|
|
|
Psychology of an Evolutionist Beliefs have consequences. The Roman Empire stood strong for hundreds of years because of the tenet that governments in which the people rule are the best. The United States gained its independence because of the belief that mankind is entitled to “certain inalienable rights” and that when those rights are violated, freedom should be sought. Many have died because they held true to the concepts of their belief system. While the ideas of the multitude play major roles in shaping the life of an individual psychologically, the personal beliefs he holds also affect him in a profound way. Let us look at the causes and effects of one of the ideas that many individuals hold: Darwinian evolution. Specifically, what is the psychology of a belief in the theory of evolution, and the subsequent belief of atheism that many evolutionists accept? The focus of this paper will not address evidence for or against evolution; rather, it will be assumed that the reader believes the theory is false. In an attempt to answer the question stated above, this paper will analyze the primary belief of the evolutionist: that God is either impersonal and basically dormant (but slightly active), or that He is nonexistent. This main belief (or cause) affects the way the individual views God, of course, but also affects his view of the meaning or purpose of life, and his attitude toward himself and other people. Before getting into the discussion, a few terms need to be defined. In the course of this paper, ‘evolution' refers to Darwinian evolution, the belief that everything in the universe, including life, evolved via natural selection (only those organisms that are equipped to survive will do so) and random mutations (incidental changes from one generation to the next) over a period of billions of years. Evolutionists can be categorized into two groups: theistic and atheistic. Theistic evolutionists “believe that the Bible only tells us that God created the world but does not tell us how” (Elwell 389). Atheists, of course, believe that God does not exist and evolution took place entirely on its own. The first topic to address is how the evolutionists view God. The answer to this question has an enormous impact on the response to the meaning of life and how humans are viewed. For theistic evolutionists, how much impact does God have in the universe and is He good or evil? For the atheists, who already reject the existence of God, how was this conclusion reached? We will begin with the theistic evolutionist's view. The positions expressed below came from both personal survey and written material. While some responses were quite different, there were a few ‘connecting threads,' as will be seen. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and a theistic evolutionist, responded to my question about his view of God by sending me an excerpt from his book, Finding Darwin's God. In it he states that God is understanding of us, that He cannot be fully comprehended, and that we are indeed made in His image. However, he believes that it is possible that God has only revealed Himself to us “because we were the first of these experiments to be ready; or because we were merely the latest of his many encounters with creation” (Miller email). One person's response, whose name was not given because I contacted him via an internet forum, thinks that humans are part of God, whom he calls Omniscience, and believes that the only division between the Creator and the creation is differing states of consciousness, or the “perception on our part” (ARN Forum). Another person on the same forum suggested that we, as humans, are in no position to determine how personal or distant He is. How do these ideas about God develop? Why are there theistic evolutionists? The answer is: cognitive dissonance. In an attempt to create an equilibrium, theistic evolutionists try to reconcile two beliefs. The first is that we live in a complex, orderly universe that shows signs of the existence of a higher intelligence. The second is the belief that scientific evidence favors Darwinian evolution rather than a rapid, six-day creation. Therefore, for the theistic evolutionist, the most acceptable response is that “God purposely created life through Darwinian means” and allows it to run on freely, taking its own turns for better or for worse (Dembski 110). Now, since atheists deny the existence of God, let us ask instead, how do they come to such a position? First we will examine their thoughts on why they believe there is no God. The leading reason for the belief that there is no God is the opinion that He is unneeded. One lady responded to my query in the Yahoo! message board for discussing atheism by stating, “I don't need a *God* to be strong....” (Yahoo). Another person said that “nonbelievers have...ethical standards that are quite capable of standing without the need for a supernatural, biblical, punishing father god” (Yahoo). Bertrand Russell, in his well-known lecture, Why I am Not a Christian, gives many reasons for not believing in a God. His response was a refutation of the First Cause argument, which states that everything has a cause and that when you go back far enough, you will find the First Cause, God. Russell says,
Then he concludes, “The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men” (8). What is the psychological cause that leads people to reject God? Paul C. Vitz, professor of psychology at New York University says in his paper, The Psychology of Atheism, that the rejection of God is the result of the Oedipus Complex (Vitz 6). According to Sigmund Freud, at around the age period of three to six years a small boy develops an intense desire for his mother and wishes to replace his father. This wish causes a desire to remove his father from the position he holds. Vitz says, “This hatred [for the father] is based on the boy's knowledge that the father, with his greater size and strength, stands in the way of his desire” (Vitz 6). In other words, rejection of God is Oedipal wish fulfillment. Atheists desire to be God so they mentally remove Him from their thinking. If they convince themselves long enough that God does not exist, they will believe it. Another possible reason for denying the existence of God is the impression the atheist's parents, particularly the father, had on his or her life. This is true of Sigmund Freud's own life. Freud's father, Jacob, was unable to provide for his family and Sigmund viewed his father as a weak man (Vitz 8). In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud wrote,
The way in which Freud's father behaved was, to him, weak and dishonorable. Because God is a father figure to man, what one thinks of his father is often how he will view God (Benner 997). Thus, because of Jacob Freud, Sigmund Freud's god was weak and undependable, so he rejected him. Another staunch atheist was Karl Marx. The relationship he had with his father points to the same conclusion. Vitz states that he had no respect for his father partially because he broke the family tradition of being a rabbi and converted to Christianity to make life easier (Vitz 8). Marx's rejection of God also led the Communist party down the wrong path because at its roots, “Communism is...atheism” (Breese 67). So, considering both the theistic and atheistic evolutionists' view of God, what are the consequences of rejecting Him or, at least, rejecting His activity in the world? One could then choose to believe that there are no absolutes, no rules that must be obeyed, and have no fear or hope of a life to come. An evolutionist's view of God influences greatly how he determines the meaning of life, or if life has any meaning at all. The responses presented by evolutionists to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” are vastly different in some respects. Many theistic evolutionists, who accept the truth of the Bible, view the meaning of life much the same as young earth creationist Christians: that we exist to glorify God. Atheists, on the other hand, see the purpose or lack thereof in another way. I conducted a short survey of a few atheists in order to get their opinions on the meaning of life. The responses ranged from belief that life has a high degree of meaning and purpose to the belief that life has no purpose at all. The first person I surveyed was Dr. Edward Hagen, formerly of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, and now at the Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humbolt University, Berlin. His response to my question was, “I view my life, in part, as a search for [the] answer. Don't know if I'll ever find it, though!” (Hagen email). Hagen's answer was bleak. The next response was even more so. Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and other books on evolution, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is also one of the leading and most ardent atheistic evolutionists of our day. Via email he responded to my questions by directing me to one of his books, Unweaving the Rainbow. In this text he explains how he believes humans can continue to live with hope while knowing that “there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos...” (Dawkins, ix). He went on to say that he believes that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious, ad hoc magic (Dawkins xi). Dawkins differed from Hagen in that he sees no purpose or meaning in life and so thinks it is foolish to seek one. Other than that, these men see evolution in much the same way. Dr. Jay L. Wile, developer of high school science curriculum for homeschoolers, was at one time an atheist. He wrote to me saying, “I thought that the meaning of life was found in loving and caring for others. I thought that human beings were unique in our ability to have a morality, and that the construction of such a morality was what gave life meaning” (Wile email). I also posed the question on an atheist message board on the internet. One man responded, “First of all, in the grand scale of the universe, our purpose and meaning are absolutely nil. There is no higher meaning or purpose to the human race” (Yahoo). He later stated that our meaning can be whatever we want it to be and that we should pursue joy and happiness. This was the view of quite a few of the respondents. Another said “the purpose of life is to contribute to the attainment of enduring life, meaning permanent life, the conquest of death” (Yahoo). Yet another man, Dan Baxlide, stated, “I personally suspect that the simple apparent fact of our existence implies some sort of purpose, but of course I wouldn't attempt to define it” (Yahoo). Putting all the responses together, it becomes clear that some believe there is a purpose or meaning to life and can define it, some say there is but will not specify what it is, and some think there is none. The psychological result of living in a Godless universe is that people view their purpose as whatever they wish it to be. Adrian Barnett, operator of an atheistic website, speaks the opinions of many atheists when he says, “There is no meaning to life itself. There is no purpose to the universe. You can, however, give life meaning through your actions. Make the world a better place for yourself, your contemporaries and your descendants” (Barnett 2). As an evolutionist's view of God directly affects the way he views the meaning of life, so his attitude toward the meaning of life directly influences the way he measures his self-worth and deals with himself and other humans. Theistic evolutionists combine attributes of who we are as the work of God and of natural processes. Dr. Miller, who was mentioned earlier, gave the view of many who hold this view of human evolution. “[H]umans are animals....I, like thousands of scientists, am a believer and a Christian, who believes that we humans are, like the rest of the evolving, living world, the creations of God” (Miller email). The atheistic view simply considers us the result of accidental processes. Thus, they turn to other sources to define the worth of mankind. Jay Wile, as a former atheist, said in regard to how he viewed himself and dealt with his belief, “Since I thought that the meaning of my life was wrapped in others, I spent most of my efforts helping people and developing lots of friendships. I defined my self-worth based on how much I could do for others and whether or not their lives were better for having known me” (Wile email). In other words, he measured his worth by the friendships he made and dealt with others in a friendly way because he believed that we are all there is. Adrian Barnett, who wrote an article entitled, The Meaning of Life, also says in it, “As an atheist, I consider all life to be sacred. A life and a mind are a terrible thing to waste. Make the most of them while you can, and help others to do the same” (Barnett 2). However he asked earlier, in light of his view that there is no purpose to life, “What right do we have to consider ourselves special?” (1). To restate his position, man is ultimately worthless, but we can (and should) treat lives as important. Why are they important? Because, he said, atheists know that there are no second chances, this is it. “You only get one go, and to mess it up or waste it is the most terrible thing” (1). Dr. Edward Hagen writes that the cognitive structure, as well as the body itself “has been designed by natural selection to serve survival and reproduction” (Hagen 1). Therefore, because life exists to survive and reproduce, it can be viewed as a completely material entity, as he explains in his Evolutionary Psychology FAQ. In summary, the psychological effect of being an evolutionist in the realm of how life is viewed is this: Life is viewed as an entirely physical entity which has no real meaning; however, we should view life as important because it is an excellent accident. To continue, since there is no ultimate purpose for which to strive, one's own life can legitimately be the most important one. With one's life as the priority of his being, most anything that gets in the way of his safety or happiness can be done away with. Therefore, many atheists, although they would not put it in these terms, would see no problem in exterminating life if one is attempting to prolong his own life and happiness. This is why abortion, among other evils, is not viewed as wrong. Another assistant in this way of thinking is our emotion-saturated culture. Atheists may ask, “What is wrong (or not socially acceptable) with ending something that hasn't show a personality or displayed feeling (emotions)? Surely it isn't a person yet if it hasn't done that.” Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization, writes,
Such a discussion cannot end without first addressing why people who believe in no absolutes still obey authority. If there is no God to judge their behavior, why follow any set of laws? Hagen gives the sad but true reason for atheistic evolutionists. “Laws are designed to prevent people from doing things which they may construe as being in their best interest but which would impose costs on everyone else: theft, assault, neglect of important but onerous responsibilities, etc.” (Hagen 1). Humans (adults and children) obey authority because of one or more of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. First, they may desire to avoid being caught in wrongdoing and the subsequent punishment. This is indeed the most common motivation and extends from childhood through adulthood. Second, they may feel that they should do good to an authority that does good to them. Third, it is mankind's desire to be accepted by society, which will not happen if the people a person wishes to please are obeying laws and the person desiring to please them does not. Fourth, they may do what is considered ‘right' in their society out of a sense of duty. Finally, it could be argued that some evolutionists obey authority because of the last stage, higher law. People who make moral decisions on this level do so out of their convictions due to their personal beliefs. Rejecting God, or His active presence in the world is no reason to be restricted to the first four stages because, in reality, atheism is a religion in itself. Adrian Barnett expressed above that he is altruistic because we only get one chance to live and should make it the best experience for everyone. This is very similar to Jay Wile's conviction while he was an atheist. If such men really wanted to make life the best it could be for as many people as possible, it follows that they would also avoid conflict by obeying authority. In conclusion, let us take one final look at the psychological implications (as a whole) of being an evolutionist, particularly an atheistic one. Firstly, atheistic evolutionists reject a belief in God. Those who actually think through their beliefs come to their conclusion either because they want to dethrone God and take His place or because they view Him as weak and ineffective or as a wrathful entity and decide to exclude Him. The latter ultimately replace God with themselves. Secondly, with no God and no supernatural realm or afterlife, there is no meaning to our present life. With no ultimate meaning, life has no intrinsic value. Thirdly, since life is worthless, the only motivation to continue to live, obey laws, and be unselfish is grounded in the desire to make the best of the short time we have. Whether a person decides a God exists or not, the choice influences the conclusions he draws about his life and the way he lives it. Works Cited ARN Forum. “The Meaning of Life.” Online posting. 15 April 2002. <http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000105> Please note: This message board listing is no longer available due to a crash on the ARN server. Barnett, Adrian. “The Meaning of Life.” 6 June 2000. <http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/life.html> Benner, David G. Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985. Breese, David. Seven Men Who Rule the World from the Grave. Chicago: Moody, 1990. Dawkins, Richard. 9 April 2002. E-mail to the author. 9 April 2002. --------. Unweaving the Rainbow. New York: Mariner Books, 1998. Dembski, William. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984. Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. “Sigmund Freud and His Father.”<http://freud.t0.or.at/freud/chronolg/vater-e.htm> Hagen, Edward H. 12 April 2002. E-mail to the author. 12 April 2002. Hagen, Edward H. “What is Evolutionary Psychology.” Evolutionary Psychology FAQ. <http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/> Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution. Green Forest: Master Books, 1987. Holy Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Miller, Kenneth. 4 March 2002. E-mail to the author. 4 March 2002. Russell, Bertrand. “Why I am Not a Christian.” 27 April 1998. <http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm> Vitz, Paul C. “Psychology of Atheism.” Truth Journal. 1995-1999. Origins. <http://www.origins.org/truth/1truth12.html> Wile, Jay L. 16 April 2002. E-mail to the author. 16 April 2002. Yahoo! Message Boards. Multiple authors. “Well how does it make you feel....” Online posting. 15-16 April 2002. 1. http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=GN&action=l&board=17916956&tid 2. http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=GN&action=l&board=18934694&tid Comments should be directed to: Eric Brandt at cogitas@att.net. Copyright 2002 idurc.org. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. Click here to return to the Papers Archive
|
