 All right, you'll tweak it and it starts now. OK. During the past two centuries, social theorists have contributed to what has come to be called the secularization thesis. This thesis identifies three main trends. First of all, progress in science and technology tends to promote a disenchanted view of the world, where an ever-increasing number of events can be causally explained without turning to theology or metaphysics. Second, as governing structures adapt to scientific advances, churches and other religious organizations tend to lose their control over law, politics, public welfare, education, and science. And instead, they restrict themselves just to their pastoral functions of providing for the individual's spiritual well-being. And so religion becomes largely a private matter. The third thing is that increased prosperity brought on by industrialization and the rise of the welfare state tends to reduce the need for reliance on a higher power to cope with life's inherent risks. In my abstract, I claim that this hypothesis was showing signs of age. By this, I don't mean to imply that these trends have ceased altogether, but that there are significant discrepancies between the trends as described and what is actually happening. Sociologists and philosopher Jurgen Habermas explains that among the expert community of sociologists, the secularization thesis has been a subject of controversy for more than two decades, and that there is even talk of the end of secularization theory. He points out that while the data globally still provides surprisingly robust support for secularization, the weakness of the theory is due rather to rash inferences that betray an imprecise use of the concepts of secularization and modernization. He goes on to describe these discrepancies in more detail, and he calls this revised thesis post-secularization or post-secularism. He points out that the European model of secularization has actually been the exception rather than the rule. As a counter example, though religion is changing in the United States, it's still home to many vibrant religious communities, and its proportion of religiously committed and active citizens remains high. Despite its religiosity, America nevertheless is the spearhead of modernization. It used to be seen as an unusual holdout against the secularization trend, but wider perspectives on other cultures and world religion now see this as more of a norm. So although churches have lost control over their government functions, they continue to exert a powerful soft influence by encouraging their congregants to be politically active and by clear messaging on issues that are of importance to them. And from a global perspective, religion, especially fundamentalism is actually increasing in the world. So while post-secular theorists have a lot more to say, for the purposes of my presentation today, I'd just like to highlight two important conclusions that I draw from post-sexualization. First, religion has been misunderstood, and perhaps most importantly, religion is not going away anytime soon, so we'd better try to understand it. So let's see if we can try to understand it a little better today. What exactly is religion? It has been notoriously difficult to define. We could easily spend hours on this topic and still not get to the bottom of it. But in general, I take the position that religion has been characterized too narrowly. We think of religion as the church on the corner, as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Judaism, but we forget that religion existed long before the popular denominations of today. In his crowning work, Religion in Human Evolution, sociologist Robert Bella describes religion as a system of symbols that, when enacted by human beings, establishes powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations that make sense in terms of an idea of a general order of existence. You may notice that this description applies to a broad range of human activities, some of which may not traditionally be associated with religion. So hold that thought because I'm gonna get back to it later. Far from a peripheral aspect of human life, Bella draws on a wide array of biological, archeological, and anthropological research to show that religion was not just an important phase of our evolutionary development, but is actually one of the conserved core processes that contributes to our ongoing survival and is part of our very nature. He traces its emergence in our evolutionary predecessors and describes some of the necessary components that preceded it. So I had a ton of slides about some of his research and I had to just cut them all out because we just don't have enough time today. You can make them available afterwards online? Yeah, I guess I could do that, that'd be great. Bella stresses that human culture develops incrementally. While it may advance to new phases, it always retains elements of the previous ones. He identifies three phases of cultural development, mimetic in which primitive humans communicate primarily by mimicking and gesture, mythic in which the development of language has enabled narrative, and theoretic in which old narratives are questioned and reorganized, old rituals and myths are replaced with new ones, et cetera. But today I'd especially like to focus on myth or narrative. Myth literally means story, especially in the context of religion, stories about transcendent human experiences. Contrary to the popular understanding of the word, myths are not untrue. They may even be based on historical events. In fact, they often are, but their strength is not derived from their historicity. It comes from there being powerful motivational narratives that will still be relevant long after the historical incidents that led to their emergence. Even myths that are obviously fables still contain overarching moral truths that help to order a people's worldview, at least for a time. And we can definitely see myths fading in and out and on the ascendant and waning as well. Myths are symbols that point us beyond our present everyday concerns to an overarching purpose. They bring meaning to our lives and as human beings we crave meaning. We want meaning so badly that we create it where it wasn't before. In fact, created meanings that are most compelling are the ones that tend to endure the longest. Which brings me to the last point that I'd like to make today. As we noted earlier, despite undergoing rapid change, religion today is alive and well and even shows up in some unexpected places. In fact, in many instances, the secular narrative has taken on religious functions. Religion blogger Nathaniel Givens shares a few examples. One prominent and off-sided example of this is the secular religion of environmentalism. The degree to which the green movement recapitulates all the high notes of Christianity is so brazen that it is ripe for parody. We all existed in a state of natural bliss and union with nature until the serpent of modern technology entered and we partook of the forbidden fruit of industrialization, thus causing us to be expelled from Eden and subjected to a barrage of artificial cancer-inducing chemicals. Now all our children have autism from vaccines as the world labors under the weight of collective guilt. We are held sinners in the hands of an angry nature over the fire of catastrophe, of catastrophic global warming, where repentance, carbon offsets cannot purchase our freedom, but is due nonetheless. It's basically Christianity without Christ. He hastens to add, please note that none of this discussion calls into question the science of anthropic global climate change. And I'm merely pointing out that that issue has social weight not because of the science, but because of the narrative. We are disaffected as Louis C.K. puts it, everything is amazing, no one is happy. Something is missing and we need a narrative to plug the whole. Environmentalism fits the profile, whether or not it is factually true as beside the point. This has been noted before, but what has been missed is that this is not just a new veneer for Christianity. It's an example of the extent to which religion, properly defined, is deeply and completely compatible with scientific rhetoric. I should also add, in case it's not obvious already, that Givens is not trying to vindicate Christianity here. He's merely making a sociological observation. He goes on. Another stark example of this was evidence following the tragic Sandy Hook massacre. In the old days, we would have turned to religion to assuage our grief and pain and give us some explanation, but in the 21st century newspapers made sure to cover extensively the fact that the killer's DNA would be studied. Scientifically, this is meaningless. It's as relevant as reading entrails or casting bones. And that's precisely the point. Science is increasingly being cast to fill the role that religion once filled. Mary Midgley identifies two frequent pitfalls that many scientists fall into when discussing some of the potential implications of their discoveries. Cosmic optimism and cosmic pessimism. Robert Bella shares examples of both in his book, which I mentioned earlier. As an example of cosmic optimism, we have Eric Chesson's book, Cosmic Evolution. Intelligent life is an animated conduit through which the universe comes to know itself. Perhaps now is the time to widen the quest for understanding still further, to expand the intellectual effort beyond conventional science, to engage the larger, non-scientific communities of philosophers, theologians, and others who often resonate with the cosmic evolutionary theme, even if not in name, all in an ambitious attempt to construct a millennial worldview of who we are whence we came and how we fit into the cosmic scheme of things as wise ethical human beings. Humankind is entering an age of synthesis such as occurs only once in several generations. Perhaps only once every few centuries. The years ahead will surely be exciting, productive, perhaps even deeply significant, largely because the scenario of cosmic evolution provides an opportunity to inquire systematically and synergistically into the nature of our existence, to mount a concerted effort to a modern universe history that people of all cultures can readily understand and adopt. As we begin the new millennium, such a coherent story of our very being, a powerful and true myth can act as an effective intellectual vehicle to invite all cultures to become participants, not just spectators in the building of a whole new legacy. So Bella responds to this. Chason is in fact calling for a new church to go with his new religion. I have no problem with Chason's endeavor. Indeed, I have a lot of sympathy with it, but I would be happier if he had taken responsibility for what he is doing rather than implying that all this is still science even if, quote, beyond conventional science, beyond conventional science, unquote. And he falls into one of the pitfalls of all religions when he speaks of the story he tells as a powerful and true myth, with the implication that other myths are not true, for truth is one of the marks that gives his religion its distinction. This leads perilously close to the implication that all the other religions are false. Then what happens to the vast majority of humanity that doesn't understand much less believe his myth? Chason would have avoided this error had he been clear about this, myth is not science. Myth can be true, but it is a different kind of truth from the truth of science and must be judged by different criteria. And the myth he tells, though it draws on science, is not science and so cannot claim scientific truth. I would argue that the myths told by the ancient Israelite prophets, by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, by Confucius and Mencius and by the Buddha, just to stay within the purview of this book are all true myths. He could have added other religions as well. They overlap with each other and with Chason's myth, but even in their conflicts, which are sometimes serious, they are all worthy of belief and I find it possible to believe in all of them in rather deep but not exclusive ways. He then shares an example of cosmic pessimism. It is perfectly true that science attacks values, not directly, but it subverts them. If he accepts this message in its full significance, man must at last wake out of his millenary dream and discover his total solitude, his fundamental isolation. He must realize that like a gypsy, he lives on the boundary of an alien world, a world that is deaf to his music and as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his sufferings or his crimes. So Bella points out that actually that theory is a little bit outdated since morality itself has evolutionary origins. But he still says, although a distinguished scientist and one of the founders of molecular biology, Monod in the above passage has entered the world of metaphysical speculation and perhaps not surprisingly finds there the thought of a leading French existentialist. As Mijili says of him, he has created a drama in which Sartrean man appears as the lonely hero challenging an alien and meaningless universe. Just wanna share a few more examples. Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are away of a cosmos to know itself. Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules are traced to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically enriched guts into the galaxy. Enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we're all connected to each other biologically to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That's kind of cool. That makes me smile. And I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It's not that we are better than the universe. We're part of the universe. We're in the universe and the universe is in us. Don't get me wrong. I love these guys. I love these guys. In fact, I love watching these shows. Cosmos is one of my favorite shows, okay? So don't get me wrong. Bella ends his critique of these excesses on ecumenical tone. He says, as I now move to trying to tell the modern scientific metanarrative in highly condensed form, let me just reaffirm my conviction that there is undoubted truth in all the reactions, including the rather different ones from these scientists, but also those from many other scientists and non-scientists to this extraordinary and disturbing metanarrative. I also believe that in spite of our differences, we do not need to fall into culture wars in which we denounce and anathematize those with whom we disagree. This is a big universe. There is room for all of us. At this point, I'd just like to paraphrase some of Nietzsche's remark, which I find apt, although they were originally addressed to philosophers, not scientists, he said. That which causes scientists to be regarded half distrustingly and half mockingly is not the oft-repeated discovery how innocent they are, how often and easily they make mistakes and lose their way, in short how childish and childlike they are, but that there is not enough honest dealing with them, whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous outcry when the problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner. They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic, in contrast to all sorts of mystics who, fairer and foolisher, talk of inspiration, whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or suggestion, which is generally their heart's desire, abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders also of their prejudices, which they dub truths and very far from having the conscience, which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage, which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn, friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but the phenomenon occurs frequently enough to be a useful observation. The main point, be more aware of and open about your biases. Don't be sloppy about where science ends and religion begins. Call a spade a spade. Back to Bella's definition of religion. Religion is a system of symbols that, when enacted by human beings, establishes powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations. And I'd just like to buttress this with the words of William James. He says, the capacity of the strenuous mood lies so deep down among our natural human possibilities that even if there were no metaphysical or traditional grounds for believing in a God, men would postulate one simply as a pretext for living hard and getting out of the game of existence its keenest possibilities of zest. Every sort of energy and endurance of courage and capacity for handling life's evils is set free in those who have religious faith. For this reason, the strenuous type of character will on the battlefield of human history always out wear the easy going type and religion will drive ear religion to the wall. The definition of religion that I find most useful is whatever symbols, rituals, and narratives are capable of provoking a strenuous mood in a community that inspires it to work towards a desired future. It is a technology like any other but it comes from so far back in our evolutionary past that we're not used to thinking of it that way. It can be used for good or evil. Let's make sure we use it for good. Let's also try to be more aware of when we cross over into religious territory and do so in the right context and consciously and set it by mistake. That's all I have time for. I had one more slide but we'll skip it. Thank you guys. Thank you.