Returning Religion to Evolution

During my recent webinar on “Returning Religion to the Prophetic,” a participant raised a question about prophetic action: Should we not stand with the marginalized and oppressed, calling out injustices in the name of true justice? While this concern is undoubtedly important, I believe that focusing solely on social justice might cause us to overlook the broader implications of evolution and its dynamic impetus. One might ask, “What does evolution have to do with social justice?” The answer is, in a sense, everything. Social justice is fundamentally about fostering right relationships, and evolution can be understood as the progressive emergence of increasingly complex relationships. To develop truly just relationships, we must comprehend evolution beyond its mere biological mechanisms.  That is, we have the capacity to evolve toward “rightness.”  This perspective suggests that our approach to social justice should be informed by an evolutionary understanding. It implies that just as life forms have evolved to become more complex and interconnected, so too should our social structures and relationships evolve towards greater fairness, inclusivity, and mutual support.  By integrating evolutionary thinking into our pursuit of social justice, we can potentially develop more comprehensive, adaptive, and effective strategies for addressing societal inequalities. This approach encourages us to view social progress not as a static goal, but as an ongoing process of growth and transformation, mirroring the continuous unfolding of evolution itself.  Thus, while standing with the marginalized and opposing injustice remains crucial, embedding these actions within a broader evolutionary context may enhance their impact and sustainability. It invites us to consider how our efforts towards social justice can contribute to the overall evolution of human society towards greater complexity, consciousness, and compassion.

To put this another way, social justice is not only a human concern but an evolutionary one. We humans are so conditioned by our world that we are unaware of our long biological lineage.  Evolution is not merely a backdrop to human history; it is our history. While Charles Darwin proposed that natural mechanisms like selection and adaptation could explain species variation and human emergence, philosopher Henri Bergson introduced a different perspective.  Bergson posited a “creative impulse” or élan vital, recognizing a spiritual depth manifesting in humans. Although he accepted evolution and did not try to defend the orthodox view that the human was separately created by God, he sought to show that human emergence is no accident of natural selection. Evolution, Bergson argued, is the work of a vital impetus, an élan vital, which has succeeded in penetrating matter and has by this means given rise to living beings.  In the human, according to Bergson, evolution has produced a being who possesses “the largest possible amount of indetermination and liberty.” The human person is endowed with intelligence, certainly, but intelligence, according to Bergson, is a practical tool for navigating the chaos of nature. Bergson suggested that humans possess the intrinsic ability to further evolutionary progress through conscious choice and spiritual development. The human person has an infinite spiritual depth; we are capax infiniti.  He provocatively described the universe as a “machine for the making of gods,” but it depends on human effort whether that “essential function” of the universe is exercised on this “refractory planet.” In essence, his view positions humans as a unique species, bridging the animal and the divine. His theory suggests that human emergence introduced a novel element of spiritual depth into evolution’s flow and emphasized our potential to shape the direction of evolution.

Teilhard de Chardin was influenced by Bergson’s notion of creative evolution. Following the insights of physics, he said that matter has a withinness and withoutness so that matter and mind are two aspects of the same reality. Whereas Darwin had no role for mind in evolution, Teilhard saw evolution as the rise of mind or consciousness. Every tiny bit of matter has interiority. From the Big Bang onwards, life unfolds towards a deepening of mind and complexity of matter. It is the withinness of matter that impelled Teilhard to locate religion as an essential component of evolution. Religion is larger than humanity alone and integral to earth’s future. Religion “is biologically the necessary counterpart to the release of the earth’s spiritual energy.” He viewed religion as a universal dimension of human experience, the depth dimension of all reality, and the search for ultimate meaning. Paul Tillich described religion as the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern that influences all other concerns. Harnessing the energies of religion is what gives meaning and direction to the forward movement of evolution.  

While Teilhard criticized institutions for suffocating religion with outdated philosophies and static metaphysics, he equally lamented modern science’s tendency to stifle materiality. He argued that science’s true purpose is to extend and complete the ongoing process of human evolution, imbuing it with a sacred, future-oriented duty. However, he claimed that science had failed this noble purpose by seeking to control nature rather than advance its wholeness. He observed that scientific progress had fallen into an intellectual and moral crisis – the crisis of scientism. This crisis raised doubts about the possibility and desirability of further scientific advances aimed at building humanity’s future.

Teilhard warned that science, without understanding evolution as a holistic relationship of mind and matter, provides an incomplete picture. He viewed the perceived conflict between reason and faith as “a struggle between two rival mysticisms for the mastery of the human heart” (that is, science and religion). Ultimately, he asserted that science requires religion to animate it. He claimed, “religion is the soul biologically necessary for the future of science,” emphasizing the interdependence of scientific and spiritual progress in human evolution. His insights on the interconnectedness of religion and science means that each area is dependent on the other for meaningful existence. Teilhard emphasized that religion primarily operates “on the level of consciousness and human action, rather than on the level of institutions or belief systems, except insofar as these systems manifest and give direction to the former.” This perspective suggests that religion should never be limited by institutional formulas or abstract doctrines. While religious institutions can serve a purpose in guiding the spiritual energies of religion, they should be viewed as servants of religion rather than its overseer.  Failure to recognize religion at the heart of evolution and identifying it as a special act of revelation has stripped the earth of its vital impulse. The contemporary notion of being “spiritual but not religious” points to the loss of religion as the creative vitality undergirding evolution’s ongoing development. Without religion, evolution is blind, and without evolution, religion is lame.      

Teilhard was clear that humanity is moving into a new environment, into a world that is being born instead of a world that is, with a new relationship between matter and spirit, a new humanism, and a new understanding of God—complementary movements which mark the beginning of a new era for humankind. In his book The Future of Man, Teilhard emphasized the critical role of forward-thinking faith. He wrote: “The whole future of the Earth, as of religion, seems to me to depend on the awakening of our faith in the future.” Faith in the future requires faith in the world, coupled with a belief in humanity’s continued evolution and the potential for greater global unity and collaboration. He envisioned humanity entering a new phase of existence – a world in the process of becoming rather than a static reality. This emerging world, he believed, would feature a transformed relationship between matter and spirit, a novel form of humanism, and a reimagined understanding of God. 

These complementary shifts, in his view, herald the dawn of a new era for humankind. Social justice is enfolded into the process of evolution. Life must continue to develop into a higher form of life.  As Ursula King notes, this concept of ongoing development towards greater unity is central to Teilhard’s evolutionary theory. This perspective presents evolution not just as a biological process, but as a comprehensive phenomenon encompassing spiritual, social, and material dimensions. It suggests that human progress is intrinsically linked to our capacity to envision and work towards a more unified and evolved future for all of humanity. King sums up Teilhard’s position by stating: 

The problem of the future is paramount for the present. Will humanity survive or will it be annihilated? Will it progress or stagnate? Teilhard thought we have no decisive evidence for either hope or despair, but one thing is certain: we need to find the right road, make the right choices and put our will into effective action to create the right world for humanity today. He was convinced that despair cannot provide the necessary energy for action, but hope can.^[1]  

We have lost our sense of place in the universe because we have failed to realize our human lives in the flow of evolution. By shutting off the valve of religion from the impulse of evolution, we have basically smothered the vital impulse of wholeness that Teilhard named as “Omega-God.”  This is why he adamantly stated: “Religion and evolution . . .are destined to form one single continuous organism, in which their respective lives prolong, are dependent on and complete one another.” He suggests a fundamental reimagining of both our worldview and our spiritual practices. He calls for an integration of scientific understanding and spiritual insight, proposing that our beliefs and our comprehension of reality must evolve in tandem with our expanding scientific knowledge of nature. This approach seeks to reconnect human existence with the broader cosmic narrative, fostering a more holistic and dynamic understanding of our place within the evolving universe. He further argued that scientific insights from the ongoing process of cosmogenesis “must lead to the profound modification of the whole structure not only of our thought but of our beliefs.”

In our rapidly advancing technological world, debating whether to pay attention to science is no longer a luxury we can afford. Our understanding should have progressed beyond this point. Many religious institutions continue to emphasize scripture and tradition while marginalizing scientific insights. However, reducing religion to simplistic notions like “What Would Jesus Do?” or believing we can change religious doctrines on issues such as women’s ordination or gender inclusion by arguing over ancient philosophical concepts of matter and form is short-sighted at best. We face serious consequences for disregarding evolution as the “general condition to which all theories and systems must conform; a ‘dimension’ to which all thinking in whatever area must yield.” 

Teilhard de Chardin, nearly a century ago, presented us with a stark choice: evolve or face annihilation.  This perspective urges us to recognize the critical importance of integrating scientific understanding with our spiritual and social frameworks. It suggests that our survival and progress as a species depend on our ability to adapt our thinking, beliefs, and institutions to align with our evolving understanding of the universe and our place within it. The message is clear: we must embrace a more dynamic, scientifically informed approach to religion and society, or risk becoming obsolete in a rapidly changing world.

The prophetic stance today cannot be limited to social justice alone. It must be a wider and deeper stance of the mystic who stands on the edge of evolution and sees a new future on the horizon. One who sees is willing to challenge the status quo on every level. The prophet cries out for a new world because the prophet sees a new future dawning on the horizon. Teilhard de Chardin emphasized the need for future-affirming beings with expansive, open awareness, individuals who will have the mental capacity to recognize future challenges and devise solutions, coupled with the energy and will to implement them. While scientists have extensively analyzed the physical-biological and mental-psychic aspects of human beings, we now require novel methods to perceive the world as an emergent, complex whole. Our task is to think, act, and live differently – not merely to exist, but to “superlive.” This means embracing a fuller, more rewarding life shared with fellow humans, all earthly creatures, and planetary life as a whole.

The time has come to adhere to the process of evolution on every level of existence. This perspective calls for a radical shift in our approach to life and, in particular, our adherence to religion, urging us to transcend our current limitations and actively participate in shaping a more integrated, conscious future. It suggests that our role is not just to adapt to our environment, but to consciously evolve ourselves and our world towards greater complexity, awareness, and interconnectedness. We do not know what the future will bring, but we cannot excuse ourselves from its impending reality. There is no other way to predict the future other than to create it because creativity is the heart of evolution, and evolution is the heart of God.    

^[1] King, “Teilhard de Chardin’s Vision of Science, Religion and Planetary Humanity,” 144.