The Cognitive Dissident

The book of Genesis presents the early monotheist’s vision of nature of humanity and of life.  Like monotheism itself, it is a huge step from the elaborate conceptions of reality and nature of older religions, to one stripped down to the basics.  Compare the creation story in Genesis to other ancient traditions. There is no war of the gods, no birthing of a god race, no complicated story line; just one simple and elegant idea. Everything was created from nothing by a power that was beyond comprehension to humans.   Sadly this beautiful and honest simplicity is completely missed by conservative Christians today.

The story goes on to present Adam and Eve as the protohumans. They are the embodiment of the human condition as it was for many thousands of years prior to the first written records. I would suggest, this story is an important allegory that can give us insight that the basic challenges of life are intrinsic to the human condition, not some modern invention of technology, modern society or capitalism.

Consider this, the story of Adam and Eve show that the binary of male and female is not a modern construct; rather it is a biological construct that predates human civilization. This does not say we must be constrained by that construct any more than we must be constrained to travel no faster than we can run, but it does say the argument that the male-female binary is some form of modern oppression is a false claim.  We humans now have the power to move from our evolutionary roots. In many ways, that freedom is a good thing; but, we should never buy into the lie that those evolutionary roots are some sort of evil conspiracy by a nefarious group of people.

Second consider the whole story of the fall from grace.  The story is that the world was once perfect and there was no pain and no death just perfect tranquility.  Of course the dream of a perfect utopia where everyone and everything lives in harmony is still quite alive and well.  The ancient Adam and Eve story disputes this and says that selfishness is intrinsic to the human condition. Monotheists generally say a perfect utopian world is unattainable in this life, or without the one true God’s personal presence on earth to “fix” everything.  Interestingly there has, in the past century, popped up a whole cult of those who teach that utopia on earth is possible if people would stop behaving like, well, like humans.  These groups tend to reject the monotheist view of inherently sinful (self-interested) mankind but rather claim that society makes people evil and if we could reform society we would have utopia.   This is particularly interesting since the story of Adam and Eve would seem to mirror their belief, that the planet would be perfect without humans, yet their story predates all but the most ancient civilizations.  Whether one buys into Marx’s vision of a communist utopia, or Nozick’s libertarian utopia, or even Gene Roddenberry’s vision of utopia via technology; they all share one thing, an assumption that humans are basically kind and unselfish.  All those who say utopia is possible claim evil and selfishness are taught by society, not inborn. Of course such a perfect past only exists in human imagination. The planet has never been “perfect”. Violence, pain and death were on planet earth long before the first human walked upright.   But that is not the point. The point of considering the story of Adam and Eve is that the recognition that humans are inherently destructive and the desire for utopia predates any notion of modern civilization.

The story clearly says that brother will rise against brother and the effort to exert power over others will be the basic story of humanity.  I find it funny that the groups that loudly claim that humans are not inherently “sinful” but rather are made evil by society are so busy looking to prove why they are the victim of oppression by nearly everyone that they seem to miss that they act counter to their stated belief about human nature.  By their actions, they defacto agree with the notion of universal human selfishness and desire to control others, while loudly decrying that humans are not inherently selfish and desire to control others.   Throughout the late 19^th and most of the 20^th century there was the myth that primitive societies, like pre-Columbian Americans or South-Sea Islanders were utopias. The myth was of harmony with nature, sharing of resources and justice for all was the way of life until the evil Europeans arrived.  However, progress of anthropology has found that such primitive societies were extremely violent and warfare between groups was nearly constant and universal.  A recent study of the last groups of “untouched” cultures in the Amazon found that 25% of the males died violent deaths and the kidnapping & rape of women was endemic.  Other anthropologist have found a similar pattern across all tribal groups in the Americas.  Further the great Inca and Aztec Empires were built on conquest and brutality, and the “noble victims” of white aggression in the American Great Plains, such as the Lakota’s were little more than Vikings on horseback. Like the Norse, theirs was a warrior culture,  killing and stealing from their neighbors.  I say this not to attack Native Americans, but to point out that their ancestors were just like my Germanic ancestors. They prospered by killing their neighbors and taking their neighbors stuff.  This is the way of humanity, and that is what the story of the fall from grace tries to describe.

Finally in the story, we find that once Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit that they found shame in their sexuality for the first time.  I have found it interesting when I read the writings of people who have been raised nudist, that it seems nearly universal that the children go through a period of shame when they begin to develop secondary sex characteristics.  The people I have read agree that the way the best nudist parents helped them through that shame was not to force them to go naked; but rather, to support them in the transition and desire to hide their sexuality until they were ready to go naked like their parents.

Compare that to the story of Adam and Eve.  Once they recognized their sexuality, they felt shame for this new and frightening discovery. They wanted to hide this, and so covered their genitals with fig leaves.  God came to them and asked them “Who told you that you are naked?”  He didn’t tell them they were naked, and significantly, there is no mention that the God they saw wore any sort of clothing.  Contrary, other writings speak of God being clothed only in glory, i.e. he was physically nude but his goodness hid any shame.  The story goes on to say God told them that because they had taken on the responsibility of divining good from evil, life would be hard from then on. In effect he was telling them they had transitioned from childhood to adulthood.  For Adam he would have to work to get food and for Eve she would face the pain and danger of child birth in order for their species to survive. Then God kills an animal and makes them durable clothes that would allow them to cover their feeling of shame and offer them protection from the elements. The clothes were not a punishment, but rather a gift to help them overcome their shame and to protect their frail bodies from harm in a harsh and dangerous world.  Through the ancient text Christians  call the Old Testament, we find nudity associated not with sexuality, but with poverty and exposure to the elements.

The story of Adam and Eve, that may not have been physically penned until the sixth century BC, is undoubtedly from an oral tradition that is as old as any literature on earth. This story allows us to see that the same issues that are often attributed to be products of modern or Western society are, in fact, universal conditions for which humans have sought an explanation from the dawn of civilization.

Why does this matter?

Because, by attributing the nature of humanity to the wrong causes, we seek the wrong solutions.  By saying poverty and violence and oppression comes because of the historical events of the last 500 years, we justify the condemnation of blaming of specific groups and labeling them as the cause of such things. This, in turn, gives us the freedom to point at others as the cause of problems rather than looking in the mirror and asking ourselves “What can we do to make the world a better place?”  It is always much easier, as Jesus pointed out, to see the splinter in the eye of your neighbor than the board in your own eye.   Though it is easier to condemn others, the only person we can really make change for the better is ourselves.

So, perhaps, we should seek to make ourselves the best person we can be and set an example of contentment within the trials of life, rather than complaining that people are acting like people always do.