|
Is Mankind free to choose, invested with true autonomy, able to chart one's own course, and therefore to be held responsible for deeds committed, or are we just broken machines, with faulty programming needing repair by an external agent, mere pawns of another, with no true culpability for what we do?
Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search For Meaning:
“I refer to what is called mysterium iniquitatis, meaning, as I see it, that a crime in the final analysis remains inexplicable inasmuch as it cannot be fully traced back to biological, psychological and/or sociological factors. Totally explaining one’s crime would be tantamount to explaining away his or her guilt and to seeing in him or her not a free and responsible human being but a machine to be repaired. Even criminals themselves abhor this treatment and prefer to be held responsible for their deeds. From a convict serving his sentence in an Illinois penitentiary, I received a letter in which he deplored that the criminal never has a chance to explain himself. He is offered a variety of excuses to choose from. Society is blamed and in many instances the blame is put on the victim."
In Dr. Frankl’s comments, we are confronted with a host of heavyweight concepts, each requiring much thought and discussion. Let us very briefly address some of these.
“helping” another person might quickly devolve to minimization of essential humanity
If people were just broken machines, then we could be taken to the shop for some external fixer to fix us. But we are not Cartesian machines, broken or otherwise; rather, we are individualized consciousness-units, led by what Dr. Sheldrake calls “morphic fields,” which are quantum fields of probability. This means we’re potentially capable of anything, good or bad. No external agent can fix us; we’re not to be fixed but, each for one’s own, must seek for better levels of awareness. We have to self-create, self-direct, self-manage, and become our own “saviors.”
our deeds "cannot be fully traced back to biological, psychological and/or sociological factors"
Do you know what this sounds like? In Newtonian physics we might speak of the “clockwork” deterministic universe. With full knowledge of the forces impacting a particle, we can predict, with great accuracy, its course, where it will be, at any point in the future. And this is quite true. However, materialists insist that humans are merely machines, driven and led by forces of the universe, and, as such, are deterministic in nature, quite predictable, as anything else in the universe.
We expect this kind of talk from materialists, and have much to say about it in the “Evolution” article, but we should be surprised to discover echoes of this metaphysical assumption, concerning the nature of humankind, from religious organizations. On one hand, they might speak of humanistic concepts such as “free will,” “made in the image,” guilt concerning sin, and other precepts relating to humanity’s ability to choose; however, when we examine many of the chief, underlying-bedrock church doctrines, the humanism evaporates, and we’re left with a knock-off brand of materialistic determinism.
Now we’re told that “we were born in sin,” that we’re marred by what Adam did – as if there were an Adam – that, essentially, we’re just broken machines, requiring an Outside Fixer to fix us. The dignity of what it means to be human, in terms of essential responsibility, is taken away. Their "infallible doctrines" report that we’re just pawns in a cosmic stageplay. We can’t chart our own course, we can’t right ourselves, we can’t direct our own lives through the ensuing eternities. We’re just broken machines, with no hope of refurbishing, unless some Outside Fixer does a complete make-over on us.
Editor’s note: But, as we discussed in the “Jesus” article, this doesn’t say much for the poor quality, the slipshod workmanship, regarding the Original Maker’s product. So, in order to avoid embarrassment, the tawdry implications, it’s popular just to blame the victim.
Our deeds "cannot be fully traced back to biological, psychological and/or sociological factors" because we're living-walking-breathing quantum fields of probability, enfleshed versions of Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle." We're not deterministic by nature. The "uncertainty principle" doesn't mean that it's really hard to predict but that it's impossible to predict with any accuracy.
the mysterium iniquitatis
This is quite interesting. I hope you’ll take a few minutes to explore it with me.
The Latin term, mysterium iniquitatis, is literally the “mystery of iniquity” or the “mystery of evil.”
Recall, if you will, discussions elsewhere concerning the nature of Big Religion’s doctrines. I’ve said that virtually any of their teachings, upon close inspection, especially the major foundational ones, have been designed to keep you dependent, servile, laden with burdens of fear and guilt. And this charge will suffer no degradation when we look at the mysterium iniquitatis.
It’s an old phrase. And it can mean anything you want it to mean, depending on your view of God and the purpose of life. Dr. Frankl is a humanist. This means he believes in the dignity of human essence and potential. We are responsible, he says, for our own attitudes, for our course in life. We are not victims of what someone else did a long time ago. We are not pawns. We are not machines needing to be taken to the shop. We are endowed with awesome powers of self-creation.
In the hands of Dr. Frankl, the mysterium iniquitatis becomes, to the effect, “The origins of human malfeasance can never be entirely plotted and charted. We’re far too complicated for that kind of reductionism. You can’t reduce us to a formula, or a one-size-fits-all. Our capacity is altogether incredibly too grand for that kind of easy solution.”
This is what the mysterium iniquitatis means to the humanistic Dr. Frankl. But when it’s used by totalitarians, the cultish mindset, ever seeking new ways to enslave and incapacitate you, the mysterium iniquitatis becomes something very different. Now this Latin phrase is pressed into service to signify, to the effect, “Evil is a great mystery. It’s far too complicated for ordinary people to understand. You must allow God’s chosen servants to protect you from evil. And you’ll be doing this by obeying all the church laws and teachings. That’s what’s important.”
Anytime the Church doesn’t want you asking too many questions, they’ll call it a mystery, that it’s all unknowable. We’re reminded of the scathing judgment here by Father Benson:
the empty farrago of words
"The laws that govern the spirit world are not complex laws that none can understand. There are many things in spirit life which we cannot understand yet, just as there are many things upon earth which cannot yet be understood... But [even now, before we understand everything] with all such matters, we can see plainly the reason for some law, or truth, or whatever it may be. We are now treated to a farrago of words that collectively possess not one grain of meaning or sense, only to be told that it is a ‘mystery’, or something that under Divine Providence we are not meant to know."
Granted, the universe is filled with mysteries, and we’ll be exploring them for a very long time to come, but in this admission there is no pious defeatism of “oh, well, it’s a mystery, we’ll never know, and you shouldn’t even bother thinking about it.” This anti-intellectual approach is just bunk and meant to keep you on the plantation.
There’s a certain smell to everything the Church teaches. This is not hard to understand when we realize and admit that the Church is just one of the collective-ego institutions of the world, in business to do what egos do, which is to satisfy the cravings of “I don’t have enough” because “I am not enough.”
Editor’s note: It’s ironic that “mystery” should be applied to the subject of evil. As stated, there are many mysteries in the universe, but the essential nature of evil is not one of them. We know what evil is, all too clearly. See the extensive discussions on the meaning of “Evil.”
|