Five years ago, I started pondering this question and people have clicked on this essay nearly a thousand times, making it the single most-viewed thing I’ve ever posted. I’d like to continue thinking out loud on the issue now that I’m older and the world has changed a bit...
First a couple of definitions: (taken from a google search, specific sites available on request)
anthropocentric: with a human bias, considering humans the center of the universe; regards the human as being the central fact or final aim of the universe; the idea that humans are the most important beings in the universe; human-centered; for humans, humans must be the central concern and humanity must judge all things accordingly
universal: applicable or common to all members of a group or set; adapted to various purposes, sizes, forms or operations; a universal “type”, a property or a relation; pertaining to all, especially all times, all places and all things
First the accusation: Christianity is anthropocentric. I would argue that rather than being anthropocentric, the BIBLE is anthropospecific. It was a message from God directed to humans using metaphors and symbolism with which we are familiar. There is nowhere in the Bible that speaks to Jesus being the exclusive property of humanity. In fact, John 10:16 can be used to argue quite the opposite (it’s been used to argue Joeseph Smith’s message from the angel Moroni as well as ultimate salvation of all people in all religions). “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (KJV). Another part of the argument is that Jesus was a human, so he can’t represent any other alien KPCOFGS (Kingdom, Phylum…). But out of SF, the response must be obvious: is Odo human? Is Paul Muad’Dib human? Is R. Daneel Olivaw human? No – merely human on the outside. Their essence is decidedly NOT human. While Jesus was obviously human on the outside, was he essentially human? The answer to this is “yes” He is human. It is also “yes” He is God. Frank Herbert allowed that in DUNE, Paul Muad’Dib was both human and god-emperor – and I agree. So Jesus could represent all sentient life in the universe – there’s nothing in the Bible that says He is only “for” humanity.
Genesis 2:1 gives some evidence that Jesus is for all intelligent life: “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array…” Not “the earth in its vast array” – but the heavens as well. God created it all, declared it all good (Genesis 1:8), cares for it all (Romans 8:38-39) and sent His Son to save it all (John 3:16 – NOTE: the English word here “world” is actually translated from the Greek word “kosmon”, the same root word as the English “cosmos”…which we use interchangeably with “universe”. No mistake here, but a different emphasis makes a real difference.)
8 comments:
One problem with your definition of anthropocentric:
"with a human bias, considering humans the center of the universe; regards the human as being the central fact or final aim of the universe; the idea that humans are the most important beings in the universe; human-centered; for humans, humans must be the central concern and humanity must judge all things accordingly."
These are several different and distinct definitions. Many things will fit one definition but not others. So one must ask whether you consider something anthropocentric if it fits only one of those definitions or must it fit all of them, or just most of them.
That is, I would think, a very important consideration.
I would, for example, consider christianity (and all religions practiced by humans) as fitting the first definition. That of having human biases. That is, of course, inevitable in any human enterprise and not so much a criticism as a truism.
Also, I think your definition of universal so broad that something which fits many of the definitions of anthropocentric also qualify as universal by the definition you've given.
For example, there is no contradiction in saying that something is anthropocentric in the sense defined above and universal in the sense of being "applicable or common to all members of a group or set". That set, of course, being the human species.
This is probably not something you intended so it appears to me that your definition of universal needs revision.
I agree -- what I wanted to say was that Christianity is for anyone, anywhere no matter what they look like. However, because Jesus took the punishment for a crime we committed, we can only claim that sacrifice if we accept that He took the punishment.
If an alien accepts this, then their debt is removed. If they are human and do not accept it, then the debt is not removed. Buddha doesn't have the authority to dispense the forgiveness of the debt because he wasn't the one who paid for it.
For any alien KPCOFGS who failed their obedience test, God would have had to redeem them.
From this I reason that Jesus -- as God -- is universal. Jesus of Nazareth is anthropospecific.
I agree -- what I wanted to say was that Christianity is for anyone, anywhere no matter what they look like.
If, that is, the claims christians make about "God, the universe, and everything" are true.
Implicitly I think what you seem to be doing without coming out and saying it is equating anthropocentric with "man-made" and universal with "god-given" which in the context of religion amounts to saying CHRISTIANITY: TRUE OR FALSE.
That's the problem with trying to read implications -- I neither implied nor intended to say what you seem to have freely interpreted.
The Bible does not exclude anyone from believing. That Christianty is for anyone has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. It is for everyone, Christ makes his invitation to everyone. If he was exclusively human, then the invitation was only to humans. But if He is God, then his invitation is to anyone who hears the message -- because He views all of history and all places.
By the way, extending your chain of thought: Christianity is only for everyone if it's true; might lead to saying that the only people who can read THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER are the people who believe everything in it is true. I pick it up every summer to use it to show my writing students how to write journalistic hyperbole. But I don't necessarily believe everything in it is true. THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER is for eveyone, whether they believe it or not.
That's the problem with trying to read implications -- I neither implied nor intended to say what you seem to have freely interpreted.
Then what DID you intend and what does it have to do with anthropocentrism/universality? You seemed to intend those terms as polar opposites but, as I pointed out, many things can qualify as both.
The post was, IMHO, poorly thought out and muddled to the point of near incoherence. Of course, if the point is to be irritating I suppose that's one way of going about it :)
Primarily, I think you need to rework your definition of universal so that its more nearly an opposite of the definition of anthropocentric you've given (which also could use a bit of narrowing---for example, with a human bias and regarding humans as the final aim of the universe are hardly things that inevitably or even probably go together).
For example:
anthropocentric: regarding humans as the final aim of the universe.
universal (at least in this narrow context): regarding sentience as the central aim of the universe.
Then one could legitimately debate whether christianity intrinsically regards humanity and only humanity as the goal of Gods creation of the universe (as a minority of christians I've encountered believe and give as their reason for disbelieving in extraterrestrial intelligence). Or whether God had "bigger" plans for the cosmos than humanity alone.
OTOH, maybe I'm just trying to be nice and irritating at the same time -- which may indeed come across as incoherent.
Post a Comment