How We Think About God Matters

A team of Harvard researchers have found (here) that those who rely on intuition more than reflection tend to show more confident belief in God and to report more experiences they attributed to God.  In the summary of their research, they state:

Three studies—two correlational, one experimental—showed that intuitive thinking predicts belief in God. Study 1 showed that people who exhibit thinking styles that are more intuitive and less reflective are more likely to believe in God and to believe in God with greater confidence. These results held while variables related to education, socioeconomic status, and political orientation were controlled. Study 2 showed that these results held while cognitive ability and personality were controlled. In both studies, we found that cognitive style predicted self-reported changes in belief since childhood but was uncorrelated with religious influences during childhood. This suggests that cognitive style is not only predictive of one’s beliefs but also a critical factor in the evolution of one’s beliefs over time. Consistent with this hypothesis, we demonstrated a causal relationship between (induced) cognitive style and belief in God in Study 3, showing that the induction of mindsets favoring intuition (or opposing reflection) significantly increased self-reported belief in God.

People who step back and think more intensely about the "question of God" tend to be less sure about God while those who "go with their gut" tend to be more certain in their belief in God.  In other words, people who have a tendency to question and to doubt show a tendency to question and doubt beliefs about God.  The researchers make it clear that this is not a matter of intelligence but of what they call "cognitive style," that is the way we think.

These findings are hardly surprising.  In a sense, all they seem to amount to is to confirm that people who question and doubt actually do question and doubt.  Still, they are a helpful reminder that have important implication for preachers and pastors.  Pastors will themselves tend to be either more intuitive or reflective, and they need to remember that many of their parishioners are the opposite.  If, for example, a pastor is one who reflects, then issues of doubt and making sense of faith in the contemporary context will be important; but those issues may well not be so important to many members of the congregation she serves.  Indeed, one would expect that—all other things being equal—those who  are more intuitive will predominate in the congregation on an average Sunday morning.  An intuitive pastor, conversely, will more likely fail to address key issues concerning the difficulties of believing in the 21st century.

The God in Our Heads

Researchers at the University of Missouri studying the location of religious activity in our brains have determined that several different parts of the brain are involved in that activity.  They report (here) that, "spiritual experiences are likely associated with different parts of the brain."  There is no so-called "God spot" in our brains, something that previous research suggested there might be.

One atheist blogger finds in this research further confirmation that there are no such things as gods.  This blogger writes (here), "All of this is within the mind and has been demonstrated to be an effect of brain activity. Any anecdotal evidence for gods will have to prove that this mechanism is not in play." This observations leads to the hardly surprising conclusion that, "I feel more confident in my stance that gods and ghosts are simply imagination at work, aided by misinterpretations of fuzzy sensory input and wilful misguided understanding of the evidence."

OK.  That is one way to read the results of the University of Missouri study.  But on the face of it, the conclusion that spirituality activity occurs in several parts of the brain says nothing about God one way or the other.  It certainly is not proof that there is a divine being of some sort, but it also does not prove that there isn't.  The response to our atheist blogger is an obvious one: if we are created by God, then we would expect that God would create our minds in such a way as to be open to spiritual experiences of God.  Thus, a theist blogger might well jump on the Missouri data as "proof" of his or her belief in God.  The atheist blogger cited above concludes, finally, that "Gods are just ghosts in the machine between our ears."  There is no scientific way to prove that statement.  It is a faith statement.

 There is another way to read the data, one that has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of some sort of divine reality.  This alternative perspective is the insight that if we are created by God, then we would expect that God would create our minds in such a way as to be open to spiritual experiences of God.  Those of us who do believe humanity is part of divine creation are not surprised that several parts of the brain are involved in our religious consciousness.  Indeed, we take comfort in the fact.  Clearly (from our perspective) God is present in human evolution creating us for perception of God leading to a future we still cannot discern.  We need to  be clear here.  Reading the data this way is a matter of faith.  For people of faith it makes just as much sense to see God's presence in the data as it does for an atheist blogger to see God's absence.

This point is important because there are many Christians who inadvertently take the position of the atheist blogger.  They think that scientific data like that contained in the University of Missouri research is dangerous because, if true, it would show there is no God.  They act like theological luddites, rejecting science because they think science is dangerous to their faith.  Science is no more the enemy (or friend) of our faith than are rocks, trees, or the planets.  It is valuable, however, because it helps us to better understand creation even as it leaves to us the task of discerning the presence of the Creator in creation.  We take comfort in data that shows our brains capable of discerning the Presence of God.  How else could things be?

Who Is Running the Show?

God is to the world as our unconscious is to our everyday lives--quietly, invisibly, secretly guiding our steps; feeding us our lines; moving us into position; unifying everything we do. We are chastened to realize that what we thought was an accident was, in truth, the hand of God. Most of the time we are simply unaware.

Awareness takes too much effort, and besides, it's more fun to pretend we are running the show.

Lawrence Kushner

Source: Eyes Remade for Wonder
From: inward/outward

The Bible Goes to School

A Textbook for teaching the Bible in public schools

Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona recently signed into law a bill promoting the teaching of the Bible as an elective course in Arizona's public schools.  According to a largely critical posting (here), the purpose of the course is to, "among other things, educate students on the influence of the Old and New Testament on laws, history, morals, government, literature, art, music, customs, values, and culture."  The bill has been, of course, controversial.  The ACLU opposed it, and an editorial at The Arizona Republic (here) raises the objection that the proposed course opens the door to a number of abuses that include not only proselytizing students by Christian teachers, but also the possibility that teachers critical of the Bible will have a bully pulpit for subtle attacks on it.  In sum, teachers can't be trusted to teach the Bible fairly and circumspectly.

In theory, the idea of teaching biblical literacy in public schools is a good one.  The Bible is a key cultural document, and students should have some knowledge of it on that basis alone.  Teaching the Bible, furthermore, offers the possibility of students gaining at least some knowledge of religious concerns, which generally are barred from public education in spite of the importance of religion to our society.  This is not to say that the schools should promote religion as such.  Rather, it would be good for students to have some background in religion, especially for those who aren't getting anything at home.

The objections raised by opponents of the new law, however, also carry weight.  The opportunities for abuse are obvious and serious, especially because the law protects teachers from legal prosecution or disciplinary action so long as they can show that they followed the course outline mandated by the state. This does seem to open the door to abuses by both "pro-Bible" and "anti-Bible" teachers because any teacher can pack their own meanings into the outline.

And there is a further concern, which has to do with qualifications. Science teachers are expected to know science. Math teachers have a math background. It is unlikely that most Arizona schools have teachers who have any academic training in the Bible, and it is not likely that they would have the time to become conversant with the Bible as an academic field of study. And those most likely to abuse the course (both pro-Bible & anti-Bible) are the ones least likely to be interested in the academic study of scripture. That is to say, these courses are liable to promote ignorance and/or bias as much as or more than provide an open opportunity to discover the contents of the Bible.

Brian Jennings, a Christian blogger writing from a more conservative perspective observes (here), "We need to be very careful when using the state as a means to achieve Christian ends and think through possible unintended consequences. Jesus describes the kingdom of God as something that grows in the midst of the kingdoms of this world, not something imposed by them." He goes on to state that, "I’m sure those who want the Bible taught in public schools are well-intentioned, but we should call a time out to think. Can we really reduce the Bible to literature or history without betraying its life-changing message? The Bible needs to be studied academically, but in light of what it claims to be – the self-revelation of God – not as a history book without colorful pictures."  These are real concerns.

Becoming Free

Let go, and respond to the immediate needs around you. Don't get caught in some false perception of yourself. There will always be another person more gifted than you. And don't perceive your position as important, but be ready to serve at any moment. If you can let go of who you think you are, you will become free--ready to love others. If you learn to see your impermanence, you will be able to live for the moment and not miss opportunities to love by pushing things into the future.

Thich Nhat Hanh

Source: Unknown

From: inward/outward

The Power of Idolatry in Our Times

When I was a grad student at the University of Maryland in the 1980s, I presented a paper in one of my classes on the missionary role in the modernization of 19th century northern Thailand.  Another student quizzed me on the motivations of the missionaries and rejected out of hand my claim that the missionaries were primarily motivated by their religious beliefs.  He argued that they went to the mission field in search of economic gain, and that fact explained their behavior.  Their beliefs were just a ruse.  Now, any fair reading of the missionary record does not substantiate that argument nor does the fact of the risks missionaries faced living in one of the most isolated places (from North America) in the world—especially health risks but also the risks attending living in a kind of social exile from their homeland.  I still remember, however, the scorn of my fellow student as I tried to make the case that faith was the primary motivation for most of the missionaries most of the time.  I knew from my own experience that faith is a powerful source of motivation.  And I knew for having spent years working with missionary documents and publications that their faith was the primary reason for their being missionaries, but my classmate rejected the whole idea out of hand.  He denied reality.

Previous to that experience in the classroom, I worked as a church-based archivist in Chiang Mai, Thailand, and the archives I managed contained a fair amount of missionary records going well back into the 19th century.  I remember a conversation with an American doctoral student working on his dissertation in the field of anthropology during which I observed that there was a wealth of material on his subject in the missionary records at the archives.  This grad student said with clear disdain in his voice, "I would never use missionary materials."  When I asked why, he replied, "Because they are biased."  Talk about the kettle complaining about the soot on the pot!  Yes, of course, missionaries wrote with a bias, which a reputable scholar will learn to read through and make allowances for.  On the other hand, they were the first Westerners to live for extended periods of time in northern Thailand, and their records contain a wealth of historical anthropological data obtainable from no other source.  This grad student rejected learning from that source because it was tainted by the religious nature of the record.

My point is that religious conservatives do not have a monopoly on self-righteous arrogance based on ignorant prejudice.  Those of us who are various degrees of liberal decry the denial of evolution and the findings of science by folks on the right while we engage in our own forms of prejudice and denial based on our own ideologies.  Ideological idolatry is no respecter of persons or philosophies or theologies.  It is a danger to us all.  For those of us who seek to live the Christian life, this is why doubt is so important.  Doubt can help us refrain from turning faith (which is a humble trust in God) into certainty (which can become an arrogant ownership of God).

Two Viewpoints

"I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. I've said many times through this campaign that one of the things I hope to do is to help build a conservative majority in the United States Senate and continue to help the House build a Republican majority and have a Republican White House and then bipartisanship becomes having Democrats come our way."

Indiana Republican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock

May 9, 2012, on "Fox & Friends"

“I’ve said it many times, this is a historic time, and the most powerful people in both parties are so opposed to one another that one side simply has to win out over the other.”

Richard Mourdock

Quoted in the New York Times, May 8, 2012

"If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it."

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)

Statement on his primary defeat to Richard Mourdock, May 9, 2012

Occasional Convergences

Doi Saket Temple, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Although we sometimes seem to live in different worlds, there is evidence of a fair amount of cross-fertilization between evangelicals and ecumenicals (a.k.a. the mainline).  A wing of the evangelical movement, for example, has developed a deep concern for issues of social justice and for the environment.  There are mainline churches, meanwhile, that are discovering the importance of engaging in evangelism.  In particular cases, ecumenicals and evangelicals are each learning to speak the language of the other.  A case in point is a recent posting by Prof. Paul Louis Metzger, a self-styled evangelical, entitled, "Mormons and Buddhists are not “Isms” or “Ists.  They're people.”  Metzger calls on evangelicals to be more sensitive to the heritages and faith perspectives of people of other faiths and advocates what we might call a "soft" approach to evangelism by which one approaches others out of respect and a genuine desire to learn about their faith in hopes that the sharing that follows will help them see Christ. He concludes the posting by saying that, "Hopefully, the more personally and particularly we engage diverse religious practitioners from the perspective of their experiential participation in their traditions, the more they will experience through us and hopefully for themselves how personal—not packaged—the Jesus revealed in the Bible really is."

While some liberal Christians might feel that Metzger still has too much of an agenda, the tone and feel of his approach to people of other faiths stands in stark contrast to that of many evangelicals who are dismissive of other religions and certainly would not be willing to listen to what their adherents have to say.  In interfaith settings, there is nothing inherently wrong with a respectful mutual sharing of one's own faith.  The key is a willingness to be shared with as much (or more) than to share.  I recommend that you take a look at Metzger's posting.  It represents a hopeful convergence between the best of ecumenical and evangelical thinking.

Brand New

The Gospel is handed down from generation to generation but it must reach each one of us brand new, or not at all. If it is merely "tradition" and not news, it has not been preached or not heard--it is not Gospel.... If there is no risk in revelation, if there is no fear in it, if there is no challenge in it, if it is not a word which creates whole new worlds, and new beings, if it does not call into existence a new creature, our new self, then religion is dead and God is dead.

Thomas Merton

Source: Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander

From:  inward/outward

Riding the Black Swan

Christ on the Cross, Diego Velazquez

Two previous postings (here and here) described and reflected on the idea of Black Swan Events, historical events that are unexpected, have a significant impact, and are later accepted as having been almost the natural course of things.  We've seen that Black Swan Events are complex and that the name itself names something historians and many others were already aware of.  We know they exist, but coming to terms with them is the issue.  Yesterday (here), I considered the possibility that God authors Black Swan Events, including especially the Christ Event, for divine ends and left off with the following questions: In our day and age, how do we best make sense of the Presence of God in history and our lives? Given the complexity of Black Swan Events, does it make sense to believe that God uses some of them for divine ends?

Humanity has been wrestling with the divine since the dawn of the race, and these are not questions to be answered in a single blog posting—or at all, actually.  However, it is worth considering that God who is Beyond has created the parameters within which we live.  God created an evolving universe and made us the "products" of an evolutionary process.  God has given us freedom, and it seems only reasonable to presume that we are the "authors" of Black Swan Events, which events betray all of the marks of a broken humanity trapped in chaotic conditions of our own making.  Yet, we are more than just broken.  We create good as well as evil, and thus some of our Black Swan Events are positive, creative ones.

In a manner we do not understand but sometimes perceive with deep spiritual clarity, God who is Present rides the swirling surf of our lives working quietly but persistently to change the course of history.  As Christians, we trust that God was Present in Christ in a unique way, a full way.  God, that is, resides in and rides the crest of Black Swan Events constantly seeking to transform them or, at least, bring healing that mitigates the destruction such events can cause.

God works in history the way our hearts work in our lives.  I don't mean the pumping physical heart but, rather, the emotional heart.  That heart is as real, sometimes more real than the physical one even if the idea of the heart seems to be "only" a metaphor.  Both the heart and God are beyond-physical realities that define important elements of our human experience.  Beyond proving but powerful nonetheless.  In freedom, we do the things that lead to Black Swan Events.  In love, God seeds those events with healing and even, sometimes, transformation.  Amen.