Mapping God’s “fingerprints”?

E. E. – if you have any specific questions feel free to follow up but please read both entries fully first.

doesn’t pretned to be a series

The nit-picker in me noticed the typo “pretned” beause I make the same mistakes myself all too often.

Now that I’ve picked that nit, I really agree with your analysis for the most part. Near the end you triggered a thought:

Think about the implications of Bradley Hagerty’s assertion for science, as well as for religion, if scientists tend to view their results through the lens of their own beliefs. Do you find what you were looking for to begin with? For the sake of science, religion, and oh, by the way, journalism, I hope we can transcend our own biases — or at least argue furiously with them.

Our world views tend for the most part to be very tenaciously held. So, yes, our interpretations of findings will be biased by our assumptions. It’s also why there’s a saying that often a generation has to pass before a radically new idea is accepted by the scientific community.

Also, at least in the current state of the research causation is the field for metaphysics or theology not science. Having the discussion focused on the opinions of researchers helped focus on that point rather than a typical science versus religion frame-of-reference. That was something I really welcomed.

If the whole series was as bad as the one episode I heard, then it must’ve been banal beyond belief. My admiration goes out especially to Elizabeth for suffering through all five installments, but then, there’s duty. Needless to say, I’m disappointed in her positive appraisal, unless of course ‘getting what some NPR listeners pay for’ was a subtle ironic reference to what we proud non-members pay NPR for stories like this. In which case I couldn’t agree more: this story was worth every penny I paid for it.

The episode I heard followed a familiar script: it began with a man who recalled certain acute ‘spiritual experiences’ which he claims have made him a better person, but which were later cast into doubt when it was discovered that they were accompanied by a certain form of epilepsy. (This is where the question of causation vs. correlation comes in, though this is at best a tertiary concern if you ask me).

This then led to an utterly predictable juxtaposition of two sets of neuroscientists whose authority in such matters was never questioned (after all, they are scientists). One group thought that ‘spiritual experiences’ could be explained (away) entirely in terms of abnormal brain functions which we (they) are increasingly able to map and manipulate. This of course this resulted in the obligatory zingers from scientists about ‘producing God’ and ‘dispelling the last great illusion of an Absolute who loves and cares for us.’ Perhaps because the original subject of the story cited these experiences as a source of self-improvement, we were at least spared overt musings on the Dawkinsian meme about religion as a form of disease, though this was the not-so-subtle subtext. The second group conceded the neurobiological data but declined the reductionist ‘nothing but’ solution. Religion, like love, may be more than biochemistry, but we’re at a loss to say what this ‘more’ consists in.

This stalemate concluded with Barbara Bradley Hagerty returning to the original subject of these spiritual experiences and opining that what really mattered to him was not whether they were actually true–I guess it doesn’t matter in the end whether the blue and gold light swirling above his hospital bed really was the Virgin Mary or whether she was even an actual historical being–but that they made him a nicer, happier person. (To which I can only say, ‘well bless his heart.’) This is a perfect conclusion for a culture ever eager to consign religion to a private ghetto of irrationality by reducing its authorized forms to kindly tools of self-improvement. The story thus ends by telling us just what we already know and want to hear, giving us a harmless form of religion perfectly fitted to the space that liberal democracy has already made available for it.

I am hardly disappointed at not finding “theologians debating scientists”; for this would require NPR to acknowledge the possibility that theology (I’d even settle for philosophy) is a rational discourse and that they therefore could debate scientists when necessary. It would require admitting that religions actually make comprehensive truth claims about the nature of reality that find their expression in of much of the West’s artistic, architectural, and literary tradition, as well as in highly sophisticated theologies and philosophies, and, conversely, that there are philosophical and even theological assumptions latent in ‘pure science’. This in turn would mean acknowledging that ‘religion’ is not at all identical to ‘spiritual experiences’, that religion is as much about the mundane as the esoteric and thus that many of the most devoutly and profoundly religious people across the ages would profess no such experiences. And this is surely too much to ask.

Why acknowledge any of this when reporters and scientists both ‘know’ that the essence of religion is ‘spirituality’ and know that ‘spirituality’ consists not (say) in a disciplined way of life that encompasses the whole of one’s existance or in the expression of one’s distinctly human rational nature as such, but in strange, distinctly ‘religious’ experiences or feelings that we now know to be correlative with neurological abnormalities? Though the story did not of course ‘take sides’ with either faction of scientists, this basic assumption, which underlies both sides, was taken for granted and operative throughout the piece. Far from being thoughtful, then, the piece was rather hackneyed and lazy, not despite but because of its recourse to the latest ‘scientific findings.’

To qualify as ‘thoughtful’, a piece must surely exhibit some philosophic self-awareness, some openness to having its basic assumptions questioned and altered. This may require a story to become something other than journalism, so I would settle at the very least on a ‘thoughtful piece’ exposing these assumptions to the light of day. If these are reasonable criteria for determining whether a piece is thoughful, one test of thoughtfulness might be whether or not a story could’ve been substantially written in advance of encountering its subject matter. I submit that this piece was the journalistic equivalent of a Hollywood movie. Like Braveheart and Titanic, the formula or plot remains more or less the same even as the characters change and the action moves from the Scottish Highlands to the North Atlantic. I really think I could have written more or less the same story without ever bothering to talk to the people involved or only plugging them in later as needs arise; after all, David Brooks has basically written this story in numerous columns apparently without talking to anyone. I’m not sure that Barbara Bradley Hagerty didn’t do much the same thing,. But then, I didn’t listen to the last installment to find out whether it ended with Leo DiCaprio pronouncing himself king of the world or Mel Gibson grunting his guttural paean to ‘freedom!’

I get the philisophical assumptions in pure science… what are the theological ones?

Elizabeth,

The problem, in my estimation, is not that scientists claim to ‘explain a phenomenon’ where in fact they do not. It is rather with the identification and definition of the phenomenon of ‘spirituality’ which then becomes identical to the ‘essence’ of religion. This circumbscribed understanding of ‘religion’ has its roots in 19th century liberal protestantism (actually the roots go deeper than that) and in the need of secular culture to isolate the phenomenon of religion to keep it within its proper bounds, even if that means denaturing it entirely. Bradley Hagerty’s undue reverence consists not in fawning over scientists or her acceptance of exagerrated claims to have explained (away) ‘spirituality’, it comes in her unthinking acquiescence in these assumptions.

Stoo, your question deserves a longer answer than I can develop here, and in fact I have to run. So, in haste, let me throw out a few: one assumption is that the world is indifferently related to God such that God’s agency would necessarily be in competitition with the agency of the world or nature. God is basically made into a an ‘object’. There are theological assumptions built into this. But the point is, that even to maintain ‘methodological atheism’ science must have some conception of the God in which it methodologically disbelieves. And this tacit definition of what God ‘must be’ is more fundamental than whether particular scientists or science in general happen to believe or disbelieve this notion.

I didn’t hear this particular part of the “spiritual brain” series, but heard the one on Near Death Experiences.

I can’t add much to the excellent analysis by Michael (11, above) other than to echo his dismay at the trite and predictable formula NPR uses for all of its reports – which I’ve mentioned here before – undergirded as they are with certain biases and assumptions. This makes them a bit less probing and less satisfying. One assumption is that all religion is simply (and most basically) “spiritual” – a deliberately vague term. It surely is only that for some but for many others it’s far deeper than a shallow flood of “good feelings” that can easily be explained away by the skeptics as a mere chemical flood of endorphins.

And I, too, would have liked to have heard from theologians, of various religions.

To the contrary Dave, The god in which science does not believe is not God, who does not end investigation into unexplained phenomena, but one largely invented by 17th and 18th century natural philosophy to accompany its meaningless and exclusively mechanistic understanding of ‘nature’. That this is also the understanding of God and nature shared by so-called ‘intelligent design’ only shows that the the appearance of a fundamental disagreement between ID and its opponents is largely illusory. That they both agree on what God and nature must be is more basic than the fact that one subscribes to belief in this God and the other denies it. This is (okay, only one reason) why I have always claimed that Richard Dawkins is a very bad atheist, and I suspect it is why Simon Conway Morris refers to him as “England’s most pious atheist.”

Elizabeth,

To be honest, I’m not sure what I’d like to hear save for sweet silence in the place where stories like the ones prompting this thread used to be. I certainly think there is a debate to be had about the nature and relation between science, theology, and philosophy, but as I’ve argued in a number of posts over the last few months, I have deep doubts that journalism as a thought form is structurally capable of dealing well with such a debate (or with’getting religion’ more generally, if you will) in even its best instances. This is because, odd as it sounds to say it, its empirical cast of mind is ill-equipped for dealing with questions of truth, or with thinking about such questions. But I don’t want to dredge all that up just now. I suppose, if I were King for a Day, that I’d wish for a more philosohic and less journalistic culture. I take these to be inveresely proportional to each other such that a culture dominated by journalism as a form of thought is one largely incapable of really sustaining that debate or exploring the issues treated in the NPR series with real seriousness. This, to me, is what is most interesting about this site, not that it focuses attention on the difference between good and bad religion journalism–and it bears repeating that I certainly do not deny that difference or the talents and intellects of this or that journalist–but that at its best it affords the opportunity to question the inherent limits and philosophical presuppositions of journalism as such.

As for the question of whether NPR has one overriding bias when it comes to religion, I don’t think the situation is quite so complex as you make it out to be (though in another sense it is perhaps more complex). There are certain assumptions about religion that, while patient of idiosyncratic variations among diferent persons or constituencies, are more or less endemic to a secular, democratic culture whose basis thought forms are technological (assumptions which inflict themselves on ‘religious practice’). This is why there is such a ready-made consonance between Barbara Bradley Hagerty’s underlying presuppositions and those of the neuroscientists featured in her story. All of the assumptions I pointed out–that religion is a compartment of life, that it is optional, that it falls outside the realm of rationality and certainly outside of what Rawls would call public or political reason, that it is therefore (at best)useful rather than true, that its ‘essence’ is therefore to be identified with certain types of feelings or experiences, that the artistic, architectural, literary, and philosophical embodiments of religion largely comprising the inheritance of ‘the West’ are to be factored out of this essence and that knowledge of ‘religion’ (not to mention religious knowledge) is therefore not necessary to understand ourselves and so on–are of this nature. Though I must confess that I’ve always found the program “All Things Considered” to be ironically named in the supreme, the question is not so much whether NPR as an organization has one overriding bias distinct from say, The Wall Street Journal, The NY Times, or CNN,though indeed it may. Rather the question is how NPR unreflectively enforces these more basic American cultural and political assumptions despite–or perhaps through–its organizational idiosyncracies or those of its reporters.

Or rather, what service that provides us information as to what’s going on, and what ideas that are being thrown around, do you propose instead of journalism as it stands today?

I guess maybe i’m getting confused over how much you think journalism should get caught up in these debates itself, as opposed to just reporting what the experts say.

Michael @21, I’ve seen enough repetition of your complaints about the role of religion in our society to wonder: How would the kind of role you would prefer be consistent with religious freedom?

This is not a theoretical question for me. I am a Pagan, and I see a culture that is much more full of Christianity than you might appreciate. This becomes more intense as one moves into the warmer states.

Michael, I evidently didn’t make myself too clear in my question about religious freedom.

What are the consequences of society having regard for the truth claims of religion? Do we lose abortion rights because society has regard for Catholic truth claims about the sanctity of life? Must we allow creationism into public school science class because society has regard for Biblical literalist truth claims about the veracity of Genesis?

You wrote:

there is nothing in principle to prevent those holding substantive truth claims from making space for those who hold contrary claims.

There is something pragmatic that stands in the way: lack of practice.

You have accurately described where we draw the line: around the individual. Your religion’s truth claims can motivate your participation in locating the consent of the governed in policy formation, but those truth claims themselves cannot do so directly. I would not defend this as perfect — clearly you harbor strong reservations on that — but it has served to implement (imperfectly, to be sure) the ideals set forth in the First Amendment about free exercise of religion.

Where would you draw a new line if we abandon the present one?