Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
History and Religion
A veritable implicit philosophy of history

A veritable implicit philosophy of history

Last updated on: September 2, 2023 at 7:50 pm by Dan Peterson

0 Comments

A veritable implicit philosophy of history 2023-09-02T19:50:05-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A tidal pool. Did Earth’s organic life originate in such a place? Is that Adam there, in the red swimming trunks?
(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)

For reasons known only to me, although a couple of other folks might be able, if they put their minds to it even slightly, to divine my intent — is that mysterious enough for you? really, it’s no big deal — I have been gathering notes over the past few days on the topic of the biblical concept of “creation.”

And here is a portion, albeit only a small portion, of what I’ve written up on the topic over the past three or four days:

“Creation,” wrote the great scholar of comparative religions Mircea Eliade, is the pre-eminently divine act. As such creation accounts offer a rich trove of archetypes and understandings for the cultures that treasure them.[1]

I close with a quotation from Luis Stadelmann about the Hebrew Bible that could also mutatis mutandis have been written about the Qurʾān.

Within the account of the origin of the world we will discover a veritable philosophy of history designed to trace out the purpose of Yahweh from the very creation of the world to the settlement of his Chosen People in the land of Canaan. . . .

In order to promote the understanding that the world belongs to Yahweh, this theme of Yahweh’s ownership is mentioned again and again throughout the Bible. But once God had created the world, he did not leave it on its own by withdrawing his providential guidance. He continues to rule over this universe and provides for its best possible function. It is natural, therefore, that the universe should share with mankind the duty of proclaiming God’s praises. As a matter of fact, the universe seems to have its own life and stands over against Yahweh sufficiently to offer its praises, to act as witness against mankind, and to await in awful surrender the day of judgment.

On the basis of a group of passages which express the idea rather of divine activity than of a passive scene on which the universal history is depicted or of a stage on which God acts as sceneshifter, we are led to the conclusion that the universe is thoroughly alive, and, therefore, the more capable of sympathy with man and of response to the rule of its Creator on whom both man and universe directly depend. Certainly we have here more than a poetical personification of the cosmos when it is invited to rejoice. . . .

In fact, the universe is summoned to share in the religious adventure of humanity.[2]

But that is a story for another day. I can only hope that I can remain as productive into my retirement as Noel B. Reynolds has well into his.

[1] That is a principal theme of Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return: or, Cosmos and History, translated by Willard R. Trask (Princeton University Press, 1971). The specific quoted phrase occurs on page 11. We ourselves have inherited a culture dominated by neo-Darwinian accounts of creation, and they mark our culture in innumerable ways.

[2] Luis I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, Analecta Biblica 39 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 7-8. For summary remarks on God’s continuing involvement in nature according to the Hebrew Bible, see Georg Fohrer, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1969), 172-174.

It’s that throwaway comment from the first footnote — “We ourselves have inherited a culture dominated by neo-Darwinian accounts of creation, and they mark our culture in innumerable ways.” — to which I want to return.

I know how the entailments and implications differ between a view of origins that posits our having been placed here by divine power for a divine purpose and a view holding that we and the world in which we live are, at every level and to the farthest reaches of the cosmos, the result of random chance occurrences within environmental constraints directed to no conscious end.

What interests me here is the “trickle down” effect of each of the two distinct opinions. For they seem to me clearly to imply significant but potentially widely varying conclusions about the status and value of humankind, and to ground quite different views of such things as ethics and “human rights.”

What are the psychological effects of believing in the one, as opposed to believing in the other? How do the two broadly differing opinions affect the self-image of people who believe in one or the other? Or even of those who have simply come to maturity immersed in one or the other? Do they lead ineluctably (or, at least, commonly) to divergent Weltanschauungen — to divergent “worldviews,” though I do love that German word!

The term survival of the fittest was, I’ve been told, coined not by Charles Darwin himself but by an enthusiastic follower, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer. Spencer set forth what he thought were the social and economic implications of Darwinian thought. And his doctrine became known as “Social Darwinism.” It grounded a strong belief in, among other things, laissez-faire capitalism, most unregulated economic competition.

Another view, quite different from laissez-faire capitalism, became the official doctrine of the Third Reich. History was a battleground for survival, for resources and Lebensraum (living space) and dominance, between races. Adolf Hitler dismissed humankind as “a ridiculous cosmic bacterium” (ein lächerliches kosmisches Bakterium), and he believed that, in seeking to subject the world to Aryan rule, he was following the dictates of science.

I don’t intend to suggest here, by any means, that belief in a wholly naturalistic Neo-Darwinian view of life’s origin — and, prior to that, in a a completely naturalistic view of the beginnings of the universe, our solar system, and our planet — lead inescapably to either Nazism or Social Darwinism. (Though I’m not sure on what grounds a thorough-going naturalist can argue against somebody who devoutly believes in either of those possible options.) I am saying, though, that, just as Luis Stadelmann suggests in the passage that I quote above, within an account of the origin of the world we can surely discover a veritable philosophy of history.

History and Religion

Politics and Religion

lächerliches kosmisches Bakterium

Social Darwinism

Previous Post

September 1, 2023

What if Sacha Cohen were to visit Cody, Wyoming?

Next Post

September 3, 2023 The Book of Mormon plates and playing Whac-a-Mole with critics

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"DP: “But Mr. Sutherland worries about the fact that our time, when we can communicate ..."

Theodore Brandley

Learning more about a region of ..."

"Sutherland's lecture sounds interesting. He seems to restate the Washington consensus that trade brings peace ..."

B. Wilson

Learning more about a region of ..."

"In a meeting today, I learned another important reason why accurate (or at least as ..."

the PROBLEM

From Serbia’s “White City,” Belgrade

"I've been watching a lot of video interviews of NDErs and researchers. I think in ..."

brotheroflogan

Accounts of Premortality?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Whose bones were to be carried from Egypt back to Canaan?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jacob Levi Joseph Benjamin