4 Dec
The Microcosm of Creation
A number of Judaic scholars explain בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים to mean “in the image of the angels.”[1] However, some medieval rabbinic scholars differ. In the spirit of Midrashic exegesis, R. David Kimchi (1160-1235) and others[2] take a different approach, suggesting that God solicited all of Creation to participate in humankind’s formation; the Creator intended for a human being be a composite of the spiritual and the terrestrial realms. Jewish mystics also tend to see all parts of Creation—from the spiritual heights of the heavenly realm to the nether regions of the earth—converging in humankind.
Modern anthropology illustrates the wisdom of Kimchi’s insight. Humankind also derives many of its basic personality traits not only from God—but from nature.[3] The philosopher, Michael Shermer, observes that morality is not unique to human beings, per se, but can be seen in the animal kingdom as well:
- The following characteristics appear to be shared by humans and other mammals, including and especially the apes, monkeys, dolphins and whales: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring what others think about you, and awareness and response to the social rules of the group. Species differ in the degree to which they express these sentiments, and with our exceptionally large brains (especially the well-developed and highly convoluted cortex) we express most of them in greater degrees than other species. Nevertheless, the fact that such premoral sentiments exist in our nearest evolutionary cousins may be a strong indication of their evolutionary origins. Still, something profound happened in the last 100,000 years that made us—and no other species—moral animals unprecedented in nature.[4]
Biologist Lyall Watson also takes a scientific look at the existence of evil, and like Shermer, he sees a mutual affinity between human and animal behavior. Watson once observed a group of young penguins standing on the edge of an ice floe, learning how to swim. Fearful that there might be a leopard seal lurking in the murky waters, the penguins stood their ground and refused to go into the water. As thousands of penguins crowded on the floe, some pushing occurred from the back of the ranks until one of the penguins slipped into the water. After the lone penguin entered the water, a leopard-seal suddenly appeared and ate the small creature.
Reticently, the other penguins backed off until eventually, the group pushed another one of its members into the water. Sure enough, the leopard-seal reappeared and swallowed the second penguin as well. The same process occurred again, and by the fourth time, apparently, the leopard-seal had eaten enough and the fourth penguin was left safe and sound. Afterwards, the entire penguin group jumped in and enjoyed the swimming as if they hadn’t a care in the world. From this incident, Watson deduced that selfishness and cowardice are not just human traits; there are many other species of animals that share these qualities as well.[5]
From a theological perspective, one could say that since God created humanity as a microcosm of the created order, it is only natural that humankind would possess all these traits as part of its moral and evolutionary constitution. Our genetic makeup as a species is hardwired for survival. Driven by a ruthless and determined desire to survive, the success of a species depends upon its ability to reproduce itself, in spite of the odds that face it. Only by understanding the nature of our genetic history, as Watson and Shermer (and others) have formidably argued, will we ever be able to rise above our genetic heritage.
Our ability to see life in synergistic terms is another aspect that makes us different from the rest of Creation. This self-awareness enables us as a species to transcend our own biological evolution by probing the mystery and nature of our being. The actual source of evil does not exclusively derive from the “Fall.” On a deeper level, evil may also emanate from a natural source, which humankind shares with the rest of the animal kingdom.[6] Our will to survive by any means possible, at least in neo- Darwinian terms, may partially explain why human tragedies of the Holocaust and other genocides continue to plague civilization even in the 21st century.
So, how does one define the uniqueness of the Divine image in an age of scientific awareness and incredulity? How do human beings differ from their evolutionary predecessors? Shermer notes there are several aspects that make human beings different from the rest of the animal world, and they are (1) self-awareness and knowledge that others are also self-aware; (2) possessing the ability for human choice and freedom; (3) awareness of one’s own consciousness; (4) the ability to utilize symbolic logic in evaluating and determining ethical behavior; (5) recognizing the consequences of one’s deeds; (6) taking responsibility for one’s decisions. From a religious perspective, I would add that humankind’s ability to respond to a Higher Authority outside of one’s own psyche is also indicative of a human spiritual vocation. In the final analysis, the ability to experience personal transformation, individuation and transcendence is what makes human beings more God-like than animal-like.
[1] Cf. the commentaries of Pseudo Targum-Jonathan; Midrash Tanchuma Shemoth 18; Gen. Rabbah 8:11, 14:13; Rashi, Seforno, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra.
[2] Theodoret cites this view with approval in his Questions on Genesis and Exodus, “After completing the material and the spiritual creation, the God of the universe formed man last and set him like an image of himself in the midst of the inanimate and the animate, the material and the spiritual, so that the inanimate and the animate might offer their service as a kind of tribute, and spiritual beings, by caring for him, might manifest their love for the Creator” (op. cit., 51).
[3] The Sages appear to have understood this truth as well, for they candidly said, “If the Torah had not been given we could have learnt modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the cock who first coaxes and then mates”(BT Eruvin 100b). While the Talmud delineates the positive traits humankind could have learned from nature, it goes without saying that our ancestors could just as easily have learned many negative character traits from nature, e.g., from the ant we would have derived the principles of totalitarianism; from the cat we would have developed certain predatory traits showing no mercy toward the weak and defenseless such as a male lion’s tendency to destroy his offspring; from the chicken, our ancestors might have learned how to be scavengers who prefer to live in filthy habitats, and so on.
[4] Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil (New York: Owl Books, 2005), 31.
[5] Lyall Watson, Dark Nature: A Natural History of Evil (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), 54-56.
[6] Some recent genetic experiments indicate that people may have a genetic predisposition toward altruism. The researchers of this study posed an online task in which participants had to decide whether or not to give virtual money away, and found that those who chose to give away some or all of their money differed genetically from those who were tightfisted. Participants who behaved more generously had the gene, called AVPR1a. “The experiment provided the first evidence, to my knowledge, for a relationship between DNA variability and real human altruism,” said Ariel Knafo, a researcher at Hebrew University’s Psychology Department in Jerusalem, who helped lead the study. “Those who had the AVPR1a gene gave away on average nearly 50 percent more money than those without it. The research, published online in the research journal, “Genes, Brain and Behavior” may help biologists discover why humans developed the trait, the scientists said today in an e-mailed statement.” Some animal species such as the voles (a type of rodent found mostly North America and Eurasia), argued Knafo, “possess the same gene, which has been tied to social bonding in earlier experiments” (Jerusalem Post, December 5th, 2007).
Respond to this post