Ishmael
A friend recommended that I read the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. The book is written as a novel, but is really a socratic dialogue between a cynical and concerned young man and a gorilla with human intelligence and telepathic power. The story begins when Ishmael puts an ad in the paper as a teacher looking for a pupil. One gets the impression that this is a guru seaching for a disciple, which sets the tone for the novel. I use the term "socratic" because the gorilla painfully (for the reader) walks his student through a long series of questions about the philosophical underpinnings of modern civilization.
In brief, the world is composed of Givers and Takers. We take more than we need from those with whom we share this planet, that is, other species of life. We are descendants of Cain, and the beginning of our exploitation of the environment can be traced to the origins of agriculture. The few remnants of hunter-gatherers that remain are the Givers, those who live in harmony with their environment, who take only what they need and accept each day as a gift from "the gods". For millions of years we too lived in harmony with our world, but about 8000 years ago we rebelled against "the gods" by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We made a decision that we would no longer depend on the whims of the gods and the capricious forces of nature, but that we would begin to harness and establish dominion over our world, to guarantee our food supply and to control our destiny. We declared war on creation.
Ishmael sees the first few chapters of Genesis as a powerful myth which, when properly understood, reveals not only our ancient history but also our motivations as a species: our fear of death, our desire to be gods, our basic selfishness, and our special ability to lie to ourselves, even to the point of extinction. He advocates a return to Eden and even paraphrases Jesus admonition not to worry about tomorrow in Matthew 6:31-32 Therefore do not worry, saying, "What will we eat?' or "What will we drink?' or "What will we wear?' For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. So we can conclude that it is our faithlessness which compels us to build our modern civilization, and in the process we will continue to consume our world until there is nothing left.
Perhaps Ishmael should have continued with the passage, which goes on to say, "But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Not "the gods", but God. Ishmael chastises St. Francis for hypocrisy because he lived off of the produce from those who gather food into barns (Takers), but then selectively ignores the primary Gospel message which is that we cannot return to Eden, because we are a fallen humanity. Adam and Eve were created to be immortal, so that they were justly warned that they would surely die if they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. Givers and Takers both live their short lives and return to dust, and whether their actions are beneficial or detrimental to the species with whom they coexist, the end result is the same for all species, death and disintegration. Ishmael takes great liberties with the myth by assigning the Fall of Man to the discovery of agriculture and the beginning of civilization as we know it. A more Biblical interpretation would say that agriculture was a necessity for a fallen humanity, not that Adam and Eve chose agriculture in defiance of God's perfect order.
Ishmael has already tipped his hand in reinterpreting the "Taker Story" as a big lie when he refers to the gods, rather than talking about God. We already know that Ishmael's moral system does not come from divine revelation. So what is the source of Ishmael's moral authority?
Before we can accept Ishmael's conclusions about how we should behave, we must first understand the premises behind his moral system. In an earlier post, I concluded that materialistic naturalism a la Dawkins cannot support a moral system on its own authority since the moral system is merely an artifact of some underlying mindless genetic imperative. Ishmael's underlying moral premise for choosing Giver over Taker is that the entire ecosystem of the world has intrinsic worth, and that the life of the entire system and the greater common survival and harmony of all the species within the system is intrinsically good. This harmonious balance stands in beautiful contrast to the ugliness of modern civilization.
If we assume that the Giver system is the most beneficial, it is only fair that we look at the reality of the Giver world rather than the idealization as found in Ishmael's dialogue. The reality of the natural world is that the harmony with which species coexist includes a continuous state of misery as well, assuming that sickness, carnage and death are deemed miserable. Our world is less tormented by man-made disaster than by environmental forces which are beyond our control. The world lost untold priceless strands of DNA when it was plunged into the first Ice Age. This massive de-speciation was part of the "natural" order. The new balance which emerged was neither better nor worse than the previous balance, unless we arbitrarily decide that biodiversity has intrinsic moral goodness.
Yet Ishmael and his disciple both derive their moral judgment from the same principle, a principle left unstated throughout the novel.
Natural is good, artificial is bad.
This is the foundation of the entire naturalistic world view, the ultimate principle, the unquestioned assumption. We have heard this for years, even in crass television commercials. We have seen it on billboards. We no longer question the validity of the statement -- it is the story beneath the story.
The perfect companion novel to Ishmael would be Lord of the Flies by William Golding. It might provide a different perspective on the nature of evil and a glimpse into the lives of the Givers. But alas, Ishmael cleverly covers his bases by concluding that we cannot simply go back, we must go forward. Sorry Ishmael, you cannot have it both ways, in fact, this is the whole problem with naturalism as a moral philosophy. Many people dream of returning to nature, but when the machine of civilization is disrupted, nature once again can be seen for what it is: a heartless war of all against all. The harmony we think we see is a view from the eye of civilization; take away the civilization and the harmony turns to danger and survival. Yes, it is true that we cannot go back, but to destroy our civilization in the process of seeking utopia will take us all the way back to nature.
The evil in the heart of man does not come from modern society; it is intrinsic and part of our being. Modern civilization increases the magnitude of our decisions, whether good or evil, but it is not in itself evil. Our inability to live in harmony with nature as good stewards is not an outcome of capitalism, agriculture, or any other aspect of civilization, but as with all human activity, it carries with it the potential to do great good and great evil. The moral authority and the moral imperative to care for our planet come from God, not from the gods or from genetics. Without God, neither gorilla nor mankind can survive.
In brief, the world is composed of Givers and Takers. We take more than we need from those with whom we share this planet, that is, other species of life. We are descendants of Cain, and the beginning of our exploitation of the environment can be traced to the origins of agriculture. The few remnants of hunter-gatherers that remain are the Givers, those who live in harmony with their environment, who take only what they need and accept each day as a gift from "the gods". For millions of years we too lived in harmony with our world, but about 8000 years ago we rebelled against "the gods" by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We made a decision that we would no longer depend on the whims of the gods and the capricious forces of nature, but that we would begin to harness and establish dominion over our world, to guarantee our food supply and to control our destiny. We declared war on creation.
Ishmael sees the first few chapters of Genesis as a powerful myth which, when properly understood, reveals not only our ancient history but also our motivations as a species: our fear of death, our desire to be gods, our basic selfishness, and our special ability to lie to ourselves, even to the point of extinction. He advocates a return to Eden and even paraphrases Jesus admonition not to worry about tomorrow in Matthew 6:31-32 Therefore do not worry, saying, "What will we eat?' or "What will we drink?' or "What will we wear?' For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. So we can conclude that it is our faithlessness which compels us to build our modern civilization, and in the process we will continue to consume our world until there is nothing left.
Perhaps Ishmael should have continued with the passage, which goes on to say, "But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Not "the gods", but God. Ishmael chastises St. Francis for hypocrisy because he lived off of the produce from those who gather food into barns (Takers), but then selectively ignores the primary Gospel message which is that we cannot return to Eden, because we are a fallen humanity. Adam and Eve were created to be immortal, so that they were justly warned that they would surely die if they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. Givers and Takers both live their short lives and return to dust, and whether their actions are beneficial or detrimental to the species with whom they coexist, the end result is the same for all species, death and disintegration. Ishmael takes great liberties with the myth by assigning the Fall of Man to the discovery of agriculture and the beginning of civilization as we know it. A more Biblical interpretation would say that agriculture was a necessity for a fallen humanity, not that Adam and Eve chose agriculture in defiance of God's perfect order.
Ishmael has already tipped his hand in reinterpreting the "Taker Story" as a big lie when he refers to the gods, rather than talking about God. We already know that Ishmael's moral system does not come from divine revelation. So what is the source of Ishmael's moral authority?
Before we can accept Ishmael's conclusions about how we should behave, we must first understand the premises behind his moral system. In an earlier post, I concluded that materialistic naturalism a la Dawkins cannot support a moral system on its own authority since the moral system is merely an artifact of some underlying mindless genetic imperative. Ishmael's underlying moral premise for choosing Giver over Taker is that the entire ecosystem of the world has intrinsic worth, and that the life of the entire system and the greater common survival and harmony of all the species within the system is intrinsically good. This harmonious balance stands in beautiful contrast to the ugliness of modern civilization.
If we assume that the Giver system is the most beneficial, it is only fair that we look at the reality of the Giver world rather than the idealization as found in Ishmael's dialogue. The reality of the natural world is that the harmony with which species coexist includes a continuous state of misery as well, assuming that sickness, carnage and death are deemed miserable. Our world is less tormented by man-made disaster than by environmental forces which are beyond our control. The world lost untold priceless strands of DNA when it was plunged into the first Ice Age. This massive de-speciation was part of the "natural" order. The new balance which emerged was neither better nor worse than the previous balance, unless we arbitrarily decide that biodiversity has intrinsic moral goodness.
Yet Ishmael and his disciple both derive their moral judgment from the same principle, a principle left unstated throughout the novel.
Natural is good, artificial is bad.
This is the foundation of the entire naturalistic world view, the ultimate principle, the unquestioned assumption. We have heard this for years, even in crass television commercials. We have seen it on billboards. We no longer question the validity of the statement -- it is the story beneath the story.
The perfect companion novel to Ishmael would be Lord of the Flies by William Golding. It might provide a different perspective on the nature of evil and a glimpse into the lives of the Givers. But alas, Ishmael cleverly covers his bases by concluding that we cannot simply go back, we must go forward. Sorry Ishmael, you cannot have it both ways, in fact, this is the whole problem with naturalism as a moral philosophy. Many people dream of returning to nature, but when the machine of civilization is disrupted, nature once again can be seen for what it is: a heartless war of all against all. The harmony we think we see is a view from the eye of civilization; take away the civilization and the harmony turns to danger and survival. Yes, it is true that we cannot go back, but to destroy our civilization in the process of seeking utopia will take us all the way back to nature.
The evil in the heart of man does not come from modern society; it is intrinsic and part of our being. Modern civilization increases the magnitude of our decisions, whether good or evil, but it is not in itself evil. Our inability to live in harmony with nature as good stewards is not an outcome of capitalism, agriculture, or any other aspect of civilization, but as with all human activity, it carries with it the potential to do great good and great evil. The moral authority and the moral imperative to care for our planet come from God, not from the gods or from genetics. Without God, neither gorilla nor mankind can survive.
posted by moleses | 9:57 AM
1 Comments:
What does a gorilla know anyway. Sounds like a Planet of the Apes knockoff to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home