I.  Introduction
        A.  In this talk I am not advocating anything.  I am merely
throwing out ideas related to our Western intellectual tradition in hopes
that some of the them will be interesting to you for further thought.
        B.  With regard to the title, I considered eliminating the sexist
"nature of man," but I decided not to do that because the subject really is
the nature of man, that is, the male human animal.
                1.  The ideas are in fact  men's ideas, and they reflect
the way men think.
                2.  It may be that as women have fewer children to take
care of and get more involved in work outside the home, they may come to
think more in the same way as men.  Their thinking may become less
"embodied" as men's thinking has tended to be.

 II.  Like any ordinary sermon, let us begin with a text from the Bible.
This reading is from Genesis 1:23-27:
And there was evening , and there was morning--the fifth day.  And God
said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each
according to its kind."  And it was so.  God made the wild animals
according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds.  And God saw that it was good.
  Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let
them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along
the ground."  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them."  [But remember that in the
other version of the creation story, woman is formed from the rib of the
man, so whether she also is in the image of God is not clear.]
        A.  But let us also read some excerpts from Plato, from his work
about the human soul called The Phaedo.
  I deem that the true votary of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood
by other men; they do not perceive that he is always pursuing death and
dying.  . . .  Ought the philosopher to care about the pleasures--if they
are to be called pleasures--of eating and drinking? . . . And what about
the pleasures of love--should he care for them? . . .  Would you not say
that he is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body?  He
would like, as far as he can, to get away from the body and to turn to the
soul.  . . . When does the soul attain truth? . . . Thought is best when
the mind is gathered into itself and none of these things trouble
it--neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure--when it takes
leave of the body, and has as little as possible to do with it. . . .  And
in this does the philosopher not dishonor the body?  His soul runs away
from his body and desires to be alone and by itself.  . . . For the body is
a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of
food; and is liable also to diseases which overtake and impede us in the
search after true being:  it fills us full of loves, and lusts, and fears,
and fancies of all kinds, and endless foolery, and in fact, as men say,
takes away from us the power of thinking at all.  Whence come wars, and
fightings, and factions?  Whence but from the body and the lusts of the
body?  Wars are occasioned by the love of money, and money has to be
acquired for the sake and in the service of the body, and by reason of all
these impediments we have no time to give to philosophy; and, last and
worst of all, even if we are at leisure and betake ourselves to some
speculation, the body is always breaking in upon us, causing turmoil and
confusion in our enquiries, and so amazing us that we are prevented from
seeing the truth.  It has been proved to us by experience that if we would
have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body--the soul in
itself must behold things in themselves; and then we shall attain the
wisdom which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers.
        B.  Yes, it is true that Plato represents an Indo-Aryan cultural
tradition which is in some ways very different from the Semitic tradition
of Genesis.  Nevertheless Plato's view that the true nature of man is
related to his soul rather than his body is very similar to the view that
has been prevalent in Western religion and philosophy as well as in
Hinduism.  Man is like God.  Man is made in the image of God, and the
likeness refers to his soul rather than his body.

III.  The evolutionary context of human thought
        A.  Early man had the problem of how to sufficiently differentiate
himself from the animals surrounding him.
                1.  They lack speech and the capacity to reason or to think
conceptually.
                2.  They lack any sense of right and wrong, any sense of
shame or any concern about long-term consequences.
        B.  Women are more akin to the animals.  They bear children and
suckle them.  They menstruate.  Their focus is on taking care of young
children, who are more like animals.  It is later when the children become
more adult that men will take more of an interest.
                1.  With readily available running water and machines to
help with housework and with things like contraceptives and formula for
babies, modern women are becoming freer from their animal functions and are
more likely to think like men.
                2.  In Brave New World Alduous Huxley portrays a world in
which women are no longer burdened with pregnancy and giving birth to
children.  If you have read that book, you may remember that the style in
that future paradise is to have test-tube babies and that any woman who
actually gets pregnant and gives birth to a baby in the "natural" way is
viewed as disgustingly primitive.
                3.  Darwin's theory of evolution is a shocker in the 19th
century because it breaks down this great divide between man and other
animals that humans have been building up for thousands of years.
                4.  In the 20th century Freud's theory of the influence of
the unconscious and animal drives, especially sex, is another shocker to
this ancient barrier that had been erected between man and his animal
nature.
                5.  Feminism is threatening to some men because of its
emphasis on the animal nature of humans and the extent to which we all are
an integral part of the world of nature.
                6.  Computers are of special interest because of the way
that they can duplicate and even exceed some of our intellectual skills,
but on the other hand they have no feelings or empathy and are totally
lacking in moral concerns.  Maybe at least part of that animal nature we
have been trying to escape is not totally undesirable.
IV.  The German 19th century philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) seems
to have been the first person [along with his contemporary David Friederich
Strauss (1808-1874] to make a major issue of the fact that our image of God
seems to be basically a projection of our concept of what we would like to
be.  As he put it, "The consciousness of God is nothing but the
consciousness of the species."  God is viewed by us as an object which
exists outside of ourselves while in reality God is merely a projection of
our own ideals.  This means that our "image of God" is nothing other than a
projection of our own nature and goals.  We humans are "in the image of
God" because God is merely our image of ourselves.  The history of religion
is the history of our developing image of God, which is the history of our
developing image of ourselves and what we aim to become.  As both Feuerbach
and Strauss argued, the Christian doctrine of Incarnation is simply the
mythification or poetic objectification of the human dream to actually
become God, to actualize the ideal in the material world and to make "the
kingdom of God" an earthly reality.

V.  What are some of the qualities ascribed to God which in fact reflect
our own ideals?  Three qualities regularly ascribed to God in the Christian
tradition are that:
        (1) God is all-powerful (omnipotent), and
        (2) God is all-knowing (omniscient), and
        (3) God is benevolent or good.
        A.  In fact it is just these three attributes of God that create
the classical "problem of evil" for us.  That problem for religion is:  If
God controls everything (is omnipotent) and knows everything (including the
future) and is benevolent (wills good for others), then why is there any
evil in the world?
        B.  But let us now look at these attributes of God as qualitites
which we, especially men, would like to have.
                1.  We would like to have complete power, to make things go
where we want them to go (power over nature) and to make people do what we
want them to do (power over other people).  Of course, we quickly come to
the realization that we do not have such power and adjust ourselves to that
fact.  Still we would like to have such power.
                        a.  Through much of our history we hoped that magic
would give us such power over nature and people, that we could make things
happen by saying the right words or performing the right rituals.  Even
today some people still think that they can work such magic with prayers or
the right rituals.
                        b.  Leaders of society have used government and
military force to gain power over other people to make them do what has
been commanded by those in charge.
                        c.  Recently, we have turned to science for power
over nature by means of our knowledge of how nature works.  We "play God"
with our bodies and even the earth.
                        d.  A concern is the power over other people that
can now be gained through more detailed scientific knowledge of how our
bodies, and especially our brains, work.  Will some of our fellow humans
gain power over others, turning them into puppets?
                        e.  It is interesting to observe how prescientific
man viewed God (or the gods or fate) as in control of everything while they
themselves had little control of anything.  Now we humans are beginning to
realize that, as a result of scientific knowledge, it is we collectively
who have control over more and more.  We will soon even be intentionally
determining the genetic traits of our offspring.
                        f.  But if God is merely a projection of our
ideals, that means that we humans are gradually coming to realize our own
collective goals.  Maybe we will even become immortal, which is the quality
that the Greeks always mentioned when differentiating the gods from humans.
                2.  We would like to have complete knowledge, to know about
everything and be able to understand everything
                        a.  Today we think of knowledge as basically an
instrument for gaining power, but that is not the whole story.
                        b.  We also want to know just for the sake of
understanding.  Consider our desire to know more about the vast universe,
how it all began, how it developed to be what it is today, what is going to
happen to it in the long run.  How do our brains work?  How do physical
processes in our sense organs give rise to ideas in our minds?  How can
ideas in our minds make our bodies move?  There may be practical
consequences for such knowledge, but we want to know regardless of that.
We are curious animals.
                        c.  Aristotle argued that it is better to know than
to still be searching for the truth.  He viewed God as perfect, as needing
nothing beyond what He already has.  It follows that God is all-knowing and
that he contemplates this truth that he already knows while we humans are
striving to be like God and thus are always searching for the truth.

 3.  We would like to be completely good, to always do what
is right.
                        a.  This is a most reassuring observation.  Think
of it.  One of the qualities which we most desire to have is to be good, to
do what is right.
                        b.  So why do we so often fall short?
                                (1)  First of all, we humans aren't doing
so badly.  We are making the world better, aren't we?  Which of you would
prefer to have lived 500 years ago?  A thousand years ago?  Two thousand
years ago?  Five thousand years ago?  I rest my case.
                                (2)  Socrates thought that whenever we do
what is wrong, act unjustly, do what is bad, it is due to ignorance.  Does
anyone want to be a bad person?  Does anyone want to do what is wrong?
Doesn't everyone want to be "everything that they can be"?  For Socrates,
knowledge brings virtue and all immorality is due to ignorance.
                                (3)  Aristotle disagreed.  He noted that
sometimes we do what is wrong even knowing that it is wrong when we are
doing it.  He called this "weakness of will."  We always want to do what is
good, what will make us a better person, but we don't always succeed.  Why
not?  Because of the body, wicked thing.  As Plato had noted it is the
appetites and lusts of the body that lead us to do evil.  It is wanting
things to eat or shelter or clothing or other things for our body that
cause us to do evil.  If we did not have these bodies to look after and to
distract us, we could be totally virtuous or God-like.
                                (4)  Isn't it also our bodies that limit
our power and our knowledge?  We can only be in one place at one time.
Even our power to control our own bodies is limited.  We may
unintentionally drop things.  We can't always see or hear what we want to
see or hear.  Bodily needs keep distracting us when we are trying to learn
new things.  We must stop to sleep or to eat or to take care of other
organic functions.
                                (5)  Now we are ready to look at another
aspect of men's denigration of women, the view that women (whether Pandora
or Eve) are the source of all evil.  From a man's point of view women
(think of Aphrodite or Venus) are temptresses.  They arouse lust.  They
rivet a man to his body and make him a slave to his body.  One possible
response is that advocated by many Muslims:  let women keep themselves
completely covered so they do not entice men in this way.
                                (6)  An alternative to the above view is to
focus on women as mothers.  In that case there is no lust but only a
reverance and ready tenderness on the part of men to protect both infant
and mother.  I don't think that it takes much imagination to see why the
Virgin Mother is so important in male-created Catholic Christianity, even
if the notion of a woman becoming a mother without sexual intercourse is
likely to engender some incredulity.
                                (7)  This point should also help to
understand the view of the Catholic Church and many other male-oriented
religions that sex is basically evil.  The only justifiable (moral) purpose
of sex in any situation is for procreation.  That is why there is
opposition not only to sex before marriage but also opposition to family
planning and the use of contraceptives.  The possibility of abortion is bad
because it encourages sexual activity with no aim of procreation.  The
adoption of this view about sex also explains the intense animosity to
homosexuality or masturbation, practices which are obviously not for
purposes of procreation.

VI.  So we can now return to Plato's words about how our bodies keep us
from having these divine qualities of being all-powerful and all-knowing
and always benevolent.
        A.  Our true selves are our souls, not our bodies.  Our souls are
the divine or God-like part of us while our bodies are the animal part of
us from which we must be freed.
        B.  Therefore, as Plato says, philosophers know that we should be
always dieing to these wretched bodies.  Our aim should be to become
"disembodied minds."
        C.  When the Bible speaks of man being made in the "image of God,"
it certainly cannot be referring to our physical selves.  It must be
referring to our souls or minds, which are our true selves.  God is aware
of what is happening, controls all that happens, and wills what is good,
and it is our souls rather than our bodies that have this God-like
awareness and capacity to control and desire to do good.
        D.  This mind-body dualism has been characteristic of Western
thought as well as the thought of India as manifested in Hinduism.
Furthermore, the mind or soul is the true self while the body is the animal
base which must be discarded as a great hindrance the true development of
our real self.
        E.  Some may object that without the body we won't be able to do
anything.  We will lose even that little bit of power which we now have.
But the answer to that has always been that leaving your individual body
behind will allow union with God or Heaven or Ultimate Reality.  You will
have reached Nirvana, the end of striving and the presence of ultimate
peace and tranquilty.  The God-like part of your human nature will be freed
from the prison of the body and the limited perspective that goes with
that.  We will once again be part of the totally unselfish eternal divine
mind.