To follow up on a previous essay:
The Bible consists of 66 books, many of which contradict the others, and that is just fine, since the Bible is a library of human writings rather than a coherent Book written by God. I cannot emphasize enough how important, and how liberating, it is to realize this.
Bart Ehrman, in his book God’s Problem, points out another way in which the Bible is incoherent. One of the most fundamental questions of religion is, why do people suffer? If God were in control and were like a superintending Father, then only bad people would suffer. Nobody except the seriously deluded has ever believed this to be the case. When a tower fell and killed people, Jesus’ disciples asked him whose fault it was. Jesus (always wiser than his disciples and, now, than his readers) said it wasn’t anybody’s fault, and you better watch out in case something like that happens to you.
The Bible, as it turns out, answers the question about why innocent people suffer while evil people prosper. Matter of fact, it gives several, contradictory answers. The book of Job implies that suffering is meant to test us, and, moreover, that Job should be ashamed for having asked why he was suffering. The prophets proclaimed that the suffering would be temporary, and that God would establish his kingdom on Earth, bringing the powerful evil people down into the dust. Early Christians believed the same thing, only that the kingdom would be in heaven.
And then there is Ecclesiastes, which says that there is no reason. For both the good and the evil, “Time and chance happen to them all.”
To force this heterogeneous Bible into homogeneity requires a theological blanching and scraping and mushing that ruins its literary quality. It is the most widely-read set of books in human history. And, if you haven’t read it, you’re missing something, because it contains some of the greatest literature in history. Please, you Bible Thumpers, don’t put it through a meat grinder. Let it speak for itself in all its shocking literary heterogeneity. Don’t worry about whether Samson or Balaam are going to hell or not, or whether God really wanted Jacob to trick his father and steal the birthright from his brother. Don’t try to “figure out” the book of Daniel. Just read it. Maybe it will give you some ideas that will help you figure out God for yourself.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
John Updike on Church
The following is a quotation from Pigeon Feathers, a book by the late John Updike. The previous blog entry defended the practical utility of some forms of religion; Updike defends its artistic and experiential value, even if it turns out that there is no spiritual realm or miracles. I am not sure if I agree with Updike’s sentiments but they are valid and I pass them on to you.
There was a time when I wondered why more people did not go to church.
Taken purely as a human recreation, what could be more delightful, more unexpected than to enter a venerable and lavishly scaled building kept warm and clean for us one or two hours a week and to sit and stand in unison and sing and recite creeds and petitions that are like paths worn smooth in the raw terrain of our hearts?
To listen, or not listen, as a poorly paid but resplendently robed man strives to console us with scraps of ancient epistles and halting accounts, hopelessly compromised by words, of those intimations of divine joy that are like pain in that, their instant gone, the mind cannot remember or believe them; to witness the windows donated by departed patrons and the altar flowers arranged by withdrawn hands and the whole considered spectacle lustrous beneath its patina of inheritance; to pay, for all this, no more than we are moved to give—surely in all democracy there is nothing like it.
There was a time when I wondered why more people did not go to church.
Taken purely as a human recreation, what could be more delightful, more unexpected than to enter a venerable and lavishly scaled building kept warm and clean for us one or two hours a week and to sit and stand in unison and sing and recite creeds and petitions that are like paths worn smooth in the raw terrain of our hearts?
To listen, or not listen, as a poorly paid but resplendently robed man strives to console us with scraps of ancient epistles and halting accounts, hopelessly compromised by words, of those intimations of divine joy that are like pain in that, their instant gone, the mind cannot remember or believe them; to witness the windows donated by departed patrons and the altar flowers arranged by withdrawn hands and the whole considered spectacle lustrous beneath its patina of inheritance; to pay, for all this, no more than we are moved to give—surely in all democracy there is nothing like it.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Therapeutic Power of Prayer?
I have previously written about the STEP study led by Herbert Benson in 2006, which demonstrated that intercessory prayer had no effect on heart patients except as a placebo effect—that is, that the patients responded to knowing that someone was praying for them. These results indicated that it is more likely for prayer to have a placebo effect rather than to be God performing a miracle. This study investigated what could be called “distant intercessory prayer.”
The placebo effect can be especially strong if the person who is praying for you is right next to you, even placing his or her hands on you. Another study was published, in 2009, which appears to have demonstrated a strong placebo effect of “proximal intercessory prayer.” We can conclude from these two studies that prayer works—not because of miracles but because of strong psychological suggestion. Proximal prayer, according to the 2009 study, is more effective than weaker forms of suggestion such as hypnosis.
I have shortened an Indiana University press release on this study:
Findings reported in a new international study of healing prayer suggest that prayer for another person's healing just might help—especially if the one praying is physically near the person being prayed for.
Candy Gunther Brown, an associate professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University Bloomington, led the study of "proximal intercessory prayer" for healing. It was published in the September 2010 issue of the Southern Medical Journal. The study, titled "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambique," measured surprising improvements in vision and hearing in economically disadvantaged areas where eyeglasses and hearing aids are not readily available.
"We chose to investigate 'proximal' prayer because that is how a lot of prayer for healing is actually practiced by Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians around the world," Brown said. "These constitute the fastest-growing Christian subgroups globally, with some 500 million adherents, and they are among those most likely to pray expectantly for healing." Although pentecostals often pray for their own healing and request distant intercessory prayer, they consider proximal prayer to be particularly efficacious and emphasize the importance of physical proximity and human touch in praying effectively for healing.
Brown and her colleagues studied the activities of the healing groups Iris Ministries and Global Awakening in Mozambique and Brazil because of their reputation as hotspots of specialized prayer for those with hearing and vision impairments. The researchers used an audiometer and vision charts to evaluate 14 rural Mozambican subjects who reported impaired hearing and 11 who reported impaired vision, both before and after the subjects received proximal intercessory prayer (PIP). The study focused on hearing and vision because it is possible to measure them with hearing machines and vision charts, allowing a more direct measure of improvement than simply asking people whether they feel better.
Subjects exhibited improved hearing and vision that was statistically significant after PIP was administered. Two subjects with impaired hearing reduced the threshold at which they could detect sound by 50 decibels. Three subjects had their tested vision improve from 20/400 or worse to 20/80 or better. These improvements are much larger than those typically found in suggestion and hypnosis studies.
Scientific research on intercessory prayer has in recent decades generated a firestorm of controversy, with critics charging that attempts to study the efficacy of prayer are inherently unscientific and should be abandoned because the mechanisms are poorly understood. Several studies have produced contradictory findings.
The title of the current study makes reference to the widely discussed 2006 "STEP" (study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer) paper, which concluded that prayer itself had no effect, but certainty of receiving prayer adversely affected health. However, the STEP study, like most previous research on the efficacy of prayer, focused on distant intercessory prayer (DIP) rather than proximal prayer.
The article is available free online at this website: http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/toc/2010/09000.
I conclude that, even if religion is “all in our heads,” it can have a practical usefulness.
The placebo effect can be especially strong if the person who is praying for you is right next to you, even placing his or her hands on you. Another study was published, in 2009, which appears to have demonstrated a strong placebo effect of “proximal intercessory prayer.” We can conclude from these two studies that prayer works—not because of miracles but because of strong psychological suggestion. Proximal prayer, according to the 2009 study, is more effective than weaker forms of suggestion such as hypnosis.
I have shortened an Indiana University press release on this study:
Findings reported in a new international study of healing prayer suggest that prayer for another person's healing just might help—especially if the one praying is physically near the person being prayed for.
Candy Gunther Brown, an associate professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University Bloomington, led the study of "proximal intercessory prayer" for healing. It was published in the September 2010 issue of the Southern Medical Journal. The study, titled "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambique," measured surprising improvements in vision and hearing in economically disadvantaged areas where eyeglasses and hearing aids are not readily available.
"We chose to investigate 'proximal' prayer because that is how a lot of prayer for healing is actually practiced by Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians around the world," Brown said. "These constitute the fastest-growing Christian subgroups globally, with some 500 million adherents, and they are among those most likely to pray expectantly for healing." Although pentecostals often pray for their own healing and request distant intercessory prayer, they consider proximal prayer to be particularly efficacious and emphasize the importance of physical proximity and human touch in praying effectively for healing.
Brown and her colleagues studied the activities of the healing groups Iris Ministries and Global Awakening in Mozambique and Brazil because of their reputation as hotspots of specialized prayer for those with hearing and vision impairments. The researchers used an audiometer and vision charts to evaluate 14 rural Mozambican subjects who reported impaired hearing and 11 who reported impaired vision, both before and after the subjects received proximal intercessory prayer (PIP). The study focused on hearing and vision because it is possible to measure them with hearing machines and vision charts, allowing a more direct measure of improvement than simply asking people whether they feel better.
Subjects exhibited improved hearing and vision that was statistically significant after PIP was administered. Two subjects with impaired hearing reduced the threshold at which they could detect sound by 50 decibels. Three subjects had their tested vision improve from 20/400 or worse to 20/80 or better. These improvements are much larger than those typically found in suggestion and hypnosis studies.
Scientific research on intercessory prayer has in recent decades generated a firestorm of controversy, with critics charging that attempts to study the efficacy of prayer are inherently unscientific and should be abandoned because the mechanisms are poorly understood. Several studies have produced contradictory findings.
The title of the current study makes reference to the widely discussed 2006 "STEP" (study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer) paper, which concluded that prayer itself had no effect, but certainty of receiving prayer adversely affected health. However, the STEP study, like most previous research on the efficacy of prayer, focused on distant intercessory prayer (DIP) rather than proximal prayer.
The article is available free online at this website: http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/toc/2010/09000.
I conclude that, even if religion is “all in our heads,” it can have a practical usefulness.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Meditation for Agnostics
In the previous entry, I mentioned the practice of meditation. I will tell you a little more about it.
I am no great meditator. My total meditation time during the past two weeks has been about twenty minutes. And I am not trying to thereby make contact with any spiritual truths, whether of an organized religion like Christianity, or a vague one like Buddhism (although if there is a God who would like to tell me something, I’m ready to listen). I have intended it as a relaxation technique.
According to many studies, relaxation techniques lower your blood pressure, and have many other beneficial medical effects on the body. I recently read a short 1975 book, The Relaxation Response, by Herbert Benson, MD, who is now famous for the 2006 STEP (study of the therapeutic effects of prayer). This method is used for relaxation during the day, but can also be used to help you to fall asleep. I wanted to use this method for both purposes.
The Relaxation Response is similar to some religious meditation techniques, and to Transcendental Meditation, only there is no need to initiate yourself into any religion or to pay for TM seminars. You can do it quickly and easily, and begin experiencing the benefits right away.
Here are the essentials of the Relaxation Response.
First, find a comfortable position, so that you do not need to concentrate on not falling onto the floor.
Second, concentrate on a single word or phrase, and repeat it in your mind over and over, while breathing deeply and regularly. Try to keep your concentration on this single word or phrase. Now, my mind is always exploring every new possibility. And when I focus on a word or phrase, I immediately begin thinking of new things connected with it. I interrupt my meditation to write them down, then try again. Eventually I am just thinking about the word or phrase.
Third, do not worry about how well you are doing it or if you are doing it right. Just do it, and if your mind wanders, just start repeating the word or phrase again. Fifty percent success is better than ten, but even if you are only ten percent successful, this technique may provide immediate relaxation and its associated medical benefits.
One benefit that I expect from this technique is to be calmer in my daily life. I have a tendency to become passionate, often passionately upset, about bad things that are happening in the world, particularly those things that are aided and abetted by religion or politics. A certain amount of passion leads to productivity and effectiveness, but not too much passion. I expect the Relaxation Response to help me focus my passions into productive, effective, and creative outlets, while at the same time keeping my blood pressure low—as it has always been, and as I wish it to always be.
I am no great meditator. My total meditation time during the past two weeks has been about twenty minutes. And I am not trying to thereby make contact with any spiritual truths, whether of an organized religion like Christianity, or a vague one like Buddhism (although if there is a God who would like to tell me something, I’m ready to listen). I have intended it as a relaxation technique.
According to many studies, relaxation techniques lower your blood pressure, and have many other beneficial medical effects on the body. I recently read a short 1975 book, The Relaxation Response, by Herbert Benson, MD, who is now famous for the 2006 STEP (study of the therapeutic effects of prayer). This method is used for relaxation during the day, but can also be used to help you to fall asleep. I wanted to use this method for both purposes.
The Relaxation Response is similar to some religious meditation techniques, and to Transcendental Meditation, only there is no need to initiate yourself into any religion or to pay for TM seminars. You can do it quickly and easily, and begin experiencing the benefits right away.
Here are the essentials of the Relaxation Response.
First, find a comfortable position, so that you do not need to concentrate on not falling onto the floor.
Second, concentrate on a single word or phrase, and repeat it in your mind over and over, while breathing deeply and regularly. Try to keep your concentration on this single word or phrase. Now, my mind is always exploring every new possibility. And when I focus on a word or phrase, I immediately begin thinking of new things connected with it. I interrupt my meditation to write them down, then try again. Eventually I am just thinking about the word or phrase.
Third, do not worry about how well you are doing it or if you are doing it right. Just do it, and if your mind wanders, just start repeating the word or phrase again. Fifty percent success is better than ten, but even if you are only ten percent successful, this technique may provide immediate relaxation and its associated medical benefits.
One benefit that I expect from this technique is to be calmer in my daily life. I have a tendency to become passionate, often passionately upset, about bad things that are happening in the world, particularly those things that are aided and abetted by religion or politics. A certain amount of passion leads to productivity and effectiveness, but not too much passion. I expect the Relaxation Response to help me focus my passions into productive, effective, and creative outlets, while at the same time keeping my blood pressure low—as it has always been, and as I wish it to always be.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Transcendent Values?
Greetings and welcome to the second year of Christian Agnostics blog entries.
I would like to begin the new year with an evolutionary insight I just had. I have begun to meditate once in a while, using a technique that is physiological rather than philosophical or religious, about which I will write later. One of the words upon which I meditated was “good.” And suddenly I realized something that you may already know.
The one aspect of religion to which I continued to cling was that there really is such a thing as transcendent good and evil. No matter what planet in the universe, it is always good to treat other sentient beings with love and respect, and it is evil to harm or oppress them. (Of course, this does not apply to non-sentient beings such as the bacteria I just showered away.) That is, goodness is not simply something that worked for our species; it transcends evolutionary contingency.
Then I started thinking about dogs and cats. Dogs and cats are both altruistic, at least to the extent of having kin selection, which means that they cooperate with their close genetic relatives. But for cats, that is about as far as it goes. Housecats can be affectionate, but only because they identify us with their kin. Dogs are a different matter. They can devote themselves selflessly to the leader of the pack, whether a human or another dog. They have a very strong sense of direct reciprocal altruism. That is, cats use us, but dogs really do like us.
And this pattern relates to their method of catching prey. Cats hunt alone, whereas dogs hunt in packs. Pack altruism has evolved in dogs as a matter of survival; the only altruism cats have is a temporary affection for other animals they perceive as kin. What we consider to be transcendent values of goodness—such as mutual respect and aid—are adaptations for social animals like dogs, but not for individualistic animals like cats. If dogs were intelligent, they may even have altruistic as excessively developed as it is in humans.
Therefore, what I considered transcendent values might only be an evolutionary adaptation found in social species, such as humans and dogs. Therefore, maybe there are no universal, transcendent morals. This is not a happy insight for someone who wants to be religious, as I still do.
Of course, this makes no difference in how we actually live. Love, peace, mutual respect, and cooperation remain essential adaptations for social species such as humans. Regardless of the theology, there is no question about how we should live during the upcoming year.
I would like to begin the new year with an evolutionary insight I just had. I have begun to meditate once in a while, using a technique that is physiological rather than philosophical or religious, about which I will write later. One of the words upon which I meditated was “good.” And suddenly I realized something that you may already know.
The one aspect of religion to which I continued to cling was that there really is such a thing as transcendent good and evil. No matter what planet in the universe, it is always good to treat other sentient beings with love and respect, and it is evil to harm or oppress them. (Of course, this does not apply to non-sentient beings such as the bacteria I just showered away.) That is, goodness is not simply something that worked for our species; it transcends evolutionary contingency.
Then I started thinking about dogs and cats. Dogs and cats are both altruistic, at least to the extent of having kin selection, which means that they cooperate with their close genetic relatives. But for cats, that is about as far as it goes. Housecats can be affectionate, but only because they identify us with their kin. Dogs are a different matter. They can devote themselves selflessly to the leader of the pack, whether a human or another dog. They have a very strong sense of direct reciprocal altruism. That is, cats use us, but dogs really do like us.
And this pattern relates to their method of catching prey. Cats hunt alone, whereas dogs hunt in packs. Pack altruism has evolved in dogs as a matter of survival; the only altruism cats have is a temporary affection for other animals they perceive as kin. What we consider to be transcendent values of goodness—such as mutual respect and aid—are adaptations for social animals like dogs, but not for individualistic animals like cats. If dogs were intelligent, they may even have altruistic as excessively developed as it is in humans.
Therefore, what I considered transcendent values might only be an evolutionary adaptation found in social species, such as humans and dogs. Therefore, maybe there are no universal, transcendent morals. This is not a happy insight for someone who wants to be religious, as I still do.
Of course, this makes no difference in how we actually live. Love, peace, mutual respect, and cooperation remain essential adaptations for social species such as humans. Regardless of the theology, there is no question about how we should live during the upcoming year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)