HUMANITY’S PROBLEMS
For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site at: www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
We all seek after the same things – food, shelter, friendship, peace, happiness, and love – but we seem to encounter insurmountable problems in finding the latter three, even after our material needs are satisfied. Why is this?
Many cite our institutions as the culprits. David Noebel claimed that humanist psychologists blamed the society for humanity’s problems:
Many cite our institutions as the culprits. David Noebel claimed that humanist psychologists blamed the society for humanity’s problems:
• “Every humanist psychologist believes the secret to better mental health lies in getting in touch with the unspoiled, inner self. When man strips himself of all the evil forced on him by society, he will become a positive agent with virtually unlimited potential…The three major assumptions of Humanist psychology are: man is good by nature and therefore perfectible; society and its social institutions are responsible for man’s evil acts; and mental health can be restored to everyone who gets in touch with his inner ‘good’ self.”
According to these humanists, the problem is on the outside. Consequently, the answer is also on the inside. The “inner good self” has the resources to unravel the negative social affects. Meanwhile, other humanists emphasize education to “alter the course of human evolution and cultural development.” According to “The Humanist Manifesto II”:
• “Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.”
Once again, the wrong cultural development and education are the problems. With the right education, “vast new powers” can be unleashed.
Communism also believes that humanity can be transformed once the “mode of production of a society” is transformed. Accordingly, Joseph Stalin wrote
• “Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas, and theories, its political views and institutions. Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man’s manner of life, such is his manner of thought.”
Again, if the institutions are changed, our thought-life can be improved. Similarly, Lenin identified the State as the source of our problems:
• “The State is an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression of one class by another; its aim is the creation of ‘order’ which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression.” (All of the above quotations come from Noebel’s “Understanding the Times.”)
Today, the culprits are somewhat different but yet all the same. Again, the problems are to be found in society – the borders, nationalism, capitalism, guilt and shame based religions, the environment, and the “deplorables” who require either re-education or elimination.
However, all of these analyses have one thing in common. It is external forces that screwed us up and human interventions can favorably change them. However, this analysis is highly problematic:
• They fail to explain why these social forces had become so malevolent to begin with. After all, weren’t all of these institutions comprised of humans whose inner core was good until corrupted by society?
• Even though these familial, governmental, and economic institutions differ across continents and time periods, it seems as if humanity suffers from the same problems regardless – guilt, shame, selfishness, arrogance, blame-shifting, narcissism, and a lack of inner peace.
• Despite our many interventions and drastic changes applied to our institutions, these problems seem to remain untouched.
In light of these stubborn and pervasive human problems, perhaps we should look for a stubborn, pervasive, and internal human explanation. Perhaps our problems birthed from within us. This would explain why all of our institutions become corrupted and all of our interventions have failed to bring us back to that unspoiled child within. However, perhaps even at our core, we are not untainted, uncorrupted, and unspoiled.
Perhaps Adam and Eve are our prototypes. They weren’t spoiled by their environment. Instead, their environment was spoiled them, but how? They turned away from God, and, in their sin could no longer tolerate His probing and exposing presence.
But aren’t people basically religious? Aren’t we trying to be virtuous? Perhaps, instead, this is just a covering of the gnawing and resultant guilt and shame they sense within. Adam and Eve had also become religious. They knew that they had a problem and impulsively covered themselves with fig leaves. However, their behavior betrayed something else. Even covered with fig leaves, they hid from God. When finally confronted by Him about their sin, they lied and blame-shifted. Finally, when expelled from His presence, we could have detected a sign of their relief. The interrogation had been that painful!
We too do not want our moral failures exposed. Therefore, we too cover up with denials, rationalizations, and even our attainments in place of the fig leaves. We convince ourselves that there is no longer any problem with us, but a fermenting sense of shame and discomfort remain.
New York School of the Bible: http://www.nysb.nyc/
No comments:
Post a Comment