De Novo

The two hemispheres of the human brain

The alchemical androgyne, from the Rosarium Philosophorum (1550); note the sun and moon symbols.  The central task of alchemy is solve et coagula, “distill and combine”, meaning that sulfur and quicksilver (solar/masculine and lunar/feminine) elements are to be distilled to purity, then recombined to create alchemical “gold”.

Ardhanarishvara, or the viewing of the androgynous deity composed of Shiva and his consort Shakti/Parvati (commonly viewed as male and female halves of the same deity).  They are accompanied by a lion and a bull, which are symbols, respectively, of the solar and lunar; in contrast to the European conception, however, Shiva is seen as a “moon-man”, while Parvati is a “sun-woman”, thus emphasizing the divisions within divisions.

Since the eighteenth century, science has debated about the many inherent dualisms woven throughout the human brain and nervous system … These dualities are probably not a surprise to most people.  We need polarities in order to modulate our attention and behavior in response to environmental cues.  Sometimes we need excitation and sometimes rest, sometimes intellectual and sometimes emotional intelligence, sometimes solitude and sometimes community… The key to health seems to be fluidity…

…

The problems inherent in a polarized dualism must have been evident [by the 6th century BCE], as we find Heraclitus of Ephesus (ca. 540-480) warning of the dangers. The opposites, he said, cannot be divided – rather the universe is made up of the opposites in interplay.  Without dark we don’t understand light, without absence we cannot grasp presence, without evil we can’t understand good.  Herclitus made it his life’s message to show that “human desire inevitably is imprisoned within the structure of opposition.”  Ignorant people strive only for what they see as “good” without recognizing that good and evil are inseparable.  Lao Tzu, a contemporary of Heraclitus, likewise taught that dark and light, yin and yang, are intertwined, and the ego’s attempt to treat them separately, or favor one over the other, is the source of error and conflict.

– Dr. Stephen Larsen: The Fundamentalist Mind, pp. 31 & 97 (Quest: 2007)

Finding many popular secular critiques of “religion” as lacking in thought, substance, and reflection as a dog barking at the ocean, lately I’ve been reading Burton Mack’s The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy for a grasp on early Christian origins.  He evaluates the current terrain of New Testament studies, littered with apologists looking for the “real” Jesus, and concludes that a new approach is needed.  He then proceeds to lay out a 5-point theory of religion that goes quite far in describing the shape of the terrain of religious understanding that we are now exploring in the context of mythic thinking and social theory.  This extended quote is worth the read (pp. 67-70):

To account for the emergence of Christianity, including the formation of groups and congregations, the development of their various practices and rituals, the production of their mythologies, and the writing of their literature requires a radical shift in thinking and theory. That is because the theory of religion implicit in the field cannot even ask about, much less account for the motivations involved in the investments early Christians made in their new associations.  To account for the data that now confronts the New Testament scholar, a theory of religion is needed that can explain Christian origins as a thoughtful, collective human construction, instead of the result of human response to an overwhelming activity on the part of a god.  Only a theory that gives the people their due, a theory firmly anchored in a social and cultural anthropology, capable of sustaining a conversation with the humanities, can do that.

There are some common features to the many theories of religion now being formulated and tested in the humanities.  I would like to suggest five such features that, taken as a set, provide a perspective on religion that can be used as a kind of lens or working hypothesis for getting started on a collaborative redescription project.

(1) Religion is a social construct.  The notion of personal religious experience is inadequate as a point of departure for defining religion or developing a theory of religion.  That individuals have religious experiences is not in doubt.  But individuals in any culture experience religion in many different ways.  The more interesting phenomena are the myths, rituals, symbols, beliefs and patterns of thinking that are shared by a people.  These cultural constructs can be experienced and manipulated in a variety of ways by individuals, but it is their self-evident status as common cultural coin that marks them as the religion of a people.  … We need to ask about the reasons for and the processes whereby their myths and rituals were first constructed and agreed upon, and how they came to be taken for granted.  It is the social factor, the possibilities and rewards for coming to these agreements as groups in the context of a social history rife with other peoples, groups, and religions, that we need to understand.

(2) Social formation defines the human enterprise.  Constructing societies large and small is what people do.  It is a fragile, collective craft requiring enormous amounts of negotiation, experimentation, living together, and talking.  And it invariably results in very complex arrangements of relationships, agreements reached on better and less better ways to do things, and practices established to pass on the knowledge and skills accumulated in the process.  Social formation is hard work, creates as many tensions as rewards, and is overkill if thought of simply as a strategy for survival.  But despite the risks and repeated disasters, watching each other and talking about each other is what we humans find most interesting.  If so, a social anthropology will be required to counter the endemic personalisms that pervade Christian mentality, and ask about the reasons for and the processes whereby early Christian myths and rituals were first conceived and agreed upon.  What if the Jesus schools and christos groups were attractive as intentional experiments in social formation and mythmaking?

(3) Myths are more than fascinating fantasies, fuzzy memories, misguided science, or collective debris.  Myths acknowledge the collective gifts and constraints of the past and create a space for thinking critically about the present state of a group’s life together. Myths are good for creating marvelous narrative worlds in which to stretch the imagination and work out theoretical equations.  They are also good for defining a group’s place and identity in relation to a larger world.  This view of myth means that early Christians may not have entertained fantastic mythologies because they were overwhelmed by encounters with a god or a son of God, but because they wanted to comprehend and justify the investments in social formations for which only a god could render an account.  That is what myths can do.  So the questions to ask of these early Christians have to do with what social intelectual benefits they got from the way they dared to imagine their pasts and their worlds the way they did.

(4) Rituals are more than divine placations or magical attempts to channel the powers of the gods.  Rituals are the way humans concentrate attention on some activity or event of some significance to a group, and observe its performance apart from normal practice.  Much can happen at a ritual, for rituals are social occasions, require roles, invite attendance, display skills, confirm loyalties, trigger commitments, evoke thoughtfulness, and reconstitute the structure of a group.  In the case of Christian origins, then, it will be important to know what activities were chosen for ritual performance, why they were chosen, how they were performed, and what such observance may have achieved for the group.  I can’t resist the temptation to remark that, as far as I can tell, the supper texts in the New Testament were not taken as scripts for “reenactment” until the third century.  If so, scholar of Christian origins have a wonderfully elongated process of ritualization to describe and an interesting quest for theory to explain it.

(5) Mythmaking and social formation go together.  In a stable situation, where pressure to chnge a way of life is not serious, a people’s myths and social structure may not need constant tinkering.  But when circumstances change and the social fabric tears, and especially in the case of a clash of cultures, the pace quickens, for the older plots will need revision and the social structure will need repair.  Experimentation and bricolage mark the ways in which myths get rearranged and groups reform. Except for the case of an obvious pathology, even the most daring social experiments and the most fantastic mythic constructs turn out to be thoughtful and constructive attempts to regain sanity in a social situation that threatens human well-being.  In the case of early Christians, this proposition means that the making of their myths and the processes of forming social groups should be looked at together as constructive and thoughtful human activities.  And whenever there is a chance to catch sight of both mythmaking and social formation happening at the same time in the same place, the relationship of one to the other should be explored.

It saddens me to see so many atheists bashing their heads against the wall, unaware that the processes of social formation and mythmaking outlined above likewise apply to them.  Religion – and Christianity – makes perfect sense when you realize that people believe in these systems in spite of, not because of, logic, reason, and facts; the social benefits of opting in to the mythic systems of a welcoming community overwhelm the benefits of cold, hard, solitary logic.  We are social creatures, and any “ism” that fails to address the human desire for community will utterly fail, no matter how many facts it has on its side.

[Dante's] Paradisio Canto 31 (a view of God, the source of Light) by Gustav Doré.

A 2-dimensional projection of an 8-dimensional representation of E8, an 248-dimensional mathematical structure of “extreme symmetry” proposed by physicist Garrett Lisi‘s Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything as describing all fundamental interactions in physics.  See Lisi’s TED talk.

A fascinating discussion is occurring in the theoretical physics realm in the pursuit of a “theory of everything”.  The main rival of Lisi’s theory, string theory, is also very much in theoretical stages, and is considerably more baroque in its explanations, theoretical implications, and mathematics.  Among the heated partisan debates within the physics community, I admire Lisi’s stance: “I think scientists should be able to weigh the pros and cons of different theoretical models for themselves and follow what interests them, without pressure in one direction or another… I welcome criticism and skepticism, and I encourage people to look through the mathematics for themselves.”  He seems to embrace the possibility that he may be proven wrong, which is the healthy way to practice science.  And even if he is wrong, we’re still left with the beautiful E8 Lie group, which existed before Lisi’s theory and exhibits some extraordinary properties in its own right.

From a BBC dramatization. A little dramatic, perhaps, but this discussion strikes to the core of the disease of fundamentalism that says “our God is greater than your god”.

If we want to render a cultural critique, it is the relationship of the Christ of the gospel to the cultures that pattern our social constructions that needs to be addressed. Skirting the narrative gospels to get “back” to the historical Jesus will not work. No reconstruction of the historical Jesus can account for the narrative gospel in the first place, or challenge the narrative gospels and the portrayal of Jesus they present in the popular imagination. The current quest for the historical Jesus does not raise questions about the supposed reasons for the importance of the historical Jesus. It does not raise questions about the effective difference Christianity makes as a social presence and cultural influence in our world. It has not asked what it is about the Christian gospel and religion that is inappropriate, inadequate, troubling, or even dangerous as we face the social and cultural issues of our time. New Testament scholars have not found a way to broach, much less discuss questions such as these in the public forum. The quest for the historical Jesus actually avoids these questions. It seeks, on the model of the Protestant reformation, to leap-frog over the “wrongheaded” myths and rituals of the Christian churches to land at the beginning where the pure, clean impulse of an uncontaminated Jesus can rectify and rejuvenate Christian faith. That is mythic thinking with an apron-string attachment to Christian mentality. It will not produce a scholarly account of Christian origins. And it will not produce a rejuvenated (Christian) spirituality unbeholden to the gospel accounts.”

– Burton Mack in Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, pp. 39-40

Amen. The existence or non-existence of a historical Jesus does not address the shortcomings of the vast majority of people of Christian faith in falling short of the ideals of their leader, and neither does it speak to the acts of goodwill and generosity and sacrifice that have been made on his behalf. It most certainly does not speak to the relevance and holy insight of the red words in the New Testament; in fact, it utterly distracts from and profanes them. We’re all just human beings, and some do a better job than others.

• The Fundamentalist Mind by Dr. Stephen Larsen — From Christians to Muslims to atheists and new agers, fundamentalism transcends any single religious incarnation; it is an infection of the mind. Larsen uses recent research in neurology and psychology to show that we’re all susceptible to a fundamentalist mentality when we allow our thinking to become too static, and whenever we claim a monopoly on the truth. By making an exercise of seeing things from the perspective of those we disagree with, we can see that we have more in common than not.
• When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy: The Making of a Religious Naturalist by Chet Raymo — A vigorous affirmation of agnosticism by a wise old retired physicist, Raymo embraces his Catholic heritage and turns his yearning for the holy toward the ineffable, unnameable source of being that permeates all creation. Completely in line with current science, but by quoting poetry and with an ear toward the capricious, Raymo teaches us that the most important lesson that science has taught humanity is to say “I don’t know” – that by humbly submitting to whatever we may find in the universe, rather than looking for meaning in the supernatural, we can more fully appreciate what is. Highly recommended.
• Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy by Burton Mack — Christianity, like many religious traditions, conceals a core of mythos beneath a carefully guarded pretense of historicity, justified and propped up by apologists at major Bible colleges in (especially) America. Mack does the legwork of research to show the shoddy foundation of a historical interpretation of the Bible, revealing the powerful core mythological appeal to self-denial that too often gets ignored when Christians look outside themselves for God and the death-and-resurrection of Christ.
• Logic and Mr. Limbaugh by Ray Perkins, Jr. — Having family who listen un-ironically to Limbaugh, I’m interested in understanding his unique appeal. Perkins disguises a logic textbook in a very even-handed takedown of Limbaugh’s modus operandi: the sophistic conflation of emotion and rationality. The unfortunate cheap-shot illustrations throughout this book, however, disqualify it from being given as a gift to said relatives.

For some interpreters, such as philosopher Daniel Dennett and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, science reveals religious beliefs to be malignant memes gnawing their way through believers’ brains, diseases needing to be cured. Yet for many of the researchers closest to this work, the recognition that religion has biological roots only makes it harder to talk about severing it from ourselves.

This must have come as a disappointment to comedian and Real Time host Bill Maher, who traveled the world making fun of religious people for his documentary Religulous. Standing at the prophesied site of Armageddon — 

Meggido, Israel — 

Maher indicts religion as a “neurological disorder” that causes the afflicted to wish for apocalyptic death.

Maher interviewed Dean Hamer and Andrew Newberg, two scientists who study the biology of religion, to back up his anti-religious polemic; neither says much of substance in the film. Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health, is the author of The God Gene, which posits that human beings are genetically predisposed for “self-transcendence,” the feeling that there is something beyond ordinary experience. In other words, we’re hard-wired to believe in a higher power. In his research, Hamer noticed a correlation between personality survey data and different alleles of the gene VMAT2, which codes for an emotion-regulating brain chemical. In the course of human evolution, he suspects, this gene helped foster “an innate sense of optimism” that had adaptive benefits.

Since the NIH doesn’t sanction Hamer’s religion research, Maher interviewed Hamer at a lab at American University. During the interview, “[Maher] really kept on pushing me to say that science proves religion is wrong,” Hamer recalls. “And I kept on trying to push back and say, ‘Science proves that people have an innate desire for religion.’”

from Seed Magazine, via 3qd.

My takeaway from seeing Religulous was that Maher was, on the whole, more even-handed than someone like Dawkins has been in his documentaries; he was able to treat people with whom he disagreed with a modicum of human respect, even as he made fun of their beliefs.  But the film was light on science and research from experts in fields like neuroscience and psychology, and heavy on unfounded opinion.

Likewise, Dawkins, in his recent crusade against Harry Potter, is cited saying: “I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something for research.”  But Dr. Dawkins, there is already plenty of research.  Reams of it.  It just doesn’t say what you wish it did.

There seems to be a pattern emerging: secular fundamentalists like Maher and Dawkins seek to use the cover of science to advance their foregone conclusions, rather than looking objectively at what the evidence presents; there’s a deadly certainty here that is the actual culprit of radical fundamentalism.  In Dawkins’ words: “Always look at the evidence.”

Chet Raymo has been almost everything I’ve wanted in a blogger on science and spirituality, which is why I’ve been spending more time reading his amazing insights lately than writing my own thoughts.  I have much to learn from this wise old man, a veteran of scientific practice, a laughing saint and mystic of the highest order.  Searching scientists, scrutinizing people of faith, take note.

On Kohlberg’s scale, being willing to question authority, especially when it seems unjust or ridiculous, represents the highest stage of moral development, which is based on abstract reasoning using what he calls “universal ethical principles.”

– Dr. Stephen Larsen: The Fundamentalist Mind

Meme from Greg Newman, Justin Lilly and Brian Rosner, via James Tauber:

• Grab the nearest book.
• Open it to page 56.
• Find the fifth sentence.
• Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
• Don’t dig for your favorite book, the cool book, or the intellectual one: pick the CLOSEST.

If you vote for Obama, bad things will happen to the Jews.