When I look at religious systems with an evolutionary point of view, I ask myself, where does this door lead us? Allthough we’re supposed to be in information age, we still fight on a basis where one has to be wrong so the other can be right. This goes until death of several people or a whole system.
In the medium therm there may be, assumedly, a winner. But I’m certain, in long therms such „hard“ systems, which totally negate any foreign information, are not survivable, because they will break in cases of „collisions“, sooner or later.
Evolution is a sequence of collisions. On the big scale, galactic superclusters hit each other, same to galaxies, star systems, planets, etc. On the small scale, electrons hit each other, atoms, genes and mutated genes, monads, etc.
Collisions between hard systems will free up highest amounts of energy in shortest time, leaving behind destruction – speaking in context of life, this means most likely death. Collisions between soft systems are more like dancing: Some do tango, others do Rock’n’Roll, some dances may even look like fighting – but the energy is moderatly freed during a longer time, leaving behind rather new formations or informations than destruction.
Clashing galaxies may cost some star systems as collateral damage, but altogether they doesn’t destroy themselves. The same goes for genes and other soft systems. Clashing planets, on the other side, like atoms, get a real hard life, including the surroundings, weather hard or soft.
If we break this down to religious systems, what can we learn? First, religions are mostly not hard or soft systems per se – obviously this depends heavily on interpretation in most cases. The more fanatic, the harder the system is. But overall I think that Hinduism is a softer system than classic monotheistic religions. With a look at history we may see that Hiduism is the oldest believe system with the fewest changes in its evolution (leaving out indigenous beliefs).
That doesn’t mean any monotheistic religion is „hard“. Personally I’m a mystic – there is one which (not who!) is all together at the same time, so different names and different systems can mean the same belief with different words. It’s nothing more or less than a question of definitions and informations – a question of fanatic, hard or liberal, soft interpretation.
Narrowing the point of view on the last two, three millennia, its Hinduism that fits best in a survivable evolutionary system. I don’t preach we all need to become Hindus, but the basic concept of Hinduism is very soft and history prooves it’s a lasting one.
If humanity stay alive long enough I assume that, in a long therm, we will see a kind of global polytheism, where everyone accept that he sees the white light through a coloured window of his choice. Furthermore I assume that modern physics will proove that there are „Wonders“ – well, better named phenoena, then. As in one of my most beloved quotes: „Miracles are not contrary to nature – only in contrast to what we know about nature“ by St. Augustin, Apostle of England, and first Archbishop of Canterbury, ? -604/605. It seems he was the very first quantal physicist.
By that time in far future it may be official fact that there is god and there is no god; that everything and everyone is god, but it’s only one; that there are no answers – only options. You don’t have to be wrong so I can be right.