Humans don’t mean to be cruel, I’m pretty sure, when they test animals for intelligence.We’re a curious lot, perhaps a bit too self-absorbed, but we want to know how other animals are like us.Of course, we reserve actual thinking for ourselves, given how well we’ve managed to conserve our only environment, but we grant some special spark to our biological kin.So we devise tests for them.Since we can’t get beyond human experience, many of these tests are devised for creatures like us.When animals fail our superiority is reconfirmed.Then it’s back to the lab.I’ve got to wonder how it feels to the subject of the experiment (or is it object?).Some being that has mastered the art of capturing you, perhaps with the aid of alien technology, is trying to get you to understand something that’s only clear from its (the captor’s) viewpoint.You need to suss out that viewpoint and solve the puzzle in the same way.
This makes me think of many forms of religion.We’re born to a lower species (human) as the experimental subjects of gods, or a God, who watch(es) to see how we figure things out.There’s a right answer, of course, but we’re only given hints as to what it is.We’re given toys to play with—some of them dangerous—and we’re allowed to select clowns and buffoons to lead us.We can kill off unthinkable numbers of our own kind and the only clue that we’ve succeeded is some tasty treat at the end.Of course, we have to assume that the intelligence governing this whole farce is much greater than our own.Doesn’t feel so good, does it?
Holism is the ability to see a continuity in all of nature.And nature doesn’t just mean this warm globe on which we find ourselves.It’s vast and mysterious and some parts of it are very cold and others very hot.There are places we cannot go, and others that seem inevitable, given the choices.Like the victims of bullies we don’t think about the larger system, but seek to impose our wills on those who see things differently than we do.Some tote guns while others pack books.All of us will shoo away insects that buzz too close.Most of the animals “beneath” us will simply eat them.Is this all a game?Or is it some kind of experiment where we have to guess the answer, but with only a fraction of the information required?
The mind-blowing book I mentioned last week is here unveiled.I discovered Jeffrey Kripal’s work years ago, and have subsequently had a few conversations with him.The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge is a challenging and necessary book.In a way that only full-time academics can, Kripal examines the large picture.When I say “large” I mean cosmic in scale.He does so through the lens of the humanities and, especially, religious studies.If anybody’s going to make religious studies cool, it is he.The world is full of weird things.If we’re honest most of us will admit to having had strange things happen to us.Often we’ll filter them out or explain them away, but at other times we will stop, scratch our heads, and wonder what just went on.
The Flip is not a book of such anecdotes (and I, along with the author, am willing to take anecdotes seriously).There is some strange stuff in here, but there is also a lot of science.Historically the humanities, as understood by ancient Romans, included what we would call sciences.Humanities, in other words, were attempts at understanding the world.Today religious studies is among the humanities while science is separated out into STEM.Kripal takes science seriously.In fact, much of what he discusses here is the application of quantum physics to the macroscopic.(I’m probably not explaining this well, but then, I guess you’ll have to read the book!)In other words, science and the humanities need to come together again.It’s not either/or, but both/and.
Holding out a hand across the aisle is uncomfortable.Religion has done a great deal to disgrace itself of late, and it’s no wonder respectable folk want to keep their distance.To understand what we are, however, requires a willingness to admit that humans are both deeply intellectually curious and deeply religiously inclined.We can be both.In fact, it is unlikely we can be any other way.Anomalous occurrences aren’t generally welcome in religious studies any more than they are in the sciences.That doesn’t stop strange stuff from happening.This little book of big ideas uses that disjunction to lead the reader into spaces where the future might faintly be discerned.Wide-ranging and provocative, this book needs to be read.It is a strange world where two different approaches to knowledge so often decline to speak to one another.Here they do, and their conversation is mind-blowing.
This past week we had a plumber here for a day.Our house has been owned by a succession of DIY weekend warriors who had more confidence than ability when it came to things like electric and water (which, I’ve learned, you want to keep apart).Somehow our home inspector failed to spot these costly fixes, and I try to think of them all as investments—a concept foreign to a guy with my background of living paycheck to paycheck.In any case, all this plumbing has me thinking deep thoughts about water.And depth.Things are seldom what they seem—there’s more below the surface, and those who struggle with the depths often come up with sayings we call profound.And they often express them in poetic form because, when you get deep enough, words themselves break down.
I often consider this in the context of science.Physicists break things down into formulas.There’s a certain uniformity, they tell us, until you reach the quantum level, then the rules change.I sometimes see this as an analogy with the staid nature of scientific prose versus the depth of good poetry.Or even, dare I suggest it, profound fiction.These sometimes explain our world better than the accepted facts of mundane existence, such as water always seeking the lowest point.There comes a profundity, however, at which down becomes up.The behavior of water, which we want in our houses but only in controlled locations, is somehow indicative of this.“Deep calls unto deep” as one ancient source says.And the plumber walks away with a good chunk of your cash.
Learning about science in school, I was always taught that good science is elegant—there should be beauty in a theory that explains the world.I’ve often wondered how this fits in with a reality that is often messy—chaotic even.Ancient peoples from the area that produced our Bible believed water to be chaotic.It had to be controlled by the gods.It is vital for life, we need it and yet it wreaks havoc on dry land as those who experience hurricanes know all too well.The world into which I was born was one of indoor plumbing.Once water gets in, as our leaky roof attests, it introduces chaos in a place we want to stay dry.When water won’t behave like we want it to, however, we no longer call on the gods.We call a plumber and pay our offering with profound reverence.
Turn about, they say, is fair play.Turin, on the other hand, is a city in Italy.Its claim to fame is a shroud housed there that is believed by many to be Jesus’ burial cloth.Tests have been done over the years, most authoritatively a carbon-dating done by three independent laboratories, with the results suggesting a medieval origin to the cloth itself.In case your chronology is a little hazy, the medieval period comes centuries after the time Jesus lived.Now, some thirty years after the definitive study, some scientists are questioning the results.They’re being skeptical of the skeptics.Turn about.According to a story in The Catholic Register, a Freedom of Information Act request, honored only by one of the three labs (the one at Oxford University) has revealed that the bits of the shroud subjected to analysis were the worst possible parts of the cloth to test.Herein lies the rub: scientists like to poke holes in credulousness—what do you do when your science is itself the subject of skepticism?
The Shroud of Turin, like Donald Trump, is one of those utterly arcane artifacts that unites Catholics and Evangelicals.When I was growing up these two groups were the cats and dogs of the theological world.They united under the umbrella of conservative social causes during the Bush years and have been sleeping together ever since (while both convinced that the other is going straight to Hell when it’s all over).You see, the Shroud is a Catholic possession and allegedly bears wounds that support the Catholic narrative.(The Vatican has never declared it an authentic relic, however.)Evangelicals see it as proof positive that Jesus was resurrected, and so they tend to go further than the Catholics in citing it as proof.We live in odd times when believers successfully out-skeptic the skeptics.
Since the other two laboratories (the University of Arizona and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) haven’t released the raw data, the grounds for a conspiracy theory grow fertile.When information is kept secret, that’s a natural enough response.The conspiracy-prone mind asks why the data isn’t being made public.They do have a point.The claims of religion are often hoisted on the petard of “no evidence” and when evidence (such as the lab results) exists but isn’t shown, that suggests somebody’s hiding something.I have no vested interest in the authenticity of the shroud, but we all should have such an interest in getting at the truth.The turnabout in this case, however, was completely unexpected.
Nothing makes you feel quite as old as seeing a documentary where the names of the experts are unfamiliar to you because they’re too young.So it was when I watched PBS’s Ancient Skies episode “Gods and Monsters.”They had me at “Monsters” although I know that when paired with gods the term generally refers to Greek mythology.This documentary had a pretty cool rendition of Marduk battling Tiamat that would’ve left many a Babylonian quaking in his or her sandals.Ranging across the world, it showed the earliest efforts to understand astronomy, and then went on to contrast it with how the ancients nevertheless still believed in gods.It was a striking kind of condescension, I thought.Many scientists today still believe in a deity, although it’s no longer the fashion.
That sharp dichotomy, that either/or, bothers me a bit.It’s not that I have a problem with science—I’ve always supported the scientific method.No, it’s the idea that everything is explained that bothers me.We understand so little about the universe.Yes, we’ve made great strides over the past millennia, but we’ve not even been out of the cosmic neighborhood yet.And I wish we could acknowledge that even on earth life is still a mystery that can only be solved with poetry as well as reason.“Gods and Monsters” made the point that the ancients realized the explanatory value of stories.Myths weren’t just idle constructs to pass the time.They were ways of understanding how this universe works.Some people take their mythology too seriously, of course, but that doesn’t mean that no stories are required to make sense of it all.
It was the inherent conflict implied between science and religion, I think, that bothered me the most.Not everything in life comes down to an equation.That doesn’t mean that equations are wrong, just that they’re not everything.One of the points Ancient Skies makes is that people of bygone eras had a very sophisticated understanding of the sky.It featured the builders of the great pyramid of Khufu, those who constructed Stonehenge, the Maya, and the Babylonians.They all knew much of the math that would only be formulated in Europe much later.And they all assuredly believed in gods.It didn’t prevent them from complex thought in either architecture or astronomy.Our modern dilemma is the razor burn left by standing before the mirror too long with Occam.You don’t have to shave to support science.
It has been several years now since I’ve been directly (or indirectly) involved in robotics.During my daughter’s high school years I was active in the FIRST Robotics program, spending some week nights and many weekends supporting the kids—far more clever than me—building and competing with the robot.It was during this time that I came to know some of the mentors involved.They knew I was looking for a job in a field not their own.Instead of wringing their hands like my professorial colleagues did, they made concrete suggestions as to how to go about finding a reasonable position.Unlike many religion professors, they were willing to go out of their way to help.It’s a lesson I’ve never forgotten.A somewhat well-known religious leader is known for having said “by their fruits you will know them.”So it is.
One of these friends recently sent me a New York Times story about a disabled toddler.Because of our government’s very compassion health care system, this boy was denied access to a wheelchair.When the local high school robotics team learned about it they designed and built a motorized chair for the boy.Again, my point couldn’t be more obvious.This team did what was the right thing.They didn’t stand around saying the family would be in their thoughts and prayers.No, they did something about it.While the story made me feel good, it also saddened me.I’ve been part of the religious studies community for at least three decades now.When I lift up mine eyes to the hills, however, whence cometh my help?
Please don’t get me wrong—I know probably better than most how difficult life and funding can be as a humanities academic.I also know, however, that humanities are nothing without humanity.How easy it is to forget that when a tenure-track position opens up!There are creative solutions possible.I have suggested them to those empowered to enact them from time to time.Their response has generally been to explain why it can’t be done rather than giving it the old college try.In robotics you try to see if it works before deciding it can’t.Perhaps there’s a message here for those who hear.Engineers find solutions while many academics find excuses.There’s any number of reasons not to help the boy get a wheelchair: somebody’s going to have to pay for this, there are other things that demand the students’ time, there are government agencies who already do the work.Or.You can try because it’s the right thing to do.Whose fruit tastes better, I wonder?
When you’re writing a book, many strands in your mind are weaving their way into what you hope will be whole cloth.Well, at least if you write books the way that I do.In writing Weathering the Psalms, for instance, one of the threads was the question of science and religion.I was teaching at Nashotah House at the time, and I read a lot of science.As I told colleagues at the time, if science is how we know things, shouldn’t what we know of the natural world apply to the Bible?I don’t claim to be the first to ask that question—back in the days of exploration there were many people (mostly the genus “white men” of the “clergy” species) who went to what is now and had used to be Israel, to find out what the world of the Bible was actually like.Their books still make interesting reading.
Quite unexpectedly a colleague, Dalit Rom-Shiloni of Tel Aviv University, told me she’d just ordered my book.She’s leading up a project called the Dictionary of Nature Imagery of the Bible (DNI).Over a decade after my teaching career ended, someone had deemed my work relevant.Dr. Rom-Shiloni recently sent me the link to the project website where there is a video of her interviewing three Israeli scientists about the possibility of lions, leopards, and bears living in Israel.They’re all mentioned in the Bible and no longer exist in the area.The video is on this link and won’t take half an hour of your time.It’s quite interesting.
One of the surprising facts to emerge is that leopards, in small numbers, may still exist in Israel.This assertion is based on lay observation.I contrasted this with the United States where, no matter how often a cougar (aka mountain lion, puma) is spotted in a state where it’s “known” to be extinct, it is claimed to be mistaken observation.A departed friend and mentor of mine once saw a mountain lion in West Virginia.I’d grown up in neighboring Pennsylvania where they are officially extinct, so I wondered if said beasts knew to observe the Mason-Dixon line.The fact is, despite all our best efforts to destroy our environment, animals often find a way to survive.Growing up, one of my cousins in Pennsylvania (now also unfortunately deceased) showed me a puma print in the snow behind his rural house.Now Pennsylvania is a long way from Israel, and this topic is a long way from the DNI, but remember what I just said about how my books are written.Tapestries only make sense from a distance.