Evolutionary Psychology and Christianity
This week Pope Francis commented on creation and drew lots
of media attention. Pope Francis has a huge audience as the leader of most of the world’s
Christians—
some
1.2 billion out of about
2.2
billion.
Like many scientists who also hold Christian beliefs, the
Pope reaffirmed Catholic teaching that there is no contradiction between
religious beliefs and scientific theories about origins of the universe (e.g., so
called “Big Bang Theory”) or life (theory of evolution).
RNS
reported on the story 27 October 2014. The fact that the story became
news in the United States reminds us of the continued teaching of a competitive
creation narrative that is presented as incompatible with scientific
explanations of the origins of the universe and of life. They assert that the biblical story of
creation in Genesis should be understood in a literal (or close to literal) fashion.
Although creationists vary in how they deal with possible meanings of biblical
words, they consistently reject natural explanations for the origins of the
universe and the origins of life. The teaching of Ken Ham and others at
TheCreation Museum illustrates a highly literal view (
Goldberg,
2014). In fairness, there are a variety of ways Christian conservatives
speak about the creation accounts in the beginning of the biblical book of
Genesis. So, did the Pope evolve? No. Pope Francis re-affirmed Catholic
teaching that God is the Creator. God is not a magician. Faith and science are not incompatible. For Catholics, there
is no new teaching.
FAITH
AND LEARNING
Evangelical Christians in the U.S. who are not strict
creationists have worked to integrate faith and learning in many scientific disciplines including physics, chemistry, biology and psychology. The approaches these
writers take vary with some positions requiring greater faith than others as
the meaning of words and phrases are stretched or great efforts are invested in
showing how a biblical text could be viewed as compatible with contemporary
scientific evidence. Over the centuries, simple beliefs about the universe and
life have been overturned. Famous historical acts of condemnation by the
Catholic Church are well known. Scientists lived in fear.
U. S. Beliefs
The conservative beliefs of those in the U.S. make it clear why the Pope's statements make news in the U.S. media.
A sizable minority (42%) believe God created humans in their present form (according to
Gallup polls May 2014. See the chart for related questions and polls dating to 1982.
It is not surprising that conservative Christians have problems with science. Only a minority of U S scientists believe in God (33%,
Pewforum, 2009) but who knows what type of God concept they have compared with that of the 83% believers identified as the "General Public" (not sure why they use the word general).
The
National Center for Science Education reports that 97% of scientists believe humans and other life evolved.
FLEE
OR FIGHT
The psychological response to a stressor is to flee or
fight. That makes sense. Survive to live another day.
The Big Bang Theory and
Evolutionary Theory pose threats to some worldviews—especially when atheists
ignore or ridicule any divine role. It is easy to understand the fears of
Christian fundamentalists. The more scientists offer natural explanations about
how the universe came into existence and how life formed and evolved, the less of
a need to believe God did it all by speaking a few divine words. And some fear,
maybe God will be written out of the cosmic equation altogether. You have one
scope, not two, when looking at the world from a fundamentalist perspective ( perhaps a bad pun, here's the link to the
Scopes
Trial transcript).
WINNERS AND LOSERS
When science educators teach
children about the universe and evolution, they offer a different worldview
than do fundamentalist clergy and other religious teachers. To the public it
looks like a choice between science and religion. The vociferous conservatives
and their equally ardent scientific counterparts seem poles apart. It appears as a
win-lose proposition. The win-loss scenario is illustrated by those who
participate in creation-evolution debates. Debates are staged to have a winner
and a loser. The same goes for creationists and intelligent design advocates
who go to court over evolution-related concerns. In court, someone wins or
loses a case. When Christian theologians, scientists, and other advocates lose
debates or court cases to scientists, they also lose credibility for themselves and for Christianity. (Link to Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate).
SLIPPERY
SLOPE
What’s next? Well if you can play “fast and loose” with the
Genesis account of the creation of the earth and
As it turns out, Christian fundamentalists view
what you do with creation as a litmus test for what you do with the entire Bible.
I’ve heard the slippery slope metaphor a lot. You can see this fear illustrated in
Goldberg’s
The Atlantic story. Do you see the fears about same-sex marriage linked to abandoning creationist views of the Bible?
life, what about those other
Genesis stories? After all, the first three chapters of Genesis are where
conservative Christians turn when they speak of man being created in the image
of God. And it is where the first wedding or marriage happened between one man
and one woman. Undoing the genesis creation knot leads to unraveling other beliefs—or
so the fear plays out for some.
GET A
LIFE
It gets worse. Pope Francis referred to evolution. Whatever
details may or may not be in his mind, people who understand evolution know it isn’t
just about the origins of life or gradual changes within species.
The theory of
evolution involves human evolution and challenges religious leaders to explain
the concept of man created by God. And man created in the image of God. Where
are the evangelical leaders who will offer university students a coherent
framework for understanding what it means for life to have evolved over
billions of years? And
what about a theology that accounts for people who have evolved over some
four
to six million years?
DEVIL
IN THE DETAILS
It gets even worse for psychologists. As one preacher said
to me a few years ago, “psychologists were kin to satan when you were in school”
(I got my B.A. in 1972). Psychological theories were of the devil. People had
problems because of sin and the cure for depression, anxiety, alcohol addiction
and all the other mental disorders was prayer or in some cases, deliverance
from demon possession. Just as conservative evangelicals and perhaps a few
fundamentalists began to warm to the idea that some Christian psychologists and
their colleagues in counseling, social work, and psychiatry are not so bad
after all, here comes evolutionary theory to explain the origins of that part
of human nature that has roots in the distant past.
According to
evolutionary
psychological theory, human nature evolved over millions of
years. Humans share some adaptive behavior patterns and survival characteristics
with other animals. Evolutionary psychology offers a way of thinking about
human nature (
read
more). Is it time for Christian fundamentalists and their
conservative colleagues to re-assert their fears about psychology and related disciplines?
Is it time for clergy to resume their rightful role of counseling parishioners
rather than passing them off to psychologists and their kindred spirits? Where
are the evangelical Christians who will integrate evolutionary psychology with
Christian theology?
Psychologists and Psychiatrists have become the priests of western
societies. They are the sages to whom people turn with troubled spirits and
troubled lives. They are the people who study human nature and offer a range of
interventions founded on science. In the minds of some, psychology is a
religion. And psychology is in direct competition with the Bible. The fears of
those fundamentalist Christians who warned about psychology a few decades ago
have been realized.
Of course, the fears are only real for some people because
many Christian clinicians work diligently to integrate their Christian beliefs
with psychological science. And as noted last week, many people opt for
Christian clinicians in the U.S. (I use the word clinician to include licensed
professionals who diagnose and treat people with mental illness. Many people
are not clear on the differences between psychologists and psychiatrists or
between counselors, psychologists and social workers).
EDUCATORS
ON THE LINE
In the end, science educators in communities with high
percentages of conservative Christians and in conservative Christian schools
will bear the brunt of the challenge to maintain personal integrity as they
remain current with advances in scientific knowledge while appeasing those who
insist on specific statements about creation and evolution. I suspect educators
in conservative venues will have to sign covenants and/ or remain on guard as
to their communication (I’ve heard rumors of required signatures in the past).
Faculty, staff, and students at conservative schools do not have free speech.
And faculty do not have academic freedom in the same way as do their peers at
secular schools or schools affiliated with that tribe of Christianity known as
“liberals” (to rank and file conservatives, they are not really Christians).
NONCOMPETE
AGREEMENT- A Way Out
There are several ways that Christians extract
themselves from having to choose between a literal reading of Genesis and a
godless view of origins. People want to understand themselves and their world.
That is the quest of both science and faith. Both religion and science offer
ways to understand nature. Fundamentalists frame alternatives as competing. Some
Christians look for ways to insert God into the gaps of what has been
discovered or known (God of the gaps). Still others look at multiple layers of
meaning or different spheres of concern. You can read volumes on ideas people
have that allow students to aggressively pursue knowledge without having to
pinpoint where God fits as a causal agent in any particular algorithm.
That's enough for this week. I think I shall come back to this topic with additional information and reflections on integration.
No comments:
Post a Comment