Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion

Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion

"What I'm interested in is the other story — what all religions have in common," he said. "These universals of religion come from aspects of peoples' brains that everybody shared and that emerged early in development."

From documenting our propensity to believe in teleological (purpose-based) explanations for natural phenomena to the widely held belief that humans possess a soul, a myriad of psychological studies — conducted both here at Yale and at peer universities — now suggest that our brains may be hard-wired to believe in religion.

"The universal themes of religion are not learned," Bloom said. "They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems."

There has long been a scholastic preoccupation with the demythologizing of religion. Modernity sought for a quantitative method, a measurable cause to the irreducible religious compulsion within man across all cultural, ethnic, geographical, and a host of other boundaries. One refreshing thing about Paul Bloom's approach to answer the why question is that he begins with the universal nature of religious phenomenon as a given rather than something needing to be proved. It is this fact that seems to propel Bloom's inquiry into a psychology of religion.

In this article there is an admission that religious impulses are a part of man's unique constitution; a primordial element to his being. The argument, however, emerges when we see these impulses as merely physical or biological in origin. That is, our minds evolved with these inclinations due to environmental stimulants that were consistent across the board. This is not the first time I have heard of the idea that man's propensity to believe in teleological answers is hardwired into our brains; a biological product developed as a result of our natural evolution in response to the world wherein we developed. While this certainly stands in line with an approach that denies anything greater than the observable world, at least as it relates to any ontological ideal, for those who hold belief in something outside the mundane, however, the argument is lacking.

Many of the answers proffered by Bloom, Kellerman, and others, do not negate belief in a divine. It really is a matter of perspective, as well as the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Did our brains develop with these capabilities and inclinations simply in response to a concrete world that man could not explain, or did these impulses develop to enable the creature to perceive and interact with that which lies outside the quotidian facets of our lives? It really depends upon which presupposition one begins with. If your inclined to believe in a creator/god etc, then you are more likely to begin with the idea that God came first and man was created and evolved with the characteristics necessary to perceive God and relate to him. The physical processes that can be measured and cataloged are simply the organs through this relationship is possible. It certainly does not negate the question of God in any way; that is, unless you want it too. Conversely, you can begin with the idea that God exist only within the intellect of man and this existence is nothing more than the mechanistic features of our brain's development. This is the divide that has long stood between those who believe and those who do not.

The psychology of religion is a very interesting field with so much potential for discovery--discovery and exploration into the wonder of our physical being. Perhaps we can better understand how we think and how our minds are developed to interact with an unseen world. While Bloom's work is fascinating, given its starting presupposition, it is of limited value to religious inquiry. However, there are others, most notably the father of the psychology of religion himself, William James. His book The Varities of Religious Experience is still a classic in this field and it is as relevant today as its was in the day the lectures were delivered.

What do you think? Make a comment and join me at disqus to continue this fascinating discussion!

Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page

Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page:

Prayer doesn't belong in schools

The above story highlights a controversy that has raged my entire life as well as my entire school career. Prayer in public schools was a topic that was frequently brought up in church when I was a child and it definitely was a much stronger political hot button than what it is today. Stories such as the one above serve to remind me that the controversy has not went way.

The idea that removing school sanctioned prayer from the public schools would ultimately lead to a godless secular society is a common argument whenever this topic arises. For much of my life, I accepted it as true. However, as I have become more aware of the religious pluralism in America, I have also had to rethink my position on this issue.

Let me make it clear that I think religious prayer is important irrespective of the venue in which it is practiced. Most religions have some form of prayer as a part of its practices. This prayer should not be inhibited or censored by the government or state in any way. Furthermore, one form or ritual of prayer should not be held in higher regard than another. Students across our nation should be free to practice whatever form of prayer they feel compelled to engage in, or be free from doing so should they not want to participate. If freedom is genuine, then it must extend to all person's the right to practice whatever religion they choose and be free to not engage in religious practices should they so choose.

Allot has changed in this country since I was a child. In my elementary school, I would venture to say that the majority of students came from Christian homes where prayer was a regular part of their lives. Today, however, in many places across our country, this can not be said. While the majority may still have Christian proclivities, there is a growing and significant minority within many of our communities where this simply is not the case. Children from Buddhist homes, Muslim or Hindu homes, and a myriad of other religious traditions are represented in almost every school system in our nation. Is it fair to subject these students to school sanctioned prayer that is Christian in nature and thereby exclude the prayer practices of others? How can school officials, teachers, ect, engage in such without adding a seal of approval and acceptance upon one form of prayer and by virtue of exclusion, denounce another? Would these same leaders be open to a Muslim prayer or a Buddhist meditation prior to a game or some school function? I highly doubt it.

The religious freedoms of this country mean nothing if they do not extend to and protect the least of all religions among us. As we become more and more of a religious melting pot, as the religious face of America reflects the variety in the religious practices of everyone as a whole, we must become more conscientious and careful in how we practice our freedoms so as not to inhibit or violate the rights of others. Additionally, respecting the rights of others should never be misinterpeted as compromise, at least, not in a negative sense. Cooperation builds community and being sensitive to the religious rights of everyone in a given community extends the value of relious practices rather than purely secularizing a community.

No doubt this discussion will rage on. What do you think? Do you see the regulation of prayer at public events and in public institutions a means of secularizing our society? How do we reconcile the fact that our Congress opens with prayer and yet our school days can not begin with it? What changes does our society need to make in order to show respect and give different religions their respective rights to practice as well as freedom from discrimination? Finally, is the charge of secularization a particulary bad one? Join me at Disqus to discuss these issues as well as others.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican hosts Darwin conference

BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican hosts Darwin conference

I heard about this recently on NPR. Reading the press release, I found it interesting that the Catholic church never condemned Darwin or his theories. There are scholars from all over the world taking part in this discussion; a discussion that I think is well overdue and may serve to bring science and faith a few steps closer. These two entities are often at odds but do not necessarily have to be. Science should inform our faith not destroy it.

Here are a few related articles worth reading:

Cardinal says atheist's theories "absurd"

Science cannot disprove faith, cardinal argues

Cardinal says Dawkins' theories 'absurd'

SOF with Krista Tippett: Interview with Janna Levy

American Public Media's, Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett, produced a show last week entitled Mathematics, Truth, and Purpose. In this show, Tippett interviewed Janna Levin, a theoretical physicist and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College in New York City. In addition to her academic career, Levin is also a novelist. The interview concentrates on Levin's most recent book entitled: A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines. Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript that explains the subject of Levin's book:

Her 2006 novel, A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, explores great existential questions by probing the lives and ideas of two pivotal 20th-century mathematicians, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing. Turing is known as the father of modern computing, and his insights were made possible in part by Gödel's discoveries. In 1931, Gödel shook the worlds of mathematics, philosophy, and logic with his incompleteness theorems. He showed that some mathematical truths can never be proven or, as he says in Janna Levin's novel, that mathematics is perfect, but it is not complete.

To see some truths, you must stand outside and look in. This notion also held deeply unsettling human implications. It posited hard limits to what any of us can ever logically, definitively know. Janna Levin's novel imaginatively evokes the force of this idea in the classrooms and coffeehouses of Gödel and Turing's day, and in her own life as a 21st-century urban scientist. When we spoke in 2007, she told me she began her undergraduate studies with little active interest in science, convinced instead that philosophy was asking all the big questions.

If you missed this edition of SOF, then I highly recommend you go to their website and download either the podcast or the unedited version of the broadcast. It deals with unsettling but pertinent questions such as truth and the essence of free will. There are simply some things that lie outside of the observable region of empirical science. Levin's novel explores this idea, its implications, and how these questions were lived out in the lives and thinking of two great scientist whose lives are chronicled in the novel.

Catholics must confront scandal, not ignore it

In a recent Opinion post on USA Today's site, several contributors issued their opinion on Rod Dreher's OpEd piece entitled, How much is too much? where Dreher essentially admitted that his faith was so challenged by the entire ordeal that he left the Catholic church and has now become a member of the Eastern Orthodox church. This does not surprise me in the that there has been an exodus from the Catholic church in America due to these revelations of sexual abuse and scandal since 2001 when these revelations broke onto the public scene. What is surprising, however, is that Dreher has made a conscious decision not to report on any scandalous material in the EOC, something that I am sure cuts across the grain of his journalistic spirit.

These issues will no doubt be with us for a long time to come, and so they should. Church corruption, whether it be in Rome, Alexander, Springfield, or any number of small town churches throughout America and the world, will always be with us. Jesus, a devout Jew saw corruption in his day and confronted it vehemently. There was no stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away mentality. Jesus knew that faith was practiced by people and as such, it was subject to all the weaknesses and corruptions that humans are subject too.

One might rightly ask the question, if corruption exist in the upper echelons of power within these faiths, does it negate the entire faith as a fraud? Jesus was a Jew and I seem recall him confronting those making merchandise of worshipers right within the Temple complex, driving them out with a whip and the proclamation that his father's house should be a house of prayer, not merchandise. It was the High Priest and chief religious rulers that offered him up to Pilate, yet Jesus never renounced his Jewishness or the religion of his birth. Jesus is and will forever be known as a Jew. Even the apocryphal portrait of his return has him sitting down upon the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem; you can not get more Jewish than that!

This should tell us something about religion and the nature of those who adhere to them. We are not always the best examples or qualified to represent our faith to a world who desperately needs to believe in something. But, we can also take solace in the fact that sincerity outweighs imperfection every time. The Divine sees our hearts and there are example after example of where Jesus embraced those who were not doing things according to the book, so to speak, but whose hearts were contrite and pliable.

Yes, we must confront scandal where we find it. We can not turn a deaf ear to those who have been mistreated and despised by the very people they looked too for love and comfort. At the same time, however, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water. As Bonhoeffer said, there is a God shaped void in the soul of every man and our religious faith's-- with all their diversity and variety--serve to satisfy this irreducible need of mankind. Corruption is but a mere distraction from the real issues of personal fulfillment and satisfaction (this certainly is not making light of those recipients of abuse by any means).