Quick note: I am reposting this article with a narration option. There was no way to retro-add audio to the article. Going forward, each post will have narration so that my readers can become listeners.
The Problem
We had just finished reading through “The Lord of the Flies” by William Golding, and there was a lively debate amongst my sophomore class about human nature. The conversation boiled down to two diametrically opposed perspectives. Some of us thought the story was unconvincing due to a belief that humans are fundamentally good, and, given the chance, would organize themselves as philanthropically as possible. Others of us thought the story was convincing, seeing in the disintegration of the group a genuine observation about human nature. As I think back on that discussion, I wonder how many of us would still think that humans are fundamentally good. What about racism and sexism and elitism and all the other ways humans sort themselves into categories of us and them? Surely such divisive tendencies are good evidence that something is wrong?
But, is there something wrong with humanity? If so, what exactly would that be? Are humans fundamentally good, and are the evils that riddle our past and present merely the result of miscommunication? Is religion the source of evil amongst men? If we all embraced a strictly material view of ourselves and the world, would that wipe away humanity’s propensity toward destruction? Does evolution explain our moral failings? Where and how did morality emerge? Are humans the only creatures with moral culpability? Is there anything except the will to power? Do we need to move beyond the concept of good and evil to free ourselves from the guilt of crushing others around us?
What, exactly, is the problem? Any attempt to answer this implicates myself. I cannot sit from my green leather armchair and pronounce diagnostics and prescriptions for humanity without subjugating myself to the same treatment. As I think about this, I wonder if the generous impulse to view humanity as fundamentally good stems from a reluctance to view one’s self as fundamentally flawed. If I admit that humanity is fundamentally flawed, and I’m human, then I must be flawed too! I presume that it is a rare person who claims to be without flaws, and yet I doubt that many have the wherewithal to freely and humbly acknowledge their faults. If I could convince myself that people are fundamentally good, perhaps, just maybe, I’m fundamentally good too.
Perhaps I am fundamentally good, but the broader human population is flawed? Except for that rare and special person, I doubt that many people would genuinely claim this. But, in a slight variation, I can imagine that many people do claim that their religion, non-religion, race, culture, philosophy, gender, etc. is fundamentally good, and that therefore the problem with humanity is that everyone isn’t like them. A moment’s reflection will show us that this merely highlights a key feature of the dilemma. Sectarianism and tribalism further divide humanity, enabling and justifying violence against one another.
The Process
I recently took the the Big 5 personality test, which is the most widely taken and cross-culturally consistent personality indicator. Along with my wife and friends, we all discussed the fascinating ways in which the five core traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism manifest themselves in each of our lives. (If you’re interested in taking the test, you can do so here). One of the things I appreciate about this test is that it doesn’t affix a moral quality to its results. Rather, the dimensions of your personality are represented as expressions of various core traits that are measurable across all people. The test doesn’t tell you whether you’re a good person or a bad person. It doesn’t tell you if you have healthy habits or unhealthy habits. One of the attractions of personality tests, in general, is that they hold the potential to reveal us to ourselves in a way that is free of condemnation.
Subsequent thinking on the topic stirred up new questions. Is the moral quality of a person related to their personality? If any given psychological test is accurate and reliable, what does it say about morality? Does psychoanalysis, at bottom, explain human nature and its flaws?
You may be wondering if I will be answering any of these questions, and I find myself wondering the same thing! I don’t think I have the space to address these types of questions individually, but they do reveal a trail of thought that begins to lead off in a certain direction. A curious implication follows from observing that humanity is flawed. The inverse claim is that there is something humanity ought to be. In other words, if humanity is flawed, it is flawed compared to something in our minds that isn’t flawed.
It seems then, that there are different ways of thinking about what the human being is, and that these different ways are implicated in the solutions that different perspectives propose. A psychologist focuses on the conscious and subconscious operations of an individual, the memories that drive them, and believes that each individual can find a relative path to freedom in sufficiently understanding the preconceptual conditions of their own behavior. If you just had enough information about yourself, you could save yourself from manifesting your worst tendencies. The human personality is vastly complex, and the majority of “you” subsists in a subconscious shadow land. To the degree that you are unaware of this hidden self, to such a degree will you be controlled by the components therein. This seems to be one theory of human nature, and it is obviously helpful. But, does it address the universal flawedness of humanity? Is the problem with humanity, at foundation, that a sufficient number of people aren’t sufficiently self-aware?
Evolution, generally, poses another hypothesis of human nature. The new “evolutionary” psychologist sees that people are driven by survival behavior traits that have more or less adaptive effectiveness in any given situation. Tribalism is explained as the need to keep a small band of families alive amidst an overwhelmingly hostile natural world. Our evolution and our history depended on individuals who had the ferocity, aggressiveness, and wits to defeat opposing tribes of other hominids. But, how does it follow that we see unity, diversity, peace, acceptance, and equality as being the superior moral traits today? Could these virtues have evolved? Did they emerge, then, as merely helpful cooperative incentives? If they emerged, are they true? If they’re not true, should we abandon them? If they are true, does that imply that morality is a fundamental dimension of the universe, one that has been guiding the operation of evolution? But, what makes us morally responsible as opposed to, lets say, aardvarks? What about mice? Do we hold mice responsible, morally, for the judgements that make in their day to day activities? What about tigers, who have considerably more power and bloodlust than mice? Are tigers morally culpable for their drive to hunt and kill other animals? If tigers aren’t responsible, when did humans become responsible? When, exactly, did humans become moral?
What does the tradition of Christianity claim the flaw is? As various moral philosophers have pointed out, morality seems ineffable, a feature of our existence that remains distinct from natural/material traits. Where some have tried to construct a basis for morality through purely natural and material processes, I find the attempts unsatisfying (perhaps I can go into more detail in a future post). But, even if the reductive process of evolution did give rise to humanity and its moral qualities, I believe the traditional story of Adam and Eve provides an interesting hypothesis of human nature. There are several key features of the metaphoric story that carry deep implicit claims about what it means to be human.
First, there is the symbolic imagery of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. Before being made aware of this tree, Adam and Eve were truly blind to any distinction between good and evil, just as mice or tigers might be. Second, God makes these proto-humans aware of the possibility of good and evil by the fact that he commands them not to eat of the fruit of this tree. Third, they are tempted to eat from the tree through deception. Fourth, having chosen to eat from the tree, their eyes are opened, and they become self-conscious, aware of having chosen evil. Fifth, they actively hide from God and try to avoid blame, symbolically clothing themselves.
This story, called “The Fall”, presents a hypothesis of human nature, immediately identifying what the flaw of humanity might be. Both the source of morality and the persistent risk of choosing poorly are implicated in the arrival of self-awareness. However, it isn’t merely being aware of the choice between good and evil that explains the flaw of humanity. That merely points to the discovery of free will and self-awareness. The flaw isn’t even, specifically, that we as humans can be deceived about which choice is good and which choice is evil. It is easy to imagine many scenarios where people can be tricked into making bad decisions, but it is problematic to claim that someone tricked into a bad decision is as responsible as someone who knowingly made the same decision. Rather, the flaw is that we hide from and blame others for our own choices. Hiding is the attempt to distance oneself from the other, including God, and blaming is the attempt to distance the other, including God, from oneself. The flaw is separation, both from each other, and from God, that Being who is the total embodiment of all that is good, true, and perfect.
The Discovery
A few weeks ago I asked myself “Is there something magical about salvation through faith in Jesus? Have Christians resolved their core flaw in a way that non-Christians could never hope to do so? Is every attempt to help non-Christians improve their lives considered a waste if they don’t find salvation in Jesus?” These are questions that arise in response to a certain understanding of the story of human nature. I am reacting to a dilemma posed by the evangelical Christian understanding of human fallenness and salvation. If some people are sorted into heaven because they have faith in Jesus, and others are sorted into hell because they do not, does it make sense to help people who will be going to hell? The same question applies to the evangelical understanding of the world at large. It is destined to be destroyed by literal fire because humanity is simply too evil and it needs to be condemned in the most extreme manner possible. Does it make sense, ultimately, to work whole-heartedly to improve the earth and the people on it if it is all going to hell anyway? Don’t polish the brass on the titanic, folks.
I hope I’m hitting a nerve here. Non-Christians might be appalled that such questions need to be asked, and Christians might wonder how to answer these questions, given a certain understanding of the whole story of salvation.
I realize that I’m biting off quite a mouthful with this post, but I can’t stop chewing now! All these questions I’ve been asking myself, and penning into this article, are ways of reducing the conceptual space around the topic of “fallen humanity”. As always, I’m looking at different perspectives and weighing them against my own, wondering if everything I’ve implicitly believed about humanity is accurate. It is bit of a balance act, building these bridges! I hope that you can stand with me on the suspension bridge, to float for a moment, to see both sides at the same time.
Let’s return to the theory of separation as the core flaw of humanity (that feature which causes us both to hide and shift blame), and ask a new question. Is God (the summa omnia of goodness, truth, and beauty) separated from us? If you’re familiar with the core narrative of Christianity, that God became human and died in our place, then you will have to answer “no”! Immanuel means “God with us”, and herein is the whole power of the story of Jesus. God is with us! He is not separated from us.
A moment’s reflection will confirm that, given it’s own premises, this must be the case. If our separation, shame, and blaming of others is identified as the core flaw with humanity, accounting for the vast sweep of human tragedy, how could it be the case that God separates himself from us? How could God be ashamed? How could God blame others? I can hear some of you thinking “God is right to blame us! He can’t take responsibility for our choices!” Such thinking places us in company with Adam and Eve, who hid themselves from God, clothing themselves because of the fear of being exposed. Such thinking, in fact, is the summation of what is wrong with humanity. We fear being exposed to one another, and God, because we believe we are evil and deserve to be separated.
What if the belief that we are separated from God is rooted in a lie? What if that lie has been the animating spirit throughout human history? What if peace on earth is found through breaking down the walls of separation? What if we stopped hiding from one another? What if we stopped blaming one another? What if we knew the truth and the truth set us free?
Are We Ok? - Audio version