Their thinking became futile, part 1
This post is the first of two responses to two recent publications reflecting two diametrically opposing worldviews, yet sharing in the common perspective that they both address the issue of decreasing rates of fertility among the developed nations of the world, and that they attempt to do so without God as the centerpiece of their declared worldview. As such they each in their own way reaffirm the pathway described by the Apostle Paul when he began his analysis of the fallen condition of humankind–
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:20-22 NIV
These verses teach that when people do not fully accept God as their creator, then it will come to be said of them that “their thinking became futile.” There are significant distinctions between those who do not acknowledge God in their thinking, and we can see this in these two articles. The first one by David Barash (discussed below) goes out of its way to distance itself from the kinds of values associated with a God-oriented worldview; the second one - The Princeton Principles (to be discussed in a later post) - is intended to promote morality-based legislative action, and draws heavily on the biblical tradition, but claims to be making recommendations on the basis of “reason alone” - quite a contrast to the “sola” mottos that marked the Protestant reformation. I would argue that the “reason alone” approach also leads to contentious and even invalid conclusions. The attempt to recommend future directions based solely on past practice does not lead to compelling convictions. The human imagination has many more resourceful options to propose in the pursuit of meeting objectives we want to pursue, so what the “reason alone” advocates propose amount to “doubtful disputations.” Only when God’s will is included in our thinking will we be in a position to think in a way that offers a hope based on eternal realities.
Then again, why bother to have kids?
PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, June 4, 2006
In a recently published interview, Peter Augustine Lawler noted that the Americans who do not believe in evolution reproduce as one might expect according to Darwinian theory, but that those who accept Darwin’s theory are more and more tending to choose their own welfare rather than reproducing. As Lawler wrote elsewhere, “If Americans weren’t more religious - especially more evangelical and more Mormon - than the Europeans, our demographic facts would also be dangerously contrary to nature.” On the surface, this looks like a contradiction in the theory of evolution.
Because he has been asked about this issue so many times, Psychologist David Barash gives his answer in this article. He faces the problem head-on: “If reproduction is perhaps the fundamental imperative of natural selection, of our genetic heritage, isn’t it curious — indeed, counterintuitive — that people choose, and in such large numbers, to refrain from participating in life’s most pressing event?“
He is fairly concise in his response: “The answer… sheds light on what is perhaps the most notable hallmark of the human species: the ability to say no — not just to a bad idea… but to our own genes. When it comes to human behavior, there are actually very few genetic dictates.” He does not develop this idea very much since it is beyond the scope of a short newspaper article, but it is worth noting the implications of this argument from an evolutionary perspective. What he is saying without actually saying so is that humans have brains that allow them to override nature in a way that most animals are not able to do. An older, controversial book that tries to develop some practical implications of this theme from what might now be called a “conservative” evolutionary perspective was Joseph Chilton Pearce’s Evolution’s End: Claiming the Potential of Our Intelligence.
The next point in Barash’s response focuses on the role of the brain in reproductive choices. “For more than 99.99 percent of their evolutionary history, humans haven’t had the luxury of deciding whether to reproduce: simply engaging in sex took care of that.” Now, presumably, humans have the ability to make choices, and they can use their superior mental endowments to their fullest advantage. Most of us recognize that we also have subconscious or irrational motivations that we cannot fully account for. The assumption, again unstated, is that humans will engage in sexual behavior for pleasure regardless of the consequences. It might then follow that the consequences shape how we decide to structure our society.
Barash’s final point is that the modern change in human reproductive rates is consistent with patterns of animal behavior noted by behavioral ecologists: animals that experience a high rate of loss among their offspring “breed early and often, producing large numbers of offspring that suffer high mortality,” while those whose offspring have lower mortality rates “breed later and relatively rarely, producing fewer offspring (with lower mortality) and investing more in each.” Barash points out that pre-technological human beings were more like the high loss group and needed to breed early and often, but that now the patterns are reversed…
“with improved socioeconomic conditions — especially, better educational and vocational opportunities for women — comes the demographic transition… and infant mortality plummets along with birthrate. There also arises a tendency to take especially good care of the fewer children one produces, as well as a greater inclination to look out for No. 1, sometimes — horror of horrors! — by producing no children at all.”
The logic of this argument creates a conundrum. On the one hand, humans have superior brains that should enable them to make better decisions than their genes would dictate, yet they are actually just behaving like animals who do not have such brains. Although, perhaps when they are not reproducing at all, that suggests they are using their brains to conclude that it is better not to reproduce in this world. If so, David Barash has only answered the question of HOW people could choose not to reproduce, but not WHY they would choose not to do so, despite the analogy he draws with animal behavior. The behavior of so many humans who are not reproducing is not consistent with the trends noted by behavioral ecologists, because there is a big difference between individuals producing reduced rates of offspring and producing no offspring at all.
The only reason Barash suggests for why so many humans are now choosing not to reproduce is “a greater inclination to look out for No. 1.” We should not accuse Barash of being reductionistic since this is only a brief newspaper article; but it is significant that he chose this particular attribute to characterize an entire population. And it is furthermore particularly noteworthy that he goes out of his way to make clear that he does not disapprove of this value orientation. The fact that value judgments and morality seem to play such a significant role in this social trend cannot be denied even from an evolutionary perspective; and Barash does not want to be mistaken as a Puritan since the conflict with traditional values implicit in his analysis is obvious.
Peter Augustine Lawler thinks he can explain WHY so many people are “looking out for No. 1″ as their top priority in life–
Conservative Postmodernism, Postmodern Conservatism
THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Fall 2002
In this article, Lawler argues that social contract theory accounts for the phenomenon of individualism in American society. He argues that the Enlightenment heritage of individualism has led to a social environment where virtually every social interaction tends to be viewed as a transaction to be negotiated more or less like a contract at the discretion of the individual. He explains…
In Locke’s famous alternative to the Biblical creation story, human beings must be imagined to exist in a state of nature to reveal what they would be like without the human construction of government. There they are free and equal individuals. They have no natural inclination to be citizens or even social beings, and they think for themselves alone. The foundation of government must therefore be consent: I must see how government serves my self-interest as an individual, how government makes me more secure and comfortable than I am without it. …In consenting to be ruled, the individual never surrenders his self-conscious judgment about the ability of government to protect his rights.
The problem with this scenario is that the concept of the individual created by this conception is an “invented” abstraction, not in conformity with reality. As Lawler explains, “Self-consciousness is necessarily consciousness with others; it depends upon a language that could only develop among social or even political animals.” Individuals cannot develop and cannot exist to any significant extent apart from membership in groups, so there is no possible scenario (past, present, or future) where completely autonomous individuals as envisioned by Locke can exist.
The actual development of individualism obviously has a much more complex history, but Lawler emphasizes that the key characteristic of our individualism is that we have come to think of ourselves as autonomous human beings, that what once was only viewed as the basis for our relationship to civil government is now the basis for our relationships with everybody and every option we face. This analysis is consistent with David Barash’s offhand evaluation of contemporary trends, when he says large numbers of people are beginning to “look out for No. 1.” Lawler puts it this way:
Americans come to understand themselves more consistently as individuals, attempting to apply the ideas of contract and consent to every part of their lives. Marriage, for example, comes to be understood less as a sacrament and more as a contract between two individuals, to be dissolved at will. Sex is dissociated from the hard responsibilities connected with procreation given us by God and nature. Sex becomes “safe sex,” a contract between “consenting adults” who never lose their minds in passionate enjoyment or in love. From an individual point of view, sex cannot be safe - or no real limit on our freedom - if we ever stop calculating about it. Social arrangements reflecting real or imagined differences between men and women are more consistently and insistently regarded as oppressive.
Lawler argues this pattern of individualism displays a self-regarding kind of self-consciousness in the quest for happiness that is ultimately doomed because it is not in conformity with the reality of human nature, including the spiritual longings we all possess. It in effect consists of creating the abstract construction called the “individual” and then making that individual the highest of all values, above all other natural social bonds. The result, he believes, is “that Americans are more lonely and death-obsessed that ever before.” As individuals calculate decisions based primarily on personal profit rather than social bonds and commitments, they also tend to deprive themselves of the benefits that can derive from sustained relationships. As many of us have experienced - if you don’t move, your neighbors will.
A recent study of social isolation seems compatible with Lawler’s theory, in part, but nuclear family ties still appear to be strong at present. However, a one-dimensional social-contract approach to individual decision-making contains the seeds of social disintegration, and one has to wonder where things are heading as families continue to fracture and to develop in complex patterns due to multiple remarriages and due to flexible cohabiting relationships, which can be expected to loosen the strength of their emotional bonds.
The Apostle Paul’s generic explanation for human woes is that when people turn away from God, their thinking becomes futile; they think themselves wise, but they become fools. Paul emphasizes the need for both individualism and community; but in harmony with the Old Testament tradition, he places the priority for change on each individual’s need to let God be God in their life: to seek what God desires as the pathway to fulfilling both individual and communal needs. This is ultimately the problem with naturalistic theories of evolution such as presented by David Barash - they leave God out of the picture.
THE NATURE OF NATURE
Despite Lawler’s insightful critique of individualism, he appears to ground his perspective on an absolutist perspective on nature and human nature, and assumes they represent objective entities that either cannot or should not be significantly altered, as seen in the following statements: “The reason we can see beyond the modern world is that its intention to transform human nature has failed.” - “The driving intention of modern thought is not to understand nature or human nature, but to guide action to transform nature freely in accordance with human desire.” - “We employ our freedom not to live according to nature, but to escape from our natural constraints, to conquer nature.” - “He is free because he can oppose himself to nature.”
I would suggest that viewing nature as a fixed reality is at the heart of some significant theological conflicts today, and in particular the debate over homosexuality in the Christian community, since it can lead to different conclusions than if one understands that nature is always changing. Traditionally, natural theology viewed nature as a source of an objective body of truth, so that both Enlightenment and Reformation pioneers in the Christian tradition referred to nature and the Bible as the two books of God’s truth. Depending on how you define it, I do not believe that viewing nature in this way is very helpful in the modern world, nor that it is consistent with the biblical record, particularly as recorded in Genesis. There God began a process of creation making use of chaos, continued by differentiating it into an ordered but not completely developed earthly environment, and then assigned the management of the environment to human beings, who were expected to exercise their dominion under the guidance of God. Creation was just the beginning.
It is in that context that we must understand Paul’s interpretation of the entire scope of world history in Romans 1:18 - 2:11, which might well be understood as what we would today call a philosophy of history, a comprehensive statement of what life in this world is all about. The key turning point at the beginning of this passage is not idolatry (as so many seem to be emphasizing in the current debate) but is where Genesis puts it, when people wanted to be wise like God but became fools. The end of this section summarizes the general principles of God’s judgment. In the language of Genesis: humans took from the tree of knowledge without consulting God; they will find the tree of life if they want it; and they must have both trees together if they want to fulfill their God-intended destiny.
So we ask, can nature change? And in particular, can human nature change? Much depends on your definitions. The pre-modern western tradition developed the objective view of nature on which the traditional view of natural theology was based, and which merges nicely into the empirical mindset that reduces nature to measurable quantities, or in the case of “human nature” that debates whether it exists; but thereby creates conflicts between traditional values and modern science when the older objectivist perspective is retained. I would suggest that you could just as easily read all the sins of Romans 1 as a way of saying that human nature has changed. Although Lawler recognized that “the driving intention of modern thought is not to understand nature or human nature, but to guide action to transform nature freely in accordance with human desire,” he failed to notice that the very concept of “human nature” is also an abstract construction of the human mind. That means this term needs to be used carefully.
For example, in relation to the homosexual issue, Robert Gagnon makes a good case that the argument of Romans 1:26-27 is that “simply put, male-female intercourse is natural; same sex intercourse is unnatural.” But the definition of “natural” Paul is using is consensus regarding normal practices. Gagnon overreaches, however, by claiming Paul’s definition centers on “the clear, often visible, structures of material creation.” Actually all Paul claims is clear is the knowledge of God, not the knowledge of morality. He specifically says that when pagans “do by nature things required by the law,” that is when “they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.” Paul is there talking about conscience and not about the nature of nature itself. I think Paul focused on idolatry and homosexuality because they were two prominent nonchristian cultural hallmarks surrounding his readers that provided a perfect “God and sex” focus by analogy on Genesis 1:27 and the subsequent story of fallen humanity as the history of thinking apart from God. The renewal of the mind devoted to God is a theme one can trace through the entire book of Romans. Paul is arguing that homosexuality and other sins resulted from thinking that did not give place to God; he is not appealing to the logical requirements of the physical body. An objective look at the body might say it was designed for genital interaction; but we can think of dozens of other ways to use the body sexually besides genital intercourse. Paul’s point is that only those ways that are aligned with God’s purposes are morally acceptable and beneficial for humans. You cannot derive God’s will from the things that are created – that we need God in order to achieve a beneficial standard of morality seems to be Paul’s point.
Rather than conceiving of nature as a monolithic structure with implicit moral content, I think it is better to understand nature and human nature in relational and therefore by implication developmental terms. I think this is the overall import of the list of sins Paul describes in Romans 1 - the separation from God resulted in distorted relationships of all types. Jesus got to the heart of the matter when he defined eternal life relationally as knowing God, rather than temporally as living forever. When Paul says we were “dead” in our sins before conversion, but that God has now “made us alive,” this seems to have implications for how we understand our “nature.” Peter says believers now “participate in the divine nature,” so that must have some bearing on how we understand our human nature. Is not our “nature” essentially our set of “capacities,” and cannot those capacities change?
We do not need to reach precise definitions, however, to realize that social contract individualism as defined by Lawler might well be an outward manifestation of how our culture tends to conceive of the natural world more as a consumable commodity than as an ongoing process of complex interrelated phenomenon. Non-creedal movements such as transpersonal psychology may be seen as attempts to resist the cultural tendency we have inherited, but they also illustrate that nature alone does not offer definitive guidance. The appeal of narrative to create a sense of meaning rather than the older attempt to learn from the “facts” of history may also reflect a rejection of objectivism as well as represent the human yearning for spiritual roots. These modern trends point to the importance of emphasizing anew our need to align ourselves with God’s purposes in our pursuit of spiritual fulfillment, or as Paul puts it, as we “seek glory, honor and immortality.”
We are all born “dead in sin,” but Jesus “gives light to every person,” which makes his claim to offer “life” to all legitimate. In the end, to be told “I never knew you“ amounts to a death sentence, but simply leaves the person in the state they are already in, separated from God. Perhaps viewing that offer of life - the allure of a relationship with God - as the source of human spiritual motivation, and not some inner identity of our own, would help us rethink our understanding of human nature as relational rather than as constitutional. Spirituality is more about what we are missing than what we already have. It’s not a “God-shaped vacuum” - it’s the vacuum created by our separation from God.
Natural law theorists sometimes emphasize that by natural law they are only referring to the moral content known to humans apart from God’s revelation. Carl Henry summarized natural law theory by saying that, “What it affirms is that all human beings share a set of ethical norms and imperatives that they commonly perceive without dependence on supernatural disclosure and illumination.” But Henry further clarifies: “Any case for natural law must therefore be made on natural foundations and independently of supernatural considerations.” As we have discussed above, this does not appear to be what Paul is teaching in Romans 1 and 2. We may as well just call “natural law” a theory of conscience, which according to Henry is how Calvin viewed it, meaning for Calvin that “a theory of isolated moral principles inherent in man and discoverable by reason has no legitimacy.” Understanding human nature in relational terms seems to provide a better way to harmonize our understanding of reality with the biblical text.
It looks like nature has changed a great deal since the beginning. Order and chaos are essential intertwining themes from the beginning. The more you study science, the more you see that many of the changes that occurred were the result of physical changes, however minute. Weeds (thorns and thistles) were one of the first announced consequences of human sin, and they can be understood as the result of not knowing how to prevent this misplaced matter, the growth of what one did not intend. Are weeds part of nature? Is cancer part of nature? Are genetic mutations part of nature? These are not mere philosophical questions - they are questions of fact - and they have implications for how we understand nature.
The biblical picture is that human beings took on the project of managing nature on their own, apart from God. Without going into a great deal of detail at this point, I would suggest that the essential fact is that the management and development of nature is an ongoing project that can only be properly administered with guidance from God - we need to know what God has taught us and what God expects. What we now see in nature is not the way it was supposed to be. The biblical perspective views the physical realm and the moral realm as interconnected. That seems to be Paul’s point in Romans 8:19-22. We have to look to God to know what God intends us to do. We should expect that nature has changed and we should not blame God for those changes. Likewise we need to adjust to any changes as realistically as we can, and seek to conform to God’s will as best we can.
So for example, in relation to homosexuality, we should not be surprised if a genetic predisposition were to become known, since nature is not the way God originally designed it. There seem to be genetic predispositions for all kinds of other psychosocial conditions. But on the other hand, as David Barash points out, genetics actually determines very little in terms of human behavior. The very concept of “sexual orientation” is not an empirical reality, but a constructed abstraction used to explain a pattern of behavior, and may actually create misleading conclusions if it is assumed to be a cause. However, given these qualifications, if we think of sexual orientation as erotic attraction, then it really only makes sense that any valid theory explaining sexual orientation should explain how all varieties of orientation arise. It should not be assumed one orientation is automatic and only variants need to be explained. We would need to understand why any bias for erotic attraction arises before we can really understand and cope with the realities of why one and not another one arises.
When we look at Jesus’ interpretation of scripture, I think he presents only two basic orientations for humans to pursue in their sexual behavior. But these orientations are based on God’s purposes, not simply on nature or natural law theology. First came nature with the creation of sexuality; then came the clarification of God’s purposes with the development of the institution of marriage, and eventually the endorsement of the option of celibacy. It would take quite a history to detail the stages it took to reach what we now consider what I am calling the scriptural orientation towards marriage as we understand it. In the Old Testament we see evidence of a number of different marriage patterns, including polygamy and concubinage, with extramarital sex and divorce freely available for males at different stages. None of this is what Jesus means when he describes marriage as a lifelong commitment of partners who are faithful to each other. It took a long time to develop the orientation to marriage as Jesus described it and that we consider a “given” today. And it might be argued that the celibacy orientation as Jesus defined it began with him.
It never ceases to encourage me that even after all David’s failures and shortcomings, the Apostle Paul still confirmed God’s initial evaluation by summarizing it — “I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do” — and then evaluated his life by saying, “when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep.” Besides his well-known acts of murder and adultery, David also had many wives, in disobedience to the Mosaic law. His behavior apparently had negative influences on his family, so it was not insignificant; but David’s life nevertheless suggests staggering implications for understanding the mind of God, who gave this insight to Samuel when Samuel was in the process of selecting David to be king: “The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” According to the biblical record, David was a person whose heart was oriented toward God, even if his behavior did not always follow through consistently. When we orient ourselves to God and his purposes, we are orienting our hearts and minds; but we may look like miserable failures depending on how one describes our outward appearance. God remembers we are dust.
In continuity with the entire biblical tradition, Jesus teaches us that we will get what we want, though in the end it may turn out we have chosen foolishly. We build our lives on either the “sand” of our own ideas or the “rock” of God’s word; we can seek affirmation in people now or ultimately in God; we can seek wealth and security now, or we can put God first in our lives; we can seek to justify our behavior by the limited measures of law or we can focus instead on God and others and seek to love as God loves. “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you.” With these words Jesus summarizes what might be called his existential morality, because they bring individuals into a direct sense of responsibility to God for their moral behavior, and that morality might be best captured with the word “orientation” in reference to the heart and mind.
So these inner orientations for marriage and celibacy, as I am calling them, are not really a matter of natural law; they are strictly a matter of God’s will to accomplish God’s purposes in human life, although they may build on natural tendencies. Our orientations, almost by definition, are the ways we focus our minds, and our social influences can be very influential in shaping our mindset in this regard. The mind is an information network that interacts with the environment and can’t help but absorb and integrate the influences that surround it. We must accept that many people may grow into accepting sexual identities based on beliefs absorbed in their social environment. Only a strong-minded person made aware of the realistic choices actually available to them and with sufficient socially supportive relationships is equipped to resist the general flow of larger cultural influences. An example of such resistance in relation to the genetic predisposition for schizophrenia is Spencer Perdriau’s personal account in “Genetics is not our essential nature.”
Humans began with the knowledge of God; and although they initially rejected it, they still have the freedom to seek God. In continuity with Jesus, the very essence of Paul’s spirituality is to pursue the purposes of God as revealed by God’s will. These are not laws, as if we are conforming to do’s and don’ts, but “directions” or “goals” towards which we orient our lives, and are primarily relational in service to God and others. This process is perhaps summarized most completely in Romans 8, and is concisely stated in the fifth verse -
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. Romans 8:5 NIV
The fact that nature is not entirely a source of fixed facts and purely objective knowledge is what makes taking account of God’s purposes so important to the human enterprise. If you leave out God’s purposes, you cannot by reason alone always limit the creative options available for dealing with the challenges nature presents to us, or allows us to choose. This I believe is the fatal flaw with The Princeton Principles and its recommendations, which I hope to discuss next time.
