Picture a picture.A photograph.I’ve got a specific one in mind, but it’s likely one you’ve not seen.Any photograph will work for this lesson, but if it’s one of your own, one from your youth works best.Your teenage years.The photograph that I’m imagining is one of a slightly older friend of mine.It shows him as a teenage machine-gunner in Vietnam.I didn’t know him at the time, of course; I was too young to be sent off as a national sacrifice for a police action to protect capitalism.In any case, I got to know this friend later, after he’d survived the conflict, wounded but alive, and I was struggling to survive puberty.Emotions at that time were off the charts, but I never saw the photo until I was an adult.
Why am I asking you to think of old pictures?I was recently reading a discussion where intelligent people were wondering why, throughout human history, we have idealized youth.I suppose there’s no single answer, but I have a suspicion that it has to do with evolution.We often wrongly assume that we can get at the naked truth.As if we could somehow get outside of our own frame, our personal point-of-view, and look at reality objectively.Our brains, however, evolved to help us survive in an often hostile environment.The “point”—if you’ll allow me to hypostasize a bit—of evolution is to survive long enough to reproduce.Many species with young that can care for themselves simply die at that point.Mission accomplished.
As human beings (and mammals) our young need parental care to survive, at least for a few years.Biology would seem to dictate that by the time we can reproduce—that self-same puberty which is such a difficult age—is the point at which we’ve reached our evolutionary goal.There’s something deeper going on here, of course, but I wonder if this might not be behind the question of why we idealize youth.We remember with a sharp pang—don’t need to see a doctor about that one—the incredible and unsurpassed discoveries we personally made at that age.There will be other surprises as life goes along, of course, but nothing will ever equal our biologically determined goal.I’m oversimplifying, I know.Still, this may be one mystery that is less mysterious than it seems.I know this because I have a photograph of a young man.It matters not if it is of someone I know or me.We have made it through our most awkward age, and we reflect on how it made us into who we have become.
It lied to me.My computer.Don’t get me wrong; I know all about trying to save face.I also know my laptop pretty well by now.It was running slow, taking lots of time to think over fairly simple requests.A lull in my frantic mental activity led to the opportunity for me to initiate a reboot.When it winked open its electronic eye my screen told me it had restarted to install an update.Untrue.I had told it to restart.I gave the shutdown order to help with the obvious sluggishness that suggested to this Luddite brain of mine that my silicon friend was working on an update.There’s no arguing with it, however.In its mechanical mind, it decide to do the restart itself.I was merely a bystander.
Technology and I argue often.Like JC says, though, authority always wins.I should know my place by now.I’ve read enough about neuroscience (with thanks to those who write for a general audience) to know that this is incredibly human behavior.We are creatures of story, and if our brains can’t figure out why we’ve done something they will make up an answer.We have trouble believing that we just don’t know.I suppose that will always be a difference between artificial intelligence and the real thing.Our way of thinking is often pseudo-rational.We evolved to get by but machines have been designed intelligently.That often makes me wonder about the “intelligent design” crowd—they admit evolution, but with God driving it.Why’d our brains, in such circumstances, evolve the capacity for story instead of for fact?
As my regular readers know, I enjoy fiction.Fiction is the epitome of the story-crafting art.Some analysts suggest our entire mental process involves construing the story of ourselves.Those who articulate it well are rewarded with the sobriquet of “author.”The rest of us, however, aren’t exactly amateurs either.Our brains are making up reasons for what we do, even when we do irrational things (perhaps like reading this blog sometimes).Stories give our lives a sense of continuity, of history.What originally developed as a way of remembering important facts—good food sources, places to avoid because predators lurk there—became histories.Stories.And when the facts don’t align, we interpolate.It seems that my laptop was doing the same thing.Perhaps it’s time to reboot.
Even in the 1960s, if I recall, Dracula and Frankenstein really weren’t that scary.I mean this in the sense of the 1931 Universal movies that began the entire trend of “horror” films.They were, nevertheless, monarchs among those of us who claim the sobriquet “monster boomers.”(I’ve never considered myself as part of any generation, but there’s so many people that you’ve got to sort us somehow.)Recently I talked my wife into watching/re-watching these two films with me. The pacing makes it seem like everything in the 1930s was stuck in slow motion.The frights are difficult to feel, given what we’ve seen in movies since then.And they are both, it occurs upon reflection, movies in which religion is the norm against which we measure monsters.God is assumed.
Dracula, of course, fears the crucifix.His chosen home in England is a ruined abbey.Although the source of his monstrosity is never discussed, he is intended to be an embodiment of evil, draining the life of innocents.Renfield craves flies and spiders in order to ingest their life.Christianity can’t tolerate such evil and Dracula must be staked (off screen).Frankenstein’s monster is much more obviously theological.Opening with a warning to the audience that the film may shock due not only to its frights, but also because of Henry’s desire to create life, the film has philosophical discussions between Henry and his associates, and ends with the moral dilemma of what to do with an evil created by human hands, yet clearly alive like other people.
Metaphorically speaking, these first two horror films set the stage for later developments in the genre.It isn’t so much fear and startles that define the genre as it is a deep dread of offending the powers that be.Childhood was so long ago that I can no longer recall just which movies I saw on Saturday afternoons, but these two were among them.Even as I was beginning the spiritual journey that would assure my job was never far from the Bible, I recalled with fondness the frissons of watching Dracula and Frankenstein—and then the host of other Universal monsters such as The Wolf-Man, The Invisible Man, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon (the last being scary in the classical sense).The world in which they operated was deeply religious, for even the gill-man was an implicit condemnation of evolution.These monsters were informing a religious outlook that would last a lifetime.Going back to Dracula and Frankenstein is like turning back to the first page of Genesis and beginning again.
In the process of unpacking books, it became clear that evolution has been a large part of my life.More sophisticated colleagues might wonder why anyone would be concerned about an issue that biblical scholars long ago dismissed as passé.Genesis 1–11 is a set of myths, many of which have clear parallels in the world of ancient West Asia.Why even bother asking whether creationism has any merit?I pondered this as I unpacked the many books on Genesis I’d bought and read while teaching.Why this intense interest in this particular story?It goes back, no doubt, to the same roots that stop me in my tracks whenever I see a fossil.The reason I pause to think whenever I see a dinosaur represented in a museum or movie.When a “caveman” suggests a rather lowbrow version of Adam and Eve.When I read about the Big Bang.
The fact is evolution was the first solid evidence that the Bible isn’t literally true.That time comes in every intelligent life (at least among those raised reading the Good Book).You realize, with a horrific shock, that what you’d been told all along was a back-filled fabrication that was meant to save the reputation of book written before the advent of science.The Bible, as the study of said book clearly reveals, is not what the Fundamentalists say it is.Although all of modern scientific medicine is based on the fact of evolution, many who benefit from said medicine deny the very truth behind it.Evolution, since 1859, has been the ditch in which Fundies are willing to die.For this reason, perhaps, I took a very early interest in Genesis.
Back in my teaching days it was my intention to write a book on this.I’d read quite a lot on both Genesis and evolution.I read science voraciously.I taught courses on it.I’d carefully preserved childhood books declaring the evils of evolution.To this day Genesis can stop me cold and I will begin to think over the implications.When we teach children that the Bible is a scientific record, we’re doing a disservice to both religion and society.This false thinking can take a lifetime to overcome, and even then doubts will remain.Such is the power of magical thinking.I keep my books on Genesis, although the classroom is rare to me these days.I do it because it is part of my life.And I wonder if it is something I’ll ever be able to outgrow.
In our current political climate, perspective helps quite a bit.Indeed, one of the shortcomings of our conscious species is our inability to think much beyond the present.In either direction.Because of the biblical basis of western civilization, a significant portion of otherwise intelligent people believe that the world was created 6000 years ago.I grew up believing that myself, before I learned more about the Bible and its context.I also grew up collecting fossils.Somehow I had no problem knowing that the fossils were from times far before human beings walked the earth, but also that the earth wasn’t nearly as old as it had to be for that to have happened.Faith often involves contradictions and remains self-convinced nevertheless.
While out walking yesterday I came across a fossil leaf.Unbeknownst to our movers last summer, I have boxes of fossils that I’ve picked up in various places that I’ve lived.I find it hard to leave them in situ because of the fascinating sense of contradictions that still grabs me when I see one.There was an impression of a leaf from millions of years ago right at my feet.It was in a rock deeply embedded in the ground and that had to be left in place.Never having found a floral fossil before this was somewhat of a disappointment.Still it left an impression on me.Perhaps when dinosaurs roamed Pennsylvania—or perhaps before—this leaf had fallen and been buried to last for eons.How the world has changed since then!
After that encounter, I considered the brown leaves scattered from the recently departed fall.Some lay on the muddy path, but few or none of them would meet the precise conditions required to form a fossil.If one did, however, it would be here after humanity has either grown up and evolved into something nobler or has destroyed itself in a fit of pique or hatred.We know we’re better than the political games played by those who use the system for their own gain.The impressions we leave are far less benign than this ossified leaf at my feet.The Fundamentalist of the dispensationalist species sees world history divided into very brief ages.God, they opine, created the entire earth to last less than 10,000 years.All this effort, suffering, and hope exists to be wiped out before an actual fossil has time to form.It’s a perspective as fascinating as it is dangerous.
Part of the pushback against religion, it seems to me, is based on the fear that there might be something rational to it after all.Sorry to get all philosophical on you on a Saturday morning, but the idea has been bothering me all week.You see, reductionist thinking has already concluded that religion is “emotion” and science is “reason,” and only the latter has any validity.When’s the last time you met somebody and asked “How are you thinking?” instead of “How are you feeling?”Neurologists are finding that reason and emotion can’t be divided with a scalpel; indeed, healthy thinking involves both, not reason alone.Funnily, this is a natural conclusion of evolution—we evolved to survive in this environment—our brains developed rational faculties to enhance emotional response, not to replace it.
I know this is abstruse; go ahead and get a cup of coffee if you need it.What if emotion participates in reality?How can emotion be measured outside of individual experience?We experience it all the time without thinking about it.From the earliest of human times we’ve had religion in the mix, in some form.Perhaps we are evolving out of it, but perhaps neurology is telling us that there’s something to it after all.Something immeasurable.Chaos theory can be quite uncomfortable in that regard—every coastline is infinite, if you get down to nano-divisions.When you measure something do you use the top of the line on the ruler or the bottom?Or do you try to eyeball the middle?And how do you do it with Heisenberg standing behind you saying there’s always uncertainty in every measurement?
Absolute reality is beyond the grasp of creatures evolved to survive in a specific environment.Religion, in some form, has always been there to help us cope.Yes, many religions mistake their mythology for fact—a very human thing to do—but that doesn’t mean that emotion has nothing to do with rational thought.It seems that instead of warring constantly maybe science and religion should sit down at the table and talk.Both would have to agree on the basic ground rule that both are evolved ways of coping with an uncertain environment.And both would have to, no matter how grudgingly, admit that the other has something to bring to that table.Rationality and emotion are entangled in brains whose functions are simple survival.Pitting one against the other is counterproductive, even on a Saturday morning.
Although Halloween is more about spiders than insects, a real fear seems to be swirling around the latter.For the second time in a year, a study has been published indicating a precipitous drop in the numbers of six-legged creatures worldwide.This is alarming because everything’s connected.Loss of insects means loss of vertebrates that feed on them and that leads to loss of species upon which we depend.The problem with “humans first,” simply “America first” writ large, is that all species are interconnected.The loss of one will lead to the loss of others—that’s the way connections work—until the entire picture changes.And it won’t be prettier.Even for lack of bugs.
Scientists aren’t sure of why this is happening, but the likely culprit seems to be global warming.Temperatures are changing so rapidly that evolution can’t keep up.And since those in political power don’t believe in evolution—America first!—they have difficulty seeing how global warming—a myth!—could possibly pose any threat.Just ask the wooly mammoth.The fact is that the very small frequently offer the answers long before it’s too late.The problem is you have to pay attention.And that attention must be not on America, or Trump, or Kavanaugh.The Supreme Court is jobless if there are no people left.We are part of an ecosystem, and the silence of that ecosystem is very loud indeed. Decades ago Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring to warn of the dangers of pesticides.In our short-sighted way, we responded by banning the most dangerous of them and turning up the heat.
We like to focus on the negative aspects of religion these days, but one of the overlooked benefits of it has been religions’ ability to shift focus.Christianity, for example, has been an advocate of thinking of others before thinking of oneself.Now certain elected officials seem constitutionally unable to think of anyone but themselves, but the fact is none of us would be here if it weren’t for the insects.They work to keep our planet neat and tidy, even if we regard them as a sign of uncleanness in our houses.Maybe not the lowest, they are one of the essential building blocks of the world we know and recognize.And they are disappearing.As Carson recognized decades ago, the loss of insects leads to a silent spring because the birds that feed on them will disappear.And what about pollination—whose job will that become?I suppose we could assign it to migrant workers, but we’re sending them away too.America first will be America the silent and hungry.Unless we listen to what the insects tell us.