A psychological take on Genesis

[utunumsint]

I heard most of this stuff at a lecture from a psych professor at the university of Toronoto, and I was wondering what you all think about it. It goes like this.

The rational part of the brain is governed by the prefrontal cortex, but it does not fully engage until we reach the age of five or six. Until that time our behaviour is pretty much governed by our desires, and the limbic system. The limbic system also assesses threats based on the fight or flight pattern of responses. For babies, the fight response manifests itself by crying. If they are hungry, they cry, dirty diaper, they cry, tired, they cry. Or sometimes the flight response manifests itself in sulking behaviours, hidding under the covers, etc…

The genesis story tells of the emergence of the rational part of human beings. Moving from immediate limbic fight or flight responses we share with animals, the ratioinal part of our brain starts to fundamentally understand our own vulnerability and weakness. Human beings start building defences around themselves, represented by the cloths God makes for them as an outward manifestation of the inward change. But if you look closer at the genesis story and the interpersonal exchange described in the story of the fall, you see Adam and Eve being tempted by the power promised by the serpent. A power to overcome all limits. This must have been appealing to rational human beings who had newly become aware of their own limitations. Then the discovery by God, and the consequent shifting of blame of Eve to the Serpent, and Adam to Eve. Human conflict is born from this desire for power, due to the awareness of our own vulnerability.

This vulnerability also shows itself in the universal human preocupation with sacrifice. We all sacrifice as human beings to insure a better lot for ourselves. We sacrifice to send our kids to university. We sacrifice by putting in longer hours at work to earn more money. We sacrifice to employers, to the stock market, to institutions all the time to ensure a better end, to protect ourselves and our vulnerability. The story of Cain and Able is no different. But the point of the story is not primarily about sacrific in general, but about the type of sacrifice given. Cain offers a sacrifice that shows an inherently selfish preocupation with his own advancement as is displayed by what happens after his sacrifice is rejected. Able’s sacrifice is more in harmony with the rational order of nature or God’s law. The motivations are more altruistic and in line with ethical limitations. Cain seems to operating our of his own selfish desires that are out of proportion with reason. In order to protect his vulnerability, and out of a desire for vengence, he kills Able. God does not punish him, except to lay a kind of curse on him, propagating the irrationality of his behaviour. If anyone kills Cain, 7 other people have to die. Then for Cain’s son, if anyone kills him, 70 people have to die. Untimatly at the end of Cain’s geneology we have the birth of modern warfare, which is the ultimate expression of this urge to protect our vulnerability beyond the bounds of reason. The entire generation become so repugnant to God that he destroys them all in the flood, except for Noah, who offers acceptable sacrifices to God, and whom God considers righteous and obedient. Noah is somehow in tune with the rational order of the universe.

The presenter’s final point was to relate all the above to our own society, describing the propagation of nuclear weapons as the ultimate expression of this warlike conflict in our own nature represented by the descendants of Cain. Only now we must restrain our impulses or we will destroy ourselves.

Any thoughts? How does this psychological understanding square with Christianity?

God bless,
Ut

 

[fhansen]

An irrational fear of God-and mistrust-is certainly in line with Catholic teaching on the fall. I’ve often wondered if Lucifers’ rebellion didn’t stem from his own awareness of his dependency on God for his existence. Pride-or seeing himself as superior to God and therefore in no need of Him-may’ve been an enticing disposition to possess if it served to combat or negate this fear of non-existence-irrational as that would have been. In any case the rebellion of Lucifer and man involved a preference to believe themselves to be superior or equal to God, and so a preference for placing a lie over the truth. Adam & Eve certainly thought they would better themselves by ignoring Gods command and doing things their own way. But I wonder if the motivation was awareness of their vulnerability-with a fear that God might not sustain them- or just plain jealousy or something else again.

 

[utunumsint]

An irrational fear of God-and mistrust-is certainly in line with Catholic teaching on the fall. I’ve often wondered if Lucifers’ rebellion didn’t stem from his own awareness of his dependency on God for his existence. Pride-or seeing himself as superior to God and therefore in no need of Him-may’ve been an enticing disposition to possess if it served to combat or negate this fear of non-existence-irrational as that would have been.

Agreed. It seems that pride and fear (or lack of trust or a sense of vulnerability) are two sides of the same coin.

In any case the rebellion of Lucifer and man involved a preference to believe themselves to be superior or equal to God, and so a preference for placing a lie over the truth. Adam & Eve certainly thought they would better themselves by ignoring Gods command and doing things their own way. But I wonder if the motivation was awareness of their vulnerability-with a fear that God might not sustain them- or just plain jealousy or something else again.

Probably both. Maybe, looking at this issue with a wider scope, it is the simple acceptance of limitations that is the problem. When people become frustrated by their external or internal situations, they lash out after they reach a certain point. Usually in ways beyond what the situation calls for. I suppose you would call this a limbic prerational response. Jealousy is also a recognition of our own limitations in light of someone else’s superiority. Pride always comes face to face with its own limitations by the very fact that we are finite, limited, and vulnerable beings. Neitchie’s Ubermench usually goes insane after a while, as Neitchie himself did.

I think that today’s problem is definining what the limitations are. If we reject God, arn’t we also rejecting limitations? Or are we simply replacing it with other ethical norms, like ecological ethics that preocupy people today? But even here, the fundamental struggle remains the same. Mankind lives in a way that does not fit the cosmic order, God’s law, the ecological balance, or whatever you want to call it. Human beings constantly displays the church’s teachings on original sin, no matter what philosophical or religious background you have.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve heard a couple references to psychological exegesis and it’s interesting to see a discussion of it. And, of all places, the garden of Eden is the ideal locale for studying psychology at work, for that is the whole story, isn’t it? Which is to say, how did Adam and Eve handle freedom?

If they had given the matter more serious thought, perhaps what they would have done was to cut down the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (TKGE), and to become tree-huggers, hugging the tree of life. This would have been the ancient equivalent of an IRA or a 401(k) plan, for them to live forever. We just don’t know why the tree of life did not attract them. Perhaps it was the angst of thinking, is this (paradise) all there is? There must be more.

And, that runs us into the old joke about Mae West, who, challenged to explain how she would handle the choice of two evils, said she would choose the one she hadn’t tried before. So, the “evil” of humdrum paradise lost out to the “evil” of something they hadn’t tried before, this “good and evil” stuff. When I see kids doing dangerous skateboarding tricks, they obviously want to try something that they haven’t done before, even if it kills them. Or, someone tries a new street drug, having no idea of whether it is safe for them to do so, or even knowing what they’re getting. The something they want to do that is greater than the urge to procreate, an urge which we might assume they had indulged to the point of exhaustion and indifference, the silence of scripture notwithstanding (procreate? no problem!).

But, the story goes as you know, the essence of temptation involved a serpent, and our imaginations can run wild on the scenario of a talking snake and how it may have beguiled our first parents.

One aspect that must be dealt with is Eve’s extravagance in asserting that she and Adam weren’t even supposed to touch the TKGE. Eve had not received the command from God. Adam had, and it is speculation whether Adam added the additional restriction or whether Eve did.

There’s so much depth to psychological analysis. I think that is the allure of this account in Genesis – “sin” when there is absolutely no need to look to its allure.