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.

On Accepting Changes In The Church

The social bonding of the Church is one of its most vital offerings, perhaps its most important offering; the science of sociobiology has brilliantly affirmed this as well. In light of this, how must one think of the changes of Vatican II, e.g. changes in the Mass (Recently changed back to the Traditional Mass) which traditionalists defined as virtually a change to the Protestant mass?

I think it would have been better had the Protestants changed to the Catholic Mass, since the latter is an older, deeper, and more authentic way to reach God the God Within. The general problem, however, is the fading interest in Christianity in the world, which Vatican II was essentially trying to deal with by moving toward connection between all Christians in the world.

The Theoevolutionary Church will require a few more rather large changes in the future, or at least changes in emphasis, which should not be thought of as evil. Conservatism supports traditions, but not to the point of ignoring the reality of change in nature and change in the kosmos, where God created the laws of evolution, which affirm the reality of change.

Science has damaged Christianity, but Christian's who cannot accept the truths of science have also damaged Christianity. Science can bring a deeper understanding of Christianity, but this deeper understanding requires at least a change in Christian emphasis. Traditionalists who refuse any kind of change refuse the changes that God affirms in an evolutionary kosmos, and this cannot be virtuous, especially if refusing change leads to destroying all traditions, and in destroying traditions the people of the West are destroyed.

Two choices facing Vatican II were: (1) If we do not change we will decline and perhaps fall, and (2) if we change we will decline and perhaps fall. The Church was declining before VII, perhaps because it rejected much of modern knowledge, and it has declined since VII because it accepted much of modern knowledge.

This can be resolved by affirming Evolution as both a scientific and religious principle. We evolve materially and spiritually to Godhood. We accept the spirit of VII as eventually moving toward refining and synthesizing the evolutionary goal of Godhood. But traditionalists can certainly retain Church traditions all the way back to Christ, and affirm the same God we affirm, Who is also Him whom we must evolve to.

Conservative Change over Radical Change

All conservatives of whatever leaning seem to see the present and coming crisis in the West, it is the methods we advocate for trying to solve the crisis that separate us.

Critics on the Right of Conservatism (e.g. evolutionary) tend to emphasize the evolutionary over the conservative, which seems to lead to more radical political schemes (although it need not do so). But Conservatism involves not merely economic or social philosophy, it also involves conservative political methods.

Being prudent should be vital, as Russell Kirk always talked about, taking into account the reality of change, preferring conservative change rather than radical change, even when radical change is desperately needed, because radical methods almost never succeed.

I emphasize conservative change over radical change. I affirm the Theoevolutionary Church for conservative reasons over radical Modernism and Traditionalism which are equally radical. Successful survival and reproduction help determine the method, along with the overarching long-term spiritual goals in our evolution toward Godhood.

Reconciling Traditionalists With Evolutionists

The relatively new “evolutionary integralists,” e.g. Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen, have apparently blacklisted the Traditionalist School of Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Mircea Eliade, etc., and not for the politically incorrect tendencies of Traditionalists, but for their rejection of evolution and science. I can agree with rejecting those who reject evolution, to a point, but the Traditionalist School (and Perennial Wisdom) deserve better than blacklisting. (Christians against evolution get the same New Age disdain)

The Traditionalist School is a great resurrection of Traditional religion, which I define as the micro-traditional way to discover God in ourselves and in our history and traditions. Living in the West, Traditional Christianity is the conservative way to approach God in the micro-traditional way. The Theoevolutionary Church is the combined macro-evolutionary/micro-traditional way, which I have been defining in this blog.

The Traditionalists and Evolutionists can be reconciled when both approaches are seen as legitimate. Micro-traditionalists and macro-evolutionists approach God running back to back, on the same continuum, and not running perpendicular (at right angles) to one another, as Robert Godwin has suggested regarding scientific and spiritual things. Godhood is seen virtually, in micro-traditional religion, and actually reached through evolution, in macro-evolutionary religion.

Enlightenment and Evolution

One problem with the new “evolutionary spirituality” proposed by Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber and Robert W. Godwin, is that is maintains outmoded, one-world ideology, seeing future evolution in large-scale empires, which they would call world “cooperatives.” Yes, individuals learn to cooperate in groups, but real evolution breaks down in large scale empires, as the old Roman, Soviet and American Empires have shown.

When examining actual evolution, “small is beautiful.” Small-scale societies assure variety, which is vital in evolution. Christendom is not governed with one-size-fits-all, contrary to liberal opinion; subsidiarity and federalism affirm variety. Conservatives and liberals are biased toward one another, which hurts both their attempts to find workable social programs. Conservatives should claim ecology and evolution, liberals should claim small states rights and religion.

“Enlightenment” has two unequal definitions, one virtual, the other actual. Revealed religions have defined the virtual experience of enlightenment, glorious as this was; bio-spiritual evolution defines actual enlightenment, which can be achieved only at the majestic culmination of evolution.

What I Affirm

For the historical, traditionally-understood God, I affirm Traditional Christianity, and the Involutionary Inward Path, for the same, evolving, but futuristically-understood God, I affirm the Evolutionary Outward Path.

I affirm two ways to understand Godhood: Traditionalist, looking back to God, and Futurist, looking forward toward evolution to Godhood; the micro–back, the macro-forward, affirming the same God, although the Theoevolutionary Church (TC) says that Godhood must be evolved to.

I affirm the conservative social philosophy which harmonizes with subsidiarity, agrarianism (including serious ecological concerns), separatism and a strictly interpreted “federalism” of the American variety, i.e. strong states rights, and above all local rights.

“Small is beautiful” is affirmed for conservative and sociobiological reasons, e.g. Beyondism; evolution seems to work best within the biological variety of a natural, conservatism. This can harmonize science and religion.

The Traditional Church is affirmed, for spiritual, conservative, and sociobiological reasons, with the important and vital addition of evolution, and with the "expanded" definition of Godhood defined as that which must be evolved to, a Godhood which was virtually, and blissfully “seen” or “experienced” inwardly by the great religious founders and sages. We see now that we evolve to Godhood.

From Paul VI

“Modern man, will he not gradually come to the point where he will discover as a result of scientific progress, the laws and hidden realities behind the mute face of matter and give ear to the marvelous voice of the spirit that vibrates in it?...”
Milan, 1956

“The order to which Christianity tends is not static, but an order in continual evolution towards a high form...”
Dialogues, Reflections on God and Man

“Mankind is undergoing profound changes and searching for guiding principles and new forces which will show it the way in the world of the future.”
Speech in Bombay 1964

Change In The Theoevolutionary Church

Nothing practical changes when evolution is brought into Catholicism or other religions. The change is in the consciousness of Godhood as that which must be bio-spiritually evolved to. Prudent Conservatism remains the preferred political method, along with federalism or subsidiarity. Traditional Catholicism remains a healthy religious base and structure. Aspects of Vatican Two are affirmed, which can help end the tragic feud between traditionalists and modernists.

A great advantage in the Theoevolutionary Church, with its evolutionary consciousness of Godhood, comes from rejoining religion and science, which have been tearing apart the Western world. Another advantage comes in joining insights from other religions, e.g. Eastern religions, which could lesson tensions and advance wisdom.

Resolving Definitions of the Soul

The Theoevolutionary Church seeks to resolve the differences in defining the Spirit, between Christians, Platonist, Gnostics, Eastern Religions and Darwinists.

The Bible talks of the union of body and spirit, immortality requires the “resurrection” of the body to sustain the spirit. Yet to Platonists the spirit must be immaterial and separate from the body.

Platonists need not denigrate the material world, and empiricists need not denigrate the ideal world. The Theoevolutionary Church can resolve the differences.

Darwin did not tell the deepest truth about our purpose, he did not take evolution as far as it goes.  And Aristotelians and Thomists, who believe that the spirit is an action that cannot be explained by material survival drives, can perhaps, rest easier. In the sacred material evolution of life to Godhood, evolution eventually brings us into the higher realms, and evolution continues, all the way to Godhood, for those who are successful.  Wide is the gate and narrow the way.

Evolution and Conservatism

The science of evolution can save the Church from much of the modernism it absorbed since Vatican Two. For example, the communist views on man were decadent, even as the new attitude toward science was healthy.

Evolution brings federalism and subsidiarity back, indeed, evolution affirms conservatism, if an unbiased reading of sociobiology is applied. Sociobiology affirms the preference for group and ethnic selection and this moves the Church back to a healthier traditional position of federalism and subsidiarity, as well as ethnostates. 

Sacred Evolution And The Church

All the things that have been said about attaining happiness, and ultimately attaining God, by St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and others, including the great sages of Eastern Religions, can be applied to the sacred evolution to Godhood. It is not only the inward vision of the Divine Essence we seek, it is actually evolving materially-supermaterially to Godhood. Godhood is attained through sacred evolution, evolving within nature, and evolving through higher stages until Godhood is supremely attained.

The vision of Divine Essence which the great sages saw was a virtual inward vision of Godhood, but Godhood Itself must be evolved to in the cosmos. Christianity believes---unlike the other revealed religions---that Jesus Christ was also God Himself.

Our view of the sacred evolution to Godhood can be confirmed within the structures of the laws of nature. The Spirit-Will-To-Godhood within Primal Matter activates natural law and evolution. The terrible long-term antagonism between religion and science can this way be synchronized.

Having great respect for the philosophy of conservatism, I have no wish to harm the great traditions of the great religions. I seek to add the Outward Path to Godhood to the Inward Path to the Father Within.

Blending science with religion

As unacceptable as it is to Traditional Catholics, the following guide from Vatican Two (The Church In The Modern World) may be the only way to save the Church in the modern world.

“Let them (the faithful) blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine.”

For example, we would say, to deny the theory of evolution is absurd and to continue to do so will mean the virtual end of religion, which would then end the spiritual truths that religion can teach science.

However, to quote Vatican One... “let there be growth...and all possible progress in understanding...but only within proper limits, that is, in the same doctrine, in the same meaning, and in the same purport.”