Chapter 1: Understanding Big History

In the realm of contemporary narratives, "Big History" encapsulates an extensive account of the cosmos and the vast timeline of life on Earth. It seeks to construct a secular myth that echoes the themes of traditional Judeo-Christian stories. This discussion serves as a brief interlude in a broader exploration of Christianity's evolution.

Recently, I delved into several texts categorized under "Big History" without initially recognizing the genre. One notable work was Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari, who has emerged as a significant voice in global intellectual circles. Surprisingly, my review of his book sparked considerable debate, particularly due to my critical stance on the secular-physicalist perspective it presented.

Another engaging read was Henry Gee's A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth: 4.6 Billion Years in 12 Pithy Chapters. I found this book more enjoyable than Harari's, likely because its physicalist themes were more subtly woven into the narrative. While it still promoted a belief system, the scientific content overshadowed overt propaganda.

Several other texts, while not strictly categorized as "Big History," also attempt to narrate a comprehensive account of existence. Sean Carroll's Something Deeply Hidden and Brian Greene's Until the End of Time fall into this category.

However, these works troubled me, primarily due to their reductionist, secular-physicalist assumptions. I was particularly concerned with the tendency of physicists and science writers like Gee to make philosophical and theological claims while masquerading as scientific discourse. While physics can yield reductionist narratives, such simplifications often overlook significant complexities. A recent Medium post by Ethan Siegel defended pure reductionism, making the easily disputable claim that no phenomena exist outside its explanatory scope.

I felt compelled to challenge this assertion, drawing from my extensive writings on dual aspect monism, a concept developed by renowned philosophers and scientists throughout history.

My unease regarding these texts crystallized upon reading Ian Hesketh's essay in Aeon. Hesketh, from the University of Queensland, noted that "Big History" was first coined in 1991 by author David Christian in The Journal of World History. Christian argued that since our present relies on the past, historical accounts must trace back to the cosmos's formation. While Sapiens focuses on human history, Gee’s book places humans late in the timeline, amid billions of years of life that arose and faded through cycles of climate change.

This broad perspective diminishes human significance as life appears to emerge in a universe that is vast and largely indifferent.

Big History has gained traction in academic circles, with numerous courses, a dedicated institute, and even a journal. However, Hesketh raises valid concerns about its implications. He asserts that:

> "By producing an overarching story of life, Big History aims to fill the void left by the secularization that has dismantled the comprehensive narratives provided by traditional religious systems."

According to Christian, the secularization process has left individuals feeling fragmented and yearning for a grand vision and meaning that religion once provided. He references Émile Durkheim, who noted in 1893 that modern life has produced a state of "anomie," where individuals feel disconnected from a sense of belonging. Thus, Big History serves as a modern creation myth, providing the holistic meaning once derived from religion—albeit rooted in scientific understanding rather than ancient texts.

This interpretation resonated with my discomfort, as these narratives not only perpetuate a physicalist worldview but do so in a mythic format. Here, "myth" does not imply deception but rather signifies a narrative designed to impart meaning, as myths are foundational to worldviews and help explain life's complexities.

Hesketh observes that Big History employs religious language and structures, echoing the Judeo-Christian narratives it seeks to supplant:

> "The language of religious faith and conversion underpins Big History. The authors present their 'discoveries' as transformative moments, inviting readers to undergo similar conversions."

While Christian proposes that Big History is akin to a myth, it lacks the transcendent elements traditionally associated with religious narratives. Instead, it posits that science itself imbues Big History with mythic significance.

This notion of science replacing transcendence is crucial, as it has increasingly become the authority in personal and communal life. Proponents of a reductionist-physicalist worldview often cite scientific advancements as validation for their beliefs. Yet, the existence of advanced technologies does not negate the possibility of a transcendent reality.

Hesketh emphasizes the need for proponents of Big History to gloss over inconvenient truths and rely on unverified assumptions. Despite scientific advancements, many aspects of our past remain elusive, particularly concerning pivotal moments in history. He notes:

> "...for all we appear to know about the deep past, there is still much that is unknown and potentially unknowable, especially regarding threshold moments themselves."

Christian's idea of "Goldilocks conditions"—specific environmental circumstances that enable sudden complexities—serves to unify Big History. However, this framework oversimplifies the intricate realities of life and our understanding of them.

Authors like Gee often present themselves as scientists, cloaked in scientific legitimacy while making unscientific assertions. This is particularly evident in Gee's portrayal of life's history in the cosmos. His exclusive reliance on evolution as a comprehensive explanation overlooks significant limitations, while also dismissing fundamental questions within contemporary science.

Hesketh's observations about modern mythmaking raise essential questions. By situating humans within an expansive, indifferent universe, the narrative diminishes the significance of individual existence. Ultimately, it shifts focus away from humanity toward a broader cosmic story.

> "This prioritization of the cosmic over the human, and the natural over the political, is an inevitable consequence of Big History’s ambition to unite humanity under a universal narrative."

This narrative may appeal to those wishing to erase political divisions, but it offers little to those seeking meaning in life. Hesketh's assertion that Big History, much like the Judeo-Christian narrative it derives from, reduces human history to processes beyond human control misrepresents the biblical perspective.

The Judeo-Christian narrative emphasizes human agency and responsibility, contrasting sharply with the portrayal of humans as mere footnotes in the cosmic timeline. Henry Gee articulates this starkly:

> "What then will be the human legacy? When measured against the span of life on Earth — nothing."

Greene extends this bleak vision, suggesting that even the oceans will eventually vanish, along with all life, as the cosmos succumbs to entropy.

If this narrative is the only one science offers, then so be it. But it is crucial to remember that it is merely one interpretation of our expanding knowledge, and it does not hold exclusive rights to the truth. The troubling aspect of this modern myth is that it is gaining traction, eroding the hope we might have for a meaningful future.

Chapter 2: Insights from Big History

The first video explores the concept of Big History, tracing the journey from the Big Bang to contemporary humanity and contemplating the future of our universe.

The second video delves into the oldest known creation myth, examining its origins and how it informs our understanding of modern narratives.