The New Remnant

Nock and Eliot achieved a first base
and not the summit, another lamp was lit
near the peak by E. O. Wilson where
the ancient rivers meet, at the well of
Mimir; now we will have a religion
that includes science, an alliance of
two ages; the stage is set, the new remnant
must live with slow change and a small range of
influence, ride Evola’s tiger until
the Evolutionary Christian Church
becomes the deeper myth.

Response To Naysayers

Traditional religion has been steadily losing to science and evolution. It seems to me that an attempt to reconcile these antagonists deserves consideration. The Evolutionary Christian Church attempts to keep Tradition intact while adding bio-spiritual evolution, thereby reconciling implacable foes. If religion and science cannot be reconciled Traditional religion will eventually become virtually extinct, the barbarians will further advance, and Western Civilization will lose at least half its history and soul. Losing half your history and soul is not good for successful survival and reproduction, which everyone is concerned with.

I say to Traditional Religion, the New Right, Science and to orthodox Racialists: life is not perfect ideology, let’s try to reconcile these antagonism or we soon may all sink.

The Theoevolutionary Church Is Not A Hybrid

Both religion and evolution can be described as seeking immortality. Religion has seen and experienced deep glimpses of that immortality which it defines as God or Heaven. Science has not seen or experienced this immortality but continues to seek to define it with mathematical equations or physical models, which are its form of seeing and experiencing. Religion has defined values and morals, which it says lead to God or immortality, and science/evolution (e.g. sociobiology) has affirmed these very same religious values and morals as tending to lead to successful survival and reproduction.

The Theoevolutionary Church is a combination of religion and evolution/science, but not a “hybrid,” since both positions are trying to see, experience and define the same depth, or truth, or immortality. Christianty provides the religion and values and the deeper sense of God and immortality; science provides the abstract and technical definitions of the nature of life in evolution, although science has yet to affirm the “goal” of the genes seeking immortality as Godhood, but it has acknowledged that the selfish genes seek immortality.

No controversial or volatile new application of eugenics is called for since Christianity provides the values and morals for successful survival and reproduction, and for evolution. For example, Cattell's Beyondism can work in harmony with Catholic social philosophy. Conservative stability offers the best overall opportunity for successful survival and reproduction. The only “innovation”–aside from the overall synthesis of Christianity and evolution–is to emphasize that along with concern for the weak, we value higher intelligence and higher consciousness, remembering that God is the highest intelligence and highest consciousness. We are trying to evolve to Godhood, which is an extremely difficult thing to accomplish. Valuing higher intelligence and higher consciousness is more fully valuing the glory of God’s creation.

Religion is not “merely” the way to “experience” God, difficult as that is to do, the Theoevolutionary Church says that to fully experience God we must evolve to Godhood, to become God through evolution. Just as we have been taught that both the body and soul will be resurrected and that we are a soul and body combined, so also we become God as a synthesis of both matter and spirit. That is, reaching God does not mean "merely" experiencing God or seeing God spiritually within human bodies, it means evolving our soul and spirit within our bodies to Godhood, far beyond humanhood. This contradicts the Gnostic/Platonic perspective which tends to devalue the material world.

Religion can offer both “The Virtual Way” to see and experience God within and “The Real Way” to evolve to God through the application of its values and morals. Science can offer to define both the Virtual Way and the Real Way in scientific terms, and perhaps eventually in religious terms.

No Reason To Change The Mass But Need To Add A New Mass

The canon of the traditional Catholic Mass, according to Coomaraswamy and many others, consists of parts instituted by Christ Himself, and a few sacred prayers added by the Apostles under Divine inspiration. The resulting traditional Mass really is the “Holy of Holies.” God is reached in this Mass more deeply and truly than He is reached in any other Christian institution. And in deeply and truly reaching God we can begin to better know whom we are evolving to, which is the "innovation" in direction I condone. Tradition and evolution flow together in the Twofold Path. However, a new Mass of Joy for the Evolutionary Outward Path is needed.

Soft Eugenics?

Q. You say “evolve.” How do you propose to do that in the Christian Church?

A. Tell the people to have large families, breed, and appreciate more the intelligent, and higher consciousness among you, even as you appreciate the meek.

Q. That is all?

A. In a world gone mad, with lost morals and values, those who follow this advice will evolve successfully.

Q. No eugenics?

A. Appreciate more the intelligent, and higher consciousness among you, even as you appreciate the meek. Godhood is the highest intelligence and has the highest consciousness: emulate Godhood.

Q. But the world is over populated.

A. If you take care of the land, and the people on the land, and follow political structures relating to subsidiarity, federalism, and small is beautiful, over- population will take care of itself. This is an affirmation of family life, first and foremost. Be fruitful and multiply, the Bible said.

Technological Advancement And the Theoevolutionary Church

As the 21st century develops, George Dvorsky has come up with his must-know terms in science, technology and philosophy for the “expert generalist,” so that we may understand the Big Picture past, present and future.

As I examined the list: Sentient Developments, I was struck with how much an overall religious worldview will be needed to synthesize these new developments, assuming we can survive to experience these advances. Christianity, and more specifically, the Theoevolutionary Church, will need to provide a healthy structure for these developments.

Technological development will create radical social disruptions beginning around the mid-point of the 21st century. Most of the creaters and engineers will expect or even demand total freedom to develop what they please without moral restrictions. It will be the task of religion to apply the traditional seven Christian virtues, the ten commandments, the eight Beatitudes and the six precepts of the Traditional Church to these technological developments, while at the same time the Theoevolutionary Church may welcome technologies that help us evolve to Godhood.

The list of terms includes:
Accelerating change, the Anthropic Principle, artificial General Intelligence, Augmented Reality, Bayesian Rationality, Cosmological Eschatology, Engineered Negligible Senescence, Existential Risks, Extended Identity, The Fermi Paradox, Friendly AI, Human Enhancement, Human Exceptionalism, Information Theoretic Death, Mass Automation, Memetic Engineering, Mind Transfer, Molecular Assembler, Neurodiversity, Neural Interface Device, Noosphere, Open Source, Participatory Panopticon, Political Globalization, Post-Scarcity Economy, Quantum Computation, Radical Luddism, Remedial Ecology, Simulation Argument, Soft Paternalism, and Technological Singularity.

Mr. Dvorsky gives no suggestion, of course, for the Theoevolutionary Church which should be the paternal and ethical foundation for dealing with these coming technological advances. It seems to me that God is the “postbiological superintelligence” they are attempting to invent. It is another virtual God, whereas the real God must be not merely simulated, however impressive the simulation; we must join God, become God, evolve to God, not merely simulate God. This suggests that extending personhood artificially outside the human sphere is not the central direction that evolution must go, it is the human being who can be extended through evolution. The Darwinian process continues, even as we may learn to manipulate it. Let us be directed by the humane considerations of the church.

We would not approve of radical Luddism, the dangers of modern technology are only dangerous when they are unhinged from traditional religious morality. The “libertarian paternalism” we would approve of would be directed by the subsidiarity and federalism of the Traditional Church, upgraded by the Theoevolutionary Church.

Traditional religious sages have been experiencing God by way of soul-recognition for many centuries, now computers may be seeking the same experience. Both are more or less virtual experiences. God is real, not virtual.

Technology can move in the direction of bio-spiritual evolution to Godhood, applying the traditional social teachings of the church, which supplies the best environment for living and evolving in the world. We evolve in the direction of God, who was seen by Christ and other great religious sages, long before modern technology.

These complicated issues will need to be further examined.

Involution and Evolution

Involution: Harkening back, archeological-like, and mystically, to where it all began, where God was first seen, and examining the soul within as an aspect of God, and seeing the spirit-will as the the impulse of evolution. This is more or less the method of tradition and the revealed religions.

Evolution: The movement toward actually becoming or joining with Godhood. The very same God examined inwardly by involutionists and by the revealed religion, but a Godhood whom we evolve to, if we are successful, at the culmination of evolution.

Stuck With Conservatism

Apparently I am stuck with developing revolutionary religious ideas while affirming Conservatism. The term “revolutionary conservative” makes little sense to me—“evolutionary conservatism” is only slightly better. Conservatism is Conservatism. I am not a revolutionary. One doesn’t tear down existing institutions. Conservatism provides the healthy and moral way to change; 99 of 100 new mutations don’t survive. I accept this, although it often puts me out in the hinterland.

If Conservatives Prevail In The Church

Are there two Catholic Churches, pre and post Vatican II? If the radicals on both ends have their way there will be a split, another reformation, two Catholic Churches.

If conservatives prevail, the modernists and traditionalists will be joined together. Conservatives, e.g. Edmund Burke, taught us that history and real tradition don’t yield to idealistic, universalist schemes or dreams on either side.

Conservatives understand that history must be acknowledged, slow change is realistic, natural; perfection is not possible, until we attain Godhood; and evolution makes this possible.

Vatican II nudged the church from a radical traditional to a conservative position, and I, for one, think that is good.