David Brooks has a thoughtful
piece on breakthroughs in neuroscience that is must reading. Brooks might
be summed up this way: the idea, no matter how much it continues to be
trumpeted by a few atheist apologists, that we are just material boys
and girls, does not stand up to critical scrutiny. The material girl herself
knows better, even if Hitchens and Dawkins do not (I leave Harris out, because
friends who have heard him speak recently say he could well be in the midst of
changing his mind). Here is the key graph:
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.
Researchers now spend a lot of time trying
to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it
appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and
attachment.
Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. 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.
Well, I knew that already. All I have to do is remember the episode in The Simpsons in which Bart tries to sell his soul. The capital venture does not work out well. The Homers and Barts of this world might be able to be explained on the hypothesis of evolution alone. But the Marges and Lisas? Now that strains credulity.
Brooks goes on to say that “science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings.”
Bring it on, I say. The power of particular ideas and specific doctrines became clear to me in an unforgettable way through a Japanese friend of mine, now a professor of Old Testament in Tokyo. Once we had become friends, I asked him how is it that he was a Christian. “Do you remember,” he said, “that part in Karl Barth’s Dogmatics in which he searches far and wide for the doctrine of divine grace that is so central to strands of thought in the Bible? (Ezekiel and Paul, for starters)” “I do,” I said (I read much of Barth under excellent professors at the Waldensian Theological Seminary in Rome). “Well, Barth said that he found something like the Pauline concept of grace in one, numerically rather unimportant form of Buddhism. My father,” said Yuichi, “was a Buddhist priest of that school. The Buddhism the school espouses is unusual, not only because of its teaching of grace, but because it allows priests to marry and have children. That’s why I exist.” The profound gratitude in Yuichi’s eyes as he said it was a sight to behold. His father’s Buddhism is also why his father became a Christian, and raised his children in the Christian faith. His father somehow ended up reading the New Testament and coming to the conclusion, this is what I already know to be true, just more so.
The power of particular ideas and specific doctrines is not to be underestimated.
John,
Great post. It seems that atheism is losing its foundations by the very instrument that lead many people to atheism: science.
Claude Mariottini
Posted by: Claude Mariottini | May 14, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Rumors of the Death of Materialism are greatly exaggerated.
Leave aside the notion that special weight should be given to the utterances of David Brooks on either science or spirituality, and we are left with the idea that identifying possible locations in the brain where spiritual experiences originate lends evidence to their reality. I'm afraid it does no such thing. It could either indicate the way in which the brain reacts to the an experience of God or it could indicate the neurological origin of the illusion of an experience of God. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging can not distinguish the two and, hence, has nothing to say about the truth value of such perceptions. In fact, the ability of some scientists to induce religious-like brain states using simple magnetic fields weakens Mr Brooks argument further.
As to scientists investigating the role of emotions in decision making, only a cretin or an economist would claim that emotions do not play an important role in how we think and act. If "hard-core materialism" was hindered this kind of research in the past than a step forward in science has been achieved. Again, it says nothing about God. Equating Love and Religion is silly and, frankly, denigrating to the humanity of us all. Then again, when I study Christian theology and encounter total depravity, preveniant grace, etc, I begin to think that that's what Christianity is all about.
Posted by: Scott Ferguson | May 14, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Scott, you have a very nice blog, and I plan to look at it in more depth. I agree with your Jeremiah Wright post - I've blogged along the same lines.
You make some good points, and you hold Brooks to a very high journalistic standard, a compliment of sorts in his direction, but you seem unwilling to allow people to take the multidimensionality of reality as they experience it and build it into a larger working hypothesis which includes a God-axiom. If all you're saying is that there is no evidence out there that compels belief in God, I'm with you, though that benign assertion holds for materialism as well. But you seem to want to say more, to speak from some agnostic height from which to look down upon the credulous masses. It's not that simple.
It's as if you said to Christopher Reeve, "I know you had an out-of-body experience, and in consequence thereof, became a theist, to be precise, a Unitarian theist, but let me tell you, you are making an unwarranted inference." Now Reeve may have misunderstood his own experience, but his choice to move from an atheistic position to belief in a Unitarian God is a legitimate one, it seems to me, though I myself believe in a different kind of God.
It's not that you're wrong that an atheism-of-the-gaps kind of argument is still possible following an out-of-body experience. It's just that, all other things being equal, having such experiences, which throws into question hard-core materialism, naturally makes it more plausible to believe in a God of some kind, details to be announced as it were.
It's all well and good to say with Einstein that religion is a fertile hotbed of primitive superstitions (or something to that effect: I don't remember the exact words off-hand). That is undeniable. But something is rotten in Denmark, since even Einstein turns around and replaces a robust God-hypothesis with the noosphere hypothesis, according to which there is a tertium quid which relates mind to body. Really now! What's that about materialism not being dead?
Posted by: JohnFH | May 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I come bearing criticism.
First of, it is quite obvious morality is hard wired- psychopaths are good evidence for this. And hardwired behavior is... materialism.
The shift isn't away from materialism, but reductionism. So you are off by a bit. Reductionism is a method- not a statement about reality.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner | May 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Samuel, thanks for your comments, but I'm not sure I follow you. If there is a shift away from reductionism, that still sounds like a shift away from hard-core, or reductionistic, materialism.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM
John,
I read that article on the International Herald Tribune and I thought that David Brooks might be onto something. Then I read two science bloggers who tore into him and I wasn't so sure:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/05/who_are_these_neural_buddhists.php
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2008/05/what_is_david_brooks_talking_a.php
And I was reminded of Slate's excoriation of the Dalai Lama:
http://www.slate.com/id/2130455/
Then again, maybe the nuns and monks have something to teach us about brains:
http://www.slate.com/id/2165026/
As always, the debate continues.
Neurotheology. Ugh.
-JAK
Posted by: Justin (koavf) | May 14, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Justin,
not only does the debate continue, it is an open debate. Neuroscientists who reach conclusions like those of Newberg are not written off by their colleagues, but taken seriously. It's the same with physicists who see the Big Bang theory as supporting some sort of theism. Their colleagues may or may not agree, but they generally do not disqualify their colleagues' views from consideration.
I don't expect the debate to ever reach a conclusion. But I smell a rat when someone says that the theory of evolution, or the fact that so many things are hard-wired into us, albeit in squishy ways, supports materialism. Such theories are compatible with materialism, but also with a range of other views.
Everyone is looking for a silver bullet that proves their point of view. But what if life is such that we cannot be compelled by the evidence to believe or disbelieve in God, but rather, the decision must be an existential one?
Just saying.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 14, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Uhh... not really. Reductionism is understanding a system from the working of its parts. In some cases that simply doesn't work- economics is a perfect example. In that case you have to examine whole sections similtanously.
Still materialism. For example... to understand macro economics you have to look at an entire feature of the economy- not just individuals or firms, but things like money, banking- whole sectors of the economy. If you don't you won't be able to understand macro economics.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner | May 14, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Hi John.
I'm a respecter of David Brooks, but I couldn't disagree with you more. He bit off way more than he could chew with this column. My brief response is here.
Brooks awkwardly exposes himself (in many instances, but in the portion you quote, most notably) by appropriating the title of Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, even though it takes a reader less than three pages into the book to be disabused of the notion that Dawkins' "selfish gene" has anything to do with human selfishness.
Sam Harris? You'd have to be more specific about what you've heard, but in The End of Faith (2004) he already has an entire chapter on "Experiments in Consciousness" in which he expresses openness to ideas that some might consider "mystical." That doesn't mean he's not a materialist, an atheist.
Blane
Posted by: Blane | May 14, 2008 at 07:59 PM
Blane,
you have a fine blog. I note how you are learning from your children. Right now my four year old Anna is full of wisdom. I could listen to her all day.
I do confess I struggle with the stretchiness of the terms atheism and materialism. Since there are atheists - including a famous writer - who believe that even rocks are sentient beings, it's clearly possible to be an atheist but not a materialist by any standard definition. Sam Harris has been speaking on campuses around the country, including Christian college campuses I think, and apparently he has shown quite a bit of openness to the Christian God hypothesis as well. I suppose that might be chalked up to the fact that he is a thoughtful, empathetic person, but beyond that, a hard-core atheist. But I'm not so sure anymore.
This is my question for you, Blane. Is there some human trait, love, hate, altruism, selfishness, you name it, which is NOT compatible with the theory that we are what we are because of random genetic variation and selection via environmental pressures?
So far as I can see, the hypothesis as bandied about currently really isn't falsifiable and doesn't qualify as properly formed.
In short, I think David Brooks is onto something, and I'm not sure Dawkins, in any case, is worth the time to read. There are far more insightful evolutionary biologists one might read, both atheist (Stephen Jay Gould) and theist (Kenneth Miller).
Posted by: JohnFH | May 15, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Couple things. You can be an atheist and not a materialist- it simply is illogical. Feel free to mock them.
I keep on hearing this "evolution isn't falsible" being spoken in the blogosphere. Here is a hint- it IS falsible, there just hasn't been any evidence against it. Think of the theory of gravity. That theory is also falsible- it just manages to be correct (thank you Einstein!). You are confusing accuracy with falsibility... and with how simple the main idea behind evolution is. It is, quite literally, the supply and demand theory for the natural world- sure it is falsible- it is just impossible to imagine how an alternative would work- especially given the alternatives are chance and "Don't think about it" (Because, God is obviously alive, so where did he come from?)>
Posted by: Samuel Skinner | May 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Samuel,
thanks for continuing the conversation. But I think you are sidestepping my question. Is there some conceivable human trait, love, hate, altruism, selfishness, inclination to believe in the Bermuda Triangle, you name it, which is NOT compatible with the theory that we are what we are because of random genetic variation and selection via environmental pressures?
It's an honest question, though I realize I put you in a terrible bind by asking you to answer it.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 15, 2008 at 11:26 AM
John,
you wrote:
>>Sam Harris...apparently he has shown quite a bit of openness to the Christian God hypothesis as well.<<
I do not believe this, and--as it is written--will not believe it 'til I see it. ;)
As for your question--I am not a scientist--but I know of no reason not to think that all human traits are compatible with such a theory. What's the alternative? That theory is the only viable one available to us. And, as I think Samuel is saying, in scientific terms a theory is by definition falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, it's not a theory. But that doesn't mean the theory isn't TRUE.
As for Dawkins, we need to distinguish between Dawkins as the ardent atheist author and Dawkins the evolutionary biologist. You might not want/like to read the atheist, but his credentials as a scientist are unassailable, and his book The Selfish Gene is an important contribution. My only point was that if Brooks is going to refer to the book, he should know better than to completely misconstrue the meaning of the title.
Posted by: Blane | May 15, 2008 at 02:26 PM
I may have tiptoed a little around your question, John, and hedged my answer only because of my sometimes false humility. But the answer is really simple--No, there is no human trait that is incompatible with evolutionary theory. Simple.
Posted by: Blane | May 15, 2008 at 02:29 PM
John
No. None of it isn't compatible. I'll explain.
Love- enables two people to live together without killing each other. Plus insures parents take care of their kids.
Hate- if someone is a threat, smashing them helps make the world safe for you.
Altruism- conversely, not everyone is a threat. Help them out and hope they return the favor. Or help out only those who will return the favor (unconditional altruism seems to have branched off from this).
Selfishness- looking after yourself will help you get ahead. Self explanatory.
Pseudoscience- people obey authorities (in this case science). And if it looks scientific, it must be science! Plus there is the aspect of mystery (triggers curiosity, which is an advantage for finding new tools, food sources, ideas, etc). Authority comes from family set up- children obey parents because they are dependent on them. They are dependent on parents because they are born premature compared to other species. The reason is people have a large brain, but small hips and so must be born early or not at all.
THAT is what evolutionary theory can tell us. Impressive, no?
Posted by: | May 15, 2008 at 03:10 PM
As you say Blane (and it looks like Samuel agrees):
there is no human trait that is incompatible with evolutionary theory.
Perhaps that's true. If so, it is an impotent theory in terms of predictive value with respect to human traits.
Just to make you guys mad, I can't resist pointing out that theistic evolutionism (which I happen to hold to), based on the double premise of the theory of evolution and the trustworthiness of statements about human nature in the Bible, can predict all kinds of things related to human behavior. Indeed, the evolution part provides, at least some of the time, a plausible etiology for behavior, but says nothing about the future, because, as you say, there is no human trait that is incompatible with evolutionary theory.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 15, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Blane, John is a mystic.
Posted by: Alan Lenzi | May 16, 2008 at 12:22 AM
And I like "Mystic Mountain" by Hovhaness, too.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 16, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Alan wrote:
>>Blane, John is a mystic.<<
I'm not sure what that means in this context. Does it mean there's no point in trying to reason with him?
I'll make one last comment, just in case. So the difference, John, between a run-of-the-mill evolutionist and a theistic evolutionist (at least as you describe yourself), is that the latter incorporates trustworthy statements from the Bible about human nature? What are some of those statements, and can none of the statements have been arrived at apart from divine revelation? If there are statements from the Bible about human nature that are inconsistent with what we know from other sources, how would you evaluate these discrepancies?
In any case, I don't concede your point that evolutionary theory is not predictive. But I have a feeling that you're asking it to do something that it isn't supposed to do. (I think a read of "The Selfish Gene" would be interesting for you.)
Thanks for the stimulating conversation!
Posted by: Blane | May 16, 2008 at 09:24 AM
Hi Blane,
this is an enjoyable discussion. Unlike some Christian apologists, I don't believe in biting the head off of non-theists. I like watching praying mantises do that, don't get me wrong, but the doctrine of imitatio dei as concretely explicated in Psalms 111-112 and 145-147 compels me to model my behavior according to other coordinates.
You say: I don't concede your point that evolutionary theory is not predictive.
So what does it predict? Describe something that apart from the theory might be thought to be a possible future development, but which is excluded by the theory.
When I was a teenager and attended the UW-Madison, a really famous evolutionist professor (I wish I could remember his name) would give as his concluding lecture a passionate sermon about how evolution would take humanity to new moral heights. He cited Jesus and Buddha as examples of anticipations of what was to come. Believe me, hundreds and hundreds of young things like myself ate this up every year. To be honest, I think I went to the concluding lecture because it was rumored that the prettiest girls on campus were going to be in attendance as well.
That turned out to be more or less true, so I'm glad I attended, but the "evolution supports the view that humankind is on its way to becoming a race of Buddhas and Jesuses" sermon, nevertheless, was and is hocum. But I knew that already, because the Bible tells me so.
That's one of the trustworthy statements found in the Bible: that as human beings we are caught between what we want to be, and what we would wish to be, a situation that is not supposed to change until kingdom come. See Romans 7:14-24 in a decent modern translation like TNIV. The passage describes the human predicament well. Evolutionary theory, though it claims to be a necessary and sufficient explanation of why and what we are, does not.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM