Azarian’s Humanistic and Evolutionary Pantheism

In alignment with thinkers like Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, I have previously argued that pantheism offers a compelling foundation for a contemporary spirituality. Bobby Azarian, a cognitive neuroscientist, shares this perspective in his work, The Romance of Reality. In a summary of his book, he presents pantheism in a naturalistic and process-oriented light, demonstrating how this worldview advocates for collective cooperation in achieving a profound cosmic awareness.

He asserts that rather than moving towards chaos, the universe is on a transformative evolutionary journey that predates biology and extends far beyond it. Through a series of hierarchical integrations, the universe engages in a remarkable self-organizing endeavor. Essentially, the simplest elements of nature coalesce into complex systems, which serve as the building blocks for further complexity.

This implies that cosmic evolution encompasses multiple levels of self-organization, integrating physical, chemical, biological, cultural, and technological advancements. The manifestations of life, intellect, society, and creativity are all part of a singular evolutionary narrative. As consciousness emerges from this process, cosmic evolution can be viewed as the universe becoming aware of itself.

Azarian references Carl Sagan, who famously suggested that human consciousness is the universe's way of recognizing itself. This perspective prompts a shift away from egoism towards a broader understanding of our place within nature, echoing ancient religious beliefs that suggest we are all moving towards a divine realization.

The universe, according to Azarian, is not merely a series of random events; rather, it is governed by natural laws that suggest an ultimate purpose. While there may not be a transcendent creator orchestrating this cosmic evolution, nature unfolds as if guided by an inherent plan, leading to profound implications for existence.

Contrary to being at odds, Azarian posits that science and spirituality are intertwined, as a spiritual outlook is essential for grasping the significance of the universe's complexity. He emphasizes that if life arises as a natural consequence of physical laws, this new cosmic narrative carries spiritual weight. We are not mere accidents; rather, we embody a cosmic necessity.

To facilitate this awakening, humanity must unite as a global consciousness, assisting the universe in achieving its potential. Azarian draws upon Zoroastrian myths, suggesting we must engage in a struggle between good and evil, ultimately aiding the universe in realizing its divine purpose. This necessitates forming a cohesive global brain, where cooperation among humans becomes crucial.

However, to truly harness this transformation, society must recognize its integral role in the universe's self-organizing process. Understanding that we constitute the nervous system of an evolving superorganism compels us to consider the broader ramifications of our actions, fostering global sustainability and progress for all.

Monistic Pantheism

I appreciate Azarian's effort to integrate humanism with this naturalistic theology, yet I want to delineate between two forms of pantheism: the monistic approach he advocates and the dualistic perspective I favor.

Monistic pantheism equates creation with the creator. In contrast to theistic beliefs, which posit a transcendent creator separate from the universe, pantheism asserts that the universe itself is divine. This view implies that the universe is the ultimate creative force, continuously forming and evolving.

Monism suggests a singular metaphysical reality, while dualism recognizes two fundamental aspects. Humanism emphasizes our species' capacity for growth, particularly when we focus on our shared humanity rather than succumbing to tribal or self-centered disputes.

Azarian's vision of nature emphasizes our role within this grand scheme; we are integral components of a global brain meant to awaken nature's consciousness. He argues that if we fail to fulfill this role, nature will eventually replace us, as its will must prevail. Just as one cannot argue against a deity, one cannot oppose nature, as it encompasses all existence.

(Azarian explicitly states: “If we do not become cognizant that the only way to overcome existential challenges is by working together, then human civilization will fail, and those that come after us will get their chance.”)

We can frame this notion as monistic since, despite recognizing the diverse phenomena within nature, monistic pantheism unifies them under a cosmic purpose. This aligns with neo-Aristotelian teleology, where a First Cause inspires all manifestations of order and intention, acting as a divine force pulling all things towards their ultimate purpose.

Pantheism and Humanism

The concern arises when we question what occurs once we fulfill our role in nature's self-awareness. As a global brain, humanity may uncover the truths of nature, but what happens next? How does nature respond to this newfound understanding?

Whatever the answer may be, it would have to stem from a natural, perhaps inhuman purpose. Nature might reject our discoveries, viewing us as unwelcome harbingers of truth. Alternatively, it could be that nature simply seeks to experiment with intelligence, leaving the evolution of life without significant purpose.

Humanism, in contrast, is inherently centered on human values, recognizing that we are the primary source of meaning. Theistic humanism lacks coherence, as the existence of a deity would imply our servitude to a supreme being. Similarly, monistic pantheism's humanism would falter, as nature's motives would inherently conflict with human values.

This focus on nature's role through us may ultimately be a semantic illusion. While we may be part of nature, we often act against it, as it is a wild and indifferent realm that threatens the very complexities we have developed. This fundamental opposition between life and its amoral environment calls for a dualistic understanding.

Without this duality, one could argue that Azarian’s vision of cooperation might resemble a form of totalitarianism. We could imagine a society akin to a cult where individuals sacrifice their autonomy for the supposed greater good. This kind of cooperation would diminish the inherent rights of each person, reducing us to mere components in nature's grand design.

Azarian's moral framework, then, could be seen as contrary to humanism.

Nature’s Absurdity: The Catalyst for Human Rebellion

Azarian might challenge these negative interpretations of nature, suggesting that "problems create progress" and "The engine of progress is the need to find solutions to our survival problems." This perspective serves as a pantheistic justification.

Yet we must question whether this perspective truly reflects nature's intent or if we are merely imposing our optimistic outlook onto chaotic natural phenomena. Is nature genuinely striving for improvement, or are we projecting our biases onto it? We perceive evolution as a trajectory leading to our emergence, yet this viewpoint may stem from our primitive desires rather than an accurate representation of nature's workings.

For instance, Aristotle's naturalistic teleology relies on a tenuous analogy between natural creations and human-made artifacts. The metaphysical distinction between potentiality and actuality does not inherently dictate which possibilities are superior or irrelevant. Only an intelligent designer could determine the best uses for a hammer, for example. Without such a designer, there is no objective standard for evaluating natural developments.

This teleology represents a subjective approach to coping with the complexities of science's re-enchantment of nature. The pantheist seeks to construct a belief system grounded in science rather than traditional theological principles. However, science objectifies everything it engages with, effectively dismantling the gods of theists, as Nietzsche noted.

The universe displays an apparent order — from molecular structures to galactic formations and the evolution of life — without a guiding intelligence. Nature's order arises organically, discarding ineffective elements along the way. Nature's failures fall outside scientific understanding or deviate from established conditions.

Thus, according to scientific objectivity, natural developments can appear grotesque, likened to a lifeless body rising to shuffle and moan in a stereotypical zombie narrative. This objective view renders nature a living-dead horror, paradoxically absurd from a human-centric perspective.

Dualistic Pantheism

If pantheism suggests that everything is divine, how can part of this divine whole oppose another aspect? Wouldn't a human-centered ethical framework contradict the pantheistic notion of an all-encompassing reality?

Not necessarily. Even though everything in nature may possess divine qualities within its self-organizing structure, comprehending this process necessitates a scientific objectivity that recognizes layers, systems, and divisions. This differentiation allows for a vital distinction between life and nonlife.

Why emphasize this distinction within a dualistic pantheism? It relates to Azarian's assertion about the universe awakening to itself through intelligent life. However, there is a critical difference between claiming that nature operates through us and acknowledging that we actively challenge nature due to our understanding.

Azarian attributes the universe's conditions for our evolution to a broader cosmic design, akin to how believers attribute goodness to divine grace. Yet, we can just as easily highlight our autonomy in this process, reacting to nature's indifference with a willful assertion of meaning.

Humanistic morality emerges as a response to this recognition, necessitating a dualistic interpretation of pantheism. We infuse the absurd universe with human-centered significance, transforming the wilderness into domains we prefer to inhabit.

Our species, as intelligent beings, acts as nature's reconstructive force.

Pantheology and Morality

We can further analyze the contrast by questioning whether the divine nature is inherently good or bad. If nature's self-organizing complexities yield redemptive outcomes and we can comprehend and endorse these results, we might accept our natural role without fear of compromising our moral compass.

Azarian's monistic pantheism, along with certain New Age perspectives, encourages such submission to nature. Nietzsche’s interpretation of nature similarly advocates this view. In this light, we should embrace our roles, whether as a global brain or as participants in a neoliberal framework.

In contrast, Schopenhauer's pantheism — rooted in Eastern philosophies — advocates for ascetic renunciation of nature, which is often perceived as flawed. When combined with scientific insights, existentialism suggests that complying with our natural role would dehumanize us, reducing us to mere components of a wild existence rather than autonomous entities.

Thus, humanism can be redefined within dualistic pantheism. If natural processes align with our moral standards, then we do not stand apart from nature. We would perceive ourselves as facilitators of nature's creativity, aligning our behavior with its principles.

However, if understanding nature involves feelings of horror, alienation, and existential dread, or if nature is fundamentally devoid of humanity while we celebrate the emergence of personhood, we would inevitably find ourselves at odds with nature once we develop a humanistic outlook.

It's crucial not to confuse theology with ethics. The mere acknowledgment of nature's creativity does not guarantee alignment with humanistic values. Deities or powerful forces may be revered not for benevolence but for their terrifying nature.

The Protestant effort to present faith as a familial bond with Jesus should not mislead us into thinking that religious experiences are inherently mild. True love for the divine can be both ecstatic and daunting, resonating with Rudolph Otto’s notion of "holiness" as simultaneously awe-inspiring and fearsome.

Similarly, our appreciation of nature's grandeur need not be sanitized. We must remember that the evolution of life has been accompanied by both suffering and joy, and nature's dynamic force is as monstrous as any horde of zombies.

Read every article from Benjamin Cain (and thousands of other writers on Medium). Your membership fee directly supports…