Q: You said religious thinking reflects the history of human evolution. Can you provide a more specific example?
A: Consider the Christian faith. Bible has a very interesting account of creation. God made the entire universe in six days from nothing. Man was created from dust and God blew into his nostrils to give him life.
Q: Well, that doesn’t look like evolution at all!
A: This origin story would appear less puzzling if we realize God is a representation of ‘nature-in-itself’. Events described as happening in six days are a highly compressed version of billions of years of evolution.
Q: Aren’t you stretching it too far? Why did ancient people create such factually incorrect representations?
A: They didn’t know enough to create more reliable descriptions!
Q: They made up stories to comfort themselves. What is the relevance of such religious myths today? We have a far superior origin story in the science of life.
A: Of course we have better stories now. Creation myth in the book of Genesis served an important role for millennia. Man needed an origin story to keep him connected to his source as he set out on the dangerous journey of self-discovery. Does our ‘far superior origin story’ meet this goal?
Q: What journey of self-discovery? And why should the journey of self-discovery be dangerous?
A: ‘Nature-in-itself’, propelled by its own creativity, wanted to see, hear and know. ‘Knower’ evolved to take charge of the latest task in this mission. Objective knowing was fraught with dangers because it alienates man from his source. We went through the fear-estrangement dynamics inherent in knower-nature relationship in previous sections.
Q: I am thoroughly confused. Let me get it straight. You are suggesting evolution didn’t happen through natural selection but was driven by a mysterious creative force. Isn’t it a pseudo-scientific theory discredited long ago?
A: Mechanism of evolution would look exactly like natural selection from an objective point of view. I am suggesting it is incomplete because any explanation for life must include its subjective features. Religious myths are representations of events that are beyond knower’s objective grasp.
Q: Hm…It appears you don’t want give a straight answer.
A: There is no straight answer! Theory of evolution is a perfectly valid objective explanation. But life is an objective fact and subjective experience at the same time. We have been discussing the scope and limits of objectivity when it comes to explaining phenomenal consciousness. This line of enquiry will lead us to a radically new understanding of life.
Q: Are you suggesting religious thinking has an important role in this ‘new understanding’?
A: No. Humanity has accumulated a vast amount of knowledge since the beginning of scientific revolution. Does this knowledge help us comprehend reality in a logical and meaningful manner? Partially yes, but there is much more to be done. We need to work towards forming a logical as well meaningful pattern with our accumulated knowledge.
Q: Let us get back to what Christians believe. Do you think it is a better explanation for ‘life-as-it-really-is’ compared to Darwin’s theory of evolution?
A: Theory of evolution is a reliable model but it has no place for subjectivity, an essential feature of life. Religions deal with the ‘unrepresentable’ through myths but lack precision and consistency. We need to integrate elements from both to arrive a better explanation for life as it really is.
Q: Minor gaps in the science of life need to be filled, but where is the place for religious myths?
A: Myths deal with the ‘unrepresentable’ by describing it as supernatural. The ‘thing-in-itself’ retains its original quality, but at the same time ‘knower’ can communicate with it from behind a wall of unquestioning acceptance. It is an ingenious way to overcome the limit of objective representation.
Christian faith is primarily about the emergence of rational self (knower) and its integration with rest of nature. God created man in His own image (rational self is the reflection of nature’s creativity) and granted him dominion over other creations (power of objective knowledge). Story of man’s origin in the book of Genesis is an allegory of the emergence and separation of rational self from primitive wholeness.
Q: I don’t see the connection.
A: What is man? What is this ‘I’ that stands for myself in my thoughts? Man is in fact a conglomeration of many parts. ‘Knower’ or rational self is just one of the parts, but this verbal, expressive fragment dominates the conglomeration, often to the exclusion of other parts.
Q: Ok, we went through this before. How does it connect with Christian faith?
A: Christian imagery internalizes this bizarre event in the history of life. The ‘new man’ or ‘knower’ emerged over a period of 200,000 years before the dawn of civilizations. Looking back, ‘knower’ projects this evolutionary process into a dramatic event such as a supernatural God creating man from dust.
Q: So ‘man’ created by God in the book of Genesis is the meta-cognitive ‘knower’?
A: Yes. Man-the-animal was one with nature. His consciousness was not differentiated. A new form of life, ‘knowledge-enabled-man’ began to emerge about 200,000 years ago. This is the ‘man’ the book of Genesis speak about.
Q: Universe that came into existence in 6 days is the world of representations created by the ‘knower’!
A: There was ‘nothing’ before ‘knower’ began its act of de-mystification. ‘Nature-in-itself’ was below the threshold of objective knowability. It was pure void, non-existent as per the origin story remembered by knower or the ‘new man’.
Q: How do you see the journey to meta-cognition reflected in Christian faith?
A: Man survived as the suckling infant of mother nature for thousands of years. Emerging self-awareness slowly realized its proximity to a strange and unknowable ‘other’ and reacted through the defence mechanism of fear.
Q: Why is man afraid?
A: ‘Knower’ was born for the sole purpose of generating objective knowledge. It was a dangerous mission because the ‘knower’ itself is an offshoot of the unknowable.
Q: I see your point. Life thrived for millions of years, seeing, hearing and tasting reality. Knowing was the next phase and rational man emerged as nature’s organ of knowing. This initiated an entirely new phase in the history of evolution..
A: Yes. The suckling infant grew into an over confident youngster. This new man’s troubling relationship with his source is symbolized in the story of Eden. God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating fruits of the tree of knowledge, but man proceeded against God’s will to taste the forbidden fruit. Their ‘eyes opened’ and they became ‘fully aware of their own nakedness’.
Q: Why did God prohibit man from acquiring knowledge?
A: Objective ‘knowing’ is an act of separation because it builds a wall between ‘knower’ and his source. It is a war against the unknowable and hence anti-God.
The story of Eden appears as told from man’s perspective. The ‘new man’ interpreted its separation from ‘nature-in-itself’ as God expelling it from a beautiful garden of plenty. In fact it was man who expelled God by creating a new universe of representations for himself. But there is a final twist in this story. The whole thing was scripted by God as the next phase in creative evolution!
Q: That is a bizarre way of looking at the knowing process. Why did God, the all-powerful and all-knowing, pushed man to this no-win situation?
A: Human mind is the only instance where creativity becomes self-aware. Man is the realization of God’s quest for self-knowledge. God forced man into this precarious position because this was the only way God could become aware of itself.
Q: But that was blatantly unfair to man!
A: There were curative interventions to ease the situation. A disastrous existential war was about to erupt as the ‘knower’ matured in confidence and went about objectifying everything, including God. A way had to be found to accommodate self-awareness within the natural order. Its power needed to be harnessed for the good of all life. At the same time, it had to be made subservient to the creative wisdom in nature and God made a deal with mankind. Jesus Christ is the symbol of this reconciliation.
Q: I don’t get it.
A: God offered his son to show man the way out of his existential conundrum. Man owes nature a debt for being what he is. Freedom to ‘know objectively’ comes with a huge responsibility. Burden of this debt appears as the original sin in Christian faith. Suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus offers man a chance to use his gift of knowledge without destroying himself or his source.
Q: How?
A: The story of Jesus is an apology and a statement of triumph at the same time. It is nature’s apology to mankind for the sufferings and fragmentation inherent in being human, a subject and object at the same time. It is also a statement of triumph because ritual sacrifice of reason is the only answer to human condition. How can polar opposites rational self and unknowable whole occupy the same time and space? This puzzle has only one solution: the rational-self, even while taking charge, need to serve his master, a deeper creative wisdom inherent in nature.
Q: You mean man should stop his quest for knowledge and live like animals, in sync with nature?
A: No…No. Man should realize objective knowledge is only one of the tools at his disposal. Comprehension involves a whole spectrum of tools, not just the ‘knower’. Surrendering individual will means aligning ourselves with the creative wisdom in nature, guided by the power of reason. This is not easy because temporal limitations of individual life severely distort our perception. Lines appearing straight and parallel are actually tiny segments of huge intersecting curves. But man refuse to see beyond the tip of his nose, conveniently ignoring non-linearities beyond his own 70-odd years of earthly life.
Q: That is an interesting way to think about Christian faith, but I doubt this is how vast majority of Christians understand their religion.
A: Nietzsche said ‘the last Christian died on the cross’ for a reason!
Q: How about other religions?
A: All religions are knower’s attempt to re-tell its origin story and cure the knower-nature fragmentation. I used Christian faith as an example because it happened to be the religion I am more familiar with.
Q: Do you think mankind will ever come to this realization?
A: I like to think so! I don’t mean practicing any particular religion, but understanding religious phenomena as intricately linked to our own evolutionary history.
Mind, Evolution and Meaning 
I agree with your premise that the ‘tendency’ towards religious/spiritual faith may be rooted in the separation/fragmentation of the knower from his source. Perhaps, all religious faith is knower’s attempt to reconcile with his feeling of ‘lack’ and his persistent urge for ‘completion’. The inclination to have ‘religious faith’ could have evolved in humans, in parallel with the ability to wonder, think and conceptualise their thinking in words (simultaneous with the evolution of language). The earliest collective faith of humans, were permeated with deep reverence and awe towards Nature and its forces. This deep connection with nature, is evident in many beliefs of the native people from indigenous cultures across the world, and in the ancient eastern religions/cultures (Hinduism, Taoism). All these have their own very rich mythology, numerous parables, stories and traditions passed on for generations- deeply rooted in submission to the power of nature, mostly around emphasizing and celebrating the wonders and mystery of the unknown, which was beyond their direct objective comprehension.
I like the very neat correlations you have made with the story of origin in christianity, relating with the evolutionary conundrum of the knower! It may however be difficult to elucidate the exact logical sequence and context, in which any specific religious belief or mythological story evolved, because the original beliefs as they were transmitted (for each religion), have most definitely been transformed, with many changes introduced, muddled and mixed with added material over the centuries. Religions have frequently been used to gain power over the masses, throughout recorded human history. Considering how these beliefs were/are often strongly influenced, perhaps reshaped by political motivations, many aspects of the organized religions have most certainly been contaminated over time, irrespective of the purity of faith from their respective adherents- making it difficult to trace their original ‘tracks’ and inspiration. It is certainly not easy or straightforward, to link the conscious evolution of any religious faith, directly with the ‘knower’ in the context of his relationship with the unknown. It is nevertheless a very interesting speculation!
Thank you. Religions begin with purity of mystical insights but degrade over time as the ‘knower’ seek explanations and justifications. God, representation of the unknowable, must be named, and a date and place of birth assigned, to make it more “real” to the masses. It is a complex process and I agree, requires much more effort to work out the specifics.
Yes, very true. As I mentioned already, you have done a neat job, of attempting to find possible connections between the beliefs of a lot of people who are invested in this mythology, with the explanation of how humans evolved as a ‘knower’. Regardless of the factual accuracy of these connections, you may have at the least, found a beautiful metaphor here- in what many humans choose to invest their faith in- as a reflection of how and where they perceive themselves, in the context of existence!