It’s stuck me the past few days of reading through Luke that many of Jesus’ parables are about the kingdom of heaven. My latest attempt at reading through the Bible has opened my eyes to a number of things that I hadn’t really noticed before and this is one of them. And so, I’m going to try to run a series here in which I go through the “Kingdom Parables” in an effort to better understand what the “kingdom of heaven” is all about.
As I’ve seen, there are basically three common understandings of the kingdom of heaven: 1) the kingdom is something to look forward to but not yet arrived; 2) the kingdom is currently being built within the hearts of believers; 3) the kingdom is here and now and exists within the hearts of believers. I haven’t taken all my theology yet, but if I understand right, the official Reformed position is #3 – and it’s certainly the one I gravitate toward, not because it’s Reformed, but simply because my inclinations line up with the Reformed concept of kingdom.
In any case, I recognize that my concept/understanding of kingdom has the potential to greatly affect the manner in which I minister and lead a church. I invite to follow along and study this with me. And of course, leave comments when and where ever you want…
Filed under: Bible Study, Christian Living, Christianity, Church, Leadership, Ministry, Theology
I would say that the kingdom encompasses all three. The kingdom is now but not yet. It is here, but still coming. Jesus’ parables show different aspects of it, and Paul works with this linear movement between past, present, and future (take for example the many times that Paul says things like “there is now no condemnation”… this is because the future kingdom hope has been brought into the present in Jesus.)
N.T. Wright’s work, Jesus and the Victory of God, and Herman Ridderbos’ The Coming of the Kingdom are excellent resources on the subject.
I agree with you so far, and I as well have been stuck on studying Jesus’ Kingdom parables as of late. I understand that the Kingdom is within me, I guess the hard part is trying to navigate through life, while not exiting the Kingdom. I tired of folk talking about Kingdom living, and based upon what material possessions we have. I now understand that I can be homeless, and still inhabit the Kingdom of Heaven. I also see that, if I inhabit the Kingdom, I will see what no one else does. Does any of this make sense?
http://www.freewebs.com/eleane
Evaluate the evidence that religious belief and experience are a product of evolved psychological mechanisms
Evaluate the evidence that religious belief and experience are a product of evolved psychological mechanisms
This essay will begin with a brief description of what religious belief and experience involve and what part it plays in human experience. Then I will talk about how religious beliefs are constructed, shaped, and maintained by a variety of evolved psychological mechanisms. I will then focus on one evolved psychological mechanism, the attachment system. I will also be investigating whether religious belief and experience is an adaptation or a by-product of an evolved psychological mechanisms.
Religious belief and experience involve the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when it is viewed as one of Gods many creations. Religious belief and experience usually involves devotional and ritual observances, and likely contain a moral code to govern the conduct of human affairs. Religious feeling appears within human experience in many forms. For some individuals, religious experience is embedded within the creeds and traditions of their religion and expressed among their faith community, and for others, it is a private semblance of spiritual ideas and practices. Religious belief includes belief in god and divine teachings such as found in sacred writings (Shafranske, 1997).
Initially when one starts to explore the reasons why religion seems so natural to humans, a enticing avenue is to hunt for the source where religion originated in terms of common human urges, like an individuals wish to escape the clutches of misfortune or ones own mortality or even their wish to understand the workings of the universe. However, recent findings in evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience provide a more empirical approach, focusing on the mental architecture activated in the acquirement and representation of religious concepts. This approach advises three essential changes to common religious views. The first is that the majority of the pertinent mental architecture is not accessible on a conscious level. Individuals explicitly held, consciously accessible beliefs, as in other areas of cognition, only represent a minute amount of the pertinent processes. Experimental tests have shown that individuals actual religious concepts often deviate away from what they ‘believe’ they believe. This is the main reason why theologies, explicit dogmas, scholarly interpretation of religions may not be taken as a consistent description of either the contents or the origin of individual’s beliefs. Secondly, the question of what makes religious thoughts ‘natural’ to the individual is more than likely be an operation of a whole collection of separate mental systems rather than a single, specific process, and lastly, in all of these systems, religious thoughts are not a theatrical departure from, but a reasonably predictable byproduct of, general cognitive function (Boyer, 2001).
Henig (2007) argues that there is an inherent human drive to believe in something that is never-ending, profound and out of this world, a higher power which is out of scientific reach and comprehension. Richard Dawkins who wrote the book “The God Delusion”, Sam Harris who wrote “The End Of Faith” and Daniel Dennett who wrote “Breaking The Spell” are inclined to be in agreement that religious belief is an outgrowth of the brain’s cognitive architecture which evolved throughout human history. Where they disagree is when arguing why this tendency to believe evolved, did it evolved because belief itself was adaptive or was it perhaps a by-product of evolution, or perhaps it was just a result of an unlikely consequence of another adaptation in human brain evolution. This leads one to question whether humans are hardwired to believe in god? Henig (2007) postulated that belief might be the default position for the human mind, something that takes little or no cognitive effort at all.
Cognitive psychologists look upon functioning cognitive architecture of the brain in terms of modules, each one designed for a particular function, yet Heing (2007) doesn’t believe in a god module as such, but considers an individuals belief in god to be a by-product of other mental modules. He argues that our brains are primed to believe in the super natural and prepared to presume the presence of supernatural agents even when such presence goes against all logic. Causal reasoning primes individuals for religion, in that, individuals automatically and unconsciously seek out explanations to why certain events take place. Gods, by virtue of their mysterious superpowers and their bizarre physical properties make great candidates to explain the causes of a great deal of these unusual events. Another cognitive ploy, is theory of mind, which is the ability to anticipate others actions and in this context to lead other individuals to believe what we want them to believe. Theory of mind leads to the belief that the mind and the body can be separated from one another. Henig (2007) argues that individuals are born with an innate tendency to believe in god or the supernatural
Contemporary evolutionary psychology pivots on the construct of psychological mechanisms as a critical level of analysis. The mechanisms in question are adaptations produced by Darwin’s theory of natural selection and not by behaviour or thought patterns as such. Evolutionary psychologists are interested in finding the psychological mechanisms that give rise to religious behaviour. They are not looking for an evolutionary explanation of religious behaviour. An important outcome of this change in this point of view is that observed behaviour need not be the product of a mechanism that was specifically designed by natural selection to produce it (Kirkpatrick, 2005).
Writers like Wulff (1997) have postulated that the existence of an innate predisposition toward religion is indicated by the fact that religiosity seems to be partly heritable. This data points to the fact that genetic factors are somehow involved in forming or fabricating religious belief or experience, however, this does not mean that they demonstrate the existence of a mechanism or system whose evolved function is religion. Epileptic seizures, which take place in the temporal lobes, have been known to produce experiences, which are very intense and spiritual. Ramachandran and Blakeslee (1998) argue that individuals who have had such experiences subsequently become preoccupied with religious and moral issues, but as Kirkpatrick (2005) argues that just because a particular brain area is activated and produces a consistent set of effects does not necessarily mean that the mechanism designed for the function of those effects has been located. Temporal lobe epilepsy more likely represents a type of brain malfunction rather an adaptation. The activation of a ‘God module’ may be nothing more than a spontaneous misfire of psychological mechanisms that work well for other purposes in their ordinary context (Kirkpatrick, 2005).
The hunt for the ‘God spot’ has led psychologists to various sections of the brain. The brain’s temporal lobe was an early candidate for investigation because of the temporal lobe epileptics who suffered seizures in these parts of the brain often reported that they experienced powerful religious episodes. A main promoter of this idea was Ramachandran, who asked a number of his temporal-lobe epilepsy patients to listen to a mixture of sexual, religious, and neutral words while measuring their levels of emotional and arousal reactions. The religious words educed a remarkably high response among his patients (Connor, 2009). No individual should attempt to identify the origin of religion, because according to Boyer (2008) no exclusive module for religion exists in the human brain. A selection of cognitive systems handles the depictions of supernatural agents, ritualised behaviours, and commitment to the group. Many of the modern, organised religions show themselves off as entities that integrate separate elements for instance, morality, metaphysical, social identity into one consistent practice and doctrine. These domains are separate from human cognition. The evidence demonstrates that the brain has no one particular belief network, but an infinite amount of separate networks which contributes to the manufacture of religious claims which seem quite natural to a lot of individuals (Boyer, 2008). These findings that emerge from this evolutionary approach to cognition challenges two central beliefs of practically all recognized religions. First of all is the notion of their particular creed is different from all other misguided faiths, and secondly, only for extra-ordinary events or actual presence of God or other supernatural agents that religious ideas have been shaped (Boyer, 2008).
Psychologists are divided on when debating whether or not religious belief has a biological basis. Several evolutionary theorists have argued that Darwin’s theory of natural selection could have placed a premium on people if individuals had the ability to utilise religious beliefs to survive hard times that could have beleaguered those with no religious convictions. Other psychologists have postulated that religious belief is nothing more than a side effect of a wider set of features in the human brain to search for reasoned beliefs about the external world. Evolutionary psychologists argue that belief in God and religion are nothing more than a demonstration of this inherent, biological phenomenon that makes the human brain highly adaptable and intelligent (Connor, 2009).
Evolutionary adaptations are functional biological designs naturally selected to solve important and recurring problems in ancestral environments, for instance teeth for chewing food. Evolutionary by-products are necessary concomitants of adaptations that were not primarily selected to have any to have any direct value such as teeth whiteness. Nonetheless, by-products can acquire or co-opt functions for which they are not originally designed, for instance that white teeth is a sign of health which comes in useful for attracting mates (Atran, 2002). The question here is whether religion is an adaptation or a by-product of human evolution? Kirkpatrick (2006) argues that is not an adaptation because first of all religion is not the direct result of natural selection because religion has no beneficial effects on survival or reproductive success through-out human’s evolutionary history. Secondly, humans possess no genes specifically for religion, in the sense of producing belief or behaviour unique to religion. Thirdly, humans possess no evolved psychological mechanism whose primary adaptive function is or was to produce religion in that sense. Bulbulia (2008) argues that religious belief appears to be an emerged property of our standard cognitive capacities. Religious concepts and activities take control of our cognitive resources. This capture of cognitive resources occurs for the very reason that religion provides some form of super-stimuli. These Gods are versions of absent human agents that are extremely simplified and religious rituals are dramatic styles of precautionary procedures. This take over of cognitive resources also takes place due to the fact that religions assist in the expression of certain behaviours, for instance, to be committed to a religious group when it is phrased as the acceptance of bizarre or non-obvious beliefs, is made all the more credible. Atran (2002) agrees with Kirkpatrick and argues that religions are not adaptations and they have no evolutionary functions as such. He further claims that there is no such entity as religion and that there is not much sense in asking how it evolved and that there is no integrated set of cognitive principles that could represent a task specific evolutionary design.
This does not mean that evolutionary psychology is irrelevant to understanding religion. Such an approach is essential to determine those psychological mechanisms of which religion is a by-product and how it emerges from these. Kirkpatrick (2006) proposes that religion is a spandrel-like by-product of basic psychological mechanisms for understanding the nature world, for instance, folk biology (Atran, 2002) and folk physics (Boyer, 1994). Religion is an exaptation-like by-product of evolved social cognitive mechanisms for negotiating specific, functionally distinct types of relationships such as attachment, dominance hierarchies, coalitions, social exchange and kinship and is also a product of cultural and memetic evolutionary processes for which this domain-specific evolved psychology provides a rich pool of conceptual building blocks. This multiple-by-products outlook gives straight forward solutions to challenging issue of defining religion because it provides a general theoretical approach that may be applied to various aspects of religion (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Attachment theory conceptualises the existence of a primary biosocial behavioural system within infants designed by evolution to maintain proximity between infant and its mother (Hewitt, 2008). Kirkpatrick (2005) applies Bowlby’s attachment theory to help in explaining particular features of religious belief and experience. Bolwlby postulated that the human child was primed to form a strong bond with it caregivers, it’s mother in particular for nurture and protection because of humans ancestral environment which was filled with predators. A lot of religious notions are extensions or generalizations of the caregiver-infant bond. God’s are seen as the agents that protect us from injury or harm in the same way as caregivers do. People living in modern societies frequently turn to religion in times of crisis and psychological distress, for instance during war times, great personal loss, serious injury or illness, and grieving. Gods are primarily a substitute attachment figure for natural attachment figures for instance, caregivers, and significant others. An individuals feeling of a relationship with god, therefore, is more likely to be activated when an individual’s sense of security, freedom and safety from anxiety falls below a critical level as a result of natural attachments being insufficient for life’s trials and tribulations (Kirkpatrick, 2005). Kirkpatrick found that the highest rates of religious conversation was initiated by individuals who had insecure parental attachments hence he concluded that insecurely attached individuals tend to turn to supernatural agents to compensate for troubled childhood relationships. On the other hand religiousness of securely attached individuals are more likely to have originated their social context often in conjunction to the level of religiousness of their caregivers (Hewitt, 2008).
“When we have incomplete knowledge of the world around us, it offers us the opportunities to believe in God. When we don’t have a scientific explanation for something, we tend to rely on supernatural explanations, maybe obeying supernatural forces that we had no knowledge of made it easier for religious forms of belief to emerge” (Connor, 2009, p.1). In short, belief in God is not a survival mechanism, but more of a coping mechanism that individuals use when there is a lack of real life attachment figures present in times of need.
References
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford University Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, cited in Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford University Press.
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious Ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. University of California press, Berkley, CA.
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion Explained. Vintage Books: London
Boyer, P. (2008). Religion: Bound to Believe? NATURE 455, pp. 1038- 1039.
Bulbulia, J., Sosis, R., Harris, E., Genet, R., Genet, C. and Wyman, K. (2008). The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories and Critiques. Collins Foundation Press: USA.
Connor, S. (2009). Belief and the brain’s ‘God spot’. Retrieved 4th March 2009 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html
Henig, R. M. (2007). Darwins God. Retrieved 2nd March 2009 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html
Hewitt, M. A. (2008). Attachment Theory, Religious Beliefs, and the Limits of Reason. Pastroral Psychology. 57 pp. 65-75.
Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). A Longitudinal Study of Changes in Religious Belief and Behaviour as a Function of Individual Differences in Adult Attachment Style, cited in Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford University Press.
Kirkpatrick, L.A. (2005). Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion. The Guilford Press: London.
Ramachandran, V.S. and S. Blakeslee (1998). Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind. Retrieved 4th March 2009 from http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Ramachandran_98.html
Shafranske, E. P. (1997). Religion and the clinical practice of psychology. Washington. American Psychological Association.
Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of Religion. Classic and contemporary. (2nd Ed.) New York. Wiley and Sons Ltd.
You really felt a need to post an entire essay just to make the point that you believe religious belief to be a coping mechanism?
This is not by any means a new argument against religion. Einstein voiced similar ideas (although he wasn’t a psychologist) and I believe Freud and Nietzsche had similar statements attributed to them. The difficulty is that for most people, western religious belief is harder to adhere to than not. My personal feeling is that religious belief is so difficult in western society because we’re usually conditioned NOT to believe. Belief in the Christian God is usually insulted on television and in movies. But what’s more, these insults are usually directed at a particular kind of Christian: fundamentalists who take everything in Scripture word-for-word literally. They contradict themselves.
I’m not opposed to the idea that human religious belief can have a psychological description and perhaps even a psychological explanation. My understanding and reading of Genesis’ account of human beings being created in God’s image does is not so small that the two can’t co-exist. I’m more than willing to say the human brain is – naturally – a product of evolution. However, the human soul and connection to God cannot come about via natural processes.
Your argument begins to fall apart when you consider how many have approached death, or any unknown, without turning to some supernatural being or religious persuasion for comfort. We’re left with too many inconsistencies. Religious belief is a consistent occurrence across cultural and social lines; it’s found among the most primitive and the most civilized. No religious belief is found among the exact same people groups. Modern science, despite its extensive attempts, has failed to produce any conclusive evidence that there is a consistent psychological or biological abnormality that results in religious belief. Many have postulated, none have actually identified anything. If such a discovery were to be made, decisions are then needed to determine which is normal and which is abnormal…belief or disbelief. Whichever is decided will logically necessitate that the other be considered to be some form of psychological impairment/disability requiring treatment. With such large numbers of both religious and non-religious, which group will declared insane? How will the decision be made? How can we explain such large numbers of crazy people running around the world? And all these questions must be answered psychologically.
The article, while an interesting read and worth thinking about, is ultimately doomed to fail one way or another.
Sometimes when you want to make a point stick – it better to develop an argument.
The upshot is, more people take heed.
It is healthy to ponder and pose questions about certain aspects our own and others beliefs, for example,
Was the idea of “blind belief in God” an attempt to stop individuals from questioning their faith???
I admit there is things I cannot explain yet they seem to be there, I use the word “seem” because I am limited to my 5 senses regardless of how sharp they may be in comparison to anyone else.
If one could get around the idea of how large the universe is in comparison to our minuscule planet and that humans believe they are the chosen race by god…… to any living-being brought up without religion that has consciousness similar to our own or perhaps more advanced may look upon the notion as vanity and possibly a hint of desperation because of the human fear of dying. What a lot of people don’t realize is, death is the very thing that makes life so precious.
Who in their right mind would want to life forever anyway if they really took the time to ponder what it would entail.
My idea of life is love and care for people 10% more than you would want to be loved and cared for
and most importantly enjoy this gift of life and have the courage to do what you want to do. Please yourself because if you try to please everybody else, you please no one. Life is hard enough as it is, Why make our journey harder?
Live Life, don’t endure it!!!
I’m not to hot on approving links to other sites, but Edward Leane’s is applicable to the discussion…so y’all feel free to check it out.
There are a tremendous number of opinions and ideas out there about the Kingdm of Heaven/God (I understand the two terms to be referring to the same thing). Nevada, there is a sense that Kingdom encompasses all three, and perhaps that’s just more of the mystery that exists within the mind/person of God and Scripture. Perhaps ultimately, I’ll come to the conclusion that one cannot draw nice neat lines around the Kingdom.
Tim, although I cannot point out chapter and verse at this moment to support these thoughts, I would agree with your assessment as well: the Kingdom cannot be identified on the basis of physical blessing. Kingdom blesses the believer via spiritual blessings – i.e. salvation, forgiveness, redemption, glorification, etc. What you say makes sense – although I’m not sure I follow your comment about “exiting the Kingdom.” Perhaps it’s a theological difference (which I have no problems with), but it seems to me that someone cannot exit the Kingdom without losing their salvation – a reality that I do NOT see as a possibility.
Thanks to everyone so far for your thoughts.
I suppose when it comes down to it the practice of Christianity comes down to four simple things:
1. Humility or faith and trust in God which is the indispensable foundation of a true relationship with God
2. Communication with God through prayer and self-denial.
3. Observance of the law which is written in Scripture and in the hearts of those who love the truth.
4. The offering of sacrifice to God in the sacrifice of the Mass by which we are physically joined to Christ our King.
There are some theologians who begin their respective systematic theologies by defining exactly what religion means/is. Most people tend to think of religion as a thing, but it’s technically a term that describes all actions resulting from a person’s particular beliefs.
A frequent commenter on the blog, Nevada, once pointed out to me that in a most technical way, baseball games are a religious event: we show up, we get a beer and dog (ritual meal), we stand and sing “Take me Out to the Ballgame” during the seventh inning (liturgy), then we go home.
I would boil the “practice of Christianity” down to simply being a disciple – although the whole concept of disciple entails the four points you made above.
Questioning is always a good idea. While I may get annoyed with people questioning me from time to time, I certainly don’t want anyone to not do so – we grow and learn through questioning. There are a lot of Christians who through around the “blind faith” bit in an attempt to quell any arguments/disagreements before they begin. Unfortunately, the Bible never talks about blind faith. Throughout the Psalms, the author often accuses God of screwing up and demanding a fix, far from the “blind faith” so many Christians want to protect. In the New Testament, Paul talks about “working out your faith.” The Bible expects believers to question, doubt, and search out answers. In other words, the Biblical example is that we’re not to just accept what we’re given, but test and make sure that it’s true, as much as we can know something to be true.
There are two ways of looking at Christianity: 1) narcissistically in which an all-powerful, supreme Being actually feels compelled to pay attention to humanity because of what we do; or 2) Selflessly in which humanity does what we do out of thankfulness for what this same supreme Being has already done for us. It’s much like thinking about why a child might do something. At first, the child’s actions are for the purpose of appeasing their parents. But if the parent continues to respond with grace and kindness (something they are not obligated to do), then the child begins to act out thankfulness and joy. Many who do not share the Christian faith tend to only see things the first way.
They way we view the world around us and our actions, is a direct result of our perspective of the Kingdom. Although Christians live in the world, our perspective comes from the Kingdom – the Kingdom being the realm over which Jesus is Lord. Christians approach life with a different set of glasses that most people do not have (but are freely offered). We do what we do and live the way we live BECAUSE of salvation, not to gain salvation.
Your “idea of life” is wonderful. I share a similar idea. But to love and care for people by itself doesn’t cut it. What’s left unanswered is the question about why you love ad care for people. What about people warrants this sort of approach? For me, it’s again wrapped up in what Jesus said: “Love the Lord you God with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your mind…This is the first and greatest commandment…and the second is like it…Love your neighbor as yourself.” I love and care for people because I love God. Because I love God I want to do what he wants, I want to honor him, and give glory to him. The same thing is at work in a healthy marriage. People are created in God’s image and therefore loving and caring for people is one way in which I love God.
“Kingdom living” turns everything on its head; we serve/please others because that gives us pleasure. That doesn’t make the journey harder, it makes it more enjoyable for everyone. The world we’re currently living in is incredibly inward focused – everyone is looking out for #1. By comparison, the Christian life is something like the concept of “pay it forward”: change lives, transform communities, by drowning people in love. Put aside our own desires and comforts, and do everything we can to ensure that everyone else is taken care of. In the end, we end up feeling extremely fulfilled and happy. But again, our ultimate motivation is doing these things as a show of thankfulness for what God has ALREADY done for us. Life is only endured if our goal is to make ourselves happy. Living life is the result of serving God and others with joy.
To loop this around back to death, when this is done, we can approach death with peace, rather than fear. Peace because we know we’ve lived life to the fullest, devoting ourselves to something far bigger than our own little worlds. I not afraid to die, but I don’t have a death-wish either. I’m doing everything I can to love God and others in my life and I will approach death knowing that my life was not lived in vain.