Having learned from Barrett’s book everything there is to know about our brains, and how we believe this or that to be true or not . . . no that’s not really quite right, now is it, I don’t think, but I DO think . . . I think.
Ok, so with Barrett’s book we have barely begun to understand how my brain is telling my fingers what to type at this very moment – or how your eyes, sensing the difference between the black from the white on your screen right now, are getting that information (if that’s the word for it) to your brain, and it is putting it all together to make “sense” of it . . .
I start again.
How we think, know, believe . . . these are complex issues that neuroscientists are barely beginning to understand. It is fascinating stuff, and far beyond the reaches of my aging brain.
The Harris book -- The End of Faith -- in the second chapter touches on cognitive science research in the section, “Beliefs as Principles of Action” – The human brain is a prolific generator of beliefs about the world – but that is not the subject of his book. (Lurton has lent me a book he has read – How God Changes Your Brain (Newberg and Waldman) that goes into brain theory in much greater detail. The authors are neuroscientists who study the neural mechanisms of spirituality. They argue that “the human brain is uniquely constructed to perceive and generate spiritual realities. Yet it has no way to ascertain the accuracy of such perceptions.”)
The “accuracy of such perceptions” is exactly what Harris is concerned about. It seems to me that his base assumption is that ideas have consequences . . . “As a man believes, so he will act.” Harris wants us to be sure we have good reason to believe what we do, because believing the wrong things (false ideas) certainly has spawned some nasty behavior across time – much of it by religious people. That he documents without question. And the advent of nuclear weapons makes the consequences of religious belief potentially disastrous not just for a few, but for the world.
The focus of his (justified) ire is what I would call “fundamentalism” of any faith – those who take their sacred book literally, and to heart, and act upon that faith. It is of interest, though, that he doesn’t spare the likes of me – a religious “moderate” – and he makes good points we need to deal with.
Note that Harris is careful to helpfully define the “faith” he is questioning – faith “in its ordinary, scriptural sense.” Paul Tillich’s use of the word (and other contemporary people) is not the “faith” Harris is attacking – and my own faith is much closer to Tillich’s than the other . . . but as we talk about faith we need to have in mind just what it is that we’re talking about.
Sounds like it'll be an interesting discussion tomorrow, wish I could be there.
ReplyDeleteHarris does indeed cast a broad brush (a WSJ review called one of his books "a breath of fresh fire"). Given that the majority of our church would likely agree with Harris's characterization of religious fundamentalists (as well as the history of abuse in religion - crusades, witch trials, antisemitism), I think it'd be most interesting (and challenging) to focus discussion on his criticisms of more moderate religion. From what I gather, they are mainly:
(1) Moderate religion "buffers" the beliefs of fundamentalists, and puts them in a context where it's hard to say anything too critical about them. I'm not sure how much this applies to our church, I myself have heard Ralph and Carol criticize fundamentalists. On the other hand, we are very into tolerance at FCC, and I think a substantial portion of our congregation would agree with the statement: "People should be free to believe whatever they want about God." Harris thinks this is a problem.
(2) Religion, even the moderate religion we have at FCC, precludes a more sophisticated approach to ethics and spirituality. At one point he says describes the religious moderate's approach to spirituality as a "dilution of iron age philosophy." I think this is a relevant point. We have had some very admirable sermons here at FCC, and nearly all of them cite scripture. While justifying ethical stances using (parts) of the bible may not constrain us too much - the congregation at FCC seems ethically and spiritually healthy - I think it's fair to ask if it's necessary
Of course, these are both arguments about whether moderate religion is a "good" thing, it's another question to ask if what we (as moderates) believe about religion is true. In that regard it may be helpful to ask, what it is we (moderates) exactly believe? In the founding email, Ralph talked about Jesus rising from the dead, that 2000 years ago man literally came back to life and went to heaven. Is that what the members of this book club believe - especially in light of the hundreds (thousands) of other religions with similar stories that have existed throughout human history?
This is not an extreme belief as far as Christianity goes, some would even call it a prerequisite. But it's not clear to me that all moderate Christians believe even this. But if not this, then what? What is it that moderates in our church believe (not a rhetorical question)?
As always, Nathan, very insightful and right to the point. Whether or not a "moderate" Christian belief -- one that admits the possibility of being in fact wrong (I might even want to say the probability) and so by definition must be "tolerant" of other faiths -- willing to learn from people of other faiths and no religious faith -- whether or not that sort of believing is helpful has little to do with whether or not it is "true."
ReplyDeleteSo what do moderates believe? A great question! With many answers, and changing ones at that. A good resource for an alternative way of faith is the “Center for Progressive Christianity” – www.tcpc.org . They include this in their statement of purpose:
"We affirm the variety and depth of human experience and the richness of each persons' search for meaning, and we encourage the use of sound scholarship, critical inquiry, and all intellectual powers to understand the presence of God in human life.
We are opposed to any exclusive dogma that limits the search for truth and free inquiry, and we encourage work that eases the pain, suffering and degradation inherent in many of the structures of society, as well as work that keeps central to the Christian life fair, open, peaceful, and loving treatment of all human beings."
Later this summer all the “sermons” use videos from a series called “Living the Questions,” reflecting how moderate – more progressive – Christians are wrestling with the wisdom (and foolishness) of the past and current thought on spirituality and ethics. It's very provocative stuff.
A quick comment on TCPC; I checked around on their website a bit, and while I couldn't find the statement of purpose that Ralph posted I did look at their '8 Points' of progressive Christianity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm
I think their second point in particular embodies an aspect of moderate religion Harris is criticizing in the book. It reads:
"By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us."
I think the main problem with this is the idea that people's religious beliefs are 'true for them'. While perhaps a nice idea, I don't see how it can really be the case.
For example, what if I made up a religion right now? Say it involves life after death in the form of uploading a deceased followers brain to a massive computer memory system. I can say (and if I were charismatic and convincing enough) perhaps get people to really believe in my new religion, but that in no way makes what I'm saying 'true' for myself or my believers.
If this example seems far fetched, consider the more recent examples of Mormonism or Scientology, both of which appear to be made up by Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard respectively.
In the case of Scientology, millions of people believe that after death one is reborn until "consciously confronting all pre-birth, current-life, and previous-life traumas and realizing one's true nature as a 'thetan'"
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Scientologists-Believe.aspx
Merely believing something doesn't make it true, we know this because people believe all sorts of mutually exclusive things that cannot logically all be true.
Bottom line: I don't see how TCPC's idea of "personal truth" can really be true.