Is Naturalistic Religion Biblical?
December 12th, 2006 by 
soulster
I. Intro…
(This is going to be a long one, so you might want to grab a snack and a cup of coffee now.)
Drunkentune has given a great explanation of one theory on where religion comes from in his post The Evolution of Religion: Is Religion Natural?. Avid commentor, beepbeepitsme has also written much on this blog about the natural origins of religion.
To summarize this view in my own words: Biologists agree that humans evolve in both physiology and psychology (some would argue primarily psychologically, and as an extension technologically, in our recent history). Our behaviors and thought patterns are just as much a part of how our species survives as are adaptations in our bodies, such as our leg-hips-spine configuration and upright locomotion. At some point in our specie's evolutionary history, we developed the thought pattrerns and behaviors associated with religion as a survival mechanism. Humans that believed in something beyond the material world were accessing certain social cues, memes [wiki], and powerful psychological structures, leading to more successful outcomes, evolutionarily speaking. For some people, it then follows from this theory that religion is not of divine origin in any sense, and that it is possible that the evolution of our species will one day outgrow religion if it no longer fulfills its evolutionary role.
If this is theory is true, then I think the following should also be true:
- Religion should address social and existential issues that relate to religion's evolutionary role in the development of a particular group or the species as a whole.
- There should be predicable patterns and commonalities between religions as they pass similarities in their evolutionary development.
- Religion should generally promote group success and social cohesion, accept where natural development requires changes, as in when existential problems shift, or where changes are dictated by the environment, as in when another group comes into proximity.
II. Food for Deconstruction: My Journey in and out of sociocultural evolutionary theory
I became aware of the above theory while I was taking Cultural Anthropology during my degree program in Bible and Missions. It was never really mentioned in class, but when we studied religion as a cultural component, I ran into the theories of sociocultural evolution [wiki] while doing research. Quite honestly, it rocked my world. Suddenly, it seemed all the magic drained out of the religion I had practiced for so long. My deepest fears were confirmed — we humans had unintentionally fabricated religion in our attempt to deal with our incomprehensible and intimidating world. Our belief was a useful fantasy, but still just a fantasy.
So I became agnostic for about a year. Then, I became a believer again through my encounter of Jesus (but that's another story). While I believed in Jesus, I wasn't sure about the rest of the Bible or what to do with the theory that religion had evolved. At the very least, I was ready to take a look to see if the religion in the Bible seemed to have naturalistic origins.
About this same time, I came across a personality theory that made a lot of sense to me. It was developed by professor of psychology Clare. W. Graves [wiki], a contemporary and associate of Abraham Maslow. Wiki has the scoop:
Graves theorized that in response to the interaction of external conditions with internal neuronal systems, humans develop new bio-psycho-social coping systems to solve existential problems and cope with their worlds. These coping systems are dependent on evolving human culture and individual development, and they are manifested at the individual, societal, and species levels. Graves believed that tangible, emergent, self-assembling dynamic neuronal systems evolved in the human brain in response to evolving existential and social problems. He theorized "man's nature is not a set thing, that it is ever emergent, that it is an open system, not a closed system." This open-endedness set his approach apart from many of his contemporaries who sought a final state, a nirvana, or perfectability in human nature. His inclusion of the bio-, psycho-, social, and systems theory as vital co-elements also described an inclusive point of view that continues developing today.
Grave's theory, called "The Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory" (ECLET) or Level Theory of Personality, became my primary construct for understanding human psycho-social development in individuals and groups. In my opinion ECLET gives one of the best explanations for how sociocultural evolution might occur in interaction with an environment (inlcuding other humans and groups) — especially when it comes to explaining commonalities between independently developing cultures and individuals, without the gross errors of the overly-optimistic and stereotypical classical view of social evolution.
I spent some time applying a simplified ECLET to the Biblical narrative. I called my experimentation, Worldview Systems, and wrote a bit about my findings (see the rough-draft results here). During this time, I also developed an assessment tool based on ECLET in a North American middle class context and tested it both on college students and culturally diverse spiritual nurture groups in NYC (see the Exploring You Worldview Survey available here). Though my understanding of the theory, my application to theology, and my assessment are all a bit rough and simplistic, they have proved promising from a pragmatic perspective.
III. Do I think naturalistic explanations of religion fit with the text of the Bible?
Yes and no. To best summarize my position, I would say that naturalistic explanations explain much of the religion in the Bible, but not all (this is where I would differ form many atheists and liberal theologians). Now, of course this needs some explaining. So first let me start with the 'yes' in this section. For the sake of space, I will limit my comments in this section to Old Testament Judaism, although I will mention Christianity in the next section. I'll use my three propositions at the end of Section I as a framework for my thoughts here:
- Does the religion of the Bible address social and existential issues that relate to religion's evolutionary role in the development of a particular group (namely Israel, and its forerunners)? Sure. We first pick up what could be termed a religion during the age of the Partiarchs in Genesis [4:26]. The best generalized term for that worldview, from the description of the narrative itself, archeological evidence, and our understanding of sociocultural evolution, would be 'animistic tribalism'. This worldview rises directly from the existential problems related to developing and maintaining familial/kinship groups and dealing with the mysterious phenomenon of the world (such as subsistance and health in a premodern understanding). It tends to embue all things with spiritual properties [Gen 30:37-43], see all spirits as local and/or territorial [Gen 28:16-22], develop visual and physical handles to the spirit world [Gen 31:19; Ex 25], create origin myths to replace forgotten history [some might say Gen 10], be concerned with fertility rites and procreation [again Gen 30:37-43; 13:14-18], have strict rules of taboo behavior enforcing group cohesion [Deut 21:12-23], and be isolationist and even agressive towards outside groups [Jos 8:1-24]. (The references given are some of many examples that would support this.)
An interesting thing happens in the narrative during the time of the Judges. The tribal nation (similar to the tribalistic alliances of Native American nations) is struggling with maintaining religious universality, social cohesion due to pressure from groups in proximity, and defense do to their loose organization. These existential problems create a typical worldview shift, and with it the predictable shift in religion. Israel's worldview shifts from tribal social organization to primitive feudalism. During this time, the center of religion shifts from the priests and the Tabernacle to the king, the royal courts, the stationary Temple, and battlefield [1 Sam 8]. The focus of the religion becomes nationalistic prosperity rather than family and clan-centric. This would seem to indicate that religion is changing do to changes in the sociocultural evolution of Israel, confirming ECLET.
- Are there predicable patterns and commonalities between biblical Judaism and other religions as they pass similarities in their evolutionary development? Sure. As I've already mentioned, Israel's religious history progresses in pretty similar sociocultural themes to groups all over the world, and especially those of the Mesopotamian region. The point is better made by thinking regionally, since common environmental factors of the region might lead to commonalities in the evolutionary history of Judaism and other near religions. Many of the populations in that arid to semi-arid part of the world were originally nomadic until methods of argiculture could be established. So you find a common element of animal sacrifice, not of hunted animals, but out of the flocks of the people. The reason is to appease the God/gods so that cleanliness and health might be maintained and prosperity may continue. As the region became more populated and encounters with other groups grew, there was a need to move from loosely organized kinship groups to more formal tribal nations with a single cheiftan to preserve social cohesion and common defense. This clearly happened to Israel. The common religious transition during this time is from many gods to a single god, or a pantheon with a dominant god. In the biblical text, the arrival of a cheiftan system coincides with the transition of the name of God from primarily "elohim" (pl. 'gods') to "el/ adonai" (sing. 'god'/'Lord' pl. of royalty). Likewise, in the region, this transition from simple tribalism to tribal nationalism and then to primative feudalism was usually marked by law making for the nation like the Law of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi [wiki], which bear some striking similarities. These regional similarities would seem to indicate that Judaism was evolving along similar lines to other religions in the area.
- Does biblical religion generally promote group success and social cohesion, accept where natural development requires changes, as in when existential problems shift, or where changes are dictated by the environment, as in when another group comes into proximity? Again, yes. One of the main roles of religion in the biblical text is social cohesion. From Abraham's promises onward, God's covenants have to do with forming a unique People of God in the world with exclusive boundaries (circumcision early on, adding the Law later). A major theme of both the Law and the narrative is the need to protect the people of God from the influence of outside groups, thus the conquest of Cannan and rules against adopting cultural aspects from groups in proximity. The Tabernacle and Temple cults form the glue of the society, bringing all the tribes of the region together three times a year and forming the basis for a common judicial system and a broad network of spiritual care through the Levites.
Whether or not biblical religion is working for group success is more debatable. In the narrative Israel went through severe divisions as a nation, always struggling with social cohesion, and only acheived a very brief period of stablity and incomplete regional dominance. On the other hand, Judaism provides an cultural identity and life strategy that has endured into the current age, outlasting many other religions that fell into legend and history with the coming of Empires and the spread of Islam in that area.
The conflict and change in the religion seem to conincide with changes internal and external. For example, the trasition to primative feudalism mentioned above [2 Sam 8], was precipitated by a shift in worldview, at least among the elders of the tribes. Existentially, the problem was no longer maintaining kinship bonds, but the defense of the people from outsiders. The elders asked for a king to lead them into battle, because their paradigm was shifting and because of the outside pressure from the Philistine invaders.
So, using the three propostions about sociocultural evolution, I found much of the Old Testament narrative is consisent with these explanations. I am attempting to be brief here, but it is amazing how much the text seems to outline the details of the evolution of the religion, often making direct explanation and commentary about transitions, changes, and developmental markers. My conclusion is that much of the narrative explains the human development of a religion in the Fertile Cresent based on evironmental factors which create cultural shifts.
IV. The Stuff that Didn't Fit
So now to the 'no' of my answer above. As I did my research, there was some data that just didn't fit the view that all the religion of the Bible was created by sociocultural evolution. It wasn't that the data denied the idea that such evolution was going on. To the contrary, it confirmed it as well. But, to me, it hinted at an interaction with the narrative that cannot be accounted for by sociocultural elements. For example:
- God's voice in the text represents an interaction that does not conform to normal sociocultural evolution. Take, for instance, God's interaction with Abraham. The primary point seems to be that God desires a relationship with Abraham and wants to prove he can be trusted but not manipulated. However, animism spiritualizes the unpridictability of the natural world in cultures of low technology. Their gods must be tricked or appeased — manipulated in one way or the other — because their low technology produces inconsistent outcomes, which are blamed on the work of spirits. So it is in most animistic hero stories: they either appease or trick the gods into giving them what they want, but they do not do so through building relational trust.
Likewise, it is exceedingly strange that Yahweh commands that no image of him be made. Animism and pantheism solve existential problems by attaching deities to physical objects, such as idols, magic elements (spells, incantation, sacrifices), or worship artifacts. Animism must create a material manifestation of their god as a 'handle' to the spiritual world. This is evidenced by Israel's 'sinful' tendency in this direction, building golden calves, worshiping Cannanite gods in the high places, creating household gods and Asherah poles. Similarily, when feudalism transtions religion to a dominator god (monotheism, or heirarchal pantheism), there must be a way to localize the group's god to an area or worship object in order to 'use' the deity as a weapon against enemies, proving spiritual superiority as the justification for domination. In Israel's story this is attempted with the Ark of the Covenant, but is a miserable failure. The voice of God then provides commentary that the usual evolutionary usage of the deity in this way is evil, and that relational solutions are the answer. Over and over again, the voice of God in the text seeks to moderate the current worldview contrary to expectations of natural evolutionary development. Often the voice is not heeded, and evolutionary development continues along human lines, only to have the voice of God once again working against purely evolutionary impulses for moderation, stability, and, especially, relationship.
- The voice of God in the text provides a running commentray on the evolutionary development of the Isrealite culture, including the religion. This self-conciousness of the narrative is rare, if it exists anywhere else in similar literature. Generally speaking, worldviews are not very aware of the weaknesses of their worldview. For example, most tribal cultures eventually disolve because of contact with groups in proximity (this is why transportation technology and population growth usually lead to a transition to primative feudalism or other forms of nationalism). While their mythology and behavior my be isolationist, it is seldom successful in the long-term because it does not take into account how its worldview works. Since their worldview is solving problems of low technology and the intimidating and mysterious natural world, they usually adopt outside technology with little question, especially if it seems pragmatically successful, and especially in areas of religious practice (most tribal technology includes supposed spiritual components). What is not understood is how such technology brings with it cultural elements that lead to the failure of the worldview (for example think in terms of the introduction of Causcasian technology and religion into Native American cultures). In the biblical text, the culture is warned especially of the dissolving power of this outside technology, especially of the religious category.
- Probably, for me, the great clincher was Jesus. The shifts in spirituality he advocates seem often to disrupt rather than enforce the evolutionary roles of religion. His reinterpretation of the Jewish expectations relating to the Kingdom of God shatter the nationalism that went with it. They are counter to the usual understanding of social cohesion. Social cohesion almost always makes compromises in oder to keep the in-group together. Jesus' teaching refuses to do so, and he warns that the effect will be the fragmentation of societies and familial structures with reorganization along relational lines to God. In some ways, he is advocating something, that if applied correctly, is super-cultural reform (unlike Islam which creates similar disruptions in order to substitute a competing culture). Likewise, he agrues against the post-exihilic rabbinical tradition, which was the only nearly universal movement in Judaism. In other words, he goes against the most successful form of Judaism up till that time. It seems he is, like the voice of God in the Old Testament, willing to compromise normal evolutionary development for direct relationship to God. Where evolutionary development does not compete with that relationship, he is willing to let it be, though he demands interaction with it in the context of that relationship.
In conclusion, I began to believe that this data presented the interaction of a more complex and advanced system with the human systems present in the text. Some would argue that this represents the work of later editors (see the school of higher text criticis and my next section), but I saw something different. I saw a missional ethic. This kind of interaction is what I was taught in anthropology as it related to missions, humanitarian development, and peace building in the developing world. Anthropologists (not the research branch, but the applied branch) frequently encounter cultures less intellectually complex and technologically advanced than their own (but not superior, given that their problems are also more complex and require even more advanced technology — see Graves here). In their interaction and work with these cultures, they attempt to work with the evolution of the group by guiding that evolution past pit-falls. For example, they may attempt to change the groups understanding of illness, or concepts of land ownership and conservation so they will survive inevitable contact with other groups, especially as modernity encroaches, but they attempt to leave the rest of the culture intact. (Incidently, Gene Rodenberry's 'Prime Directive' [wiki] in Star Trek is a good, if overly strict, example of this type of ethic, though the application in movie IV: Voyage Home, is the example of how it works.) In short, I saw evidence of interaction with the culture and something I believed was divine.
V. Self-Criticism
To the atheist: First, it would be good to admit my bias. As you can see from the narrative portion above, I went to the text as a believer looking for an explanation that would maintian my belief to some extent. To that end, it is possible that I am blinded by that bias and am reading God into my conclusions. In my defense, I would say that at that point in my life, I was ready to pronouce the Old Testament a strictly human document, so I was not expecting to find God in interaction with the text. While I thought Jesus was real at the time, that was not a conviction I had about the rest of the Bible. My findings actually surprised me in this case. In any case, I'm not sure that my bias is any greater than another bias, such as materialism, that might unintentionally ignore evidence that does not fit into its worldview.
It is also possible that much of what I noticed is the result of later theological editing. Editors in the late exihilic period or later could have taken the voice of God in the text, providing the commentary and disonant voice I note above, but in retrospect. This is the position of many in the higher text criticism school, and I think that they are right in saying that this did occur, but wrong in their understanding of the exitent to which it happened. I think their position is not very strong for several reasons. First, if the text is edited in this way, it is poorly edited at best because it does not reinforce the success or coherence of the theological positions of the editors very well. Second, the discorvery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents, especially the Isaiah scroll, seems to indicate that among the traditions of Hebrew scribes, editing was much rarer than the higher text criticism school thought. Third, there was more than one stream of theological thought during the proposed time of editing, so we should have more varieties in editing if it was as widespread as once thought. There is no mention or controversy concerning such editing which would have been unlikely given the Hebraic views of changing Scripture. Fourth, if this is editing, it prepresents a very advanced understanding of culture that we are just now beginning to appreciate, but are still struggling to comprehend fully. I find it unlikely, given the rest of the documents of that time, that such an understanding existed. However, I will admit that my entire theory here is dependent on my understanding of the reliability of the text, and if to the extent that that text is deemed unreliable, my argument is less convincing.
The atheist may also say that the uniqueness I mentioned above simply shows the variety of evolutionary outcomes possible. It could be that this simply proves some unique elements of the evolution of Judaism, but nothing more. I would agree that there is no standard progression for sociocultural evolution other than that which coresponds to patterns in the geometry of neuronal systems (determined by the biology of the brain) and similarities in environmental factors (of which there are only so many variations on planet Earth). But I would not underemphasize the influence of these two factors. I understand that I am making a evaluative judgment in saying that I do not think this uniqueness is due to evolutionary anomaly. However, I do not, at present, have conclusive evidence in this area, and I would question if such evidence could exist since experimentation is not possible on the past, only interpretation.
The best defense of my position is that I am attempting to be relationally honest with you, my possible critic, and reveal the potential weaknesses of my thinking. To the extent that transparentcy and authenticity lead to the truth, I am attempting to humbly submit to these principles in this document and on this blog.
To the believer: All this may sound a bit like sacrilege. Many of us have been used to thinking about the Bible as a divinely dictated book, perfect in all aspects as presented. As you can tell, I do not hold that view. I see the Bible as a real interaction of God and man, and see it as reliable relationally because it leads to real understanding and relationship. I believe it will produce a lifestyle with the divine, which is the underlying issue for the believer in the question of reliability. I do not view the literal reliablity of every passage as necessary because I find a legalistic-literal interpretation of the text both dangerous and not altogether honest. This is neither the usual fundamentalist nor liberal thelogical undertanding of the nature of scripture. It is more similiar to the old alagorical school of thought and current thelogical conversations in the missional movement and emerging church. What it has done for me is this: My belief in the reality behind the document — of the actual human encounter of the divine — has been confirmed in amazing ways. Also, this view of the Bible has provided a more practical narrative that can be lived out missionally.
VI. Summary and Conclusion
Whew! That was a lot of babble. I must admit I am not very gifted at being concise. For those of you who need a recap, or have skipped down to this portion of this post: I see biblical religion as an interaction of two parts: human sociocultural evolutionary development, which includes the cultural compenent of religion, and the divine interaction with that development working missionally and relationally to stabalize or, when necessary, transition religious development for health and the advancment of divine purposes (which would be the same as health).
In conclusion, I have come to believe that God's primary interaction with humanity is in the form of incarnation: he attempts to enter into and interact within our context. This priniciple is ingenious: having implications for missionaries, anthropologists, teachers, community developers, humanitarian workers, peace builders, global economic players and more. Just as theologically, Christianity says Jesus came as a man to show us what the Father was like in real terms, so too, God's revelation must always come to us as an interaction in the material world, though hinting of the reality of both things within and beyond. Likewise, it is my personal ethic to live incarnationally, manifesting my relationship to God in concrete ways for the benefit of the world.
Posted in belief, evolutionary theory, naturalism, scripture | 
December 12th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Soulster, I tend to share your bias and views, but let me offer a few ideas. One, evolutionary theory explains the process of biology. It should be tentatively applied to human behavior and even more tentatively applied to sentience/thought. I’m not sure it should be applied to belief systems at all. Human beings made a real muck of that in the years following Darwin. For example, success in evolution is passing on your genes to the next generation. Success in thought is passing your thoughts on to other sentient beings. Think of the effect of early martyrs (and even Jesus) on the thoughts/beliefs of their world. Those people were crucified and eaten by lions, not very successful in a evolutionary biology sense. But in terms of societal thought “evolution”, they were enormously successful.
Another idea that I would offer is how adaptable Christianity is compared to other religions. This tends to confirm our belief in its veracity, but is there something that non-believers would observe that explains the success of Christianity? For example, Christianity attracted Roman citizens who saw Christians fed to lions. It has spread to the courts of Genghis Khan, the ruins of Tenochiclan, the steppes of barbaric Russia, the jungles of New Guinea, and the halls of Oxford University.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Ed:
Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming.
I would say that I do not have a dualistic view of humans and that biology, society, and psychology are are interelated on only separable when viewed from seperate presepectives. Thus if evolution applies to biology, it applies to how we think and behave (one of the ways humans survive), and what we believe as well, though I believe in something that transcends this, namely God’s interaction through Christ.
How do we (Christians) explain the other religions if not by sociocultural evolution? If so, it applies to the origins of ours as far as it happened in a sociocultural context (or else what of baptism, communion, and termonology, etc), though we may claim to have enocuntered something transcendent. I do not view these origins as problematic, just God being a great incarnational missionary. I see sociocultrual evolution at work since the founding of the Christian movement in the development of Christendom (and I mean the currently dominant culture of Christianity), so why not previous to it? But I also see a strain of divine interaction, louder and stronger the more I examine it. My theology is that God is redeeming and interacting with the complete man, so the context is the complete bio-psycho-social man.
In the theories of sociocultural evolution, cultural and intellectual information is passed by memes the same way biological information is passed by genes. There is some very interesting support for this. For example, culture is not taught actively as much as it is absorbed thourgh social cues, narrative, and play. In this regard, I tend to believe the saying “the medium is the message” to some extent.
I do agree that we must use caution here, as the early Darwinian applications were very messy. That is why I prefer ECLET. It takes a observational stance and is open-ended. The problem with early social evolutionary theory was that it believed man was in progressive motion towards better outcomes and was closed, believeing man’s nature finite in variety. I do not share this optimistic view and think it dangerous. Our evolution is maintaining our species and so is successful so far, but as far as success in terms of progress…? Our success at environmental dominance may in fact lead to our extinction. In my opinion, ECLET’s view of sociolcultural evolution has more need of the interaction of the divine because it does not have an inevitably positive outlook (i.e. as we advance to solve our problems we create more advanced problems).
I understand some of the implications of making such applications to belief systems. They are not always pretty. But I think we are in such a state that this application is justified, especially as I work pastorially with the people I know.
Yes, the adaptabilty of Christianity is great. That has been one of my points in several posts, such as my post on Christian ethics and is one of the applications here of the incarnational principle. I’m not sure I see what you mean by what non-believers would observe as contributions to the success of Christianity. There are many things they might claim about that. I’ve heard several. Some I would agree with, some I would not. Perhaps a popular view is that it is successful due to the power of wishful thinking, and since it is a more fanastic wish (God wants to use me to change the world), it is more successful at capturing imaginations and motivating people. But, alternative explanations are just that. I realize that my explanation here is just one of many alternative available to people, but one I think is under expressed in usual circles. In some of the cases you mentioned, I would say the success was because it was real and missional, two of the aspects I appreciate about it. Other people might not attribute it to those things. It would be likely that Chirstians in the Church Growth school would melt it down to some social principles we can exploit in a well-applied strategy. My interpretation is God was involved.
Your examples confused me a little bit, however. Please help. Are you giving these examples as non-believer proofs of the factors leading to the spread of Christianity, or as examples of true missional ability? Please clarify.
I hope these comments clarify my above statments. Please push back and help me flesh out these issues further.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Soulster, I am not convinced that the concept of meme’s and the analogy to genes is valid. For example, quantum mechanics is a great model for the understanding of atoms and molecules. But, it would be foolish to apply it to evolutionary biology. Human behaviors are only very superficially described by evolution/biology. There is a lot of human behavior/thought that is likely the result of language, culture, choices, family, education, chance, mental illness, and interaction with the supernatural. I see it as ridiculous to apply Darwinian evolution to these higher order functions as it would be to apply the quantum mechanics of covalent bonds to the founder effect. I would tend to see the development of all religions as the result of the interplay between the supernatural, culture, language, free-will (choice), environment, history, economics, biology, and probably other factors. In my view of the history and culture of this, God appears more interested in what we become than what facts we believe or what we do in terms of religious practice. My examples are somewhat random, but I meant to illustrate the strange variety of circumstances that so many people from so many times and places have come to accept the teachings of Christianity. I see Christianity as the most adaptable, useful, growth-promoting, and tolerant religion despite many examples of it being less than that. But I see that as due to the influence of human failure rather than a fault in the missional ability of God’s incarnation.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Ed,
Do you have an example of human behavior that can be attributed to the supernatural?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Ed:
It seems we would agree for the most part, especially about the outcomes.
The only difference it seems is that I see sociocultural evolution as having a role in much of the items under the first point, which means we differ only in our details of our theology of man in regards to cultural orgins and developmental processes.
I would point out to our readers that you are not alone in your position. There are critics of the concept of sociocultural evolution [here]. Many of these people are not believers (just to say that Christians aren’t the only skpetics in this case), and who question the ability of outside observers to research the issue, or who see the question as meaningless.
I would present to our readers that our positions represent two possible views that are equally valid given the current level of scientific discourse on this subject. If you think sociocultural evolution occurs there’s me, if not, or if you think not, there’s Ed. Many people I meet assume sociocultural evolution along with many in our culture, but others don’t so I think we need both voices.
Well, there are some fools out there then who I think are interesting ;). Dr. Johnjoe McFadden [wiki], Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Surrey, thinks he has linked quantum theory, evolution, and human conciousness [for more here]. Many papers have been written concerning the “directed mutation” phenomenon, of which quantum theory is one explanation (see “Introduction” to this study for a list of papers).
I think we’re likely to see more people making connections between once disparate fields in the future (after all they are looking for theories now to explain everything), and I hope believers with imagination will talk about their possible applications to theology, even if some prove to be inaccurate over time. As long as the core of our thelogy is Jesus, I do not see these theories as having divisive or harmful results, and our interaction with such thinking will likely be good for others who are listening.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Drunkentune, in another of my posts I referred to three people I have personally gotten to know who are convinced they had supernatural experience which seemed credible to me. There are some reports of miracles in various places, i.e. Guideposts magazine, http://bibleprobe.com/miracles.htm, the OT, the NT, reports of near-death experiences, and so on. It seems that history and cross-cultural experiences convince many people and their compatriots that there is a supernatural. However, their individual responses to this are highly variable. I definitely see these witnesses to the miraculous, unexplainable as one of the evidences in support of agnosticism or open-minded religion over atheism/materialism. It seems as unwise to dismiss all of them as hoaxes or hallucinations, though some may be just that.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Ed,
I wasn’t asking if the supernatural existed or not. I was asking for you to present an example of human behavior that can be attributed to the supernatural.
I examined the website you linked to, and I wasn’t surprised to see that every last example is anecdotal. More than that, they all are employ the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. I suggest you check out the phenominon of availability heuristic [wiki] and how our emotions can override our reasoning.
John Tillotson, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a ‘commonsense’ defense of Christianity. He argued against the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation with a concise argument: It simply contradicts common sense. If it looks like a saltine, smells like a saltine, and tastes like a saltine, it’s most likely a saltine. To do otherwise would be to disregard all knowledge we gain by perception.
Hume points out that the implications do not bode well for the supernatural:
The laws of nature are due to uniform experience. If an ‘exception’ - namely miracles and the supernatural - occurred, the probability will always be greater that the person reporting said miracle or supernatural occurrence is simply deluded, mistaken, or a fraud.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
It appears to me that all of you who have posted on this subject had the seeds of a supernatural deity planted in your heads at such an early age you can’t remember a time without that thought. I came from a secular home where the only reference to a deity was the occasional expletive, “goddammit.” By the time I began exploring religion on my own I’d already discovered that the tooth fairy, easter bunny, and Santa Claus and his elves were not real. I was curious why Jesus was not mentioned in ancient world history classes since he’d supposedly performed miracles and defied death. I read the biblical version of history and wondered where all the different races came from if mankind was created in God’s image. Was God a black man? Did he have slanted eyes? Did he have red hair? Why don’t we all look the same? So many things did not add up. I experimented with several Christian denominations, both Catholic and Protestant. Praying was foreign to me, it made me uncomfortable, and made me question my sanity since it felt like I was talking to myself. My mind would wander during those ‘let us pray’ moments. I wondered why Zeus no longer ruled from Mt. Olympus. Were the Egyptians ahead of their time in evolutionary thinking? Did mankind, and all the other living creatures, really crawl out of the Nile? Why have I not had a supernatural moment like an encounter with a talking burning bush or being turned into a pillar of salt? I think my sister and I are prime examples of environmental influence, or lack thereof. Neither of us have been able to embrace any god with Soulster’s enthusiasm. But atheism has not made me an evil person. I simply rely upon myself instead of prayers to a deity to make changes in my life. I would never intentionally hurt anyone’s feelings and I am not trying to demean your faith. I’m simply explaining my lack of it.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
drunkentune, what do you think of my post?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
soulster,
Sorry for not posting a response to it as of now. Your post is very long (and quite intelligent, as well). I haven’t had a chance to read the entirety of the post, but so far, I agree with many of your conclusions. There are a few specific details that I’d like to examine further, but I’m sure you can guess which ones they are.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
soulster
excellent analysis. The voice of God is indeed counter evolutionary throughout the OT and NT. He must be a creatonist.
Drunkentune
“no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.†(p. 123)
You should add the caveat “under intellectually honest scrutiny“. Simon Greenleaf’s study of the resurrection is one such case. Watch out though, he was converted.
If you presuppose that naturalism represents the totality of facts, you are saying nothing about the supernatural. You and Hume are saying in effect “if all skies are blue because they can’t be any other color, then ‘common sense’ says that all skies are blue”. Isn’t that a tautology?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Jim,
December 13th, 2006 at 12:59 am
I still don’t get the concept of “the supernatural.”
And I still don’t get how it impacts upon anyone sans their faith that it does.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:25 am
I think that it is very clear that the atheist commentors on this blog do not think believers’ arguements for the supernatural are convincing. We’ve also established that atheists do not believe in God (a surprise, to be sure!), do not think miralces are possible (they go against common sense in a materialistic worldview), and are skpetical at best concerning revelation and Scripture (wonder why?). I think, if we keep repeating these things, we are likely to do nothing here than has been done a million times before as far as the debate usually goes.
Here’s what I suggest: we try to get at the parts of each other that need more explaining. Our objective becomes laying ourselves and others out for examination, allowing readers to judge from our descriptions, rather than make judgements for everyone by quick retorts and statements about how unreasonable such and such is. If we keep in mind drunkentunes’ exhortations concerning debate [here], we may get further by asking more questions, drawing out underlying thinking and showing that we can think like the other side, long before we debunk.
My post above is trying to draw my thinking into the open. Beepbeep’s question could do that if answered carefully and not just reacted against.
Here’s my try at beepbeep’s inquiry with all the intellectual honesty I have at the moment:
When I say ’supernatural’, I mean it mostly in the sense of ‘paranormal’, meaning “any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions” [from wiki]. However, I would add to scientific assumptions, according to popular understandings (since these assumptions vary on the fringes). Now this is a psychological (or parapsychological) category, so it has more to do with how I think about something than the thing itself. For example I might encounter two ‘paranormal’ events, and only subscribe one ’supernatural’ origins. For example, the ‘magic’ of David Copperfield exceeds my assumptions about science in several respects, but I also assume I am tricked in some way and that David only appears to be defying material law. On the other hand, I have had a handful of experiences that I cannot explain and can’t see how I was tricked (supernatural=”I don’t know”), for example, when it appears I have predicted people’s strange personal futures in detail. I have no explanation for that. As far as I know, there should be no reason that I could do that. And I also have experiences that I see direct connection to supernatural origins (supernatural=”God did it”). So I admit a range of useage and that it, since it has to do with my interpretation of events, it is ‘in my head’, which to me does not necessarily mean it is false, just that it is somewhat subjective.
I am not a strict materialist in worldview; I believe matter is only one category of reality. Therefore, in my cosmology, the supernatural could really be ‘natural’ of a different kind that we have not yet included in our materialistic understandings. In other words, if God is there, he must be included in the natural world, for he created it an indwells it, and it exists in him, and to the extent that he extends beyond it, he might be beyond our category of ‘natural’ (supernatural), but not his.
In respect to my post above, I see ’supernatural’ interaction with human development because I am dissatisfied with naturalistic explanations of the biblical text. I understand it is an interpretation that could be influenced by many factors. I expect people to have alternate explanations (see ‘Self-Criticism’), and I am making a decision which information I will follow based on my read of the evidence. You can decide where faith plays a part in that decision from what I have already declared (see ‘Food for Deconstruction’ and ‘Self-Critiscism’).
How does it impact me? Again, this is interpretation of my experience and that of those around me, but it seems I am living in a matrix of events that have several causalities, at least one of which goes beyond purely materialistic explanations.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
soulster,
As an atheist, I must admit that I’ve closed off a part of my mind to argument from Christians. I am searching for the truth, but I care for the process as well, and I will piggyback on your comments: We’re really pushing this argument into the ground. I certainly agree that the conversation is now beginning to bite its own tail.
I do believe that we can continue to talk about the issue, but I’d like to steer this in a different direction. While atheists do not believe in God, there are plenty of atheists can most likely believe in the supernatural. We should make a distinction between the two. Atheists and materialists are different folk.
Here’s a way to spice it up, from a materialist’s perspective:
Let’s presume (for the sake of argument) that the supernatural exists.
Now, as someone with reservations, I demand a certain level of proof, and just as one can prove gravity, if the supernatural exists, there are possible demonstrations that show that the supernatural does indeed exist.
I’m wondering if it’s possible to prove to a skeptic that the supernatural is not the work of aliens or that magic is not the work of garden gnomes.
In essence, I’d argue that us atheists see the existence of the supernatural as a red herring, and ultimately moot. I keep wondering how the existence of the supernatural validates your specific belief in a deity.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
I harken back to questions concerning the existence of “the supernatural” as this is crux of god belief and probably why I remain a non-believer.
I agree with drunken that there are atheists and agnostics who believe (for various reasons) in the existence of the supernatural (spirits, ghosts, gods etc); my thoughts on the existence of these beliefs is that they do stem from a basic evolutionary primitive survival instinct.
Primitive mankind had a lot to be afraid of. One of the primary fears would have been the fear of being someone’s or something’s lunch.
Even if one couldn’t ascertain what the noise was, or what the shape was, or what the movement was - discretion was certainly the better part of valour.
Fear of the unknown was a basic survival instinct. This didn’t stop ancient hunters, tribespeople, from trying to create explanations for what had frightened them though.
Nor did it stop them from creating explanations for what they saw as fortuitious occurences.
So, what was perceived as a human-like shape in the darkness may have become “evidence” of the great chief who has just died and who had come back to make sure that his tribe was getting on ok. etc etc.
Therefore, I think I can understand how and why people attempted to make sense of the unknown, I just don’t think that their explanations have much to do with reality.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
drunkentune:
For some people it might not validate their belief in a deity as much as it validates a worldview and scope of experience. For others, it is a key component. For example, I grew up in a cessationist [wiki] fundamentalist group (with a weird mix of Lockean rationalism and deism) that said there were no such things as miracles, supernatural interventions, spiritual gifts, etc. any more (died out with the Apostles), or encounters of God outside the biblical text itself. The epistemology was based on the historicity of the Bible, and a circular argument that the Bible was God’s Word because it said so. This epistemology was propped up by a heavy system of social control and anti-intellectualism. At one time, I was happy believeing in God in this system (though, I would not be now) until I had some experiences that happened that hinted that cessationism was not true. So in my case, belief in God superceded belief in the possibility of experiencing the supernatural, though it was assumed the supernatural happened in the biblical text. At some point I shifted to believeing in the supernatural, and so it became so of the ‘evidence’ validating my belief system, but subordinate to the core of my understanding and experience of Jesus.
Now, my experience of the ’supernatural,’ which I mean as that which is beyond purely materialistic explanations, plays a more important part in my faith. If God cannot be experienced in a way that transcends the material or pure self-psychological, what good is faith and how could it possibily be relational? In other words, if God is not speaking to me, and I am not really speaking to him, and I do not encounter him in any other way than my mind picking out patterns in ‘natural’ phenomenon, such fantasy would be a dangerous escapism, unreal, and, worst, unrelational.
In some ways, the last bit is like Occam’s Razor [wiki]: If I think all my experience is explanable through materialistic means, why do I need the entity “God” to explain any of it?
Hope that helps. Please continue to ask questions until it’s clear.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
RE: “Therefore, I think I can understand how and why people attempted to make sense of the unknown, I just don’t think that their explanations have much to do with reality.”
I will quickly share an experience from my adulthood which may illustrate this.
My mother and I were sitting in the lounge of her house a number of years ago just chatting and watching TV when we heard a sound emmanating from the front verandah.
Needless to say, this was quite late at night, most of the people in our street has gone to bed, not many lights were on, only a dim street light opposite us.
My mother, a delightful person that she was, was also highly imaginative and superstitious. I saw her eyes widen as we both listened to the sound, a steady “creak creak” on the 100 year old floorboards on the verandah.
I watched and listened as I saw the physical reaction in my mother’s face and her body language. The primitive response to the unknown was about to receive full expression.
Needless to say, I felt and reacted to what I saw as her reactions as well.
Rather than be part of an irrational stampede to the upstairs bedroom where we might have locked the doors and waited in fear and forboding for whatever had made the mysterious noise, I decided to investigate for the sake of sanity and reason.
My mother, also quelled her desire for flight when she saw that I was prepared to confront whatever it was that was making this mysterious noise.
I need to add at this time that my mother’s brother had died a few months ago, and so I had a pretty good idea where her brain was flying off to when it came to explaining the noise.
I opened the large timber door, with my mother peering over my right shoulder getting ready to scarper if anything threatening or frightening presented itself.
We peered out into the murky darkness of the front verandah, listening intently as we tried to ascerain the specific location of the sound.
And then we saw it. The large, old, rocking chair at the end of the verandah, bathed in soft moonlight, rocking steadily backwards and forwards.
By this stage of the proceedings, I am almost sure that my mother was “seeing” her recently deceased brother rocking backwards and forwards on that chair. Something he had done in the past.
The sense of panic had escalated in both of us as we had determined the source of the sound, but not the cause of it. ( I think my mother had already settled on a cause by this time.)
My mother was quite willing to accept that the cause was a spiritual one, I was less than convinced. (This all happened in a short time frame, just a matter of seconds.)
I flicked on the outside light. The rocking chair was still rocking, but it was slowing down now. Had our presence disturbed whatever was sitting in the chair and it had now left?
No. On closer inspection there was my cat of 12 years sitting about 4 feet from the rocking chair staring at us in the bright light and surely wondering why we had these startled looks upon our faces.
The cat had slept on that rocking chair often and as it jumped off it in the darkness, the rocking chair did what rocking chairs do - they rock.
Due to the recent circumstances of my uncle’s death, the darkness, the time of the evening (around midnight, if I remember correctly) and the human natural desire to attribute an explanation and a meaning for the unknown; our primitive instincts had kicked in.
Less rational heads would today be telling the story of how they had a visitation from a deceased member of their family and how they had NO explanation for why that chair was rocking in the moonlight.
Primitive tribes may have made an altar to the chair and prayed for protection, good luck or fortune.
People like myself, look for a rational explanation first.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Soulster–I believe the word ‘paranormal,’ as opposed to ’supernatural,’ is less divisive in this discussion and it’s use may help us find common ground with fewer closed minds. Both involve events that cannot be fully and factually explained. Atheists prefer to find answers through science, and believers tend to look to religious faith. I am open to the idea of telepathy, for instance. You may interpret your experience as a ‘message from God,’ and I may consider mine to be from someone who is very close to me in this life.
Beepbeep–I loved your ‘ghost story!’ It reminded me how much I used to love the old vampire, mummy, Frankenstein movies on late night TV when I was a kid… and the adrenaline rush from being scared out of my wits! Priceless.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Internet Infidel:
Thanks for the tip on terms. I wonder if “paranormal” is better than “supernatural” because there is a slight shift in meaning that might not require giving so much ground. To say paranormal is more like saying unexplained, whereas saying supernatural means the explanation is _____ outside material reality.
I would like to hear your thoughts on telepathy. Do you think you’ve experienced it? How do you think it works if it does? Why hasn’t it been proven yet if it does happen?
December 14th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Soulster–I have not personally experienced any telepathic moment. My interest has been piqued by some articles about scientific research in this area with identical twins. However, the events seem to be random and cannot be performed ‘on demand.’ The closest I’ve come to any paranormal experience would be classifed as ‘intuitive’ at best. For lack of a better term at the moment, I get ‘bad vibes’ from people, places, and things. But these feeling can be explained by displayed behavior such as body language but most probably it’s just plain old skeptical common sense about things that appear too good on the surface to be true.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Internet Infidel:
I read once about a study (I think in a Templeton book) using mimosa trees where a series of people would come into a room with the tree, one of which would pluck some leaves off, causing the tree to close its leaflets in shock. After a while, even when he would come into the room and not touch the tree, it would still close. Now that has left me with a gnawing question.
I relate to the bad vibes thing. I hate that feeling. Still don’t know what it is. For some reason, maybe due to my counseling, I usually have sense if someone is a sexual preditor or has been a victim. At least I’ve been right in retrospect several times, but who knows what’s really going on. Could be I’m just making false associations. Could be I’m picking up on very subtle non-verbals. Could be something else.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Soulster–Don’t you wonder about some of these studies? Like, who dreams them up and why? Nevertheless, I find the idea of the mimosa tree being able to identify the one person who plucked it’s leaves fascinating. My first reaction is the tree had, over however many millions of years, developed a highly sensitive defense mechanism in order to survive. But if one thinks about other possible reasons for the tree’s reaction it does open the door to many other questions.
About the ‘bad vibe’ thing…I hated using that phrase because it’s such an overused 60’s term, but it is the only description that truly fits the feelings I sometimes have. I think you are correct in your assumption that your years of counseling have made you more sensitive to minute details and over a period of time you have learned to associate these details with certain behaviors. Though I am not a counselor (nor do I play one on TV) I am very interested in people and what makes them tick, and like you I have been correct in my evaluations based on the little things I have detected in behavior and conversation often. I have found that if one is a good listener and displays an interest in what the person has to say they will often volunteer more information than they realize. And since you have been involved in cases involving rape victims and sexual predators I have a question which ties into one of the other topics you have posted for discussion….Do you believe a sexual predator can ever be truly rehabilitated?
December 15th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Internet Infidel:
I suppose, in one sense, such studies are a phenomenon created by our culture’s hunger for pop-science and the amazing amount of money available for such things out there. If I knew I could get a bundle of money if a just thought up something to study, I think I could come up with something to stir the populace’s imagination pretty easy. In this case, the mimosa study does stir imaginations. Call it science entertainment then.
Good question. I guess that depends on what one means by ‘rehabilitated’. Can they, on the long term, stop their predation? Yes. But generally only through rigorous systems of accountability and discipline. I think such a use of power, sexuality, and other people causes some kind of irreparable damage on the same magnitude of long-time drug use. Staying “clean” involves treating underlying issues and avoiding all triggers and patterns. But to ever say the person is normal and can be trusted in the same contexts as a non-preditor, I wouldn’t go that far in the same way I would not recommend an alcoholic go to bars once sober.
That’s why I disagree with the current system of treatment for sexual offenders. First they are imprisoned in a environment with a very unhealthy sexual ethos that worsens their problem. Then they are released, usually with little counseling, back into society with infrequent checkes by social services or their P.O. Accountability only occurs if repeat offenses occurs, which is in my opinion far to late and costly. Sex offenders should be sent to specific prisons designed not to make the problem worse, and on relase they should have tight accountability and support weekly or more that checks their thinking as much as their behavior and movements.
I’ve spent most of my time helping victims, but just recently have helped some male family members who abused siblings and a husband who abused his wife (that’s one that people seldom think about — rape in marriage). In such cases, the system of accountablity and discipline we employed had to do with stopping systems of power that always escalated to the abuse. In the case of the husband, his father had always dispised women and taught the son to do the same. Our ‘rehabilitation’ had to do with reforming his view of women and catching him when he’d slide back into disrespect. We taught him how to share power based on mutual respect rather than how to take power based on disrespect. His predation was due to a extreme internal insecurity that had to be healed, but is still there, and so must be dealt with continually.
December 16th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Personally, I don’t think that pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
I also don’t think that homosexuals can be rehabilitated.
If rehabilitated means to lose the desire to have sex with children, or to lose the desire to have sex with the same sex, I don’t see how this is possible without an incredible amount of electricity attached to the gonads.
Maybe that is what some people have in mind when they talk about rehabilitation?
Something like a scene from the movie “A Clockwork Orange” where the subjects are psychologically “convinced” by the generous application of pain that their behaviour is inappropriate.
I wouldn’t recommend this type of proceedure personally. All a bit too barbaric for my liking.
The only thing possible, I think, is to instill a desire NOT to act upon desire. Some sort of behaviour modification that encourages people to not act according to their sexual desires. This of course, doesn’t remove the desire, just the desire to act upon it.
I have included homosexuality and pedophilia in the same rant, not because I consider them to be the same, or to have the same consequences, but because they are examples of sexual behaviour which many religious people see as sin.
I don’t see any reason why homosexuality should be considered a problem at all as long as it, like all other sexual practices, reserves its place in the realm of consentual adults.
Pedophilia is an entirely different issue. It is essentially, the mental and or physical rape of children. It is rape because a child has not developed the mental capacity to make an informed decision.
So, any supposed consent is not consent.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Soulster:
I posed the question of sucessful rehabilitation for sexual predators because this was the subject of a debate I’d recently read. We are a society who supposedly believes in the judicial system–when a crime is committed the suspect is tried by a jury of his peers and if found guilty punishment is pronounced. Upon completion of this punishment (in many states first time sexual offenders are mandated 25 years) the offender is deemed to have paid his debt to society and is released back into the general population. Recidivism rates are extremely high for child sexual predators and I believe you are correct in your view that instead of going to a facility that deals exclusively with, and has experience in treating, these types of people they go into the general prison system where they are subjected to the same behaviors they had perpetrated on their victims. You say it is possible these offenders can stop their predation with a vigorous system of accountability and discipline. Therein lies my next question: Like an alcoholic. a sexual predator must first have a strong desire to actually quit to be sucessful, don’t you think? I briefly worked for a therapist transcribing dictations of her sessions with children who had been abused mentally, physically, and sexually. I would have nightmares about the horrors these poor little children had endured. I literally could not believe that anyone had the ability to be this cruel toward another human being, let alone a 4 year old (or ANY) child. Their chances for a ‘normal’ life are also slim as they themselves eventually become the abuser. And the cycle continues…
Foster care and prison terms are not the solution, yet so many people worry more about a ‘potential’ life than the child who has already been born and desperately needs our help. Now I’m going to ask the obvious non believer question: Why do you think God doesn’t intervene?
December 19th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Well, that question is not necessarily limited to the non-believer. It has been asked over and over since the dawn of humanity and is a pervasive theme of Scripture (with an entire book of the Bible and many other occurances). So far I have not come across an intellectually satisfactory answer. Even the biblical answer is complicated and indirect. Most of the possiblities are as problematic as the original query.
Now, if you allow me to personalize the question to my experience, I would say God does intervene on occassion, but not always and perhaps not even frequently. So for me the question is how is such inconsistency just? There are only two possiblities I can think of: 1) God allows it for some larger incomprehensible missional objective, or 2) intervention in most cases carries such a cost that God is limited from acting. But still, I cannot imagine to my own statisfaction how either of these work or why they would be so.
Ocassionally, when I am involved in such situations (which is frequent given my line of work), I come to doubt the presence of God. But then again, to do so would go against other experiences which are more central to who I am, so such doubt, though present somewhere inside me, serves an important but marginal role. And, although somewhat incoherent and intellectually unsatisfactory, the biblical answer works in some ways dealing with the problem on a pragmatic level, which is exceedingly strange to me.
Lately I have been contemplating something I heard on a podcast. Elie Wiesel [wiki], survivor of Nazi Germany and author of Night, one of the first accounts of the Holocaust, spoke on “The Tragedy of the Believer“. His answers are not easy and might not even be called answers, but they are, I think, faithful. I would reference him here, because I think he could say much more than I could on the matter with much more experience and credibility.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:22 am
beepbeep:
When I said above, “that depends on what you mean by rehabilitated”, I was attempting to say something similar to your comment. The desire, or perhaps a better word is capacity (since many such perps have a mixed desire — part of the does and doesn’t want to do it), will not go away, so the best we can hope for are agressive measures to help a person not act on their capacity.
I think the moral legislators out there (and I am not one) will bring up the slippery slope. There argument would be, if homosexuality and pedophilia are both somehow ‘natural’ desires, to allow one opens the door to eventually allowing the other. Or perhaps they will point out the the idea of consent or age of consent is the only flimsy catch between us and the abyss (say for instance if some studies were fabricated proving young children could make sexual decisions). I’m just curious how you would respond.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:52 am
I thought it interesting that Wiesel has given a quote similar to my response above:
December 20th, 2006 at 12:31 am
RE soulster:
The slippery slope argument is probably a logical fallacy. But e’en if it isn’t, that something is natural has never meant that human beings have to approve of it, condone it or find value in it.
So, even though I would consider homosexuality natural, and for that matter pedophilia as well, the fact that they are natural is no argument for assessing whether or not we approve of them.
For example, cancer is natural, in the sense that it occurs in the natural world and it is an example of our own body’s cells going rogue. The cause of the cancer may not be natural, (artificially constructed chemicals etc), but the cancer itself is.
Just because cancer, or phlegm, or smallpox, or anything else is natural, isn’t as far as I am concerned, a valid argument concerning whether or not we approve it or like it.
I just think that the “it isn’t natural argument” concerning homosexuality and/or pedophilia is a bad one. What I think needs to be discussed is the positive/negative effects of all sexual practices.
Then of course, we can also do the same with heterosexuality, monogamy, and promiscuity as well.
I think that some of the fundies would freak out, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - a lot of knowledge allows us to make informed decisions.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:08 am
beepbeep:
I agree with you on both points. I’m not a fan of “slippery slope” since conservativism only works in the presence of heavy social control. Whether something is natural or not does not mean it is necessarily good or beneficial. That question then for both of us is what is beneficial in terms of the natural spectrum of sexuality.