Category Archives: Human Nature

Evolution, Human Nature

G. K. Chesterton: Monkeys, Dogs, and Horses Don’t Draw Pictures

10 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the opening pages of G. K. Chesterton’s classic The Everlasting Man , he explores the implications of prehistoric cave paintings discovered by modern-day humans.  What do these paintings tell us about primitive man?  Is he merely an advanced ape (as in the evolutionary account) or is there a real difference in kind between man and the rest of the animal kingdom?  Below is an excerpt:

But I have begun this story in the cave, like the cave of the speculations of Plato, because it is a sort of model of the mistake of merely evolutionary introductions and prefaces.  It is useless to begin by saying that everything was slow and smooth and a mere matter of development and degree.  For in the plain matter like the [cave paintings] there is in fact not a trace of any such development or degree.

Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly and Homo Sapiens draw it well.  The higher animals did not draw better and better portraits; the dog did not paint better in his best period than in his early bad manner as a jackal; the wild horse was not an Impressionist and the race horse a Post-Impressionist.

All we can say of this notion of reproducing things in shadow or representative shape is that it exists nowhere in nature except in man; and that we cannot even talk about it without treating man as something separate from nature.  In other words every sane sort of history must begin with man as man, a thing standing absolute and alone.

Chesterton published this book in 1925 in order to counter the influence of men like H. G. Wells who were increasingly characterizing man as merely different in degree from the rest of the animal kingdom.  This battle is still raging today, 85 years later.

Existence of God, Human Nature, Morality

Are Humans Born with a Common Moral Nature?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Bible teaches that we are (see Rom. 2).  Virtually every adult human being seems to have the same basic sense of right and wrong.  We all agree that cowardice is wrong, that love is good, that killing the innocent is wrong.  You will be hard pressed to find a culture that disagrees with these moral values.

Many psychologists, however, have claimed that human babies are born as moral blank slates and that their culture gives them all of their moral direction.  Since cultures vary in significant ways, they argue, so do moral values vary greatly from culture to culture.  Recent research is challenging the standard view of psychology, however.

According to the Daily Mail, recent research done on 6-month olds seems to show that they already have a rudimentary sense of right and wrong.

At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk.  But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.  An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences.  Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

The article describes a few of the experiments that were run to help the researchers determine that morality may be hardwired into the brain.

As with all new research, caution is warranted.  Whether babies are born with moral values will continue to be hotly debated, but the creative work done by this research team will spur on more work.

Why is this topic important?  As Christians, we believe that God is a moral being, and that he implanted his moral nature within humankind.  This moral nature was corrupted at the Fall, but it still resides within us in a perverted state.

The existence of the same basic moral values within all humans points toward the objective reality of moral laws.  Moral laws point back to a Moral Law-giver, and we believe the Moral Law-giver is God.

If it were true that human beings differed in their basic moral values, that some cultures celebrated rape, that other cultures rewarded cowardice, that still others frowned upon love, we would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a common moral law exists.  In that scenario, it would seem that morality is subjective and random, which would seem to count against the existence of a Moral Law-giver.

What do you think?  Does mankind seem to share basic moral values or do you think basic moral values differ radically from person to person and culture to culture?

Human Nature

Are Humans Intrinsically Good?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Christian view of man holds a tension.

On the one hand, we are to understand that God created man in his image, meaning he gave us rational minds, a will, moral values, and so forth.  Since we are unique among his creation in possessing his image, this surely guarantees our tremendous value, both as a species and as individuals.

On the other hand, we are nothing, less than nothing, without God in our lives.  Sin pervades our nature and darkens our souls.  Only when we reach out to God can we cure this horrible disease.  We must humble ourselves before him to escape our predicament.

How do we synthesize these two views of man?  We are to always remember our value in God’s eyes, but we are also to remember what we are like without him.

It’s no use beating ourselves up all the time and putting ourselves down.  That denies our value.  Maybe you’ve heard the following wise saying: “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.”

It’s no use thinking we are intrinsically good on our own.  That denies our need for God.  Those who think they don’t need God end up with a distorted view of their own abilities.

Both traps are waiting for us, so we mustn’t fall in either one.

Which trap do you think people are more prone to fall into?

Atheism, Church History, Existence of God, Human Nature, Philosophy, Religion, Skeptics

Does Mankind Really Need God?

8 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In studying church history, I’ve  been looking at the period often called the Enlightenment.  During this time, a movement swept through Europe which attempted to throw off the authority of divine revelation and place man on his rightful throne as the center of all knowledge and wisdom.

Historian Clyde Manschreck suggested that:

Man’s rational powers in league with science made dependence on God seemingly unnecessary.  Men were confident that they had the tools with which to unlock the mysteries of the universe.  Former distrust of human reason and culture, as seen in the traditional emphases on depravity, original sin, predestination, and self-denial, gave way to confidence in reason, free will, and the ability of man to build a glorious future.

Enlightenment values have continued to this day.  Many of the skeptics I know have a deep distrust of authority figures and tend to think of their own abilities as more than adequate to get them through life successfully.  One skeptical friend of mine told me that the only person he could count on to solve any of his problems was himself.  If all you need is yourself, then what need have you of God?

The Enlightenment, in some respects, strikes me as a philosophical temper tantrum against the authority and rightful rule of God over man.  Is man truly able to go it alone?  Is the world getting better due to secular human wisdom?  How you answer these questions has a lot to do with whether you believe in or trust God.

If man needs no authority over him, if he can get the job done on his own, than the Enlightenment was correct.  God, as another friend of mine recently told me, is unnecessary.  We can get along just fine without him.

I don’t know about you, but I think that coming out of the 20th century, a century with more killing of human life than all other centuries combined, you have to be nuts to think we can solve our own problems.  But that’s just me… maybe we just hit a little bump in the road.

Evolution, Human Nature, Philosophy, Polls, Religion

Are You Skeptical of Global Warming and Evolution?

28 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

A recent NY Times article linked people who are skeptical about evolution with people who are skeptical about global warming.  The author noted that there seems to be a correlation, that if you doubt one, then you likely doubt the other.

This really has me thinking about why that is, as there is no obvious connection between them.  I am a skeptic of both, but for different reasons.

My initial skepticism about evolution came from my religious views, because I was taught that only a young earth (which does not accommodate evolution) could align with the creation accounts in the Bible.  As I researched both biblical interpretation and the science behind evolution, I eventually moved to a new position.

I now believe that the earth is probably old and that this fits with literal interpretations of the Bible.  I also understand, though I don’t necessarily agree with, why common descent (the idea that all plants and animals are part of a gigantic family tree) is the dominant theory of the origins of species: it has a lot of explanatory power and there’s not a more developed contender out there right now.

But I think that the evolutionary community has no idea what the mechanisms are that would modify plants and animals to the massive extent we see.  Natural selection and random mutation just don’t cut it.  Other proposed mechanisms likewise remain utterly unconvincing to me.  Evolutionary theorists constantly provide micro-evolutionary mechanisms as examples of how macro-evolution works over long periods of time.  The extrapolations don’t convince me.

What about global warming?  I started out skeptical of global warming because it was being exclusively evangelized by political liberals, whom I generally distrust as people who value intentions over truth.  I moved beyond that initial skepticism and tried to think about it scientifically.  As an engineer, I understand how to analyze data and how to test models, and I fail to see how it is possible to accurately model the global climate over long periods of time, given the multitude of variables that must go into these climate models and the incredible uncertainty of predicting climate changes in the distant future.

My suspicions about the data have proved to be correct as some brave climate scientists have admitted that their models have failed to predict the flat-lining of global temperatures over the last 15 years. The truth is that models of the climate have a long way to go before we can bet the farm on them.

So, what is the common denominator for me?  I started out suspecting evolution for religious reasons, and I started out suspecting global warming for political reasons.

I am conservative politically and I am a believer in traditional Christianity, but these don’t necessarily go together.  It seems like there must be something deeper.  The author Thomas Sowell possibly offers an explanation.  In his book, A Conflict of Visions, he argues that a person’s view of the nature and capability of man drives opinions about political, moral, judicial, economic, and even scientific matters (see my post on his book).  His theory makes a lot of sense; maybe he has found the common link.

I don’t have any certain answers to this question, but I’m very curious to know what others think.  What about you?  Are you skeptical about both of these issues?  Why or why not?  Please register your vote in the poll below and leave us some comments about your choices.

Evil, Pain, and Suffering, Human Nature, Jesus Christ, Sin, Skeptics

Did Jesus Fail to Address What’s Wrong with the World?

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Recently I was conversing with a skeptic of Christianity who was explaining why he had become a skeptic.  One of the most significant reasons was that he was greatly disappointed that the New Testament, and Jesus in particular, did not address a particular social institution which he considers to be particularly evil.  In his view, a God who did not address this issue at that time in history is not worthy of worship.

Other skeptics I’ve met have said similar things.  Jesus should have introduced life-saving technologies, he should have revealed the laws of physics, he should have taught people how to grow more food.

Most of the Jews of the first century were greatly disappointed in Jesus because he failed to free them from Roman occupation.  If he were the real Son of God, surely he would throw off the Roman yoke.

Why didn’t Jesus address all of these issues?

A Christian friend of mine explained to our skeptical friend that Jesus did not come to address social institutions as much as address the condition of each person’s heart.  If men’s hearts are repaired, then social institutions will inevitably be repaired as well.

You see, in God’s program, social injustice, lack of technology, and lack of scientific knowledge are secondary to the primary mission of Jesus.  That mission was to reconcile men to God, who is the source of all good.  Jesus came to deal with each person’s sinful nature; without addressing the depraved heart within each person, nothing else matters.

Abolishing a social institution or teaching someone about physics, without first addressing their heart, is like trying to treat cancer with an aspirin.  It might take away the pain for a little while, but it does not treat the underlying problem.  Something more radical must be done to save the person.

We, of course, have abundant evidence of Christians improving the world through science, technology, and charity, of Christians promoting laws that protect life and freedom.  The Christians who advanced these projects did so because their sinful natures were addressed by Christ first.  The incredible progress of western civilization over the last 2,000 years is a testament to the Christians who had heart transplants.

The skeptic who is disappointed that Jesus didn’t address their particular issue is basically failing to understand the root problem of mankind – we are separated from an all-good God because of our sinful nature.  Man’s root problem is not technology, is not lack of scientific knowledge, is not even social injustice.

In the early 20th century, The London Times invited several eminent authors to write essays on the theme “What’s Wrong with the World?”  Famed author and Christian G. K. Chesterton’s contribution took the form of a letter:

Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton

Until a person can answer like Chesterton, they won’t understand Jesus.

Human Nature

Is Man’s Nature Fixed? Part 2

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Constrained or Unconstrained Vision?  Which is it?

In my view, the more biblically sound vision must be the constrained – for one simple reason: original sin.

The Bible teaches that every human being is born with a sinful nature, that we are not born with a clean moral slate, as the unconstrained vision claims.  The first human, Adam, sinned, and his sin has passed down to all of us.  “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12).

King David lamented, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5).

The apostle Paul ended any debate about the sinful nature of man when he said, “There is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10) and “there is no one who does good, not even one” (3:12).

Even after a person receives Christ, they will still struggle with sin until they die.  It is only after death, when a person is glorified (their salvation is completed and they are free from the desire to sin), that the unconstrained vision holds.  The unconstrained vision, then, can only be actualized in heaven, the place where man finally acts only for the good.

While we live on this earth, Christians recognize the sin that penetrates every man’s heart, and we are thus deeply skeptical of the intellectual and moral potential of human beings.  The ability of fallen human beings to reason their way to moral solutions for all mankind is impossible, under the Christian view.

Even though Christians recognize that man’s nature is sinful, we still fight for the good, to the best of our abilities.  We are still commanded to make this world the best it can be.  There is no sense of giving up, but there is a sense of realism, that man-made political solutions will never deliver the utopia that the unconstrained vision sees as a real possibility.

Human Nature, Polls

Is Man’s Nature Fixed? Part 1

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt


Recently I read an incredibly thought-provoking book written by Thomas Sowell, called A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.  In this book, Sowell traces out two conflicting visions of the nature of man, the constrained  and the unconstrained.  Sowell argues that these two visions have been at odds for centuries and the conflict between them lies at the root of most of our political, moral, judicial, and economic ideological battles.

The constrained vision sees human nature as fixed.  Man is egocentric and morally limited.  In addition, his intelligence and ability to reason are also limited by his nature.  Those with the constrained vision do not so much seek explanations for why most men are self-interested and morally fragile, but they seek explanations for why the rare man seems to act unselfishly.

The constrained vision accepts man for who he is and seeks to build incentives to channel man’s imperfect nature in positive directions.  These incentives rely heavily on traditions and family, with government playing a limited role.  Placing power in the hands of the intellectual and moral elite is a great mistake, under the constrained view, as human nature inevitably leads to corruption when power is concentrated.

The unconstrained vision sees human nature as pliable and perfectible.  Man can overcome his egocentricity through intellect and reason.  This view is optimistic that man is ever rising higher and higher in his capacity to act morally, in the best interests of all mankind.  Those who hold the unconstrained vision are perplexed as to why so much of humankind is egocentric and morally corrupt.  They conclude that societal institutions are to blame because man’s nature cannot be to blame – it is corrupted by outside forces.

The unconstrained vision rejects the current state of man as a self-interested and intellectually stunted creature.  It seeks to lift human morality and intellect by asking the best and the brightest to devise and implement solutions to our shortcomings.  We are well served by giving power and influence to those few who have advanced intellectually and morally further than the rest of us, the true exemplars and visionaries.  It is only they who can lead the way.  Finally, human reason trumps tradition, which should be discarded when it no longer serves any obvious purpose.

Sowell argues that those people with the constrained vision tend to line up on the same side of most political, judicial, economic, and moral issues (e.g., size of government, judicial activism, capitalism, gay marriage).  Likewise for those with the unconstrained vision.

How do you see human nature?  Do you find yourself leaning more toward the constrained or unconstrained vision?  Make your choice in the poll below, and as always, please leave comments about your choice, if you care to.

In a couple days, I will weigh in with my viewpoint and explain why I think one of these visions is more biblical than the other.

Bible Interpretation, Creation, Essential Beliefs, Evolution, Human Nature, Theology

What Do God and Science Have to Do with Each Other?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Ever since I became an evangelical believer in Christ, about 12 years ago, I have noticed that there is uneasiness among my evangelical brothers and sisters with certain fields of science.  This uneasiness, I quickly learned, has much to do with the age of the universe and the origins of mankind.  There are other areas, as well, but those are the two primary areas of dispute.

Because of the perceived hostility of science toward basic beliefs of Christianity, some evangelicals have forsaken science altogether.  So what I want to address today is what science and God have to do with each other.

Christians have long recognized that there are two ways that God communicates with mankind: special revelation and general revelation.

Special revelation is what is communicated about God through the incarnation of Christ and the Bible.

General revelation is what is communicated about God through the natural world, including physical nature, human nature, and human history.

Science offers a method for observing and then explaining facts about the natural world, so science is the study of God’s general revelation.  Christians that forsake science are, in effect, dismissing God’s general revelation.

Why?  Because they feel that the findings of science contradict the teachings of Scripture (special revelation).

But the answer is not to throw out one of God’s revelations.  In cases where general and special revelation overlap, we must examine our fallible interpretation of Scripture and compare it to our fallible interpretation of scientific findings.

You see, the Bible is infallible, but our interpretation of it is not.  Likewise, God’s revelation about himself in nature is infallible and will never contradict his revelation in Scripture.  But our interpretation of general revelation is not infallible.

What do we do when our fallible interpretation of science conflicts with our fallible interpretation of the Bible?  We seek the interpretation that seems more certain and we go with that.  If the special revelation interpretation seems more certain than the general revelation interpretation, then we go with special revelation.  If the general revelation interpretation seems more certain than the special revelation interpretation, then we go with general revelation.  We can’t just assume one is always right and the other always wrong.  That will lead to error.

Notice that this method of seeking the right interpretation requires the Christian to study diligently the Scriptures and the findings of science.  We cannot just study the Bible, but we must also dig into science if we want any hope of finding the answers to these tough questions where science and the Bible seem to conflict.

Fortunately, these perceived areas of conflict are few, and usually do not have to do with essential doctrines of Christianity.  However, they are still important and we owe it to God to honestly and earnestly seek the answers.

Free Will, Human Nature, Salvation, Theology

Can Man Choose God On His Own?

8 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

No.  The Bible seems to clearly teach that God must call on man before man will respond.  Original sin has caused man to reject God without God’s intervention.  Jesus said, ““This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:65).  The Psalmist said, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5).  God must initiate salvation because man cannot.

So does God intervene to convict all men of their sins and call them toward him?  Yes, he does.  All men are given the chance to accept or reject God because God calls all men.  According to 2 Pet. 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”  According to 1 Tim. 2:3-4, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

God will freely offer the gift of salvation to everyone, but each person must decide to accept or reject this free gift.  God must call us first, as we are incapable of inclining our wills toward God on our own.

Historical footnote: The belief that mankind is born innocent of original sin and can freely choose God without God first initiating salvation is called Pelagianism.  This heresy was condemned by the Council of Carthage (A.D. 416-418).