m alan kazlev said... Sri Aurobindo did not have any problems at all with Darwinism (he even refers in passing in The Life Divine to the history and evolution of life on Earth as being an interesting side-branch of study (I'm paraphrasing, I don't have the exact page). Nor does Darwinism (or any of its variants, e.g. Dawkinsism) refute the Aurobindonian position. Here is why. Evolution pertains to the physical reality, higher states like the Mental, Overmental, and Supramental planes pertain to supra-physical realities. Wayne Ferguson has written a very good paper on how evolution does not disprove theism (e.g. Christianity), and reconciling (non-fundamentalist) Intelligent Design with biological evolution etc (see his very useful diagram on that page), he sent the draft to me for some feedback last year, and I'll refer to his common-sense conclusions in my book in progress. Basically he and I are very much in agreement on this point. And I am quite puzzled as to why Huston Smith (who seems to have a problem with evolutionary science) missed this obvious conclusion; since this is basically the metaphysic he presents in Forgotten Truth. Now, it is true that the Aurobindonian and Teilhardian conceptions of evolution to divinity is not confirmed by the Darwinian position. But neither are they refuted by Darwinism. They are simply non-falsifiable by scientific means...You should also read Teilhard de Chardin for an interesting integral synthesis of science and religion. Whereas Wilber first embraces christian Intelligent Design, and now it seems has done an about face and is citing Mayr etc approvingly!, Teilhard is the real deal, a true Integral thinker and a mystic too. His style of writing is flowery, but i find him a fascinating and inspirational character.
No comments:
Post a Comment