Evolutionary
Psychology takes its roots from Darwinism, combining psychology and evolution
to form a basis that psychology, or the function of the mind, is directly
related to the function of the brain. In-other-words, that the way we have
learned to process and think has developed evolutionally as our brains have
developed physically. Our minds evolved along with our brains.
The
basic problem with this can instantly be seen. It means that what we think, as
a part of natural selection, is the best of us, or at the least the best of our
evolved thinking. Because natural
selection does not allow weaker traits to pass along genetically, then
according to Evolutionary Psychology, our thinking should also eliminate lesser
or undesirable traits in the psyche as well.
This
can be seen in the Evolutionary Psychologist’s attempts to explain erratic and
sometimes criminal behavior. How else could abhorrent behaviors be explained by
the psychologist? If the brain has
evolved, eliminating less desirable traits, how then can psychosis still exist?
While at the same time as sad as it is ironic, one such debate revolved around
the subject of rape. The authors of a book on Evolutionary Psychology
speculated that rape is not a pathology, biologically speaking. [1] They contended that rape was a biological
desire for reproduction, and if consent was not granted, rape was a product of
the desire for this biological function. Because natural selection had not
eliminated the act, it must not be a weaker or undesirable trait.[2] The authors called rape, “a natural,
biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,
akin to a leopards spots of a giraffes elongated neck.”[3]
This horrible example of Evolutionary Psychology is to ethics an anathema. As
eminent (infamous, more likely) philosopher and Darwinian champion Peter Singer
writes, “(we) must face the fact that we are evolved animals and that we bear
the evidence of our inheritance, not only in our anatomy and DNA, but in our
behavior too.”[4]
Evolutionary Psychologists are pressing hard for the thought that we are not
only biologically evolved, but moralistically and ethically evolved as well.
There is not room for the total depravity of man (Romans 3:23), much less the
ethical depravity. Evolutionary Psychology is then a pseudoscience that allows
for an anything goes society.
As
for the Mind Body Problem (MBP), this concept is nebulous and abstract and
rather “heady.” Nonetheless, there are parts that can be argued for or against.
First, the dualist expression of a duality of soul and body is a legitimate
point, scripturally and psychologically.
As Beck writes, most clinical psychologist practice a dualistic model,
whether they would admit to it in professional circles or not.[5]
The
ground work was done by Rene Descartes. In his work he basically came up with a
theory that states (in my very down-to-earth language) that the mind and body
are an integrated unit. While they are two substances, they are intertwined and
affect one another. i.e. it is possible for the body to be so damaged it causes
the mind to loose rational thought. This
dualist nature, often aligned with Cartesian Dualism, shows that there is a
“mind”, (the old stand-by: I doubt / therefore I am.) Because we know there is
a body by empirical means, the only remaining question is, does the body HAVE
to have a soul? J. P. Moreland would surmise that the answer is yes. While
Descartes would say the body and soul are together, but that they are
aggregate. A better understanding is that the body REQUIRES a soul for life.
As
for the assertion that God cannot be empirically seen, he is correct. And there
is a reason for that. Faith is the foundation (hupostatsis) of things of which
we are confident (elipso), the evidentiary proof of things that cannot be
empirically seen. There is no need for faith if we can see God visually. But we
can see the activity of God. One cannot see the wind, but the presence can be
clearly seen, (leaves blowing; pressure on our neck, etc). To deny God because
of a lack of empirical evidence is the essence of unbelief. However, this works
toward his demise as well. You cannot disprove a negative. He cannot, prove
that God is a chemical reaction, and therefore, scientifically, he cannot say definitively
that there is no God. As Soren Kierkegaard wrote, “faith, when properly
observed, evokes awe, not explanation.”[6]
[1]
Pearcy, Nancy. Total Truth. Wheaton, Crossway Books. 2004. 210
[2] Ibid.
211
[3]
Ibid. 211
[4]
Singer, Peter. A Darwinian Left. New Haven. Yale Press. 2000. 6
[5] Beck
, James and Bruce Demarest. The Human Person. Grand Rapids, Kregel. 2005. 178.
[6] Kierkegaard,
Soren. Fear and Trembling. translated by Alister Hannay. New York, Penguine Press. 1982. 107.
No comments:
Post a Comment