Blog Archives
Imago Dei Part 2 — Human Exceptionalism
Here is part two of my post on Imago Dei and Human Exceptionalism. Again, many will have different opinions on this matter but I am using evidence from and excellent book.
Are we mere animals? Is there scientific evidence that humans are “exceptional”? From the book, “Human 2.0” by Fazale Rana and Kenneth R. Samples, here is the evidence for Imago Dei from Human Exceptionalism:
- Symbolism
- Open ended generative capacity
- Theory of mind
- Capacity to form complex social networks
- Ethics and morality
Symbology is the capacity for symbolic behavior and correlates exclusively with the fossil remains of modern humans and can be understood from a Christian perspective to be a manifestation of the image of God. The Human capacity for symbolism manifests in the form of language, art, music, and jewelry.
“It enables us to combine and recombine basic elements such as people, objects, and actions into novel scenarios. Such nesting is also essential for reflection: our capacity to think about our own thinking. Nested thinking allows us to reason about the mental scenarios we entertain. . . . We can connect diverse scenarios into larger plots. . . . We can reflect on the relationship between past experiences and construct complex plans with embedded if-then steps.” Thomas Suddendorf
Open Ended Generative Capacity
“The capacity to offer opinions on a wide range of topics and to communicate ideas with language reflects our symbolism and open ended generative capacity.” Humans 2.0
“Human beings possess unique intellectual, cultural, and communicative abilities. Humans are thinkers, uniquely capable of abstract reasoning, and able to apply the foundational logical principle of noncontradiction (A cannot equal A and equal non- A).
Human minds alone develop propositions, formulate arguments, draw inferences, recognize universal principles, and value logical validity, coherence, and truth. Only human beings wonder why the physical universe corresponds to abstract mathematical theorems. “
Theory of Mind
We recognize that other people have minds just like ours, allowing us to understand what others are thinking and feeling.
Recent work by Spanish neuroscientists from the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain, and Language indicates that mere mortals do indeed have an unusual ability that seems a bit like telepathy. When we engage in conversations with one another—even with strangers—the electrical activities of our brains synchronize.
“To put it another way, the brain activities of two people in the conversation became synchronized, establishing a connection between their minds.” Humans 2.0
Complex Social Networks
Humans have a deep need to communicate with each other and they accomplish it through a sophisticated intellectual process. In contrast, animals also communicate (and possess many other amazing abilities) but they do not work with abstractions or ask philosophical questions.
”The oscillations of our brain’s electrical activity couple with the rhythmic patterns created by speech, suggesting our brain is hardwired to support our desire to communicate with one another symbolically. It is equally intriguing that our brains become coupled at an even deeper level when we converse, consistent with our theory of mind and human capacity to enter into complex social relationships.” Humans 2.0
Animal communication differs in kind from open-ended human language. Animal memory differs in kind from human mental time travel. Problem-solving in animals differs in kind from human abstract reasoning. Empathy displayed by animals differs in kind from morality.
“Social cognition in animals differs in kind from the cumulative culture possessed by human beings.” Suddendorf
Ethics and Morality
Egoism – each acts in one’s own self interest
Libertarianism – maximizing individual liberty
Utilitarianism – promoting the greatest good for the greatest number (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.)
Relativism – subjective and changing standards
Pragmatism – whatever works, works
Egoism – Humans 2.0
“There seems to be no legitimate means for settling conflicts between individuals and between groups. Hotly competing self-interests can easily degrade into anarchy. The system appears to be arbitrary in insisting that the interests of one group count more than the interests of another.
Self-sacrifice, the opposite of self-interest, seems necessary in many critical relationships in life and society (e.g., marriage, parenthood, friendship, citizenship, etc.).”
Relativism – Humans 2.0
“A morality relative to either a person or a culture is ultimately incoherent (in effect, such a morality denies itself). Moral relativism, which pervades much of Western culture, leads to the logical quagmire of thinking that no human is better than another, no code of values exceeds any other, and all moral choices are equal.”
Theism
We Shall Not Commit Murder – EVERY human bears God’s image and has inherent value. Gen. 9:5-6.
We Shall not VERBALLY ASSAULT another person – Jesus equates verbal assault with murder! Matt. 5:21-22
We are commanded to LOVE our neighbor. – Jesus identifies the greatest commandment is love God and the second greatest is LIKE IT, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Matt. 22:35-41
”We are commanded to help the MARGINALIZED – Because all humans bear God’s image we must do whatever we can to help those people in need. Matt. 25:42-45 and James 4:14-15.
We are commanded to stand against INJUSTICE – to do whatever we can to make that which is wrong, right. To OPPRESS and EXPLOIT another human being is equivalent to ASSAULTING GOD himself! Isa. 1:10-20, Amos 2:4-8.” Human 2.0.
”We are to RESPECT human identity – Our identity as human beings is sacred and defined by the image of God. We are “very good” and “fearfully and wonderfully made”. Gen. 1 and 2, Psalm 139, Psalm 8:4-5.” – Human 2.0.
“Because we bear God’s image, there is something sacred about human nature and identity that extends beyond the value human beings inherently possess. We are to bring NATURE under our control – We’ve been designated caretakers of the planet. Our Creator expects us to use the earth’s resources wisely—avoiding damage and preserving the environment.” Fuz Rana – Gen. 1:28-31, Psalm 8
”The responsibility God has given us to care for creation makes it necessary to learn whatever we can about how nature operates. This learning provides the motivation for science.
As we learn about nature and how to develop technology that allows us to flourish as a species, we gain knowledge that can serve us well as the planet’s caretakers.
Notice that in all of these mandates, we are NEVER told to Worship nature as a force unto itself!” Fuz Rana
Do we see correlation between theism and Human Exceptionalism?
Symbology – The Bible itself!
Language, symbols, biography, poetry, – WORSHIP!
Open Ended Generative Thinking – Parables
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
“I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.” Matt. 13:34-35
Theory of Mind – Testing, theorizing, the concept of a unique mind is seen in these scriptures.
“All this I tested by wisdom and I said, “I am determined to be wise”— but this was beyond me. Whatever exists is far off and most profound— who can discover it? So I turned my mind to understand, to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly.” Ecc. 7:23-25
“When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.” Matt. 5:15
Brain Synchronization can be seen in these scriptures:
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2
Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 1 Peter 3:8
Complex Social Networks are seen in the early church.
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Acts 2:42-47
Ethics
“On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Luke 10:25-29
Hopefully, these concepts will start many conversations. As human beings, we must rise above being “mere animals” if we are to respect each other as equals. Tomorrow, I will post the final cover and launch dates for “The 1st Demon: Imago Diaboli”~
In Whose Image? Part 1
My upcoming book, “The 1st Demon: Imago Diaboli” I write about the important question, “What does it mean to be human?” Soon, it will be available for purchase and to begin to set the stage for my story I want to share my prior ideas that provide the foundation for ideas in this book. Note that some of what I will post is controversial!
In my book, “Death By Darwin” Ruth Martinez reveals her greatest regret in successfully defending the serial killer, Reginald Drake. Both characters figure prominently in “The Chronicles of Jonathan Steel”. In a tense courtroom scene, Ruth has to approach the “death” of the victim on the operating table during the harvesting of the victim’s organs for transplant. Was the victim still alive? What constitutes “death”? Ruth has put the coroner on the stand.
Ruth retrieved a folder from the witness table and placed it on the edge of the witness stand. “Dr. McCormack, this is your final autopsy report on the victim, correct?”
“Well, I prefer a PDF, but some of us are old school.” He nodded toward Judge Tucker. The jury chuckled and Ruth waited for the gavel to rap in vain. The laughter died down.
“You may laugh at death, Dr. McCormack. But, I do not.” Ruth said quietly. “Would you turn to page 135 for me, please.”
McCormack sighed and grabbed the folder with meaty hands. He licked his finger as he thumbed through the pages. “Page 135. You want me to read the whole page?”
“No, just the final cause of death, please.”
McCormack shrugged. “I can tell you what she died of.”
“I don’t want you tell me anything, Dr. McCormack.” Ruth said loudly. “I want you to read what you put in the official record as the cause of death. That is all that matters right now. This folder has been placed into evidence by the prosecution and I could care less what you think. I want to know what you wrote down. So read the last entry! Now!”
Ruth was startled at the ferocity of her own voice. McCormack’s face grew red and he smacked his lips. “I don’t like being talked to that way, young lady.”
“I am not a young lady, Dr. McCormack.” Ruth stepped closer. “And, while you and the judge play glad hands with each other, I can easily file an injunction for a mistrial. I have an entire room full of witnesses to your harassment of this attorney and your scorn and disregard for this court of law. Now, read the entry!”
Ruth’s voice echoed around the chamber and she waited for the gavel to fall. She was met with only silence. McCormack glared at her and looked down at the page. “Cardiorespiratory arrest.”
“Thank you.” Ruth reached forward and took the folder from him. “Now, I will ask you to please, in layman terms, tell this jury what that phrase actually means.”
McCormack pursed his lips and crossed his arms. “It means the heart stopped and the victim died.”
“The heart stopped. What about the brain?”
McCormack blinked. “What?”
“What about the brain? When did it die?” Ruth pressed on.
“Honey, the victim was beaten and suffered brain damage.”
Ruth nodded and felt nausea creep up her throat. “Brain damage. But, when did the brain die?”
McCormack shrugged. “I’m not sure what you’re getting at.”
Ruth tossed the folder back onto the evidence table and retrieved another folder. “Are you familiar with the Unified Declaration of Death Act of 1981, the statute that established the medicolegal definition of death?”
McCormack uncrossed his arms and shook his head. “Of course, I am. I’m the coroner. I know death when I see it.”
“So, isn’t it true that statute established a bifurcated definition of death?”
“Bifurcated? What the heck do you mean by that?” McCormack said. “Marshall, stop this nonsense.”
Ruth glanced at Tucker and he was leaning forward in his chair, his eyes narrowed. “I think you may be onto something, Ms. Martinez. Dr. McCormack answer the question.”
“But, Marshall.”
Tucker picked up his gavel. “Don’t make me use it.”
McCormack shrugged again. “I guess you mean the duel definition of death. Brain death versus cardiac death.”
“Exactly, Dr. McCormack. Now, let me ask you something. In your professional opinion as a medical doctor and the medical examiner for this county, is it possible for the brain to still be alive after the heart stops beating?” Ruth moved across the floor toward the stand, the other folder in her hand.
“Well, sure. That is why we use cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Keep the circulation going to keep the brain alive.”
“So, when the heart stops, the brain is still alive?”
“Technically, yes. But, the victim’s brain was—”
“What?” Ruth was at the stand now.
“Damaged.”
“But, was her brain dead?” Ruth asked.
McCormack opened his mouth and looked over her shoulder at Tucker.
“Don’t look to him for help. YOU are the expert. You said ‘you know death’. Only YOU can answer this question. Was the victim’s brain dead when her heart stopped?”
“No. Damaged but not dead.” McCormack said.
A key piece of legislature went before the Louisiana legislators a few years ago removing the requirement for two doctors to sign off on a certificate of death for patients donating their organs after death. Dr. Jeff White, a local cardiologist and expert on medical legal law, authored a position paper against the bill. You can read the paper here.
Read the rest of this entry
Bruce Hennigan 
You must be logged in to post a comment.