Sunday, March 10, 2013

The Evolution of Fallen Man


The Literature of the Heretics, pt. 6

“The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don’t present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time...I say all this just to demonstrate the formidable power of the brain’s simulation software. It is well capable of constructing ‘visions’ and ‘visitations’ of the most utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child’s play to software of this sophistication.” – Richard Dawkins

“Religion is not provided to us by revelation, it doesn't come from the heavens, it doesn't come from the beyond, it doesn't come from the divine. It's man-made. And it shows. It shows very well - that religion is created, invented, imposed by a species half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee.” – Christopher Hitchens


First, I should mention a source of agreement I have with both Hitchens and Dawkins: we share at least one foundational premise when discussing humanity. We can all agree that humanity falls short of perfection, and that any human claiming otherwise has not thought to look at the world around him before making his claim. I, like the world I live on, am far from perfect; I sometimes mistakenly believe things that are lies, I sometimes tell lies myself, I am selfish, proud, angry, arrogant, etc. The one thing that allows me to live with these truths is the knowledge that everyone else is in the same boat.

Now, the difference (which is of immeasurably greater consequence than the agreement): I see these imperfections as a consequence of sin, while the heretics as genetic malformations brought on by incomplete evolutionary processes. Furthermore, they tend to believe the very idea of sin to be depraved (“What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?”-Dawkins), while I would only go so far as to say that their evolutionary answer to be fundamentally wrong-headed.

I understand that these authors believe the evolutionary imperfections of man have led to all of the great evils of the world (in my last post I gave an example of Hitchens relating wars with the fact that we have not yet “evolved” into fully rational beings), and that religion is a mere symptom of our mind’s ability to play tricks on us (as Dawkins implies in the quote at the beginning of this post). That much is easy enough to understand, but it leads me to a bit of an impasse: I have reason to say that man is imperfect because I am aware of a standard of perfection. God. I am aware that I am fallen because I am aware of the heights to which I am called. The other side is not afforded such perspective. The heretic, though blessed with a common grace he may never understand, is aware that there is something wrong, yet he cannot possibly define it, as he believes in nothing that can be used in comparison. He thinks war and murder are wrong because he knows in his heart that life is valuable, but he cannot offer a convincing argument as to why. He believes we just need to evolve further, but evolve into what? Into Nietzsche’s “Übermensch”? A genetically pure, physically perfect superman? I know it is in bad taste to do so, but how can one avoid making comparisons here with Naziism when one speaks of the evolution of man? After all, would humanity really sit idly by and allow itself to progress naturally when we have the means to help nature along? Hitchens even comes dangerously close to a wholesale endorsement of Eugenics: “Sad though (abortion) is, it is probably less miserable an outcome than the vast number of deformed or idiot children who would otherwise have been born, or stillborn, or whose brief lives would have been a torment to themselves and others.” I have tried hard (and done a good job, I think) of keeping civil in my discourse so far, but how can one not be driven to anger at such a sentiment? It is a statement of pure evil. Evil in the truest, most objective sense of the word. And yet, that is how the heretic believes that the human species might one day evolve itself free from sin.

To put it bluntly: The facts show otherwise. History has capably demonstrated that we cannot simply “evolve” into perfection (not that such a being, to the heretics, can objectively exist). Even if we were to systematically abort all of the potentially weaker members of our species (something that I am not sure is not already happening to some extent), survival of the fittest will never successfully weed out the things that make us human, either for better or for worse. It will never rid us of our pride or selfishness just as it will never rid us of our love or our need to worship. We simply cannot transform ourselves into anything either more or less than human.

At least the heretics admit that we are not perfect; that our minds play tricks on us; that reason and logic cannot always be trusted.

...and yet, they seem perfectly willing to do just that.

Both Hitchens and Dawkins demonstrate an exceptional willingness to believe in their own exceptional logic, while simultaneously admitting that mankind has been “hoodwinked” for thousands of years and tricked into believing in religions. They do not seem to understand that they are, as we all are, looking at the world and seeing only those things that support what they hope to be true. It does not mean that their words are all lies (though they are not immune to lying, as I could easily point out); it means that they are selective and they apply the reasoning that best confirms previously-held beliefs. This is the fundamental undercurrent of all human thought that ever was or ever will be (including my own)—and it really ought to be stated aloud every now and then. None of us are free of bias; no author of an historical work can fully remove himself from his text; no debater can avoid making the evidence support him.

It is easy for the undiscerning reader to be puzzled by reviews of Biblical history by historians claiming to be either impartial or merely skeptical. We place far too much weight in the words of those who declare themselves experts, who comb the scriptures for any apparent anachronism; who scour the linguist anomalies of the authors, seeking some slight oddity to which they can grab hold. It is easy to forget that when we are reading commentaries and criticism we are only reading the words of men just as error-prone and biased as we are, and they need to be accepted as such.

It is even easier, perhaps, to accept the word of the scientist, who is merely trying to pull back the veil of nature—what could be more objective than that? But the truth is very different. Science is not immune from bias; in fact, one could argue that science is more blatantly prone to bias than most professions, as a great portion of modern science lies in interpretation rather than empiricism, and a great majority of scientists believe that one of their tasks is to throw God (and believers in God) for a loop.

My point is simply this: Both Hitchens and Dawkins spend a tremendous amount of time and effort in assuring their readers that much of religion can be reduced to “trickery” of the brain, and yet both men admittedly worship at the altar (a phrase chosen particularly because both men would find it distasteful) of human reason, a thing (as I previously explained) that is very nearly a myth itself.

Now, what are we to do with these imperfections if we cannot simply breed it out of our species? What are we to do with sin if we cannot simply make ourselves into better people? The short answer is that we can do nothing at all, which makes it all the more fortunate that there is a God who can. Humanity is at its best when it is seeking after the God of the Bible (note that I did not write, “when it is seeking after religion”—the difference is crucial); sin is at its least when we are attempting to imitate Christ. The point of Christianity, no matter what the heretics might claim (over and over and over) is not to belittle us by pointing continually to our sin, but to free us of sin. The book of Romans states very explicitly that we were once slaves to sin but now we are free. We are already free; we do not have to wait to advance to our next evolutionary state; we do not have to wait until the universities learn how to better indoctrinate us or the government learns how to better control us. If we are in Christ we are free from sin.

That is my point.

3 comments:

  1. Very good, Isaac. I think you would enjoy contemplating Alvin Plantinga's EAAN (Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). You can find YouTube videos of it and in his printed works.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The assertion that doubt is a negative thing is disturbing to me, to encourage people not to doubt is to ask people to shut the eye of reason and ignore the facts about what they're being told. To accept any assertion on authority or tradition alone (which is the foundation of nearly all religious belief, including Christianity) is weak and fallacious. Furthermore, blind faith is not a virtue, and it is not a good reason to believe anything. Uttering "because I have faith" only changes the question from "why do you believe?", to "why do you have faith?" The only difference is that you removed evidence from the list of possible answers.

    Guilting people into submission by insisting that they have some inherent defect in their soul (sin) because a talking snake talked a woman made from a rib and a man made from dirt into eating a magical piece of fruit is RIDICULOUS! And threatening them with eternal torture in a lake of fire is bullying, and abhorrent, especially when that threat is leveled against children that are too young to be able to reasonably asses the facts.

    The "Truth" is, there is no evidence to support the supernatural (or many of the natural/historical) claims of Christianity, or any other religion. That alone is reason enough to reject those claims out of hand. I'm reminded of a common quote from our mutual friend Christopher Hitchens, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Then if you consider the amount of evidence that directly refutes the claims of Christianity (and all other religions) it becomes almost insane to continue to accept the premises of any/all religious belief systems. You can make excuses and try and explain away the innumerable contradictions until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts. It just gives you a way to mitigate the cognitive dissonance created by the conflict between fact and fantasy. The bottom line is that faith is the ONLY reason there is for belief in god/Jesus/Allah/etc... and faith is NOT a good reason to believe in anything.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jay--First off, thanks for your comment. I'm so happy that you're still reading and that you're willing to communicate your disagreements in a (mostly) polite way. I get a lot of positive feedback from people who agree with me, but it's really the people who disagree that I want to hear from. So thank you.

    As for your comment, I think there are some things we can agree on. You say: "The assertion that doubt is a negative thing is disturbing to me, to encourage people not to doubt is to ask people to shut the eye of reason and ignore the facts about what they're being told." I agree, and I don't think I said anything to that effect (if I did, maybe I misspoke or was not being clear). The last thing I want is for Christians to stop asking questions and exploring the world around them; they should not be afraid that exploration will lead to doubt.

    One of the things I have been trying to do (and will continue trying to do) is to show Christians that they should not be afraid to open their eyes and look around. I know that you agree with me that Christianity (and religion in general) has been marked by fear for far too long. We are afraid of science, we are afraid to take an honest view of history, we are afraid to talk to people for fear that they will somehow convince us to abandon our faith. I hope that Christians can be reminded that if their faith can be shaken by science, then perhaps they placed their faith in the wrong thing.

    I think you're wrong about there being no evidence to support the supernatural claims of Christianity. First off, there is, indeed evidence--you just don't believe the evidence is trustworthy. There are eyewitness accounts, both in the Bible and continuing today, of God's work, but I don't expect that to be enough to convince you (or anyone else, for that matter). There are no "proofs" of God's existence, and no amount of evidence will ever be found to lead someone to God.

    You don't like that some people believe in things based on faith--and I don't blame you for that. Faith is irrational, and you pride yourself on your reason. All I can say to that is that I understand. I don't believe that anyone will convince you to abandon your humanism with intellectual arguments alone. Maybe it will make you think about things differently, but I'm not going to turn you into a Christian with words. It's not possible. What I do believe, and wholeheartedly, is that God is capable of working a miracle in your life. I think that God is powerful enough to transform your heart. That is faith--and (I am fully aware that this argument would not stand up to philosophers) you won't believe it until you believe it. All I can say is that I've been praying for you for a while (and I know others have, as well), and I will continue praying for you. That shouldn't bother you, of course, since prayer is meaningless.

    Finally, I just want to say one more quick thing. You say: "Guilting people into submission by insisting that they have some inherent defect in their soul (sin) because a talking snake talked a woman made from a rib and a man made from dirt into eating a magical piece of fruit is RIDICULOUS!" You are trying to make people's beliefs sound foolish--Dawkins and Hitchens are also good at it--but isn't this the lowest form of rhetoric? I have as little respect for this sort of argument as for the creationist who asks, "Evolutionists say your grandfather was a monkey and we all came from a giant nuclear explosion in the sky." Those are stupid arguments that demonstrate only that one doesn't understand (or respect) the opposing side. But, worse, they are childish. You can do better.

    ReplyDelete