In 2005, Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, wrote an opinion article for the New York Times that was so remarkable I kept a copy.
He wrote, “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.”
I was reminded of his statement last week during the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, the great British naturalist and theorist of evolution whose most famous book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” was first published 150 years ago.
To this day, there remain important parts of the Jewish community, as well as of the Christian and Muslim communities, to whom Darwin is anathema, somebody whose thinking has to be reviled, denied, and resisted.
This even though biological science, which knows so much more today than Darwin did, has time and time again shown that, as geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
One has to wonder why the resistance persists. I’d like to propose a few possible reasons in the hope of stimulating some community thought and discussion.
Perhaps the difference in attitude between the Dalai Lama and some Jews, Christians and Muslims may point to a difference between Buddhism on the one side and Judaism-Christianity-Islam on the other.
Buddhism, as I understand it, was founded by a man who never pretended he was anything but a man, and whose teachings never pretended to be the fruits of anything but human effort.
The Buddha did not claim to have received a supernatural revelation, to have supernatural abilities like a prophet or to be a supernatural person like a messiah.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in contrast, do claim to have received teachings from a source that is supernatural — literally, “above nature.” It may be more difficult to admit some flexibility into a teaching believed to come from such a source.
Different in quality?
That leads to a second point. Science may or may not absolutely deny the existence of anything “supernatural,” but as it has progressed, it has pushed back belief in at least parts of the supernatural realm.
The stars and planets that once were thought to be gods are now flaming gas-balls and masses of rock. Diseases once believed to be work of demons are known now to be caused by microorganisms operating by physical and chemical processes.
Yet life continues to seem magical and supernatural to many people. Evolution theory undermines this by showing that, in fact, life originates and changes by natural instead of supernatural processes. Naturally, to some religious people, this undermines belief that anything can be supernatural.
That is especially true when it comes to human life. The often-quoted teaching in Genesis that human beings were “made in the image of God” suggests that humans are somehow qualitatively different from any other life form, that in fact there is something God-like and supernatural about people.
Evolution says there isn’t. Via evolution, biological science shows that the same natural processes that create a bird’s song and a bear’s strength also create human intelligence and other abilities.
I know this is profoundly disturbing to some Jews. I have read writings of Orthodox rabbis who claim that if humans are just another kind of animal, there is no reason for humans to behave morally.
I believe this claim is profoundly wrong for two reasons. First, to a scientist, “animal” is a purely descriptive term meaning any multi-celled life form that isn’t a plant; so of course humans are a kind of animal.
To some Orthodox Jews and to other people, “animal” contains connotations of moral judgment on behavior; to say humans are animals suggests that they can’t control their impulses and desires, and one shouldn’t expect them to try. To conflate these meanings confuses the issue.
Second, the most important characteristic of the human animal is that it is a social animal — in fact, the most complicated social animal that has ever evolved. We have to cooperate with our fellow humans to survive, and that fact provides plenty of justification for human morality.
But while this fact supports the idea of morality in general, it doesn’t necessarily uphold specific moral teachings. And here may be a big part of the real problem that some religious people have with evolution.
For if evolution shows that “supernatural” revelations are fallible about the way nature operates, might they not also be fallible in their specific moral claims — such as that it is wrong for women to be able to have abortions when they want to, for example?
So perhaps some Jews, Christians and Muslims are right to perceive that Darwin and evolution are a challenge to their religion – or, at least, to their understanding of their religion.
But might a different understanding of their religions be able to make room for evolution? If science shows that an idea of Judaism is wrong, can Judaism change that idea and still be Judaism?
What do you think?
Loading ...