Archive for October, 2013

Gestalt Psychology

It has been an interesting journey in class lately discussing this theory. Gestalt psychology is formed primarily around the idea that perception is truth. In line with the truth of the gospel, I would say that my views do not, in many ways, align with this theory. A basic truth I am coming to realize is that I am, obviously, not perfectly reliable and I cannot even fully trust myself. Sometimes the we see things are not the way they really are. One of my favorite quotes, by Ananis Nin, says: “We do not see things the way they are; we see things the way we are.” Our perception of truth and our surroundings is altered by our subjective thoughts and emotions. We cannot be fully trusted and Proverbs 20:5 warns of this: “The purposes of a person’s heart are deep waters, but one who has insight draws them out.” As we see also with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, shadows both metaphorically and literally cloud our judgment. However, as we saw in lecture, our brains do perceive things from a holistic perspective and I am absolutely amazed by our ability to constantly draw parallels to create clean lines. This practice helps us make sense of what we are seeing. The problem with this characteristic of our brains is that this could potentially morph what is actually true. I am continuously fascinated by the fact we can easily and quickly craft ingenious solutions to problems, without even consciously realizing it. Humans truly are incredibly made and Gestalt psychology recognizes that. To the credit of Gestalt psychologists, I will say that one thing I deeply admire is the desire to organize messy and overwhelming stimuli into patterns that are logical. Though life does not always work according to this principle, it is nice to know that we are capable of critical thinking at this level.

Gestalt Psychology is based on perception. Sometimes the way we perceive things is not always the truth. That is one of the results of the fall. Many times the truth is right in front of us, but because of circumstances that don’t allow us to see the truth, it remains hidden behind our own perceptions. It kind of reminds me of the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz. Throughout the movie, he claims he has a  blinder on his mind that keeps him from being smart. At the end of the movie when he is finally able to meet “he great and powerful Oz”, Oz convinces Scarecrow that he never really had any blinders on his mind, he had been smart all along. After Scarecrow is enlightened to the truth, we can see that he only felt held back because of how he perceived himself. In reality, many times our perceptions can be our downfalls. In a sense, before we become new creations in Christ, we all have “blinders” on our minds that change our perceptions that keep us from the truth. Not all perceptions are wrong or bad. God’s perceptions about us are the ones that we should strive to believe and receive. When we are enlightened to his truth about our lives, we are able to find beauty in ashes and hole on to hope when all seems lost. Unfortunately though many people still life their lives with blinders, believing their own faulty perceptions. While it is refreshing and freeing to take off these blinders, we are bound to be born with them because of the fall. The blinders will cause us to live with thoughts and perceptions that do not align with the truth until they are removed, which sometimes does not happen for everyone. Your glass can either be half empty or half full, it all depends  how you view it.

Hall’s fascination with evolution led him to the belief that each person reenacts every stage of the human species over time. At each stage of the individuals development they exhibit characteristics of the past. Hall uses the example of young children who are impulsive and do not act within a moral framework. They are showing the signs of less civilized evolutionary ancestors. As life continues, more stages from the past manifest themselves.

The continuous cycle that exists according the the Recapitulation Theory exemplifies the Fall. The Fall explains our separation from God due to our blemished nature. Recapitulation Theory developed after evolutionary theory which explains that creations in existence in the present are those that were most fit and adaptable. This idea could fit under Creation or New Creation. However, Hall’s notion that our lives manifest aspects of prior stages of the human species shows that even while we develop and adapt to become more fit we cannot escape the past. A child exhibiting cruelty in his play has an inherent aspect of cruelty in his nature that he cannot escape. As fallen beings we were separated from God through the desires of our flesh and even if we have been reconciled with God we will stumble because of the sinful nature that still wars against our souls. For this reason Recapitulation Theory seems to best fit with the Fall.

It may seem a bit obvious to saddle Darwin with creationism. The fact is, I can’t think of any place I would rather have him associated with. Darwin is most commonly known for his research on The Galapagos islands. His research opened up our imaginations and gave us great insight into a world we were greatly unfamiliar with for much of it’s existence. Darwin is also well known for his theories and ideas on evolution and survival of the fittest.

Adaptation, it seems,  has always been at the forefront of many arguments in evolution vs. creation. This is a very general statement, I am aware, but as this is a blog post I have a point. It would make sense to me we would adapt and in a sense “evolve” to the conditions around us. I have never really landed on one side of the fence or the other, but I have thought a lot about it in the past. I think limiting our capabilities as a creation is another way of putting God in a “box”. I’m not suggesting we made a step as extreme as evolving from monkeys, but I do believe God created them with as much intention as he created everything else.

This, to me, is why I would associate Darwin with creation. I think his theories hold some ground, but I also believe, in all of our research, perhaps we have taken his theories farther than even he might have. I am open to all possibilities, but the fact of the matter is I believe it is possible for us to adapt, it just seems to suggest a limit to our abilities would point to a limit in God’s capabilities.

Most people associate Darwinism negatively with Creation – that is, they believe Darwinism contradicts Creation completely. I do not believe this to be true. While I do not think that humans evolved from another species entirely, such as fish, apes, etc., I do recognize that humans have in fact evolved over time. For example, our ancestors may have been more short and small because they needed to be compact in order to fit into wherever they could find shelter – usually (presumed to be) in caves. People nowadays, although ranging in shape and size, tend to be larger than our cavemen counterparts. So, did we come from apes or fish or some other non-human-like creature? I highly doubt it. Have we evolved in order to better suit our environments? Absolutely. God created us to evolve, but He created us as our own race from the beginning.

The ideas of inheritance and the measurement of intelligence were exciting and fascinating new ways of looking at the world.  However, Galton took this knowledge and ran too far with it.  Before the measuring of intelligence through sensory acuity, the differences between successful and non-successful people were chalked up to character– as Darwin said, “You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect only in zeal and hard work.”  It must have been amazing to imagine that people were so much more than their character- that perhaps there were uncontrollable inheritances that pre-determined one’s behavior or success in life.  While these new ideas opened up a whole realm of possibilities in the discovery of truth and for scientific thought, it also brought about some dangerous conclusions on how to deal with man’s inherited differences .  Such an empirical way of viewing man lead to an inappropriate desire to control and enhance him.  Galton’s conclusion was eugenics– a type of breeding in order to improve society.  As he said, “I shall show that social agencies of an ordinary character, whose influences are little suspected, are at this moment working towards the degradation of human nature…I conclude that each generation has enormous power … and maintain that it is a duty we owe to humanity to investigate the range of that power, and to exercise it in a way that , without being unwise towards ourselves, shall be most advantageous to future inhabitants of the earth.”  Galton suggested that the government pay for couples who have desirable characteristics to be married.  I classify this view of man under the fall because in it, man and society become the sum of their empirical parts.  When this idea was fleshed out with full conviction, it was known as the Holocaust.  Racial cleansing, infanticide, and prejudice are all fallen outcomes of this purely scientific view of man.

I would place Pierre Flourens primarily in the category of creation.  I think Flourens most significant contributions are related to creation.  As we’ve moved further into the text, it seems that many people are trying to understand and comprehend our minds and our brains.  Are they one and of the same?  Or are they completely separate entities?  What is this whole brain-mind relationship and how does it effect my actions and my body?

Flourens was genius in deciding to use the method of ablation or extirpation to discover more about the brain.  Rather than assuming different parts of the brain and their functions, Flourens decides to try the reverse.  He tries to see what exactly different parts of the brain do.  He tested this by using dogs and pigeons (like the one pictured above), which he thought were similar to humans.  His researcher is fascinating because it shed some light on the situation.  For example, Flourens says that the removal of the cerebellum disturbed the coordination and equilibrium of that organism. He goes on to list other observations, too.  Some animals that lost part of their functioning due to ablation sometimes regained their functioning.

Something I think is different about Pierre Flourens is that it never really seems like he’s trying to make this big drawn out point to defeat and put down someone else’s idea.  He just appears to be looking for further understanding on the human brain and mind.  I don’t think he was necessarily looking for research so that he could fix every problem all of us stupid humans.  Instead, I think Flourens wanted to understand the basic creation of his and others bodies.  I can also see how you could put Flourens in the fall category because chances are he’s seen faults… in someone’s coordination, personality, balance,etc.  He also sees that we fail to some aspect whenever certain parts of our brain are missing.  Something missing from our brains  can effect our character traits, moods, personalities, etc. and those things speak to the truth that there is a fall.

Charles Darwin is the famous natural scientist accredited with the idea of ‘Survival of the Fittest’. On his voyage on the HMS Beagle, he observed the different traits of sparrows from island to island, how their diets and beak shapes were altered. His evolutionary theory revolutionized the way we look at ourselves as a species, as well as our role in the universe. Darwin researched the adaptive habits of many animals to determine how their feeding habits, mating habits, ecosystems and other factors affected their genetic makeup. Darwin specifically studied animals adapting to diet and climate changes to see how their species developed, in order to determine ideas about their origin. This is why I would categorize Darwin’s work under Creation.

Darwin’s goal was to explain where we came from and animals and plants descended, evolved, and mutated to become whatever they are today. I have read the book, “On the Origin of Species,” and drew conclusions that Darwin sought answers to creation-like questions; how are we different from other primates? Natural selection as an ecological principle is based on the branching pattern of evolution over time. Scientists (who accept this theory) believe that living organisms innately need their genes to prevail.

Extremely controversial, this principle is thought to deny the existence of a God in some ways, although it is not popularly believed that this was his intention. The immense theological implications of this theory of evolution were unparalleled. People could not believe that Darwin would deny divine creation. Still today, people have trouble distinguishing the difference between the theory of evolution and atheism.

The hostile reaction to Charles Darwin’s theory spurred arguments that it opposed the truth of scripture and denied that God created the world. Even though there are areas of scripture most people believe weren’t literal events (prophetic books come to mind), the creation story is one with which a large part of Christianity is unwilling to compromise. The sheer force of the hostility can’t be explained by biblical literalism alone, even though that’s where most of the arguments happen.

It also can’t be explained away by how it swept an argument out from under the Christian apologetics. Prior to this time, if someone challenged the existence of an omnipotent God, someone need only point to their own existence as proof. Still, proof of a uniquely Christian God didn’t exist, and your average person didn’t spend all day arguing with nonbelievers about their faith, anyway. This wasn’t the full cause of the reaction.

The truth is, people didn’t get mad at Darwin because he challenged individual verses of scripture. People were angry because evolution challenges the structure of the Christian Narrative as it has existed for thousands of years. If humans did evolve from more feral, undeveloped species of primate, then there was never a time during  which we were perfect sons and daughters of God. If there was never a time man was perfect, there was no fall. If there is no fall, there is no “redemption.” If there is no redemption, we are no longer pitiful, hopeless worms lost in the world without the light of Jesus. What did Jesus even die for, in that case?

Most people respond by adapting the narrative to fit evolution. A few others are prepared to abandon the traditional narrative altogether in favor of one in which Adam is the pre-human and Jesus is the post-human, rather than one where both Jesus and Adam are perfect sons of God. If Adam and Eve, one could argue, were already capable of sin before eating the forbidden fruit, they were not, by definition, perfect. On the other hand, if what they did was not evil because they did not yet know evil, then their act was innocent and did not contaminate us with original sin. This idea feels weird if we believe God created everything in 7 days. If we believe God created us over a longer period of time through evolution, however, this interpretation fits perfectly. Pre-human hominids were social, but largely driven by instinct and without a good understanding of what God did, then we learned good from evil and became responsible for our actions.

Darwin gets my vote as a representative of creation. However, he deserves some credit for challenging the fabric of the grand narrative itself. Darwin didn’t renounce his faith, but instead, like Descartes, revived the power of doubt instead of blind adherence to tradition as a tool for understanding God.

I believe that the case of Phineas Gage goes under the fall. If man’s personality is guided by the brain then it shows that when there is damage or a development to the brain then man could be more influenced to do things that are considered wrong or impolite to do. This should go under the fall because man should always be influenced to do God’s will over their own. In Phineas Gages case his personality changed when his accident damaged his brain. This helped people show the relationship between the self and the brain. If man can be influenced by changes in the brain but can still choose to act the same then it could go under the category of redemption do to it over coming the inclination to act differently. However in Phineas Gages case he started to not be able to regulate what he said do to his damage to his frontal lobe causing him to change and seem more rude. This should go under the fall because it shows how easily man can be influenced to not do God’s will.