of emergence that is almost teleological in nature. An unfolding of the Logos itself:

"The goal will no longer be to eliminate the risks of temporality by clutching to guaranteed space, but rather to temporalize space...The universe is revealed to me not as space, imposing a massive presence to which I can but adapt, but as a scope, a domain which takes shape as I act upon it. Human beings are because they are in a situation. And they will be more the more they not only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it...Humankind emerge from their submersion and acquire the ability to intervene in reality as it is unveiled. Intervention in reality-historical awareness itself-thus represents a step forward from emergence..."

In my search, I have found this teleological process to be the most advanced both conceptually and operationally within the Baha'i Faith. Part 3 will focus on the Baha'i process of authenticity, and the spiritualization of being.

Animal Companions in Life and Death, Part II

This essay was prompted from questions from a friend interested in the Bahá’í Faith and I did a quick search on Bahá’í-Library online, but I did not find any answers to the question of my satisfaction. There was a thread that began a couple of years ago on this topic with a nice compilation for a reply, but I felt it is due more treatment. This essay is meant as my own personal hermeneutic on the subject, based on what the Bahá’í Writings say on the reality of members of the animal kingdom and its relationship to the purely spiritual realm the Scriptures say that a person enters upon death. With this analysis of the Writings, I encourage Bahá’í friends to take on a much more nuanced approached to this question, rather than the simple, “When your animal dies they are gone forever.”

Many Bahá’ís who have taken a look at this question or heard from other Bahá’ís answer this question with a fairly accurate articulation of the Bahá’í view: "NO – animals do not have eternal souls that go to heaven.” However, there are many people who have very strong relationships with their pets and animals in general and just giving this somewhat over generalized answer can lack sensitivity as well as be missing a broad overview look of the Baha'i Writings on such a subject. Furthermore, with an expansive reading of the Writings and their description of spiritual and physical reality, another view might be developed. I am going to suggest that although it is true that the individual personality of an individual animal lasts only the span of its mortal life on earth, this personality or “spirit” that we attracted to is based on the eternal Signs and Attributes of God, which are our companions all the more substantially in the purely spiritual realm of existence that we enter upon death.

The common assumption that "no they don't" may be based on this record from `Abdu'l-Baha in London:
"When asked about the individual persistence of the animal's personality after death, 'Abdu'l-Bahá said: "Even the most developed dog has not the immortal soul of the man; yet the dog is perfect in its own place. You do not quarrel with a rose-tree because it cannot sing!"" (p. 97)

Other statements by `Abdu’l-Bahá seems to confirm this, such as the following in Some Answered Questions, p. 208:
“The animal spirit is the power of all the senses, which is realized from the composition and mingling of elements; when this composition decomposes, the power also perishes and becomes annihilated. It may be likened to this lamp: when the oil, wick and fire are combined, it is lighted; and when this combination is dissolved -- that is to say, when the combined parts are separated from one another -- the lamp also is extinguished.”

My own current understanding of the subject is that animals do not have an eternal rational soul in the sense that human beings do. Such an eternal ration soul is defined by being “engraved” with the “image” of God and “embraces the realities of things, and discovers the verities, properties and secrets of things.” It is created "to know Him and to love Him" and "reflect the greatness of His glory.” These eternal rational souls can "by virtue of their own innate powers" turn towards God, develop virtues, and play an integral part in helping "to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization." This soul will continue to progress after its separation from the body in spiritual realms, growing closer and closer to the Presence of God, and will associate and commune with fellow heavenly souls. These souls, also, to the extent of their purity and sanctity, radiate a light that "is responsible for the progress of the world and the advancement of its peoples. They are like unto leaven which leaveneth the world of being and constitute the animating force through which the arts and wonders of the world are made manifest." (This isn't meant to be a treatise on the rational soul but I do want to outline some broad features for the sake of the topic.)

The animal – as the Writings state – do not have an eternal rational soul in the sense that human beings do. However, the Writings delineate again and again that everything has a certain spirit in and of itself. `Abdu’l-Bahá – in His talks and writings – classifies things into the mineral kingdom, the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom, or the human kingdom and describe the different powers of each kingdom.

He characterizes the mineral as having the basic property of composition1 or cohesion2 as a result of its power of attraction3 or affinity.4 `Abdu’l-Bahá explains this property of composition is the mineral’s expression of love: “This power of attraction in the mineral world is love, the only expression of love the stone can manifest.”5

In these two passages quoted next, `Abdu’l-Bahá calls this power of attraction as the defining “spirit” of the mineral.

“As to the existence of spirit in the mineral: it is indubitable that minerals are endowed with a spirit and life according to the requirements of that stage. This unknown secret, too, hath become known unto the materialists who now maintain that all beings are endowed with life, even as He saith in the Qur'án, "All things are living."”6

“In the mineral world the spirit shows itself, but limited to that mineral condition. It is proved through science that the mineral has the power of attraction, the vegetable has the power of growth”7

`Abdu’l-Bahá explains that the spirit of the vegetable kingdom, meanwhile, in addition to the power of composition, is the power of growth: “The vegetable spirit is the power of growth which is brought about in the seed through the influence of other existences.”8 He also calls the power of growth as the power of augmentation9 and says that it exists in plant-life by its power of absorption10 of mineral elements. The power of cohesion, of cellular attraction, of absorption, and growth is the expression of love of a thing of the vegetable kingdom.10

Next comes the animal spirit. “The animal spirit is the power of all the senses,”11 says `Abdu’l-Bahá. “The distinctive virtue or plus of the animal is sense perception; it sees, hears, smells, tastes and feels.” 12 In it, the power of love, of attraction, “reveals itself in “certain emotions and sensibilities which produce instinctive fellowship and association. The animals are imbued with kindness and affinity which manifests itself among those of the same species.”13

He tells us that both animals and human beings have “physical sensations,” and so enjoins upon us to show the utmost kindness towards animals:

“Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel.

And yet in truth, what difference is there when it cometh to physical sensations? The feelings are one and the same, whether ye inflict pain on man or on beast. There is no difference here whatever. And indeed ye do worse to harm an animal, for man hath a language, he can lodge a complaint, he can cry out and moan; if injured he can have recourse to the authorities and these will protect him from his aggressor. But the hapless beast is mute, able neither to express its hurt nor take its case to the authorities. If a man inflict a thousand ills upon a beast, it can neither ward him off with speech nor hale him into court. Therefore is it essential that ye show forth the utmost consideration to the animal, and that ye be even kinder to him than to your fellow man.*

Train your children from their earliest days to be infinitely tender and loving to animals. If an animal be sick, let the children try to heal it, if it be hungry, let them feed it, if thirsty, let them quench its thirst, if weary, let them see that it rests.” 14

In this passage, He then goes on to caution us to have due care with ferocious or harmful animals, such as a bloodthirsty wolf, a poisonous snake, a rabid dog, and others. “Kindness to these is an injustice to human beings and to other animals as well. If, for example, ye be tender-hearted toward a wolf, this is but tyranny to a sheep, for a wolf will destroy a whole flock of sheep. A rabid dog, if given the chance, can kill a thousand animals and men.”

'Abdu'l-Bahá meanwhile “has indicated that in the future human beings will be vegetarians, but abstention from eating meat is not a law of this Dispensation.”
(26 April 1989, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

On using animals for food and clothing, the Universal House of Justice explains:
“Your concern for the prevention of cruelty to animals and for restraint in exploiting them unduly for food and other purposes is indeed praiseworthy; however, the House of Justice is not aware of any absolute prohibition in any Holy Book against the use of animals for food and clothing. As the laws brought by Bahá'u'lláh become known and operative throughout the world, we believe that humanity will find the proper balance in adjusting itself to nature and to the world of animals. As in so many other areas, the Teachings of Bahá'u'lláh in this regard follow the golden mean: kindness toward animals is definitely upheld, vegetarianism is encouraged, hunting is regulated, but certain latitude is left to individual conscience and in practical regard to the diversity of circumstances under which human beings live. For example, the indigenous peoples of the Arctic would be hard-pressed to subsist without recourse to animal products.”
(20 November 1992, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

In His talks and writings defining each kingdom, `Abdu’l-Bahá goes to lengths to distinguish the spirit of the animal from that of the human rational soul. It has the power of sense perception, He says “but is incapable in turn, of conscious ideation or reflection which characterize and differentiate the human kingdom.”12 It cannot think of things in the abstract and metaphorical in them selves and, from them, draw new conclusions.

`Abdu’l-Bahá says,

“From the visible it cannot draw conclusions regarding the invisible whereas the human mind from visible and known premises attains knowledge of the unknown and invisible. For instance, Christopher Columbus from information based upon known and provable facts drew conclusions which led him unerringly across the vast ocean to the unknown continent of America. Such power of accomplishment is beyond the range of animal intelligence. Therefore this power is a distinctive attribute of the human spirit and kingdom. The animal spirit cannot penetrate and discover the mysteries of things. It is a captive of the senses. No amount of teaching, for instance, would enable it to grasp the fact that the sun is stationary and the earth moves around it.”
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 260)

In another place, He describes the intellectual power of the human being to be that of comprehending universal principles: “intellectual characteristic…discovereth the realities of things and comprehendeth universal principles.”15

From this power, He says, human beings discover the secrets of nature and transcends its laws, inventing airplanes and rockets, trains, swift ships, the submarine, photography, sound recordings, telephone; it discovers, produces, and utilizes that once hidden energy of electricity.16 He further describes the unique powers of the rational soul to discover both the subtleties of the physical universe as well as the heavenly realms of God’s Kingdom:

“The human spirit which distinguishes man from the animal is the rational soul, and these two names -- the human spirit and the rational soul -- designate one thing. This spirit, which in the terminology of the philosophers is the rational soul, embraces all beings, and as far as human ability permits discovers the realities of things and becomes cognizant of their peculiarities and effects, and of the qualities and properties of beings. But the human spirit, unless assisted by the spirit of faith, does not become acquainted with the divine secrets and the heavenly realities. It is like a mirror which, although clear, polished and brilliant, is still in need of light. Until a ray of the sun reflects upon it, it cannot discover the heavenly secrets.” (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 208)

We should note that in Some Answered Questions, p. 208, `Abdu’l-Bahá places the “spirit of faith” at a higher level than the human spirit itself, and the Holy Spirit above the spirit of faith.

He summarizes many of the abilities and capacities that distinguish the human kingdom from the animal kingdoms in this passage:

Nature is inert, man is progressive. Nature has no consciousness, man is endowed with it. Nature is without volition and acts perforce whereas man possesses a mighty will. Nature is incapable of discovering mysteries or realities whereas man is especially fitted to do so. Nature is not in touch with the realm of God, man is attuned to its evidences. Nature is uninformed of God, man is conscious of Him. Man acquires divine virtues, nature is denied them. Man can voluntarily discontinue vices, nature has no power to modify the influence of its instincts. Altogether it is evident that man is more noble and superior; that in him there is an ideal power surpassing nature. He has consciousness, volition, memory, intelligent power, divine attributes and virtues of which nature is completely deprived… therefore man is higher and nobler by reason of the ideal and heavenly force latent and manifest in him. (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 236-237)

Besides the general spirit of each kingdom of existence, the Bahá’í Writings enunciate that each individual created thing is an expression of one of the names or attributes of God, and therefore its essential reality is a name or attribute of God. Here are some quotes that state this concept:

“Every created thing in the whole universe is…a revelation of His names…”17

“Know thou that every created thing is a sign of the revelation of God.”18

“The spiritual world is like unto the phenomenal world. They are the exact counterpart of each other. Whatever objects appear in this world of existence are the outer pictures of the world of heaven.” (`Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 9)

“…all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things, visible and invisible…” (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 100)

“Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing He hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty.” (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 65)

Know thou that the Kingdom is the real world, and this nether place is only its shadow stretching out.” (Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 177)

“When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of all things, and the individuality of each, thou wilt…see the spreading rays of His Names and Attributes... And not an atom of all the atoms in existence, not a creature from amongst the creatures but speaketh His praise and telleth of His attributes and names… and none will gainsay this who hath ears to hear, eyes to see, and a mind that is sound.” (`Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 41)
Thus, each and every created thing is a sign or expression of at-least one of the names or attributes of God. Bahá’u’lláh, in the section of His Book of Certitude known as the “Tablet of the True Seeker” says that such a true seeker “will contemplate the manifest signs of the universe, and will penetrate the hidden mysteries of the soul… He will discover in all things the mysteries of divine Revelation and the evidences of an everlasting manifestation.”19 Thus, it is fun to think of the bed I sleep on as, perhaps, an expression of its essential reality of the name of God the Comforter; my desk I work on as the sign of the attribute of God the Supporter, or my sleeping cat sleeping with a smile of heavenly delight as a revelation of the quality of God, the Peaceful.

This gets us directly back to our central question: according to the Bahá’í Writings, do animals have eternal life? My answer to this is two-fold, dealing with the physical level and the spiritual essence of each created thing. On the purely physical level, as physicists say, no created thing can be created nor destroyed but can just change form. This is, in one sense – materially, their eternal life. This principle is delineated here:

Non-existence therefore is an expression applied to change of form, but this transformation can never be rightly considered annihilation, for the elements of composition are ever present and existent as we have seen in the journey of the atom through successive kingdoms, unimpaired; hence there is no death; life is everlasting. So to speak, when the atom entered into the composition of the tree, it died to the mineral kingdom, and when consumed by the animal, it died to the vegetable kingdom, and so on until its transference or transmutation into the kingdom of man; but throughout its traversing it was subject to transformation and not annihilation. Death therefore is applicable to a change or transference from one degree or condition to another. In the mineral realm there was a spirit of existence; in the world of plant life and organisms it reappeared as the vegetative spirit; thence it attained the animal spirit and finally aspired to the human spirit. These are degrees and changes but not obliteration; and this is a rational proof that man is everlasting, everliving. Therefore death is only a relative term implying change. For example, we will say that this light before me, having reappeared in another incandescent lamp, has died in the one and lives in the other. This is not death in reality. The perfections of the mineral are translated into the vegetable and from thence into the animal, the virtue always attaining a plus or superlative degree in the upward change. In each kingdom we find the same virtues manifesting themselves more fully, proving that the reality has been transferred from a lower to a higher form and kingdom of being. Therefore non-existence is only relative and absolute non-existence inconceivable. This rose in my hand will become disintegrated and its symmetry destroyed, but the elements of its composition remain changeless; nothing affects their elemental integrity. They cannot become non-existent; they are simply transferred from one state to another. (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 263)

My second answer to this question is in regards to the spiritual essence (or divine names and attributes) that each created thing expresses. The Writings say that the names and attributes of God endure eternally, just as heat and light are qualities of the sun and thus its perpetual companions. So, in a sense, that created thing endures forever, even though the “outer picture” of the divine attribute of which makes up that created thing will eventually decompose, be destroyed, and its elements become part of something else. The eternity of the names and attributes of God is expressed in the following two passages:

“It is clear and evident that when the veils that conceal the realities of the manifestations of the Names and Attributes of God, nay of all created things visible or invisible, have been rent asunder, nothing except the Sign of God will remain -- a sign which He, Himself, hath placed within these realities. This sign will endure as long as is the wish of the Lord thy God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth.”20

“Physical bodies are transferred past one barrier after another, from one life to another, and all things are subject to transformation and change, save only the essence of existence itself -- since it is constant and immutable, and upon it is founded the life of every species and kind, of every contingent reality throughout the whole of creation.”21

The individual spirit of a pet lasts the span of their mortal life, but the attributes and names of God that they manifest are expressions of the eternal Attributes of God. Thus, what we are essentially attracted to in our animals - gentleness, gracefulness, devotion, joy, enthusiasm, tenderness, strength, sincerity, meekness, trust, etc. - are life-forces/attributes that are our companions even all the more in the Heaven of light and glory.

So, will your pets be with you in heaven? After reading a lot and considering closely these passages, my own conclusion is this: the outer picture or physical aspect of Figaro, Romeo, or Squeaker will not be in this realm of lights and pure spirit. However, the essential spiritual essence of Fido– the divine Names and Attributes his spirit, personality, and physical body expressed – will be even more substantially your companion and among the splendors and graces in this Kingdom of Love. Meanwhile, we should not consider “spiritual” as meaning a kind of wishful, imaginary, intellectualization or mist, but rather a kind of being that is on a higher level and more fundamental – more substantial and real – than the physical realm.

Bahá’u’lláh tells us that understanding this concept helps us to comprehend the awesome destiny that is potentially one’s own:

“If such be the blessings conferred on all created things, how superior must be the destiny of the true believer, whose existence and life are to be regarded as the originating purpose of all creation. Just as the conception of faith hath existed from the beginning that hath no beginning, and will endure till the end that hath no end, in like manner will the true believer eternally live and endure. His spirit will everlastingly circle round the Will of God. He will last as long as God, Himself, will last. He is revealed through the Revelation of God, and is hidden at His bidding. It is evident that the loftiest mansions in the Realm of Immortality have been ordained as the habitation of them that have truly believed in God and in His signs. Death can never invade that holy seat. Thus have We entrusted thee with the signs of thy Lord, that thou mayest persevere in thy love for Him, and be of them that comprehend this truth.”
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 140)

1 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 29 & 267
2 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 257
3 Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 117
4 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 4 & 79
5 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 267
6 Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 337
7 Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 117
8 Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 316
9 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 29
10 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 268

11 Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 208
12 Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 260
13 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 268
14 Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 158-160

15 Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 61-62
16 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 359; Some Answered Questions, p. 186
17 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 159
18 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 184
19 Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 196
20 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 140
21 Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 157

The Process of Authenticity Pt. 1/3

An unlikely commonality between some strands of religious thought and some strands of materialist philosophy is the idea that our actions and our fate is in many ways determined. From a religious point of view, if God is omniscient across time and space, than our fate is already known. This has not taken out the responsibility of choice in many religious doctrines, but some have taken this idea to the extreme. One of the main tenants of Calvinism in the 16th century was that of predestination, which asserted that the summation of our actions and the fate of our souls are already determined. This idea was taught mainly to believers already in the fold in order to assure them of their eventual salvation. It drew a lot of criticism as it implied that those who didn't fit the description of salvation were obviously not meant to be saved, not the most encouraging of doctrines.

From a strict materialist’s point of view, every thought we have or decision we make can be reduced to the neurological impulses in our brain, which in turn is a result of a clear string of logical events extending back to the beginning of the universe. Many scientists assert that in principle, if we had perfect information about the physical body and physical world in which they inhabit, than we could predict all of their future behavior. Moreover, if we had perfect information about an individual, we could actually know what it is like to be them.

While determinism is a philosophically challenging idea, its implicit paradigm in society is detrimental to motivation and creativity. Many of us go through life merely responding to the expectations and norms of our surroundings; as a
society we recycle many of the oppressive institutional norms and pathologies
without questioning their legitimacy. By exploring the idea of consciousness we can push past the philosophical and social strictures of determinism. We can move into a place of self awareness and even further into a place of self empowerment and authenticity. In this experiential realm, we are determined by nothing more than our own imagination. In part 2 of this essay I will explore this using some of the writings of Martin Heidegger on the nature of being, and Paulo Freire on the humanization of being. In part 3 I will explore writings of the Baha'i faith on the spiritualization of being, and the methodology that has been developed to manifest it on a collective level.