Legitimizing religion’s place in understanding the human person: an evidential approach to interpreting the meaningful role of sacred play

The Constitution of the Human Person as Perceived in the Sciences

What follows is a survey of some of the anthropological considerations that pertain to the human constitution. These characteristics represent a grouping of the psychological assertions that are widely held in the secular community.

Not only that, but the scope of this compendium is limited to those considerations that can be connected in ways that are pertinent to the present discussion on sacred play. Though this survey does not summarize all of the secular anthropological findings in any or all of the issues involved in spirituality, these will explain why religion is pervasive and delineate something of its importance.

Openness. One of the many distinguishing features of mankind that separates the human race from the animal kingdom is its openness to the world (Pannenberg, 1977; Pargament, 2007; Elkins, 1998).

In fact, historians and anthropologists alike deal with the issues of openness, or as some call it, “otherness,” throughout their work. One field studies this phenomenon in space, the other in time (Cohn, 1980).

In his brief overview of historical perceptions of man’s uniqueness, Wolfhart Pannenberg suggests that ever since Greek scholarship decided to answer the question of man in terms of the cosmos, the world itself was always demonstrated as inadequate to give a definitive answer for man’s yearning concerning what he is supposed to be (Pannenberg, 1977).

The histories reveal that mankind has maintained from antiquity and prior an insatiable desire to reach beyond every horizon that opens to it. This openness permeates secular discussions as a unique characteristic found exclusively in the human race.

One example of this phenomenon is witnessed in the technological enterprise. William Sims Brainbridge (2007) in his compelling essay on converging technologies, provides an optimistic look toward a future when man, upon reaching a higher level of understanding, will leave planet earth entirely in order to reach a higher potential or evolutionary step.

He believes that the coalescence of technology and the human enterprise promises to grant humanity unprecedented power to change itself and the world around it. While some in the scientific community hope that caution is practiced as humans advance in this way, Brainbridge suggests that caution would stifle the program of progress.

Uninhibited, man should be released to “boldly go where no man has gone before,” and according to him, advance so far that humanity as a label will be considered obsolete (Brainbridge, 2007).

Instead of finding satisfaction in the currently inhabited world, those sympathetic to Brainbridge believe that man’s unquenchable openness to possibilities will inevitably lead them to other literal worlds by means of technological advances.

The tendencies that psychologists and social scientists recognize in man, such as constantly reinventing oneself and reaching beyond oneself, have also consistently maintained association with belief in the afterlife and a host of religious/spiritual considerations.

For instance, Pieter Craffert (2009) states that for subjects in Israelite culture, religious and cultural experiences could very well have served as a basis for a firm belief that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead following this historical episode.

It is no coincidence that ever since the idea of bodily resurrection was introduced (in Israelite religious documents, cf. Daniel 12), two components of the Jewish cultural system (openness and the nature of humanity) were in alliance in producing and maintaining the idea.

Therefore, from a social-scientific perspective, afterlife beliefs in at least the Judeo-Christian framework involved the connection between cultural notions about the human body and certain experiences that resulted in the origin of belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

In other words, the religious ideas expressed in the sacred writings affirmed presuppositions the Jewish and Christian people had because of their humanity (specifically as it pertains to openness) and provided for them a firm foundation for believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as fact after it occurred.

The uniquely human ability to look ahead or move beyond also betrays pervasive openness within human constitution. In fact, some suggest that if openness does not press man beyond the world, then man would not constantly pursue various goals (as they are shown to do even when concrete incentives are absent) (Pannenberg, 1985; Pargament, 2007).

Because the world will not satisfy humanity, no matter how free or open they are to change it, mankind finds no final satisfaction in the temporal. This presupposes that human destiny exceeds his present environment; that is every presently existing environment and that which is yet to exist.

With this in mind, it is no wonder that even in pagan societies humans appoint deity, seek answers in some infinite energy, or develop a governing philosophy.

Exocentricity. Another distinguishing attribute of humanity that is related to its uniqueness among the creatures and his openness to the world involves what some refer to as exocentricity.

Secular anthropologists suggest that man’s exocentricity involves the tendency within the individual to anchor one’s own central being in something that lies beyond this world (Scheler, 1960).

This proclivity results in the phenomena of imagination, invention, and cognitive enterprise. Kenneth Pargament (2007) even remarks, “the capacity to investigate, look ahead, think about a future, and imagine and implement ways to achieve goals is a critical ingredient of human nature.”

Inasmuch as imagination is mankind’s proposition of the non-real or non-present, it is an exocentric characteristic of humanity. According to Arnold Gehlen (1958), imagination constitutes the principle creative feature in human behavior.

Gehlen emphasizes that imagination is required for even simple acts of human movement and perception. For instance, a small child, whose present reality involves crawling, must first imagine his/her ability to walk before any steps can be made.

Similarly, an infant is unable to speak until he/she imagines the possibility and awards that thought with attempts at forming words. However, on a more impressive scale, invention as well as philosophical speculation, is another natural result of man’s desire to achieve beyond his present reality.

Two examples of this are worth mentioning. First, Descartes’s method of seeing the universe as a mathematical and logical structure came specifically by doubting everything and forging the empirical method of observation and logical method of formal reasoning.

In his distrust of the imagination, Descartes imagined the universe away until he came to the most base and fundamental of assertions. Upon this foundation he constructed an entire philosophical framework. Interestingly, seeing little contention between this and his religious beliefs, he remained a devout Catholic all of his life.

In a similar way, Newton’s method of combining mathematics and experimentation came neither from observation nor deduction alone. Instead, his discovery of the law of gravity required creative imagination alongside his belief in God (Barbour, 1966).

Some recognize this tendency for exocentricity as rooted in the biological processes of the brain itself. Ashbrook (1989) explains that belief is a transformation of biological experience to conceptual explanation and that these beliefs give conceptual focus to the person’s sense of destiny. Destiny as far as it is future-oriented and not presently realized is an exocentric feature within mankind.

This capacity to believe in a proposed reality other than that which already exists and the desire to reach that reality help contribute to the idea of destiny within each individual. Historically, whether expressed in institutions like the state (as proposed by Plato), German idealism, the American dream, or heaven itself, man’s exocentric tendency is heavily connected to man’s imagination of his own potential and permanence.

As demonstrated by Pannenberg (1985) and Ashbrook (1989) theological consideration is required to explain this exocentricity and understand mankind completely. Others like LeRon Shults (2003) even speculate that the longing for eternal life and imagining its reality (common in nearly all cultures in all times) is intimately connected to the idea of being human.

Therefore, exocentricity, imagination, invention, and cognitive enterprise inevitably instigate curiosity about the divine and a desire to mimic that which is imagined either consciously or subconsciously. The most developed expression of this desire is to become the sum of all things, or the god of one’s own life.

Most agree with Robert Emmons (1999) when he writes that “Human beings are by nature goal oriented” and that this betrays their exocentricity.

That most recognize human enterprise toward higher ideals and greater achievements (in response to centering themselves in something greater or beyond) suggests that humanity is at least curious about something greater than itself.

That there is a desire (either consciously or subconsciously) for the divine or other-worldly (because the present world as it is seems unsatisfactory) suggests that man knows something of its reality and, perhaps, even resembles it in discreet ways.

Tension. However, openness and exocentricity inevitably yield tension—the third compelling characteristic of the human person involved in this discussion. Tension within mankind (which may be explained by observing man as presently existing yet eschatologically oriented) is said by many to be an indicator of man’s spiritual struggle (Pannenberg, 1985; Plessner, 1928).