Omega and God
Why science needs religion, and vice-versa.
Last night, in a monthly Zoom meeting of a philosophy group I joined about a year ago, I was privileged to witness a presentation by Ilia Delio, author of The Not-Yet God: Carl Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, and the Relational Whole. Delio, Professor of Theology at Villanova University and founder of the Center for Christogenesis, spoke to our group about the direction of evolution. The topic was relevant because our common interest is integral philosophy — the study of how people with differing values and beliefs co-evolve through discovering higher levels of consciousness.
While her book refers to many other thinkers, the primary influence is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), a Jesuit priest and paleontologist whose visionary interest in evolution led to a remarkable and controversial blend of science and Christianity.
His work continues to intrigue those of us who are not satisfied with choosing among purely scientific or religious approaches to big questions about life (e.g., who are we, why are we here, where are we going?). I have never attended church because most religious practice strikes me as overly ritual and tribal. However, I have always been drawn to metaphysics.
Science, though, seems just as limited. It serves those who want more control but is generally lacking imagination. As an economist, I’ve been quite disappointed by mechanical models of a social science that ignores the evident complexity of human life.
I was profoundly impressed by Fritjof Capra’s 1975 book The Tao of Physics when I read it in the 1980s. This fascinating book described quantum physics and Eastern mysticism as parallel views of the universe. I finally began to explore Buddhist teachings two years ago. Earlier this year, after learning about Teilhard from Steve McIntosh (leader of our Zoom group), I read The Phenomenon of Man, which blew my mind.
Unsurprisingly, I was eager to read Delio’s new book when Steve mentioned it last month, and delighted to hear that she would be our guest in November. Her talk focused on Teilhard’s concept of Omega as God, and she was brilliant.
While I know enough to appreciate these ideas, I cannot really add anything. What I can offer are notes below on Delio’s remarks that may inspire further investigation.
Mind and matter are two sides of one reality. Experientially, matter is presence, life is wholeness, and energy is plenitude.
The nature of the universe is undivided wholeness. As they become more aware of this, physicists are beginning to question the space-time dimensional view. It is becoming more apparent that evolution is beyond Earth; it is ineffable.
Omega (the end point of evolution) is not deterministic; rather, it is the whole seeking greater wholeness or completion through the power of love energy. Its qualities are Autonomy, Actuality, Irreversibility, and Transcendence.
Natural systems evolve to become more complex and more conscious. The noosphere (sphere of human thought) exhibits convergence of psychic energy, higher complexity, and greater consciousness (awareness).
God is actualized via thought, evolution is theogenic (i.e., God is emergent), and this force drives us toward unity.
Scientists have always been motivated by mystery, yet they seem to overlook the belief in unity inherent in their spirit of improvement. Science needs a holistic view that recognizes the religious component of evolution. Likewise, religion needs to recognize the energy of developing life through love of the universe.
For more about Developmental Philosophy, Steve McIntosh’s attempt to bridge emerging scientific and religious thought, I can recommend a recent interview in which he explains the concept and its potential to point us toward synthesis of values (e.g., the good, the true, and the beautiful).
