Naturally, as a believer the headline above seems to me an inherent contradiction given the infinitude of the Divine. Nevertheless, it fairly, succinctly sums up David Brooks' latest column in the New York Times.
The crux of Mr. Brooks' argument is that the scientific revolution currently embroiling our public conversation will do much to shape religious and philosophical discourse for years to come. More specifically, we will soon move beyond the elementary debate of whether God exists, to the more sophisticated debate of whether the sacred can exist in isolation from the social construct of religious institutions.
[Link]
Having a good many friends of both religious and a-religious perspectives, I would say that Mr. Brooks' point is well-taken. And precisely because it is well-taken, one can argue that the point states nothing novel. After all, there is nothing new under the sun.
If we deploy the hindsight of history, the battle of Constantinople of 1453 prompted similar reactions when Muslim and Christian worlds collided. As a result of the Byzantine Empire's fall, theologians and philosophers alike predicted the apocalypse, and both sides bemoaned the new world which would be the product of their debates. Some 510 years later, Turkey would join its former Christian enemies as an associate member of the European Union.
Similar reactions occurred in response to Martin Luther's 95 Theses in 1517. In the emerging Western World, the theological musings of a monk with pluck sparked a religious reformation that created lasting permutations extending even unto the present. Deny it though they may, America's largest Evangelical congregations owe their existence, at least in part, to the monk of Wittenberg (a law school drop out).
I mention these seminal events simply to illustrate that theological and philosophical watersheds have both waxed and waned with tremendous alacrity. The debate between the secular and the sacred must be viewed against the backdrop of history. Lest we are to craft an overly inflated perspective of our place in time and accord it more than it is due.
That said, I agree with Mr. Brooks that new debates will contribute much to our current theological and philosophical explorations. The simple caution he neglects to mention is that the value of the contribution remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Explore The Conservative Blog Network
It was Gustave Flaubert who remarked that "Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own time." It seems, however, that our knowledge of it causes us to downplay the significance of our time. When set against the backdrop of the Crusades and the Protestant Reformation, the cognitive science revolution may seem inconsequential at this point. I think that not only are you setting this debate against the backdrop of history, but also against a general ignorance (whether chosen or not) of neuroscience and evolutionary biology.
Nothing is new under the sun, but everything under the sun is nuance. The variation of the old question "why we exist" has become "how we exist." To cognitive neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists we exist as hardwired individuals: Our talents, our passions, our behaviour, our personalities, our emotions, our wills, our sexual orientations are hardwired.
Darwinism is dying, cognitivism is emerging. What makes cognitive science and evolutionary biology even more disturbing (and convincing) than Darwinism is that they're seductive. The theories are elegant. And cognitive neuroscientists don’t call them theories. They call them discoveries. Even conservatives can use some of the findings to support their causes. There has been talk of using the discipline of cognitive neuroscience to shape policies and strategies regarding global climate change, immigration conflicts, warfare, income disparity, corporate outsourcing, and the global economy. This may seem a reach to you now, but keep in mind Darwinism has been responsible for policies such as eugenics and genocide.
Perhaps one of the most troubling implications of cognitive neuroscience is its emphasis on placing our faith completely in the human brain. It calls for humanity to understand and manage itself through a neuroscientific discipline. So when Brooks says that it challenges putting faith in the Bible, I think this is what he means.
We haven’t clearly seen the potential impact as of yet because the disciplines are still merging. Cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and evolutionary psychology are trying to formulate a unified theory of the human mind to solve the “riddle of our existence.” Each discipline has a showcase theory that is damning on its own, so I wouldn’t imagine that they would merge to form a theoretical gem.
History does not only serve to dwarf our own importance in the scheme of things, but it can also teach us lessons we shouldn’t have to learn more than once. Brooks need not add the caution you suggest. At the moment this scientific revolution and the debate is significant, and this moment is all you have.
I appreciate the point you make. The post certainly is set against a general ignorance of cognitive neuroscience from yours truly. My métier lies more in a general, societal amusement than in the nuance of evolutionary biology. That said, I think my critique of Brooks is valid even in light of your comments.
If your bottom line is that the alleged scientific revolution taking place is significant, then I agree. The existentialist in me will even grant that this moment is all we have (though this statement comes with many qualifications tempered by faith).
Regarding your clarification that Brooks point is really about neuroscience displacing faith in the Bible, for want of faith in the human mind to manage and understand itself, I agree with the summary but I do not feel that this is an especially novel idea. We humans have an incredible penchant for placing our faith in a variety of things other than the Divine. Neuroscience is simply the latest iteration of a very long trend.
While it's true that the implications you raise of cognitive neuroscience are troubling in that they effect a variety of policies, it remains to be seen whether any of the potential impacts will come to pass. Undestood that the disciplines are still emerging but I reserve the right to be a doubting Thomas. You mention eugenics and genocide as implications which evolutionary biology produced and I don't argue that this was not the case. But I think the references make a strong case for the point I argued which was that the value of the contribution remains to be seen. Both of genocide and eugenics in their nascent form were put forward as ideas for social consideration. Both have long since been discredited and rejected by the World community- regardless of faith position or political belief. To wit, you will see very few individuals leading the campaign for an increase in eugenic practices and the cause for more genocide- though people tend to use the term loosely in my experience.
Given your exceptions, I think the point is made rather well that the value of the present discussion remains TBD. My quibble with the Brooks piece is that his tone is a bit 'henny-penny-ish'. The sky is not falling for people of faith because neuroscience has introduced the latest substitute for God. The caution I would have Brooks offer simply places the debate in this context. Do people of faith have reason to be concerned by the discussion? Sure. But we have every incentive to engage the debate rather than to shirk from our obligation to defend our beliefs.