In Adam on Mars, I imagined humans living in a domed city that protected them from the harsh wilderness of a partially terraformed alien planet. Cut off from the civilization that produced their domed city, the inhabitants gradually lose the ability to do the right thing. One of them—Adam—makes a decision that cracks the dome and dooms the city.
The doctrine of “original sin” explains the suffering of humanity as the result of a taint that spreads from one man’s wrongful action. God tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the Tree; Lucifer whispers; Adam disobeys; humanity is cast out of Eden. Acknowledging the innate human capacity for both good and evil, the Lucifer Effect offers a broader perspective on evil acts. Phil Zimbardo’s psychological experiments show the extraordinary power of situations to override “the better angels of our nature.”
What we’ve learned of Lucifer Effect challenges the idea of “original sin.” Free will means the capacity to choose good or evil. What would it have taken for Adam to make the right choice?
What does it take to save Eden?
Let’s go back to Adam on Mars. The situation is dire. The domed city may be Eden-like, but its inhabitants have lost touch with the harmony that produced their city and the purpose behind the actions necessary for their Eden to survive. Anyone might take the first step that begins cracking Eden’s protective walls. In Adam on Mars, there isn’t a Lucifer whispering to one single human. There is a situation that affects them all.
In Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, all of the college students randomly selected as “guards” had healthy psychological profiles. Yet they did terrible things. The situation caused them to lose their moorings.
One reason the experiment descended into evil is that the guards who behaved “best” were those who did nothing. When good people do nothing, when they simply “go along,” the Lucifer Effect has a field day. It takes a thoughtful “hero” to change the situation. Doing nothing, or even quitting the cohort (“I’m not hanging out with you guys any more”) does not stop evil.
What’s needed is ordinary heroes who can stay connected even as they see the Lucifer Effect brewing.
Suppose Adam is an ordinary guy, but one who understands the Lucifer Effect. His cohorts begin to talk about skipping out of their boring jobs pushing buttons and watching dials, because the city runs itself and what they do can’t really make a difference. Adam wonders.
He can see that it may not make a difference that day or the next, but if most of the workers make a routine of leaving early, then one day no one will be in the right place at the right time. Yet Adam can feel the lure of the situation, of wanting to do what his peers are doing. When his co-workers stand up, ready to leave their work before the next shift arrives, what will Adam do?
If Adam’s life had fully prepared him to resist the Lucifer Effect, he would have acted when he first noticed the situation developing. Being able to “see” a potentially bad situation in advance of a decision-point helps ordinary people prevent a bad situation from arising. Imagine Adam doing a little research before the situation comes to a head, and telling his co-workers about the domed city’s intricate interconnectedness. Imagine how he might have helped to re-direct the developing situation by changing their perspective—by helping them understand the importance of what they do.
Even at the decision-point, a minimal understanding of the Lucifer Effect can give Adam the capacity to “resist”—to say, “Maybe that’s not such a good idea. Let’s hang here till we figure out whether what we do really matters.” If Adam is calm, un-blaming, and persuasive, he can even reverse the trend (a “Gabriel Effect”), encouraging his cohort not only to understand the role they play in the life of Eden, but also to rebuild the lost understanding that created their city in the first place.
Saving Eden requires vision (to see a developing situation) and the capacity to resist (even while feeling the lure of the Lucifer Effect) along with a belief that individual actions matter—that one person can make a difference.
It’s the anonymous Adams and Eves of just a generation ago who are responsible for recycling, which relies for its success on the collective effect of individual actions. Every time a child puts a soda can into the bin labeled “cans and bottles,” Adam is vindicated.
We may save Eden yet.
Comments:
Rev. Brooks' imaginative re-working of the Garden of Eden narrative and re-thinking of Original Sin points up something of a conundrum when formulating strategies to undermine the Lucifer Effect. The individual conscience is where a stand must be made, but it is only an individual who thinks in terms of the collective good who can truly make that stand.
Our cultural respect for the conscience of the individual (or, at least, the respect our culture claims it has for the individual conscience) usually takes the form of a negative ethic: if it doesn't hurt anybody else, feel free to exercise your conscience. From a civil liberties standpoint, this is a good and necessary conclusion; but from the broader perspective of resisting institutional evil it is only half of the equation. A positive ethic would hold that the individual MUST exercise conscience and act where it is necessary to prevent harm to others. It is not enough for the individual to opt out of activities that threaten harm to others; it is imperative that the individual go further and take action to prevent harmful activities.
By Rev. Curtis Webster | Posted on February 6, 2009, 10:27 am
Thanks, Curtis. You comment reminds me of the interesting (and unenlightened) response sometimes made to atheists: if there were no risk of eternal damnation, people would "sin" all the time. There's a more complicated theological riposte, but your "positive ethic" that the individual must act to prevent harm to others pretty much makes the point. The idea of free will (a notion common to a diverse array of religious and ethical traditions) means that we humans have a great deal of freedom, and thus also great responsibility. It's worth noting in this discussion of "original sin" (the foundation of many Christian theologies) that atheists often embrace a "positive ethic" that is, in its practical application, like Christianity at its best. I deliberately asked "What would Adam do?" as an echo of the catchphrase "What would Jesus do?"
Rev. Brooks offers us a radically new perspective on free will, responsibility, and heroism.
In my secular view, Adam got a bad rap about being disobedient to ultimate authority, and God over reacted to his one minor transgression, taking a bite of an apple that was forbidden-- for no apparent reason or justification. Adam did it not to abandon Eve who had been seduced by Lucifer in the form of the Serpent-- that is admirable, no?
But how do we know what happened in the Garden of Eden in cosmic history? Some religious authorities wrote the narrative eons after any such conceivable event. Why might they have done it that way?
Why would they not depict God as forgiving, understanding, engaged in conflict resolution? Because the message is: be blindly obedient to authority, no matter what the task, or who the authority is, and if not-- the consequences are losing Paradise forever, and causing evil to be spread around the world. If you think about it, It is the flip side of the story of Lucifer's fall from Grace. He was transformed into Satan, the devil, cast out of Heaven into Hell for his sin of disobedience to authority.
Those mythical narratives deny the freedom of individual choice, replacing it with the oppression of authority.
Heroism is opposing evil, it is taking action to help others or oppose a moral injustice. We want to create a world in which each of us is a Hero in Waiting, ordinary heroes prepared to act when the situation calls for such a heroic decision. I believe that is the main antidote to evil when we have a nation filled with heroes.
But heroes are most effective when part of a network of heroic action. We must learn to organize others to be good guards of our community,
to collectively act against evil, whether it is bullying, corruption, entitlements, discrimination, and wars.
There is power in community. Bacteria know that message, for better or for worse. it is time for us all to become heroic leaders of action in our families, neighborhoods, work and school settings, and in our nations.
Adam's problem was that he had no community to give or get support from, once Eve was outed. Since then, in my view, all future redesigns of Eden must be built on a vibrant social community that together opposes evil and promotes heroism.
Ciao,
Phil Zimbardo
Phil Zimbardo
By Phil Zimbardo | Posted on February 6, 2009, 6:39 pm
Dr. Z’s call for heroes is timely. In an age when so-called conservative radio and TV “pundits” reject any information (liberal media!) that doesn’t agree with their point of view and foment hatred of people who don’t agree with them; one wonders if a whole nation could be victimized by the Lucifer Effect.
By Mort Mather | Posted on August 11, 2009, 6:15 pm
It's now October 1, 2009, and I'm still chewing on this good one. The writing of Reverends Brooks and Webster just keeps getting better and better! Where would we be without The Lucifer Effect Theology Blog?! It's a place to think when thinking has been scoffed at and outlawed. Here is an endorsement of effortful thinking at a time when (embellishing Dr Zimbardo) the ploughshares of good social sciences research have been refashioned into swords of violence and ruthlessness. Heartfelt thanks to you, Reverend Brooks, Reverend Webster and Doctor Zimbardo.
By NaiveScientist | Posted on October 1, 2009, 7:29 pm
We all agree that "choice" is a good thing and we all agree about teaching an "individual sense if responsibility" which means that there are consequences for our behavior and for our choices -
If you believe the story of the garden - the first choice was to become a responsible being "eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and once someone has that knowledge we hold them responsible -
we do not say that it is ok for a man to fall on another man and tear him from limb to limb like an animal and use him for food, drink, utensils, etc. We see a clear demaracation between animal behavior and human behavior. Seems to me that the Genesis story, written long before our pompous knowledge, already told the story and the need, long before we came on the scene with what we believe to be the new improved version or a different version, initiated in our all-powerful minds - So, why not just be animals with each other, why not, just let the strongest and fastest survive and pass their genes on? Why not call the murder of each other just part of the course of the survival of the fittest. So, where'd we get this idea that we are better than the animals and that what we have is better than what the animals have?
By T.Martin | Posted on December 26, 2009, 7:34 am
