After looking up a passage from Ecclesiastes for a previous Born Again Bird Watcher entry, I spent a little time reading further into that book – something I had not done for quite some time. As I read along, I came to the end of the third chapter, where it is written:
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?
Suddenly an idea struck me – one that found it’s initial beginnings in my reading last year of E.O. Wilson’s eloquent The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth and further developed not long ago while reading Frans de Waal’s thought-provoking The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections of a Primatologist. One of the most significant challenges that exists between those who hold firmly to the efficacy of science to explain all things and those who believe in a transcendent force as the creator and guide of the world is the lack of a common contextual language between them.
Without understanding the context of one another’s interpretation of the world, we risk talking past each other rather than conversing with each other. Take the passage above, for example. Most advocates of “science explains it all” whom I have ever met seem to infer that those in the “God did and does it all” camp have only the book of Genesis upon which to base their belief in an intentionally created and directed universe. Yet the above passage in Ecclesiastes clearly posits the equality of all life – both human and non-human; an idea directly counter to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories.
Think of the bridge in communication that could be quickly constructed in these seemingly intractable positions if in the middle of a conversation on the subject, an advocate of science referenced the Ecclesiastes passage about the equality of life? Not only would it be a gesture of respect, it would be an acknowledgment that the idea of a Biblical interpretation of the natural world is not monolithic but multifaceted in ways not always widely understood.
It’s certainly something to think about at least.
