Street Prophets

In Which David Brooks Jibbers Like A Red-Assed Baboon

by pastordan

Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:55:22 AM PDT

Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? Neural Buddhists?

Over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as “The Origin of Species reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible.

...

If you survey the literature (and I’d recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

Does any of this make any sense whatsoever? Does any of it make sense being on perhaps the most valuable real estate in all journalism? Do any of those four propositions contradict anything in the Bible?

My brain hurts. I'd go meditate, but according to Brooks, that would make me an apostate.

  • ::


Tags: David Brooks, Buddhism, Theology, Red-Assed Baboons (all tags)

Permalink | 37 comments

  • Cookie Jar (15+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    vansterdam, Richard Bowser, Asbury Park, vgranucci, wanderingoutlaw, Alexandra Lynch, dirkster42, archie, Sarea, Marko, Delia, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia, Moody Loner

    h/t to Bill Burroughs for the RAB meme.

    by pastordan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:55:38 AM PDT

  • The answers as I see it (9+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Richard Bowser, vgranucci, wanderingoutlaw, dirkster42, Sarea, Marko, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia
    First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships.
    I think it is clear from scripture (if you want to think about it) that this is absolutely true. First God, then neighbors, other Christians, the "least of these", etc. - it is how we live in relationship with all of them that both determines, and shows, our relationship to God and to His Word (Son and book).
    Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions.
    OK, I am a believer in natural moral law, and a Creator. Next.
    Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love.
    Duh
    Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
    That does run counter to scripture on a few levels. It is a bit to pantheistic/panentheistic - and certainly way to based on natural theology; and Paul says that God is evident within us as well as in nature; and that through the Holy Spirit God is knowable. Further, God is rational and created a rational, knowable universe - so we can know a great deal of His character from that. Finally, He became incarnate so we could see a great deal of who He is from how He lived out a human life.    

    SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

    by JCHFleetguy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:56 AM PDT

    • Actually, this statement (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JCHFleetguy, Alexandra Lynch, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia

      Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

      Seems quite right to me, perhaps because I consider us as part of that "nature one experiences."  Also because such notions as that expressed in Brooks'  point #4 have been, indeed, a well honored part of the Judeo-Chriitian tradition.  There are those who can make rather persuasive cases for the assertion that such notions are among the oldest in our tradition and offer the best fit with the scriptures taken as a whole.

      My reading of  the scriptures persuades me that this "I am" we call God is unknowable. My experience and observation persuades me that great harm is caused when we humans think have grasped the great mystery and can define the divine.  The god that can be named is not God.

      by RussellKing on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I agree we are a part of the created world (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        linkage

        it is God that isn't part of his own creation - therefore He cannot be the sum of that creation: He stands outside of it.

        Completely knowable? No. However, Christ promised us the Holy Spirit would bring us into "all truth".

        So no, I really do not believe that a scriptural tradition can be had for a God who is "the nature one experiences at those moments" anymore than the painter is the unknowable sum of all his paintings.

        Certainly though I am interested in any theologian before 1700 with such a panentheistic viewpoint who was largely accepted.

        SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

        by JCHFleetguy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:43:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Points of difference: (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JCHFleetguy, linkage

          God that isn't part of his own creation - therefore He cannot be the sum of that creation: He stands outside of it.

          I find nothing to suggest that God can't be -- or isn't -- part of God's creation.  Quite the opposite.

          by RussellKing on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:31:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • In Scripture? (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            linkage

            I think you would be hard-pressed to find anything that says He is. Let's start with the beginnning:

            Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

            As the translator's note to the word "earth" points out:

            Or "the entire universe"; or "the sky and the dry land." This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The "heavens and the earth" were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). "Heavens" refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while "earth" refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).

            For God to be the sum [that was the key phrase above] of the universe means that He created Himself in that act of Creation, or (as panentheism contends) the Universe is his body - which would mean that it always existed. That is again in direct contradiction with scripture.

            Whether Christian have believed this or not is irrelevant - Brooks is right that it is a belief that undermines belief in the Book. It is one thing to look for God's attributes in His creation:

            Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

            and it is another to think that creation is God:

            Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

            Now we may be talking past one another here so I will re-phrase: God cannot be part of His creation because He didn't create Himself - creation is what was created. He is the builder, or the painter, and not the building or the painting.

            There is also no foundation in scripture (IMO) for naturalism:

            Pantheism in its various forms asserts that God, the First Reality, World-Ground, or Absolute, is not transcendent and personal, but immanent in the world, and that the phenomena of nature are only manifestations of this one common substance. For the Stoics, He is the immanent reason, the soul of the world, communicating everywhere activity and life.

            Again, there is no basis in scripture for a God who is not transcendent and personal. Once you accept a God that is transcendant and personal, then sum of nature cannot be God.

            If you are going to show me that scripture supports believing God is part of His creation - a few verses will do nicely. Indeed, I have given you the one that provides the foundation for most natural theology.

            SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

            by JCHFleetguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:17:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Your wish is my command (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              JCHFleetguy, linkage

              In Christ were created all things in heaven and on earth
              everything visible and everything invisible.... Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity.
              —Col. 1-15-17

              ...the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him.
              —2 Chr. 2:6 KJV

              Who laid [the earth's] cornerstone
              when all the stars of the morning were singing with joy,
              and the Sons of God in chorus were chanting praise?...
              Which is the way to the home of the light,
              and where does darkness live?...
              Who carves a channel for the downpour,
              and hacks a way for rolling thunder?
              What womb brings forth the ice,
              and gives birth to the frost of heaven...?
              Whose skill details every cloud
              and tilts the flasks of heaven...?
              Who makes provision for the raven
              when his squabs cry out to God
              and crane their necks in hunger?
              —Job 38.6-7,19,25,29,37,41

              The heavens declare the glory of God,
              the vault of heaven proclaims his handiwork;
              day discourses of it to day,
              night to night hands on the knowledge.
              —Ps. 19.1-2

              Deep is calling to to deep as your cataracts roar;
              All your waves, your breakers have rolled over me.
              —Ps. 42.7

              Where could I go to escape your spirit?
              Where could I flee from your presence?
              If I climb the heavens, you are there,
              there too, if I lie in Sheol.
              If I flew to the point of sunrise, or westward across the sea
              your hand would still be guiding me, your right hand holding me.
              —Ps. 139.7-10

              We could say much more and still fall short; to put it concisely, "He is all."
              —Sir. 43.27

              Do I not fill heaven and earth? It is Yahweh who speaks.
              —Jer. 23.24

              Look at the birds in the sky. They do not toil or reap or gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. ... And why worry about clothing? Think of the flowers growing in the fields; they never have to work or spin; yet I assure you that not even Solomon in all his regalia was robed like one of these.
              —Mt. 5.26,28-29

              If these keep silence, the stones will cry out.
              —Lk. 19.40

              Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men, a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower.
              —Jn. 1.2-5

              The bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world...I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never be hungry.
              —Jn.6.33,36

              In him we live, and move, and have our being.... "We are his offspring."
              —Acts 17.28 NIV

              For from him, and through him and to him are all things.
              —Rm. 8.36 NIV

              There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all.
              —Eph. 4.6

              God is love, and anyone who lives in love, lives in God, and God in him.
              —1 Jn. 4.16

              God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
              —1 Jn. 1.5

              by RussellKing on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:21:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Funny (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                dirkster42, linkage

                I read most of that the opposite: I am arguing for His transcendence - that the universe is less than Him and not the all of Him (the Brooks quote). I have no problem with His immanence, or his sustainance, of the Universe - I indeed embrace it and believe it. He is just not the unverse.

                It is something separate from Him that He sustains, feeds, lights, guides, rules, moves, etc.: He acts on it - He is its Creator (and an active one at that with plans for its good). He isn't what He created.

                I am not sure we disagree at all.

                SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                by JCHFleetguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:42:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            • Funny you should mention Genesis 1. (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              JCHFleetguy, linkage

              I suppose it all depends on how you read the relation of Genesis 1:1 to the rest of the chapter.

              There's a serious and open exegetical question here.

              Is 1:1 a summary of the chapter, describing what's about to happen, or is it the first act in and of itself?  That's a real, and ultimately undecidable, question.  But nowhere does it explicitly state that God created the world out of nothing - that's something you have to read into the text.  It might be a reasonable inference, but you can't use that verse to just shut out panentheistic views of God (though pantheism would be harder to defend with it).  You can't shut those views out because it's also perfectly reasonable to read Genesis 1 as saying, "This is how God created the world - There was a formless void and God ordered that chaos, which co-existed with God at the beginning, into a meaningful and purposeful world."  I've been reading Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming, which goes into that particular way of reading Genesis in great depth.

              The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

              by dirkster42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:14:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Actually (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                dirkster42, linkage

                a professor from Multnomah School of the Bible had a book in "beta" (I do not think it ever got published) that presented the same argument - that it was a preamble that essentially said "the God who created the universe (general) did this . . . (specifics of chapter).

                Of course, science informs that view doesn't it now. We "know" (or at least it is the current "known") the universe was not formless and eternal - it had a beginning.

                You can talk about God shaping the chaos that followed the Big Bang - but for all intents and purposes the universe was created out of nothing and, essentially, "at a word"

                Oh, wait, I am supposed to be an enemy of science huh :-)

                SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                by JCHFleetguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        • "Lift Up A Stone And You Will Find Me There..." (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JCHFleetguy, linkage

          5 You hem me in—behind and before;
                you have laid your hand upon me.

          6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
                too lofty for me to attain.

          --Psalm 139

          Although I continue to find the notion that "older is better" less than persuasive, here are a few notable pre-1700 theologians who expressed a panentheistic view:
          Johannes Scotus Eriugena (c. 815–877)
          Meister Eckhart O.P. (c. 1260–c. 1328),
          Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 1464)
          Jakob Böhme (1575 – 1624)

          Though the word 'panentheism' is only about two hundred years old, the notion is very ancient. Rather than imagining God as a personlike being 'out there,' this concept imagines God as the encompassing Spirit in whom everything that is, is. The universe is not separate from God, but in God.

          I find this idea, frequently, in the Bible.  Paul says God is the one in whom 'we live and move and have our being.'  We are in God; we live in God, move in God, have our being in God.

          This concept of God does not reduce God to the universe or identify God with the universe. As the encompassing Spirit, God is more than everything, even as everything is in God. Thus, God is not only 'right here,' but also 'more than right here.'

          Most of us who grew up in the church heard God being spoken of both as 'up in heaven' and as 'everywhere,' that is, as omnipresent. The traditional terms for these two dimensions of God are transcendence and immanence: the 'moreness' and the 'presence' of God. Combining these two affirmations produces the central claim of panentheism: God is 'the More' that is 'right here.'

          Panentheism is not a modern invention, but an ancient and traditional concept of God.  In fact, the notion of a God separate from creation has really only taken hold in Christianity since the scientific revolution of the fifteenth century. Prior to that:

          The Greek Church Fathers referred to the transcendence of God as God's "essence" (ousia) and the immanence of God as his "energies" (energeia). In 553, at the Second Council of Constantinople, the universal Church proclaimed a panentheistic vision of the Trinity, developed from St. Paul's writing in Ephesians: "There is One God and Father from whom all things are, one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are." God is in all things, for they spring from him, and all things are in God, for they subsist in him, yet he transcends all as well as emanates in all.

          The Gospel of John reveals the "Cosmic Christ," that is, Christ is identified not only as Jesus on earth, but as the whole creative and redemptive movement of God throughout space and time. Thus, Christ is the Word which brings everything into existence (1:2-3), the Light that enlightens all humanity, (1:9) the Bread of God that sustains all life, (6:33) and much more.

          by RussellKing on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:51:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • We are close to agreement (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            linkage

            Paul, of course, was chatting about a church in which - as he constantly said - we were indwelt by Christ; and being "hidden in Christ" could come before God. This, of course, only applied to certain folks and was not a general condition.

            My objection was to the idea that God was the sum of the physical universe. Certainly, I have far more problems with pantheism than panentheism.

            Keep in mind, I still have problems with panentheism only because the idea that the universe is essentially God's body animated by His spirit and mind tends to lead folks to the idea that He cannot act on that physical body outside of the physical laws He created when He created it. The new theologians I have a problem with (hence the request for someone pre-Enlightenment) are antisupernaturalists - that there is nothing outside the physical, observable universe (and its physical laws); and hence relegate God to some position of "ground of being" without the ability to act on the universe outside its physical laws.

            Certainly, I have no problem with God as the creator and continued sustainer of the Universe - I have no problem with His transcendence. Or His immanence. At least as long as they are together.

            I am not sure which verses you quoted in John point to God as the sum of the physical universe - they all point to His transcendence and existence prior to the universe. That is my point entirely. I will grant immanence all day long as long as that is granted - and His ability to act as it pleases Him within what He created. And, of course, as long as you think Him personal and capable of both being pleased, and unpleased.

            Typically, that is a tall order for panentheists - but not impossible.

            SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

            by JCHFleetguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:35:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    • It really depends (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      linkage, Absit Invidia
      on whether you go in for mystical experiences or not. Some people yes, some no.

      by pastordan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:54:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • He does have his finger on (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    vgranucci, wanderingoutlaw, appleblossombeck, Sarea, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia

    the pulse of this particular pet peeve of mine:

    The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.

    I see this underlying a lot of discussions about religion over at GOS and elsewhere - the idea that Nature=True, Culture=Fake.  So ridiculous.  Some day I'm going to have to take on that one directly and smash it to smithereens, no prisoners, no mercy.

    I'm still not a fan of the Brooks, though.  Once upon a time I thought he was kind of cute, but he opened his mouth and let words that were supposed to be thoughts come out a few too many times.

    The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

    by dirkster42 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

  • Perhaps I haven't been paying attention (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wanderingoutlaw, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia, Moody Loner

    Just as “The Origin of Species reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

    How did "The Origin of Species" reshape social thinking? In what way did the theory of relativity affect art? I mean, outside of a few sci fi movies, I haven't seen it.

    There is no god. Let's save the world anyway.

    by Icelander on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:10:02 AM PDT

    • You don't like (7+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wanderingoutlaw, archie, Marko, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia, Icelander

      relativity affected art?

      Fine, I'll let the damn cat out of the box.

      I suppose next you'll want me to tell you both the location and the momentum of an object, too.

      In the land of the dark, the ship of the sun is drawn by the Grateful Dead. If you fail a D20 "Gratitude" roll, the dead sink your ass. - h/t TWP

      by Moody Loner on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Darwin and Us (6+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Richard Bowser, Marko, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia, Icelander

      How did "The Origin of Species" reshape social thinking?

      I think it did, in subtle ways, but you would have had to have lived in the late 19th century to have experienced the change. Note that I'm not talking about "social darwinism," but about the way Origin of Species might have impacted peoples' self-identities as humans.

      by maha on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • It was really Herbert Spencer (5+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Richard Bowser, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia, Icelander

        who shaped social thought.  He was already published when Darwin's book came out.  Spencer was the one who invented the phrase "survival of the fittest."  He was also the one who wrote that it was a pity that widows and orphans should starve but it was really for the best in the long run since it strengthened the species.

        The Origin of Species is a book that's very much oriented to biology and what we today call ecology, although the word Darwin would use would have been natural history.  In other words, it's scientific, not social.  And a number of his early partisans were theists, BTW. But it was very easy to hijack for those who were interested in what's come to be called Social Darwinism, but was Spencerianism at the time.  It was a point of view that was "in the air" at the time, so to speak.  The industrialists and moneyed interests who ran Victorian society favored that point of view.  It was nice to latch onto an intellectual/scientific theory that supported them. Darwin's later book, The Descent of Man, had a lot more resonances with all the Progress of Western Man bloviaters.

        But Brooks is full of bullshit.  I'm getting really tired of this science vs. religion frame.  It's so nineteenth century.

        There is a crack, a crack in everything That's how the light gets in. --Leonard Cohen

        by Delia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:10:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • That's "social darwinsim" (5+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JCHFleetguy, RussellKing, Alexandra Lynch, Quiet, linkage

          I was NOT talking about social darwinism. I was talking about the view that mankind is part of the animal kingdom, not separate from it. It's something we're still struggling with, of course. But I believe it hit Victorian society like a ton of bricks and took a lot of getting used to. It caused a shift in how people understand themselves as human beings in relation to the rest of biology.

          BTW, much of what we call "fundamentalism" is a reaction to Darwin, but IMO people initially were not outraged at Darwin because his views didn't match Genesis. Before Origin of Species, you didn't see so much flapping around about how the Bible had to be taken literally. I think people were terrified of Darwin's implications because it assaulted their self-identities, and they grabbed hold of biblical literalism as a defense.

          by maha on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Reminds me of (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            linkage, Absit Invidia

            some sort of story involving Robert E. Lee.
            The idea that some people, at least, are too good to be descended from apes.  I suppose they sprang full-grown from the forehead of Jesus or something.  It probably would have been interesting/unsettling to be a regular joe coming to terms with the basics of evolution.

            "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

            by lonespark on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • Actually (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            linkage

            fundamentalism was a reaction to German historical criticism - especially the antisupernatural strain.

            The book of essays - The Fundamentals  - that gave fundamentalism its name only has about 3 or 4 essays on science and/or Darwinism; and that is about at about essay #68, 69 and 70

            SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

            by JCHFleetguy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:54:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • I have no idea (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    loggersbrat, vansterdam, Richard Bowser, Alexandra Lynch, Marko, Absit Invidia

    what he thinks he's talking about normally.

    I'm pretty sure the part of David Brooks is played by a metal surface, a "Blowhard Pundit" edition of Magnetic Poetry, and a red-assed baboon.

    And to think, when I was once offered the opportunity to write a piece that would have wound up in the Times, I saw it as a compliment.

    In the land of the dark, the ship of the sun is drawn by the Grateful Dead. If you fail a D20 "Gratitude" roll, the dead sink your ass. - h/t TWP

    by Moody Loner on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM PDT

  • From a Buddhist Perspective (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RussellKing, Sarea, Marko, Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia

    I commented on Brooks's column at my Buddhism blog yesterday. There are some intriguing connections between current neurological science and Buddhism, most particularly in matters regarding consciousness and the self. Brooks being Brooks (that is to say, dim) he doesn't explain these connections well. But the one nugget I found intriguing was "the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships," which is not a bad definition of shunyata.

    Brooks's larger point, I think, is that neurological science might bring respect for mysticism back into Western religion, which would be a plus, in my opinion.

    by maha on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM PDT

  • As a born-again Christian (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Quiet, linkage, Absit Invidia

    I've got no problem with any of his four points at the end.  They all seem reasonable, even fairly self-evident, to me.  And it kills me to say so, because I can't stand agreeing with someone I find to be such an ignorant pompous fool.

    by RussellKing on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM PDT

  • Brooks is repeating the cliche (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    linkage, Absit Invidia

    that the special theory of relativity gave us cubism. But one could just as well suggest that Paul Cézanne  inspired  the special theory of relativity. That's not true,  either. Brooks is  100 years late on that, but he's  catching up to Margaret Mead.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx http://wfmu.org/playlists/RX

    by Asbury Park on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM PDT

  • Light up my brain (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Absit Invidia

    Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology By Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquili, M.D.

    One of the most provocative things said in this book is about the results of brain imaging subjects while achieving a connection with their faith.

    After imaging persons of many faiths the authors  found a common area that lights up in each one, with one execption. Subjects that directed their faith toward  anthropomorphous entities had two area that light up.

    The author quipped that perhaps this second activation area was actually standing in the way of the subjects truly connecting with the first area.

    "Upward, not Northward" - Flatland, by EA Abbott

    by linkage on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM PDT

  • As a Buddhist, (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    linkage

    I have no idea what Brooks means by "neural Buddhism." I don't know how he's defining the term. (what does he think it means?)

    The only thing that sounds remotely like Buddhism to me is his "the self is not a fixed entity."

    The rest of it . . . not so much.

    _

    by Absit Invidia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:54:01 PM PDT

  • As a mystical pagan (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    linkage

    I read those four and go, "Yes, and?"

    There have been commentators that have suggested one pull that neopaganism in general has on many in the West is that mystical direct experience of Deity is entirely accepted and fairly frequent.

    I walk in beauty.

    by Alexandra Lynch on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM PDT

Permalink | 37 comments