Being Human: The rigor of belief.

4

.

* Michelangelo's Sibyl
Sistine Chapel


This began as a response to Manish Ghosh's wonderful diary on the new series in Nature Magazine, where many of the old SciAm readers have retreated after SciAm's capitulation to less rigorous material. Today's sermon is taken from Being human: Religion: Bound to believe? by Pascal Boyer of the Departments of Psychology and Anthropology, Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, USA, and is the author of Religion Explained, a hubristic title if ever there was one.

The poets always say it best: Eliot:

Streets that follow like a tedious argument Of insidious intent To lead you to an overwhelming question … Oh, do not ask, “What is it?” Let us go and make our visit.

The Oracle at Delphi, known as the Pythia, sat by the Omphalos, her mind addled by ethylene gas drifting out of cracks in the rock below her. She only prophesied while the grass was green, for Apollo would desert his temple during the winter. Asked questions by the fearful and credulous of every sort, from Alexander the Great to the lowliest shepherd, she would mutter dark pronouncements.

The Oracle at Delphi prophesied for many centuries. In 83 BC, the Roman Cicero asked the Oracle how he should find fame. She replied: make your own nature, not the advice of others, your guide in life. Cicero went on to become one of Rome’s greatest orators and he fared well enough in his own times against his great enemy Catiline. History has been less kind to that blowhard Cicero and much kinder to Catiline who was probably an honorable man and an agrarian reformer.

I would argue modern science is a sort of Cicero, looking for fame, making its own nature its guide in life. This will not do, to talk about sociobiology and the sophomoric distinctions between culture and genes, as if there is a paucity of data. We are surrounded by data: Neolithic Man left trash heaps meters deep. Mitochondrial DNA has allowed us to look at humankind’s spread throughout the world, as well as the animals he domesticated. Linguistics gives us an astonishingly good look at prehistory.

Pascal Boyer would have us believe Atheism is a tough sell. I would argue the opposite: in an era when man has become the measure of all things, atheism is the default modus vivendi.

Let us strip aside some of the more simplistic assertions and call Religion what it truly is: the flower that grows on the bush of Culture. If it has any evolutionary basis, so did the flower in evolution. Flowers come very late in biology and seem to have co-evolved with the insects which pollinated them. New religions appear all the time: Mormonism and Scientology and various cults, newly fundamentalist Islam. We must never think of religion as Something. It cannot be measured. One might as well try to gain insight into genius by examining the brain. It’s been tried: they did it with Einstein’s brain.

Religion is not belief. In truth, religion is a constantly evolving collection of symbols and rites, organized by a shaman or priest or some other authority figure. Religion has myths, often encoded in scriptures or revealed by the shaman. These do not require belief. Belief must be internalized, only then does it become faith and it cannot be shared. A child may be convinced the world is round by seeing the marvelous picture from Apollo 8. But what sort of roundness? Is it the roundness of a plate or the roundness of a sphere? More evidence is required. The child should be shown a globe.

Boyer’s exploration of this Anthropomorphic God can go in many directions. Once I believed my father was the smartest, strongest, bravest man who ever lived. Though my father was indeed a noble man and wise, I came to learn of his many imperfections. For some people, God may be nothing more than an extension of the Jungian Archetype of the King, the lord of men. But there are other such archetypes in the hearts of men, the Trickster, the Hanged Man, the Queen of the Sea or the Miraculous Child. Thousands of such archetypes fill the Hindu pantheon. I do not believe Boyer has explored far enough. In point of fact, the most-successful religions stoutly reject any Anthropomorphic God, especially Islam which is by far the world’s most-observed religion. Christianity and Hinduism recognize God-become-man, or an avatar, but as a general rule, modern religions will not tolerate any man who would call himself a god. We who are religious would emulate the divine in our lives through acts of mercy and personal holiness, for this world is not our home.

Neuroscience has made great strides in identifying religious experience in the brain, especially in the temporal lobe. It is recorded Muhammad the Prophet questioned his sanity, confronted by the angel Jibril. He confided in his wife, and was reassured he was still sane. Jesus Christ was accused of having a devil, then the common parlance for insanity. Ecstatic visions often accompany temporal lobe seizures, and many epileptics describe “the aura” preceding a large seizure.

Though an outsider might say each religion resolutely clings to its own superiority and all who do not believe shall be damned, this is a fundamental misreading, especially of the larger religions. According to these religions, God shall judge the living and the dead on the basis of their deeds.

Boyer would tell us disbelief is not the easiest ideology to propagate. This cannot be true. Disbelief is the process of growing up to find out Daddy isn’t the greatest man who ever lived. Belief requires far more work and effort. Jesus Christ said unless you become as a little child, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Zen Buddhism demands the mind be disciplined to see the world through new eyes, every waking moment. Hinduism demands we see the divine in each other. Even Atheism demands you must believe in yourself, not as a a god but a fallible man. Yes, over the Temple of Apollo it read Know Thyself, but that dark wisdom was lost on those who came in search of answers from the Oracle. You must be born again, is the ancient demand of faith, and it is never as easy to re-enter the helpless world of belief and trust as we might wish it to be. Faith is a terribly humbling process, as the alcoholic must come to see himself as helpless to resist his temptation and seek the Higher Power. It is easier to disbelieve.

Mankind is not unique in his ability to remember, or to grieve, or to dance with joy. Elephants will find the bones of those they loved on the plains of the Serengeti. They will touch them, tenderly passing them to each other, as the Buddhists will carefully retrieve the fragments of each bone from among the cinders of a cremation, passing them to each other at the ends of chopsticks. Surely cognition in any species, translated through their senses and nervous systems produces something analogous to meditation upon life itself, its transitory nature, the joys and sorrows of the struggle to exist. For humans, whose skulls have adapted to our brains, we pay a terrible price for our ability to remember and learn: a long and difficult childhood. During this vulnerable period of our lives, we must believe and trust our caretakers and we will grow in the image of those we love.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The moon vs. the finger pointing to it

(#132318)

Religion-as-symbols-and-rites is an accretion that perennially grows around the fundamental insight of mystics. All religions, like all thoughts and ideas, are in the domain of the formal; of course they can be studied, critiqued, evaluated as true or false in their specific claims of fact, judged according to prevailing moral standards, and so on. The insight itself is in the domain of the formless and is immune to categorization.

Every so often we need a Lin-chi (Japanese: Rinzai) to shake things up and remind us that all teaching is only a finger pointing to the moon, not the moon itself.

Zen Buddhism demands the mind be disciplined to see the world through new eyes, every waking moment.

Actually, Zen Buddhism teaches that there is nothing you need to do, though that teaching is just another finger...

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

"It cannot be measured"

(#132056)

By that you mean religion can't be scientifically studied?

Religion is not belief. In truth, religion is a constantly evolving collection of symbols and rites, organized by a shaman or priest or some other authority figure.

There's theories around re: the existence of shamans and rituals, etc.

I'm trying to remember Denett's. Shaman rituals are often partially focused on healing and, given the real benefits of placebos, it's advantageous for a group to have some sort of meme along these lines.

Participatory rituals IIRC on Dennett's view are also partially about group story-telling, which is one way of getting a group to more accurately transmit their story-history to others. The religious bits come in as an offshoot of episodic memory, which is highly inaccurate and prone to confabulation, and an overactive 'theory of mind module' which habitually attributes intentions and agency to all kinds of things including, at the limit, ghosts + spirits.

That's no doubt a pretty poor representation of Dennett's view. My pt. tho is that I don't know that I agree with this or that naturalistic account of religious practice, but I don't see why it shouldn't be studied as a natural phenomena. Something along the lines of my badly presented Dennett theory might be right.

Can religion be scientifically studied?

(#132064)

That depends on one’s definition of both religion and science.

Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

Daniel Dennett is a problem child in my book. He is, to put it plainly, a huckster, a donkey wrapped in a lion’s skin, fearsome only until he opens his mouth to bray. If you wish to read serious criticism along these lines, try Stephen Jay Gould. Since Charles Darwin drew one obvious conclusion about the origin of species, every two-bit huckster has tried to put some capitalized adjective in front of Darwinism, Social Darwinism, Neural Darwinism and a host of other completely inappropriate usages. Dennett is no philosopher: he is a phrenologist and a not-so-subtly disguised authoritarian. Dennett has no intellectual discipline and no respect for his subject matter.

When, exactly did Darwinism become Atheism? Dennett has succumbed so completely to his Memetics he has come to believe his own press releases.

Episodic memory is considerably more than confabulation. One might as well say language itself is an elaborate lie. Language has proven a remarkably durable storage locker for collective memory. Homer and the Bible and the Ramayana seem to have accurately preserved enough relevant detail for the archeologists to take seriously. This is the difference between Dennett and the archaeologists.

Some while back, I tried to put forward a definition of a crank. One aspect of that definition was the crank’s paranoia and his inability to publish in scientific papers. Dennett is tendentious, he attacks what he cannot understand, he is a self-described Darwinist Fundamentalist, and I am always leery of anyone who would call himself a Fundamentalist of any stripe, for it always means Authoritarian. Gentle Darwin’s theory has been so badly misused over time, wrapping the old lie of Might Makes Right in a filthy parody of an elegant scientific theory.

This is not to say religion cannot be studied: no anthropologist would deny religion’s significance, and there it should remain, firmly within the confines of anthropology and perhaps some aspects of neurophysiology and pharmacology. Philosophy cannot be called Science in any meaningful sense of that word. This is not to say Philosophy is not a discipline, indeed it is a serious and rigorous discipline, a discipline to which Daniel Dennett has never submitted. I love the agnostic philosophers, and find much which is good and true in Stephen Jay Gould, a man of relentless intellect and humility. The Atheists are far too early along in their new era to be taken seriously, yet. While Atheism is an entirely honorable position to take, their philosophy reads like the early Christian philosophers, Tertullian, Jerome, Aquinas, authoritarians all, who were equally ignorant of the centuries of philosophy which preceded them as they were of Judaism from which their own faith had sprung.

Stephen Jay Gould said a wonderful thing before he died:

If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no.

But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.

I remember a story about Clarence Darrow, who was quite atheistic. Somebody asked him: "Suppose you die and your soul goes up there and it turns out the conventional story is true after all?" Darrow's answer was beautiful, and I love the way he pictured it with the 12 apostles in the jury box and with his reputation for giving long speeches (he spoke two straight days to save Leopold and Loeb). He said that for once in his life he wasn't going to make a long speech. He was just going to walk up to them, bow low to the judge's bench, and say, "Gentlemen, I was wrong."


Gould was a shirker

(#132321)

and perennial advocate of the nonsensical & pompous "There are Some Things Man Cannot Know" canard. Science can and should study whatever it damn well pleases, certainly including religion, which is after all an ordinary human phenomenon. What did Gould contribute to our understanding of religion, other than some P.C. claptrap about "non-overlapping magisteria"? As a philosopher, he made a great biologist.

Gould allowed his professional life to be bounded by the limits of his politics. He wrote some wonderful essays, but in terms of contribution to human understanding, Dennett has him by a mile.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

I'm not a fan of Dennett

(#132068)

or his uber adaptationist approach - the approach might well be a flawed way of generating scientific explanations.

But if it's flawed, it's not a peculiar problem w. explaining religious practice/thought, but a general flaw with all nat. sel.-based psychological explanations.

I tossed out a Dennett-style explanation just to get an idea of how evolutionary psychology might try to capture religious practice/thought in particular. Again I don't see that style running into trouble in explaining religion that it wouldn't run into elswhere.

perhaps Dennett is wrong to stress adaptationism as central to explaining psychological phenomena. OK. Then we could look to other factors that Gould and others have highlihted. Perhaps religious practice/thought is a spandrel, but we'll understand it better once we understand the non-spandrel cognitive architecture that subserves it.

Maybe we'll have to look principally at endogenous features of an organism and quit looking to exogenous constraints when explaining phenotypical characteristics. One of Dennett's critics, Fodor, argues that there aren't any interesting adaptationist generalities that hold across species and that we'll have to do natural history on each species to understand its behavior.

Either of those appraoches could be applied to religious thought/practice. At least I don't understand why they couldn't be.

==

If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no.

That's an interesting quote, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I don't want to get into another argument on the internet over what 'agnosticism' means, but just want to pt. out that betting practices are usually treated as one way to model subjective probability assignment/degree of belief.

In other words, there is no better measure of someone's degree of disbelief in a proposition than her likelihood to bet against it.

That's pretty strong evidence against calling Gould an agnostic in my book.

Philosophy and Religion both adapt, and it's fascinating.

(#132073)

Case in point: slavery. The Bible clearly describes the parameters of permissible slavery. How then did it come to pass that Christianity would provide the first genuine impetus for the abolition of slavery?

Or the abortion debate? The Bible is largely silent on the topic. There's one odd little bit in Exodus and Deuternomy about causing the miscarriage, but other than that, the Old Testament seems to make the case for genocide.

Sure doesn't look good on the surface does it?

So how did we get to this point, where abortion and religious war are the defining issues of our day? Now that's where the anthropologists and historians and yes, even the theologians have their place at the table.

Here's my take on the whole atheist-agnostic-religion debate: it's a false argument. If, as the faithful believe, my relationship with God cannot be shared any more than I can share my children or my wife -- why should the man of faith question someone else's belief structure? Question his premises? Question his evidence? Sure, that's where we can make some headway.

I've often wanted to meet an obdurate atheist like Christopher Hitchens, just to whisper in his ear, "what you hate about religion, I hate, too."

Well if you want to get close to a Hitchens or Dawkins type

(#132088)

you could contribute to the latest movement atheist craze -- bus adverts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising

Heh. We could do that in China "There's Probably No God"

(#132105)

Now stop persecuting your religious minorities, let them out of jail and let them enjoy their lives"