Religion Confronting Science

by Donivan Bessinger

Chapter Six

HUMAN NATURE:

In the image of God He created him

When I look at thy heavens,
___ the work of thy fingers,
the moon and the stars which thou
___ hast established;
what is man
___ that thou art mindful of him
and the son of man
___ that thou dost care for him?

Yet thou hast made him little less
___ than God,
and dost crown him with glory
___ and honor.
Thou has given him dominion
___ over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all things under his
___ feet.___ ___ (Ps 8:3-6)

What is Man? It is a very ancient question. Though our access to information today is vastly expanded, it is not immediately clear that we have any better answer than the psalmist could have had. Is it really easier for us today to know who we are? Would we and the psalmist have the same answer to the question, "What is Man?" Is human nature the same today as then?

Certainly we would not minimize the great differences between life today and in ancient Israel, or the great cultural gap between that nomadic shepherdic life and today's globally oriented urban life. In most characteristics, we would suppose ourselves to be different. Even so, despite all that, we find the psalmist's hymn still to be compelling and we readily identify with its sense of wonder. The fact of this inquiry into the relationship between religion and science testifies that we are the same sort of people as the psalmist, for only the same sort of creature asks the psalmist's question.

What is Man? Throughout these essays, I have been concerned to present the concept of the divine as genderless, and of humankind as whole and equally and essentially both male and female. However, our language is limited in expressing that idea. In Hebrew, the reference here is to "man" meaning mankind, and "son of man" meaning humans individually. Thus in the psalmist's hymn there is a two-fold sense of wonder at the mystery of ourselves as a whole species and as individual persons. In deference to the poetry of this inspiring psalm and to its wholeness of meaning, in this essay I will refer to "Man" with a capital letter.

What is Man? This creature, like most complex organisms, relates and reacts in a complicated way to the material world around it. However, this creature also (and apparently, uniquely) relates and reacts to a world of non-material ideas. That wider realm of being cannot be described in terms of its material environment alone. It is that wider and deeper domain of perception which gives rise to the psalmist's question, and which points toward its answer.

The capacity to perceive (some would say, to imagine) a realm or dimension of existance beyond our immediate material environment seems to have been a characteristic of mankind throughout all of recorded history. It is evident in all sorts of ancient myths and records, and is especially so in this hymn of the psalmist.

What answer does scripture give to the question, "What is Man?". In the two Genesis stories of creation we get two answers in one. Man is the religious animal. In the Jawist account of creation, Man (humankind) was created early, after the creation of the mist and before the planting of the Garden. Man (adham) was a creature of Earth, made from the dust of the ground (adhamah).

By contrast, in the Priestly account, Adham was created on the sixth day, as the completing act of Creation. Adham, the whole and undivided human, despite the play on words with adhamah, was in some sense a creature of both heaven and earth. God (speaking in the plural since Elohim is a plural name for God) "Let us make man in Our own image", and it was so.

The writers of Genesis had a choice of many words for image. According to Strong's Concordance, at least nine different Hebrew words are translated image in the King James Bible. For example, different words are used for graven image (Jer 10:14) and for the image of Ba'al (2 Kg 3:2). "Image" may also connote a carved figure, a pillar or column (worship object), or a family idol.

In the creation stories, the word for image is tselem. It is a Chaldee word which derives from "shade" and is related to "shadow". It meant a phantom, illusion, or resemblance. However, with only slight variation in diacritical markings, it could also mean a representative object or idol, as when the book of Daniel (3:15) refers to falling down before a golden image.

Though tselem may have a derivative meaning referring to a material form rather than to immaterial illusion, there is surely no reference here to anatomy for that would imply that God too is confined to a form. This tselem must define the human ability, in the deepest aspect of being, to sense and participate in the non-spacetime dimension of divine being.

To bring that idea forward into a modern context challenges us to look at the deepest level of the nature of things. One of the lessons of quantum physics is that matter itself participates in that non-local dimension of reality. To participate in that dimension spiritually is to experience psychologically the idea or image of reality into which our material form is built.

The fullest modern understanding of "image of God" is that we are made, not merely "in", but within, that divine "image" which is the fundamental reality or substrate or matrix upon which all creation is built. In existing within the "image of God" we exist within God's creating idea of ourselves. Both materially and psychologically we are built into and onto the fundamental reality which we perceive as divine.

Yet, though it is unpopular in some religious circles to say so, Adham is indeed animal. Humans are biologically grounded in the humus of Earth, as the Jawist writer says, and as genetic sequences and metabolic processes shared with other animals confirm. Yet scripture equally affirms that the religious function defines our nature, for we carry deep within us a phantom or shade of the divine, and to that we must relate if we are to be made whole.

There are many attempts to give a modern answer to the nature of human nature, but we will have some difficulty in pinning down any sort of consensus. Though all of the sciences have their areas of active controversy, physics does have its general consensus about cosmology, and biology a broad area of agreement about life process. But in the human nature game, it is often difficult to read the rules on the broad turf where philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and many schools of psychology compete fiercely without a referee.

The language "image of God" sounds quite foreign to most of the current psychologies. Increasingly they focus on the study of neurophysiologic and metabolic mechanisms to define human nature. However, expecting experimental science to define human nature is something like expecting a schematic of my word processor's circuit boards to account for the contents of this page of essay on my screen.

The first thing that is obvious is that human nature is so complex that we have difficulty describing it in its fullness. Each of the many schools of theory and therapy has its own specific insight and descriptive language. Many of these cannot account at all for religious thought and practice as being a possibly healthy expression of human nature.

Indeed, noting today that tselem can mean illusion rings a somewhat dissonant bell, for much of twentieth century psychology and philosophy has shared with Freud a sense of human spirituality as illusion in the neurotic sense, which stands against human progress. For example, Ayn Rand's objectivist-positivism sees "the conflict of reason versus mysticism [as] the issue of life or death -- of freedom or slavery -- of progress or stagnant brutality". Still, modern religion owes Freud a debt, for it was he who opened the hatch of the deep unconscious, whose depths we must plumb if we are fully to define our nature, religious and otherwise.

We would end up too far afield were we to catalog here and critique all of the theories of human nature and behavior that have had significant influence in this century. However, it will be useful to scan some of the major attempts to define models of human functioning.

* Neurophysiological models generally postulate that human functioning can eventually be understood by studying the microconnections and chemical reactions of the central nervous system. This accords with the biomedical model of function and disease prevalent in medical research and practice today.

* Behaviorism postulates that humans start with a "blank tablet" and that all behavior is conditioned and can be engineered according to principles laid down by J. B. Watson and B. F. Skinner. Watson's work built largely on an egregious experiment in which he conditioned a child to a phobia (of white mice and of "white furry things"). Skinner advanced the term "operant conditioning" for behavioral engineering. Behaviorism finds no place for "instincts" or depth psychology.

* Instinctual theories do have their modern advocates, however. Philosopher Mary Midgeley has taken strong exception the behaviorist stance, and presented the case for an instinctual contribution to human behavior. Melford Spiro shows awareness of the instinctual realm in presenting an anthropologist's view of the cultural dimensions of behavior.

* Cognitive therapy sees psychological function as deriving primarily from our processing of ideas, adaptively or maladaptively, and seeks to correct problems by correcting the patient's ("client's") ideas about them. There is a trend toward merging the Behavioral-Cognitive schools. The cognitive is not necessarily hostile to the idea of an unconscious, but offers no theory to account for it.

* Computer science has helped advance concepts about mental functioning. In particular, artificial intelligence has illustrated some of the problems of modeling human functioning as being merely a super computer, yet there is considerable enthusiasm for research toward that goal. Allen Newell has proposed a "unified theory of cognition" which he has embodied in a working computer program. Heinz Pagels has recently explored the relationship between psyche and computation. However, Roger Penrose holds that computer modeling of an intelligence equivalent to human intelligence is a hopeless task because of basic theoretical problems demonstrable at the quantum and mathematical levels - - "some truths are not computable".

* Depth psychologies emphasize the operations of the unconscious, but usually offer less clarity about conscious and cognitive processes. Of course Sigmund Freud was the pioneer theorist of the unconscious, but his one time colleague Carl Jung considerably expanded the original model to provide a theory of human spirituality arising from the unconscious. Both men emphasized the importance of dreams as access to the unconscious. J. Allan Hobson's recent theory of dreaming which incorporates modern knowledge of brain function (the "activation-synthesis model") finds more correspondence with Jung's theory than with Freud's.

Before we can say much about human nature, we must come to some agreement about what terms we will use, for it is critical that we clarify a term's meaning and its level of description in the human system. Terms such as mind, psyche, self, and soul all have various shades of meaning and can describe different levels of function. Even "conscious" can mean several different states, which of course leaves "unconscious" with a fuzzy definition too.

When one says "mind and body", mind seems to include all of the non-anatomic aspects of the human person, conscious and unconscious alike. Yet we also often hear it referring only to the cognitive, intellectual aspect of "brain work". The term mind will be our choice when we refer to the domain of intellectual function, which mostly resides in the domain of consciousness, and includes the realm of the " I "-dentity, perception, cognition, communication, gender orientation, belief set, and memory.

Self is also a slippery concept. Sometimes we say self when we mean the whole person, but in words such as selfish and selfless, we tend to suggest the conscious focus (ego) in which one identifies one's own individuality. As a practical matter, that usually excludes consideration of the unconscious aspect of self. As we will see shortly, Jung gave the term a special meaning, referring to the unconscious integrative center.

Psyche, too, is a problem word. Sometimes it refers to the whole self (whole person), but at other times specifically to the unconscious domain. In its original form, psyche meant breath or spirit, and was equivalent to soul, much as in modern German which uses Seele to mean both psyche and soul. Psychology, which now defines itself as the study of behavior, has left to the theologians the promise of its name: the study of soul. Except when we specify psyche as the totality of the person or self, we will use "psyche" to refer to the unconscious realm.

Soul is that aspect of the human reality which touches the divine reality. As such, it refers to the timeless, eternal "non-local" dimension of human be-ing, which is a different level of description altogether from that of conventional psychology. I find it helpful to think of soul as a function, rather than as a "thing."

Person, "total self" and "total psyche" are approximately equivalent terms. This is meant to imply the total functional aspect of feeling and being human, as distinguished from the anatomic or metabolic aspects of body function. However, it is important to understand that the mind-body duality which we have traditionally painted so large is really a unity in which the boundaries are ill-defined.

Consciousness refers to the state of awareness. In clinical practice, we mean that a person is conscious when not in a coma. A sleeping person resides in an altered state of consciousness, aware of dreams (perhaps), and of some environmental conditions, for example, the sounds by which one may be aroused.

However, that sort of consciousness does not distinguish humans from other animals which sleep, which dream (or at least show the rapid eye movement phase of sleep during which our dreams occur), and which show awareness of environment and a considered and appropriate response to it. The distinctive human consciousness is awareness, not only of self, but of the idea of "self".

Consciousness varies according to the task at hand - - it may be so focused that one does not hear a sound that might awaken a sleeping person. On the other hand, it may also represent a diffuse intuitive awareness of an inner state, whether of bliss or despair. Yet in either of these states, and even in dreams, the person remains aware of self as idea and as identity.

The unconscious is that realm of which we are not ordinarily aware. In a strict sense, that would be something we could not discuss, for we cannot communicate unless we can form an idea in consciousness. However, we are aware that there is more to human functioning than meets us in ordinary wakefulness. For example, spontaneous fantasies, dreams, slips of the tongue or pen, and unexplained feelings which suddenly may come unbidden and without explanation from "nowhere".

The unconsious domain, broadly defined, would include all of the automatic functions of the body which govern our physiology. By study we may learn much about these processes intellectually, but such metabolic functions usually take place far from the reach of ordinary "on-line" awareness. There is a hierarchy even there. We may become aware of anatomic functions such as the automatic gurglings of our guts and of blood vessel changes in the skin during heat and cold. However, we are not aware of the processes at the cellular level of our being.

The unconscious domain also includes the "instincts", the behavior patterns which are unlearned, as in most of animal behavior. For example, even though birds are not taught to build nests, they build the nest characteristic of their species. But since DNA is only the physical substance that is passed from one generation to another, how might such behavioral patterns be transmitted?

The recent explosion of knowledge about the genome shows us that there is a great deal more DNA than is needed to account for the ordinary chemical materials of metabolic process. The function of such "excess" DNA is unknown - - it is even called "junk DNA". However, it seems very likely (but this is purely hypothetical) that such DNA carries the codes necessary to govern instinctual behavior. It is hard to conceive its being elsewhere, though there could perhaps be a secondary level of coding on the "standard" DNA strands.

How might that figure into human functioning? The extent to which unlearned patterns govern human behavior has been a matter of much controversy and the issue is far from settled. Freud frequently used the term instinct to refer to patterns of behavior generated from deep within the psyche.

Jung has proposed archetypes as determining the processing of symbols in the psyche, symbols which govern the ideas and images which (usually unconsciously) govern behavior. Certain symbols occur with a high degree of consistency in mythology and in dreams throughout history and throughout all cultures. Archetypes are the functional "biogrammar" of the unconscious. Perhaps we will ultimately see a bridging of concepts between depth psychology, neurophysiology, and genetics, but currently there are wide chasms separating them.

Is it possible to build a "unification theory" of the total human psyche? The many schools of theory are each built upon the attempt to construct such a model, but much more effort has gone into defending each model as a complete explanation of human behavior than into trying to synthesize them. If we are to synthesize a model that will account equally well for the psalmist's questioning of Man's relationship to the divine reality and for our modern observations of biological complexity, we must be willing to test and learn from all of the many theories.

Any such model must satisfy the requirements of reason, and accomodate whatever the scientific method can show to be true about our physiology, our cognitive processes, and our capacity for external (cultural) conditioning. Reason also demands that we take a realistic look at all human phenomena, and not make an artificial or pathological distinction between "reason" and "mysticism". Reason demands that theory account for universal phenomena as normal rather than abnormal.

There is another caution. Life systems theory shows us that systems develop emergent characteristics -- outputs which develop when the system reaches a certain level of complexity, and which could not be accounted for by the summation of the function of the subsystems. Because of this emergence aspect of psyche, a neuro-physiological model will never be adequate to describe fully the whole of psychic function, even though it may powerfully enhance diagnosis and therapy.

Despite our reductive and experimental "instincts", we must still rely on empirical observations of human function, which will inevitably bring us face to face with the world of myth. The great success of the Moyers-Campbell conversations on PBS has indicated a great resurgence of interest in and hunger for the "power of myth" in what has become a globally secularized society. The recent collapse of communist systems in eastern Europe well shows that basic human spiritual needs cannot forever be forceably and systematically denied. Since humans are religious animals, any model of the psyche must account for the religious function of human be-ing.

A model must also account for homeostasis, the finely-tuned equilibrium which we find operating at all levels of life systems. Both the Freudian and Jungian models of the psyche rely on a concept of homeostasis, or finely-tuned balance of forces among the elements of the psyche. A major difference between the two is in the chosen center-point or balance point. Freud's model is primarily centered around the healthy functioning of the Ego; it is centered in consciousness.

Exhibit 14. Jung's model of the psyche. Compare Exhibit 12. The ego is the input/output subprocessor (consciousness) communicating with the external ("green") environment. The shadow is the subprocessor for repressions and other "dark" material. The anima / animus is the focus of one's unconscious contra-sexual traits, and is the primary source of one's creativity. It is also the principle byway around the shadow, leading toward the opening up of consciousness of the self. The self is the nuclear integrating subprocessor on which the psychic balance of the whole person depends. The contents of the personal unconscious are unique to the individual. The archetypal unconscious is collective, shared by all humans. The ego-self axis is the conscious connection between the local and nonlocal realities of the cosmos.

By contrast, Jung's model is Self-centered. That is, it is centered in the whole self, conscious and unconscious alike. Jung uses the term Self both for the concept of the whole psyche, and for its unconscious homeostatic "center of gravity". Whereas Freud considered religion to derive from illusion, Jung considered religion to derive from the homeostatic working of the whole self, seeking to integrate the instinctive inner spirit with our lives in the outer world as sensed by the Ego.

Jung's model also includes the concept of multiple centers of psychic energy (complexes), conscious and unconscious. The Ego itself is a complex of psychic energy concerned with sensing the world, with cognition, and with the types of general reactions normally expressed culturally and consciously by others of our own gender.

The unconscious contains the Self as the integrating center which seeks the good of a balanced person - - mind, body, and spirit alike. There is also a center for those instinctive creative energies most commonly expressed consciously by the opposite gender. Further, and somewhat similar to Freud's concept of Id, there is a Shadow complex which is the main focus of the energies of repression and frustration, whose forces unrecognized and uncountered lead to destructive expression, or evil.

At present, our "unification" model must rely on systems theory to integrate new findings from physiology, genetics, and anthropology, and on Jungian theory for description of unconscious ideational function. That provides us the most versatile language by which to understand ourselves as "religious animals", but we will need to keep in mind the distinction of descriptive levels, and not confuse neurons with the symbols which they collectively process.

In the final analysis, we cannot separate religion from psychology. Is not religion the deepest of the psychologies? As Jung said, explaining our religious impulse in terms of depth psychology does not "explain it away." Yet there is often great antipathy between religion and psychology. Perhaps it is because we do not properly distinguish theology and religion.

Theology is our cognitive response to our "religious function", which is our deepest instinctual impulse to understand ourselves and relate to the fact of our existance. Religion, understood and practiced at the theological level alone - - at the cognitive level of belief (in the sense of blind faith) - - is "Ego" religion that easily becomes a cognitive idol of our own creation. It is such religion that is most at risk of an immediate and radical conflict with both reason and the findings of science.

In the discovery of the great archetypal realm of the unconscious, we can find a great parallel with the findings in quantum physics, that there is a non-local reality undergirding local phenomena of ordinary experience. In psychological terms, there is a "non-local" unconscious reality which undergirds our ordinary "local" Ego experience. Yet it is not in the Ego realm, but in the innermost depths of our own persons that we encounter the divine reality as Person without any possible conflict with the spoken Word of creation revealed in science.

[ Previous ] , [ Next ]

[ Exhibit 14. Jung's model of the psyche ]

[ Notes and References ] , [ Glossary ]

[ Contents: Religion Confronting Science ] , [TOP]