« Does the high oil price reflect a bubble? | Main | New site about prediction markets »
Predictions about religion
In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.
That's from David Brooks.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 13, 2008 at 06:39 AM in Religion | Permalink
Comments
From a purely economic pov should anything be sacred?
I think the world would be a lot better if nothing were.
Posted by: Samalakar at May 13, 2008 7:27:17 AM
Interesting little editorial... but is that not exactly what's been contemplated since the 1930's, if not earlier? I think the scientific community got a little bit off track with Skinner's definition of behaviorism (despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary of Skinner's models...), but if you look at some of the idealism developed around the development of sciences, there is a note of this transition. Naturally, cognitive and neuro- psychology add depth and evidence which was not previously available, but the concept that religiosity is an inherent experience of living seems quite straightforward... Sociology does pre-date cognitive psychology, after all.
Personally, I equate Dawkins to Skinner, in that they both will make a 'discovery' of sorts, and then run with it--heedless of the fact that there are infinitely more discoveries which have not been taken into effect, along with unobservable and probably complicated interactions between systems. Then we have a militant point of view with no regard for possibilities outside of a schema that fits in with a very narrow body of information.
So, my challenge to the article: why Buddhism? I mean, I have all respect and regard for Buddhism, but this David Brooks does not specify how recognizing cognitive development as being influenced through relationships and emotions equates to Buddhism, or how these 'transcendental' experiences' are Budda-esque in nature. I would actually propose that this transcendental nature is approached through a variety of ritual/meditative practices common to many religions. By the way, how does this point of view differ much from Joseph Campbell? I recognize that Campbell can get a little out there into the 'collective unconscious' principle, but I would also argue that the 'collective unconscious' was a good analogy to what we now understand as universal human cognitive processes.
Posted by: Mickey at May 13, 2008 7:38:44 AM
What is he talking about?
Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
I heard about the research about religious feelings and the brain. But the research that shows that brains transcend themselves and merge with larger presences is new to me. I am not even sure what it means.
Posted by: Great Zamfir at May 13, 2008 7:39:40 AM
Anyone who is even faintly interested in a debate between atheists and representatives of the established religions in 2008 just hasn't read much philosophy from the preceding 2000 years
as for Brooks' "predictions", I wasn't around then but didn't all this already happen in the 60s and 70s?
Posted by: Ben at May 13, 2008 7:52:04 AM
From a Christian point of view, I have little disagreement with the second and third beliefs he lists, except that I would extend the second to far more than moral intuitions.
The fourth belief sounds far more Hindu than Buddhist to me. The main difference from Christian belief is whether the God one can experience is a separate entity from that God's creation.
The first belief is actually the interesting one to debate.
I also do not see why he thinks we need to defend theologies as guides to behaviour. What matters about theologies is truth. Having established (at least to your own satisfaction) truths, you may or may not be able to deduce guides to behaviour from them.
Posted by: Graeme Pietersz at May 13, 2008 8:04:38 AM
Religions are not just cultural artifacts, they are social instruments in the hands of elites.
Also the ways these instruments function are affected, as shown by Harold Adams Innis ( Empire and Communications ), by current media ( parchment is a base for Catolisism, paper for Protestantism, for example ), thus coming of programs like SecondLife, which could, in future, replace those needs in communications which drive people to churches, will change forms of religions, and if it would be one general religion, based on human nature, for all - that will be fine - no religious conflicts. It will make harder life to elites ( for example here in Russia they try to resurrect Orthodox church ( in low believing country ) in order to create what they call 'national distinction from others' ) but still will allow to keep some ways to call for peoples's support and allow to control where social developments go. So the question is how easily elites will agree to changes in way they interface with population.
Posted by: Sergey Kurdakov at May 13, 2008 8:33:33 AM
His second point, "underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions," is either wrong or too vague to be useful.
Cannibalism is moral in some circumstances, to some people. I don't know how we can square that reality with, say, the moral intuitions of most people claiming allegiance to Christian faiths.
Or, to take an example from within the Christian world, a few Christians believe quite strongly in the morality of polygamy but many Christians feel that polygamy is morally objectionable.
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2008 9:08:51 AM
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.
Ahhhhh.... failure of a paragraph....
Materialism doesn't say that love doesn't exist! It says that love comes about because of atoms, like everything else. Love is still awesome. Love is still mysterious (though it might not be someday). Love is still something everyone should feel. Hooray for love! Same for awesome experiences like feeling connected to people around you. Only a really really bad empiricist would deny against the evidence that people have transcendent experiences.
The point is that materialists do not believe these feelings give us evidence for the truth of religious doctrines.
I don't think science will ultimately support mysticism any better than other religions, because science aims at understanding an experience where mysticism aims at describing what external things those experiences correspond to.
Science cannot find these external things. But they can acknowledge and investigate the power of a religious/mystical experience. This is not particular to mysticism. Some people say they talk to their Christian God, and science can investigate the nature of this experience too.
Science can even someday tell us useful things, like the propensity of these experiences to lead to human happiness. And maybe people can change their behavior accordingly.
But science cannot support the truth of mystical or religious doctrine, unless we literally see evidence for things like "an ark with pairs of animals on it" or "this guy got resurrected" or "there is a place people go when they die" or "everything is one", the latter of which, of course, isn't clearly defined in the language of science (which is fine).
Posted by: mk at May 13, 2008 9:54:58 AM
Is David rather saying that the material claims of mysticism are more vague and less concrete, and therefore science cannot undermine them as directly because they do not present testable hypotheses?
Posted by: mk at May 13, 2008 9:58:27 AM
This reminds me somewhat of the somewhat derided chapter in Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith," in which he delves into Buddhist meditation (link)
Posted by: Josh R. at May 13, 2008 12:23:39 PM
Which in turn reminds me of the much derided paragraph in "The End of Faith" where he describes research into reincarnation and ESP as credible.
But I certainly lug around some "artifacts" that might make good footers in a religious foundation. Though I would classify myself as an atheist, I am also a horrible flier and could not read Harris' book, purchased at an airport, on a plane for fear of Old Testament retribution.
There's no atheists in foxholes or window seats.
Posted by: burger flipper at May 13, 2008 12:50:03 PM
Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
So, does Brooks not understand the selfish-gene hypothesis*, is he just taking a swipe at Dawkins, or does he think this is such a neat rhetorical turn of phrase that he'd risk looking like an idiot to see it in print?
* Hint: the metaphorical "selfishness" of genes is meant to explain altruistic behavior -- not deny that it exists -- by showing how certain altruistic behaviors aid survival.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at May 13, 2008 1:01:36 PM
Referencing Chesterton and others, the near universal existence of belief in something beyond the physical and material seems to be a fairly convincing argument that we were designed for more than what is here.
It's just particularly useful evidence for what is called natural law.
Posted by: jip at May 13, 2008 1:07:05 PM
Referencing Chesterton and others, the near universal existence of belief in something beyond the physical and material seems to be a fairly convincing argument that we were designed for more than what is here.
Another variation on the ontological argument, by which I can prove unicorns exist simply because I can imagine them. Oh, and also begging the whole "design" question, too.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at May 13, 2008 1:31:38 PM
Uh, yeah. Nice of him to just declare victory and move on. Glad to know materialism is dead because he loves his spouse.
Posted by: JasonL at May 13, 2008 1:52:08 PM
Evidence Beats Gas-in-the-Head Arguments
People leisurely discuss where the axioms in their head lead,
yet more correct inferences follow from observation.
In particular, are the religious better in some sense?
With 85% of the U.S. population Christian,
the best scientists (National Academy of Sciences) has but 7% Christian. A little Bayesian statistics would show that the probability ratio for being in the Academy (Christian over non-Christian) is .013.
Barring deductive difficulties,
one could hypothesize that Christian thinking forms a mind
100 times less likely
to excel at science.
These results are comparable to those found in
Great Britain's Academy equivalent.
Such results get supported by an underlying reason
for which Muslim countries have virtually no basic science:
how could the results of science,
laws of nature, be true,
since they would then imply that laws discovered by man
limit (if not define) God --
shouldn't God be able to suspend the laws of gravity.
One might imagine religions trying to close such an Academy.
Looking at statistics,
one could hardly say that the religious have better
"moral" measures than atheists/agnostics,
whether the statistics measure
rate of imprisonment, giving, divorce, abortion, ...
The largely non-religious northern Europe have very good "moral" measures.
While the non-religious seem to have better "moral" measures,
there is a reasoning that in any religion or philosophy,
people must live in this world,
so tend to behave similar to others.
Yet, each religion has hacked at numerous ideas enough
to offer a few ideas.
Nonetheless, truth gets better revealed where it isn't obscured by the artificial.
More can be gained from a religious group like
Ethical Society
which meets on Sunday mornings in a dozen U.S. cities,
comprised of former Jews, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Unitarians, Agnostics,
and more PhD's per member than any other U.S. religious group.
With little creed, they "seek to bring out the best in others."
Posted by: Jameson Burt at May 13, 2008 4:14:19 PM
To take a shorter crack at it:
Suppose this guy says "sometimes I have this awesome feeling that Everything is One."
And the scientist comes along and says "Interesting... whenever you report this feeling that Everything is One, your neurons are doing a little dance."
Is this scientific evidence that Everything is One?
That sounds to me like an abomination of logic, but it appears that David Brooks is suggesting this.
Posted by: mk at May 13, 2008 5:00:24 PM
Actually, materialism is "dead" to a great deal of reality because materialism has become a dogma whose adherents ignore a vast body of evidence that it is a very incomplete model of reality and refuse to consider the possibility that they might be mistaken about the truth.
Posted by: Matthew C. at May 13, 2008 6:56:54 PM
Is this scientific evidence that Everything is One?
No, it is personal subjective evidence that Everything is One.
The incontrovertible scientific evidence that Everything is One is found in quantum mechanics, the big bang, and the universal lawfulness of the material universe.
Posted by: Matthew C. at May 13, 2008 7:01:58 PM
David Brookes writes:
"Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me."
(1) In the first two sentences he juxtaposes "orthodoxy" in the first with the "idea of a personal God" in the second. If the interpretation of scripture is individualistic or "personal", then defending "particular doctrines" is generally something that "believers" are NOT "going to have to" do.
Given (1), then
(2) His last sentence ("I'm not qualified to take sides. . . ")is so obviously true that one wonders why he wrote the essay at all.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 13, 2008 10:15:10 PM
The incontrovertible scientific evidence that Everything is One is found in quantum mechanics, the big bang, and the universal lawfulness of the material universe.
1) "Everything is One" is not a testable scientific hypothesis, unless it is put into clearer language.
2) Quantum mechanics posits many diffent subatomic particles with many different crazy properties. So, plausibly, Everything is Lots of Things. This doesn't disprove the statement Everything is One, but it shows how the truth or falsity of the statement depends on the definition of terms.
3) The big bang posits that Everything Was, at One Point, One. But when Joe-Bob has a mystical experience is he feeling the Big Bang? Doubtful. Is Everything Still One because Everything Was at One Point One? Under some definitions, the answer is no. Depends, once again, how you define your terms.
4) Scientific laws are reliable, but there are a lot of scientific laws, right? Of course it is possible to make an ordered list of all scientific laws, joined by the word "and", and create One statement out of it. But this is just playing with words.
No matter which way you slice it, science is simply not in the business of providing supporting or refuting evidence for propositions like "Everything is One." I could defend this more rigorously but I'd rather do something else.
Posted by: mk at May 14, 2008 12:30:55 AM
MK, you need to learn more about QM. Quantum entanglement makes it irrefutably clear that there are not "many different subatomic particles" but rather a coherent whole appearing as separate particles, yet actually one in reality (or One if you like). So the entirety of the creation of trillions of separate particles, atoms, molecules, planets, stars and galaxies is just an appearance -- the universe remains an inseparable wholeness just as it was at the instant of the big bang, only displaying a more interesting appearance after 15 b.y.
You also have mysticism backwards. "Joe-Bob" doesn't have a mystical experience, rather Oneness has a "Joe-Bob" experience. When as sometimes happens, Oneness looks deeper into the apparent "Joe-Bob" experience and sees through the charade of the "Joe-Bob ego / self" we label that a mystical experience.
Or else Oneness stays fully immersed in the dream-story and has an MK experience filled with imaginative ideas like materialism, atheism, and separation.
Posted by: Matthew C. at May 14, 2008 1:41:49 AM
His second point, "underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions," is either wrong or too vague to be useful.
Cannibalism is moral in some circumstances, to some people. I don't know how we can square that reality with, say, the moral intuitions of most people claiming allegiance to Christian faiths.
The point is that it is nearly universal that people feel a sense of moral revulsion and outrage when someone they identify with is murdered and cannibalized. In some societies, that empathy and concern is extended only to the extended family or clan. It's not that the moral intuition doesn't exist, it's that the number of individuals who someone considers worthy to be treated as fellow human beings is small. In Western societies, most people are willing to extend such concern to complete strangers including those who live in different countries.
Posted by: Mark at May 14, 2008 4:16:12 AM
Is it just me, or is the mumbo-jumbification of quantum mechanics in the top two or three most irritating phenomena of the past 20 years? The argument goes something like:
Wave-partical duality, hence Hindu type mysticism.
Booga booga!
Thank you, Deepak Chopra. You tool.
Posted by: JasonL at May 14, 2008 10:13:30 AM
From the article:
Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of thinking: Everything is material and “the soul is dead.”
No, just your particular brand of "soul" is dead. That kind of reasoning is like saying because there's no monsters underneath the bed there's no monsters period.
Is it just me, or is the mumbo-jumbification of quantum mechanics in the top two or three most irritating phenomena of the past 20 years?
Replace "quantum mechanics" with "string theory" and you'll be more up to date. "String theory" should be relegated to the religious or philosophy departments. Or the "I need some state money for my thought experiment" department.
Posted by: BlogReader at May 14, 2008 11:00:00 AM
