Words are the vehicles of thought. Some new ones, like “blog,” “influencer,” or “covid,” are lexical fast-food. Others have a more self-important sound, only vaguely defined. “Postmodern,” for example. This is meant to be a comparison of what is now (“post-,”) with what was modern some time ago. When? The Enlightenment? Darwin? Betty Crocker? How can there be a time after what is new?
Henri Bergson and Albert Einstein debated the nature of time in 1922. By all accounts Einstein, representing the new atomistic school, scored a TKO. Bergson, from the philosophic-metaphysical school, could not convince the audience that the passage of time (what he called durée,) was better understood in an emotional, spiritual context. Einstein stood for the currently accepted view and, like the electric toaster, his ideas sold.
A hundred years later Bergson’s version of time is more appealing. Time is development, an unfolding continuation of reality, every moment presenting differences in the essence and attributes of the universe. Now is not post-modern, it’s post-everything. The way we relate to the world is not the way our parents or our ancestors did; not the way our kids do. The conditions, the conscious reality of passing time is different to every person, every moment, every day, presenting new ideas, requiring new responses, new directions. Change may bring improvement; it may beckon a desire to return to the past. It may also make lessons of the past seem obsolete. Lessons like the finality of the atom or the wisdom of electric vehicles will become the new “Let there be light,” Noah’s ark, Jonah’s whale.
Humanity needs God. Otherwise we choose things, diversions, false gods. You can see it in our adulation of powerful leaders. To reassure humanity, to guarantee our future something has to happen to make religion a thing. Some way to make faith rational. Our materialistic, scientific ways of thinking have made sacred writings, the messages of myths and creeds seem quaint antiques or, worse, “articles of faith” which can hide ignorance or, worse, perpetuate hatred. It now seems to be a test of one’s intelligence whether to believe ancient human stories of creation, miracles or claims about the meaning of life from our sacred books. We live in a world without certainty. We need to explore what comes after post-modern.
How are we to conceptualize God in this new world? Not by going back to the old superstitions but to give the sacred old words a new context: to understand not with our intellects but with our emotional centers. To redefine intelligence. We have to think with our hearts. The time is now.
Nick Hilton - Reflections 