Mapping the World of Our Mind–Part Two
The study of human nature has been—for much of human history—left to the scientist, the philosopher and to the cleric. Each has tried to discern who we are, what we are, and why we are, and yet not one of them has given us a means to explain the reason for our existence and the purpose of life. Some years ago it was not uncommon to hear how some people, some who were disenchanted by what society had to offer, were out trying to “find themselves,” which is to say they were looking for some personal sense of purpose for their lives. However, the unstated problem with this so-called journey to “self-actualization” was that if they “found” themselves, how would they know that it was “themselves” they had found. Leaving us with the realization of how fragile our sense of purpose can be, particularly when the pursuit for life’s meaning is founded upon the assumption that the answers to questions about our existence can be found within ourselves, or that the guiding answers to explain our existence may somehow be discovered among others in the material world. A notion that clearly has its roots embedded in evolutionary thought and the reliance on the “revelatory” powers of personal psychoanalysis, which has only—by any reasonable view—fostered many false ideas and hopes, and so we find even in modern times this idea of finding oneself has been side-tracked into the notion of “self-identifying” with imaginary ideas or people and objects around us to seemingly give purpose to our lives. Notably, the idea of personal “identity,” and some people’s obsessive concern with it, is nothing more than a side avenue of the “finding-oneself” pursuit wherein people have taken thought about themselves in a psychoanalytic fashion—leading often to self-diagnosis—to try and explain why we are, who we are, and what we are in the absence of an instruction manual that would explain how we should use our mental mechanics to understand the purpose for humanity’s existence. Simply, the concept of self-identification, like the idea of finding oneself, can be taken to the point where it is an admission that people do not want to believe in a creator God. Particularly when the “self” is used to explain who we are, what we are and why we are based on our own postulations, while refusing to look for something greater outside of ourselves—beyond the human capacity—to explain the meaning of life. Yet, we discover that even those caught in the finding-oneself trap will sometimes appropriate points of Scripture in defense of their self-created conclusions in the hope that even religion would offer their quest some nuance of validity, but such support is not actually found in the Bible. When we reflect on this modern era, for example, we see that the pursuit for the meaning of life has been subject to human contemplation, and a clear example of this is the self-help movement that gained some popularity in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, which craftily carried forward this idea of looking within ourselves for life’s answers under the guise of how to be successful in life. At times the authors of this genre of thought often borrowed verses from Scripture in an awkward manner to blur the lines between biblical teachings and self-seeking thought—to the demise of many Christian believers who could not discern the difference. This has led, in Western civilization particularly, to a mental overcrowding and an ever-increasing desire to escape the pressures of daily living. Made plain to see in some people’s obsession with sports, entertainment, politics, employment and so on—in the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment—to the point where the highest human calling may well be seen as achieving the personal status of being a celebrity. We see similar problems now in other nations, cultures and societies that try to emulate Western ways. However, given all this, we are brought to acknowledge an interesting point that psychology and science does indeed confirm for us, and that something is an important faculty about the nature of humanity that is compatible with the revelation of Scripture. Or, in other words, we could say that most people are probably not aware that when science began to map the human mind, they were looking at something that would tell us more about the nature of God as they saw the nature of humankind reflected in this material world. That is to say that in mapping the mind the science of psychology, for example, came face-to-face with the image of God. But there was a problem. Because human nature has become—or does become—so distorted with maladies and twisted wills, people are not able to accurately recognize and define the image of God that is to be found in humankind, nor do many people ever consider that we are in some ways a shadow of God. For it is recorded in the book of Genesis that Adam and Eve were both created in the image of God: “And God said, Let us make man in our image [resemblance], after our likeness [similar]: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:26-27). [Author’s emphasis throughout.] Now, some have assumed according to the Genesis account that humanity was made to look just like God in respect to the human form, and consequently it has been left to the imagination to describe what God may look like by having physical human features, but this is not what is being discussed in this part of Scripture. Because the context is one of human nature and its capacity to have dominion in the earth, and by this context we know that this is not about having a physical material appearance