Catrina, I really liked your post. In response to the middle-schoolers you talked about and other people with similar opinions, I want you to know that it bothers me almost as much as it bothers you when Christians are so hostile toward atheists. I'm a Christian and my faith is very important to me, but I try very hard not to behave/think like that.
Here's how I see it, as a Christian: God created the universe and everything in it, but of all of that, he especially blessed human beings, making them in his image and giving them priveleges over the rest of creation. Unfortunately, humans rebelled, so he had to find another way for them to be in union with him. This is where faith comes in. According to the Bible, God's grace is so great that he saves us all from our inevitable sins, and all we have to do to receive eternal life is acknowledge this through faith in Christ.
Now, faith is a choice. (I believe that humans have free will.) If you choose faith, you will be able to live in communion with God and participate in his great plan for the world. If you don't, you're basically denying the fact (<--to Christians, it's a fact) that you are completely dependent on God for everything. It is this arrogance which is the root of sin (like the disobedience of Adam and Eve). Atheists and members of other religions, no matter how good of people they seem to be, are committing this, the greatest of sins, by ignoring God's presence. Because, no one can be perfect. All of us are sinners, no matter how many good works we do. Therefore, Christians' desire is for all people to see the good news that we are saved in spite of our sinfulness, and this is what causes such zealous preaching, etc.
The problem that those middle-schoolers had was that they had a more Old Testament/Jewish view of non-Christians. The Jews were the chosen people, and before the coming of Jesus, God had to use earthly blessings and punishments to show people right and wrong. Jesus, however, taught Christians to love everyone, even the non-believers, and to leave the judging to God. So the call of Christians is to love everyone, atheists included, but to try to show them (by example) that life is better when you have God on your side.
Friday, March 30, 2007
One More Thing about Genesis
A couple of comments in class today as well as some of the blogs I read alerted me to what I consider a misconception of Christianity. The unfortunate thing about the evolution/creation debate is the fact that the only sides of it that people hear about it are the extremes: both the so-called evangelic atheists and the passionate Biblical creationists. There is, in fact, a middle ground in which many Christians (myself included) accept evolution as the scientific explanation for God's creation of the world. I won't go into more detail here; I've already discussed some aspects of it in my previous entry and if you're really interested in the subject you could try reading the [short] book, Can You Believe in God and Evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed by Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett (one is a professor of biology and the other a professor of theology, and they both are Christians in the "theistic evolutionist" camp). The main point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe Genesis rejects the idea that animals could evolve. Yes, it says that God created animals, but it doesn't say God created animals exactly as they are today.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
A Different Mind
Who knew Neanderthals could be so interesting? Reading Chapter 15 of Steven Mithen's book, The Singing Neanderthals, I was intruiged by the concept of a complex form of communication that didn't qualify as language. The communication of the Neanderthals, cleverly called 'Hmmmmm' (Holistic, manipulative, multi-modal, musical, mimetic), consisted of a limited set of "words" or "sentences," performed musically, which everyone used. They didn't say anything that hadn't been said (or almost said) before (228). The reason for this, according to Mithen, is that the Neanderthals possessed "domain-specific intelligence," in which they could basically only think about one thing at a time and couldn't make connections. With this lack of "cognitive fluidity," they cannot comprehend metaphors or anything connected to art, science, or religion. (233) It makes me wonder, where do we draw the line between humans and non-humans? Obviously Homo neanderthalensis are not the same species as Homo sapiens, but what distinguishes Homo sapiens as human? Is it the mind (intelligence), the heart (emotions), or something entirely different?
Neanderthals seem to be on our level when it comes to emotions. Mithen describes them as "highly emotional," having such complex emotions as guilt and confidence. They bury [at least some of] their dead (241), they neglect other duties to care for [at least some] wounded (236), and they work together very well in groups (238). All of these characteristics are reminiscient of modern humans. Even more so is Mithen's suggestion of "music therapy," or comforting song to reduce injury and/or stress (236). The Neanderthals seem almost like little children: highly emotional but not very intellectual. They are not able to make any innovations with their tools during their long period of existence--220,000 years! Yet, even children invent stories and imaginary games, so maybe Neanderthals are less intelligent still. I just think it's interesting how their musical capabilities are advanced (they all have perfect pitch!) while their minds lag far behind those of humans. However, this does support the idea that as one trait grows stronger, others grow weaker and visa versa (i.e. deaf people having extraordinary eyesight).
With the advent of the complex, cognitively fluid mind in humans came also the advent of religion. This could mean one of two things: either people's complex minds invented religion because they made up connections that didn't exist, or they were finally in the position to be able to recognize a religion/god that was already there. I would personally choose the latter, but there's no way to know for sure.
Neanderthals seem to be on our level when it comes to emotions. Mithen describes them as "highly emotional," having such complex emotions as guilt and confidence. They bury [at least some of] their dead (241), they neglect other duties to care for [at least some] wounded (236), and they work together very well in groups (238). All of these characteristics are reminiscient of modern humans. Even more so is Mithen's suggestion of "music therapy," or comforting song to reduce injury and/or stress (236). The Neanderthals seem almost like little children: highly emotional but not very intellectual. They are not able to make any innovations with their tools during their long period of existence--220,000 years! Yet, even children invent stories and imaginary games, so maybe Neanderthals are less intelligent still. I just think it's interesting how their musical capabilities are advanced (they all have perfect pitch!) while their minds lag far behind those of humans. However, this does support the idea that as one trait grows stronger, others grow weaker and visa versa (i.e. deaf people having extraordinary eyesight).
With the advent of the complex, cognitively fluid mind in humans came also the advent of religion. This could mean one of two things: either people's complex minds invented religion because they made up connections that didn't exist, or they were finally in the position to be able to recognize a religion/god that was already there. I would personally choose the latter, but there's no way to know for sure.
Genesis from a Christian Perspective
I'm sorry this post is so long, but I felt like all of it has to be said.
After reading Alex's post, I feel compelled to at least present a Christian alternative to the arguments he had against Genesis. First of all, I think that many of these arguments stem from the attitude that Genesis was written as a historical document. While it's true that some Christians take every word of the Bible literally, many--if not most--believe that some parts of scripture were written allegorically or symbolically, and Genesis is a classic example of that. Reading carefully you will notice that two stories are told (one in Ch. 1 and one in Ch. 2), and they each convey different themes (God's great power and love for humans, and humans' propensity to sin, respectively). On a side-note, the mindset of people back in ancient times was that "truth" was in meaning, not in details, so even if this was a historical document, the details of the specific order of creation/evolution wasn't the main point of the passage and would therefore would have some leeway. This is also the reason that the four gospels are all considered true even though they include some discrepancies in the smaller details: they all bring the same message of love and salvation but are written from different people's memories and points-of-view. But back to Genesis...
Alex criticized the "anthropocentric" perspective of Genesis, saying the writer had no reason to regard humans so highly. I disagree with this for several reasons. First, one of the main tenets of Christianity is the idea that God specifically created humans to be special among his creation. When he gave us "dominion" over the plants and animals, he was giving us a great responsibility because he loved and trusted us. He didn't plan for us to do with it whatever we wanted; the intent was that we would watch over the earth with the same loving care as God watches over us. Alex argued that there's no reason that humans should have that privelege/responsiblity of dominion since ecosystems do fine without us. Most Christians also agree that we should respect nature as it is and be careful with it, because that's how God treats us and we should do the same in our own positions. And as for Alex's question, "What makes man any less wild than the animals that were called so?" I think it's pretty obvious that humans have much more highly developed brains than any other animals. Any scientist would agree. To say that the only answer is the writer's biased anthropocentrism ignores this fact. If God were to choose one species to be his beloved stewards of the earth, it makes sense that he would choose the one with the greatest capacity for understanding. If one reads Genesis with the perspective of caring for nature like God does, the fact that humans have dominion over it only reinforces a feeling of accountablility, not carelessness.
Alex's second point was an argument against perceived sexism in Genesis--both in the fact that Eve was created from Adam's rib and that she was the first to take The Fall. Personally, I didn't find his biological arguments convincing, mainly because they all seem to be either isolated incidents or irrelevant to which sex was originally created first. And evolutionary theory actually suggests that the two sexes evolved simlutaneously in a sort of mutual evolution in which the females invested more in children and the males more in competition for mates (Dawkins, Selfish Gene, appendix to p. 142). The story of God creating Eve from Adam's rib is often taken among Christians to be symbolic of the marital status of "one flesh" because it shows that instead of being created separately (i.e. from different patches of dirt), the two are from the same body. This is the second creation story, but 1:27 says it differently: "male and female he created them," implying equal status. The fact that the other story favored men over women is most likely a reflection of the already patriarchal society when Moses wrote Genesis (around 1450-1410 B.C., long before the medieval period Alex mentioned). As is true of any type of writing, the story comes out through the lens of culture and personal experience, and this context needs to be recognized. I do agree that the church misinterpreted these passages in medieval times to reinforce their male dominance, but I don't think that was at all the intent when Moses wrote them.
Alex's harshest criticism comes in response to Original Sin. I agree that if God made pain and toil the penalty for knowledge, he would not be a good God. However, I disagree that this is what God did. I believe that the reason God made the Tree of Knowledge is to assure that his people would have the power to choose their own path. He wanted the best for them, which was to stay in communion with him (after all, he is perfect), but he didn't want to force them into it. I believe that the knowledge of good and evil (3:5) in the tree is not as important as the fact that it makes people "like God" (3:5). God isn't discouraging knowledge in itself; he's discouraging the attempt to find it independently of God and to disobey the Creator (who desires obedience because he has great plans for everyone's ultimate best interest). When God found out they had disobeyed, he didn't admonish their new knowledge, he said, "Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" It's the command that is important. Perhaps the reason the tree is of knowledge is that only knowledge of good and evil can help Adam and Eve deal with reality after they've sinned. In Eden, they could get by just fine by simply caring for the garden as God commanded, but after sinning they were no longer worthy to stay there and have to be able to distinguish between good and bad if they are to try to obey God in the future (and avoid more disastrous mistakes/sins).
I don't understand Alex's complaint about the Garden of Eden story ignoring the rest of the world. The beginning of Genesis clearly says that "God created the heavens and the earth" (1:1), not just Eden. Life had to start somewhere, and in this symbolic story of creation it is Eden. While Moses doesn't mention any other lands in the story, he doesn't at all imply that they don't exist. And what point would there be for God to tell Moses to add them to the story? I don't see it as a relevant detail. Also, the fact that all animals have pain in childbirth and that snakes evolved to not have legs simply indicate that this story isn't to be taken literally (in my opinion, at least). God used these images to convey the basic story he wanted to tell. As Sarah M said, if God had told Moses the exact scientific explanation (Big Bang, evolution, etc.), would anyone have understood him?
After reading Alex's post, I feel compelled to at least present a Christian alternative to the arguments he had against Genesis. First of all, I think that many of these arguments stem from the attitude that Genesis was written as a historical document. While it's true that some Christians take every word of the Bible literally, many--if not most--believe that some parts of scripture were written allegorically or symbolically, and Genesis is a classic example of that. Reading carefully you will notice that two stories are told (one in Ch. 1 and one in Ch. 2), and they each convey different themes (God's great power and love for humans, and humans' propensity to sin, respectively). On a side-note, the mindset of people back in ancient times was that "truth" was in meaning, not in details, so even if this was a historical document, the details of the specific order of creation/evolution wasn't the main point of the passage and would therefore would have some leeway. This is also the reason that the four gospels are all considered true even though they include some discrepancies in the smaller details: they all bring the same message of love and salvation but are written from different people's memories and points-of-view. But back to Genesis...
Alex criticized the "anthropocentric" perspective of Genesis, saying the writer had no reason to regard humans so highly. I disagree with this for several reasons. First, one of the main tenets of Christianity is the idea that God specifically created humans to be special among his creation. When he gave us "dominion" over the plants and animals, he was giving us a great responsibility because he loved and trusted us. He didn't plan for us to do with it whatever we wanted; the intent was that we would watch over the earth with the same loving care as God watches over us. Alex argued that there's no reason that humans should have that privelege/responsiblity of dominion since ecosystems do fine without us. Most Christians also agree that we should respect nature as it is and be careful with it, because that's how God treats us and we should do the same in our own positions. And as for Alex's question, "What makes man any less wild than the animals that were called so?" I think it's pretty obvious that humans have much more highly developed brains than any other animals. Any scientist would agree. To say that the only answer is the writer's biased anthropocentrism ignores this fact. If God were to choose one species to be his beloved stewards of the earth, it makes sense that he would choose the one with the greatest capacity for understanding. If one reads Genesis with the perspective of caring for nature like God does, the fact that humans have dominion over it only reinforces a feeling of accountablility, not carelessness.
Alex's second point was an argument against perceived sexism in Genesis--both in the fact that Eve was created from Adam's rib and that she was the first to take The Fall. Personally, I didn't find his biological arguments convincing, mainly because they all seem to be either isolated incidents or irrelevant to which sex was originally created first. And evolutionary theory actually suggests that the two sexes evolved simlutaneously in a sort of mutual evolution in which the females invested more in children and the males more in competition for mates (Dawkins, Selfish Gene, appendix to p. 142). The story of God creating Eve from Adam's rib is often taken among Christians to be symbolic of the marital status of "one flesh" because it shows that instead of being created separately (i.e. from different patches of dirt), the two are from the same body. This is the second creation story, but 1:27 says it differently: "male and female he created them," implying equal status. The fact that the other story favored men over women is most likely a reflection of the already patriarchal society when Moses wrote Genesis (around 1450-1410 B.C., long before the medieval period Alex mentioned). As is true of any type of writing, the story comes out through the lens of culture and personal experience, and this context needs to be recognized. I do agree that the church misinterpreted these passages in medieval times to reinforce their male dominance, but I don't think that was at all the intent when Moses wrote them.
Alex's harshest criticism comes in response to Original Sin. I agree that if God made pain and toil the penalty for knowledge, he would not be a good God. However, I disagree that this is what God did. I believe that the reason God made the Tree of Knowledge is to assure that his people would have the power to choose their own path. He wanted the best for them, which was to stay in communion with him (after all, he is perfect), but he didn't want to force them into it. I believe that the knowledge of good and evil (3:5) in the tree is not as important as the fact that it makes people "like God" (3:5). God isn't discouraging knowledge in itself; he's discouraging the attempt to find it independently of God and to disobey the Creator (who desires obedience because he has great plans for everyone's ultimate best interest). When God found out they had disobeyed, he didn't admonish their new knowledge, he said, "Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" It's the command that is important. Perhaps the reason the tree is of knowledge is that only knowledge of good and evil can help Adam and Eve deal with reality after they've sinned. In Eden, they could get by just fine by simply caring for the garden as God commanded, but after sinning they were no longer worthy to stay there and have to be able to distinguish between good and bad if they are to try to obey God in the future (and avoid more disastrous mistakes/sins).
I don't understand Alex's complaint about the Garden of Eden story ignoring the rest of the world. The beginning of Genesis clearly says that "God created the heavens and the earth" (1:1), not just Eden. Life had to start somewhere, and in this symbolic story of creation it is Eden. While Moses doesn't mention any other lands in the story, he doesn't at all imply that they don't exist. And what point would there be for God to tell Moses to add them to the story? I don't see it as a relevant detail. Also, the fact that all animals have pain in childbirth and that snakes evolved to not have legs simply indicate that this story isn't to be taken literally (in my opinion, at least). God used these images to convey the basic story he wanted to tell. As Sarah M said, if God had told Moses the exact scientific explanation (Big Bang, evolution, etc.), would anyone have understood him?
Monday, March 26, 2007
Scientific Explanations Can't Disprove Beliefs
Robin Marantz Henig's article, "Why Do We Believe," describes how various evolved traits may have produced religious belief, but it's important to remember that the processes by which these religious beliefs came about have nothing to do with their validity as beliefs. Justin Barrett put it well, saying, "Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me -- should I then stop believing that she does?" (78). The simple fact that our [physical] brains have the tendency to believe something merely indicates that the belief exists. It doesn't provide evidence either for or against the existence of whatever thing it is that we believe in. As a Christian, I believe that this is just one more piece of evidence that God created humans to be in a relationship with him (which obviously rests on belief that he exists). Other people could interpret it in different ways: some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, say that religious belief is a self-propagating "meme" that has developed because of our mistaken perceived need for the supernatural and for meaning and happiness in life.
Science and religion are separate entities, science dealing--by definition--with the physical world, and religion (and philosophy) dealing with the metaphysical. Therefore, science and religion look for answers in very different ways. When scientists try to find evolutionary reasons for religious beliefs, they are only looking at empirical signs. Theologians, on the other hand, look beyond the physically observable world to the realm of the spiritual. They don't push the physical world aside as wrong; they just are looking at a different side of reality. Neither should scientists completely ignore non-physical aspects of the world Or, if they do, they need to realize that they're not looking at the whole picture. While science has the power to look at all the physical evidence of a situation--in this case, religious belief--it has no way whatsoever of "measuring" the spiritual world like it would measure anything else. Therefore, the object of study is not complete, and any explanations based on this study can only be fully true if there is no spiritual world. (And since it's not observable by scientific standards, there is no way to prove if there is or not.) If these scientists conclude that religious belief is a behavioral tendency that has evolved based on such cognitive tools as agent detection, causal reasoning, and folkpsychology (41-42), they could very well be right that these patterns of thought are among the causes of religion. They just need to remember that they have no way of knowing if there is another (possibly more significant/powerful) cause completely removed from the physical realm of science. In my personal opinion and experience, there is, and it is God.
Science and religion are separate entities, science dealing--by definition--with the physical world, and religion (and philosophy) dealing with the metaphysical. Therefore, science and religion look for answers in very different ways. When scientists try to find evolutionary reasons for religious beliefs, they are only looking at empirical signs. Theologians, on the other hand, look beyond the physically observable world to the realm of the spiritual. They don't push the physical world aside as wrong; they just are looking at a different side of reality. Neither should scientists completely ignore non-physical aspects of the world Or, if they do, they need to realize that they're not looking at the whole picture. While science has the power to look at all the physical evidence of a situation--in this case, religious belief--it has no way whatsoever of "measuring" the spiritual world like it would measure anything else. Therefore, the object of study is not complete, and any explanations based on this study can only be fully true if there is no spiritual world. (And since it's not observable by scientific standards, there is no way to prove if there is or not.) If these scientists conclude that religious belief is a behavioral tendency that has evolved based on such cognitive tools as agent detection, causal reasoning, and folkpsychology (41-42), they could very well be right that these patterns of thought are among the causes of religion. They just need to remember that they have no way of knowing if there is another (possibly more significant/powerful) cause completely removed from the physical realm of science. In my personal opinion and experience, there is, and it is God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)