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.
and then there is this, at the end:
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.
I think that Brooks is on to something when he guesses that a convergence of rational belief (neuroscience, in its pop or laboratory form) and spiritual practice is already underway. I would also agree that this will create a new set of pressures on traditional religious practice as people around the world both become urban and tap into vast information and communication networks.
But something here requires comment. Buddhism has nothing to say about God, the nature of god, mysticism, or transcendence. It is radically non-theistic. This is what allows it to work so well with so many religious traditions. There is no fundamental conflict between Buddhist practice and Christianity, for instance. At least from the (Zen) Buddhist side of things.
Another aspect of Brooks' column that I have to comment on is this: could it be that an crucial characteristic of profound religious experience is first a fearless embrace of paradox, for instance, loving deeply a person who must someday die, or accepting life with all its suffering, and then a resolving of that paradox in some non-verbal, non-analytic state of mind?
Perhaps the function of the parietal lobe- which does indeed "orient us in space"- is also to orient us in "conceptual space", and that the diminution of some of its activity allows for non-analytic experiences. The cerebellum used to be thought of as the part of the brain that merely coordinates physical activity. It is now being suggested that it coordinates mental activity as well. Perhaps there is a parallel between the two lobes.
Paradox can be experienced and expressed in many ways, not the least of which is the visual arts. A vibrant, engaged Christianity, for instance, will change over time, and continue to debate its own nature as changes sweep through it. Zen is about change, so perhaps Brooks' "neural Buddhism" is less a challenge than a workshop for people of all faiths actively sorting out suffering, love, endurance, and faith. As people always have.
and then there is this, at the end:
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.
I think that Brooks is on to something when he guesses that a convergence of rational belief (neuroscience, in its pop or laboratory form) and spiritual practice is already underway. I would also agree that this will create a new set of pressures on traditional religious practice as people around the world both become urban and tap into vast information and communication networks.
But something here requires comment. Buddhism has nothing to say about God, the nature of god, mysticism, or transcendence. It is radically non-theistic. This is what allows it to work so well with so many religious traditions. There is no fundamental conflict between Buddhist practice and Christianity, for instance. At least from the (Zen) Buddhist side of things.
Another aspect of Brooks' column that I have to comment on is this: could it be that an crucial characteristic of profound religious experience is first a fearless embrace of paradox, for instance, loving deeply a person who must someday die, or accepting life with all its suffering, and then a resolving of that paradox in some non-verbal, non-analytic state of mind?
Perhaps the function of the parietal lobe- which does indeed "orient us in space"- is also to orient us in "conceptual space", and that the diminution of some of its activity allows for non-analytic experiences. The cerebellum used to be thought of as the part of the brain that merely coordinates physical activity. It is now being suggested that it coordinates mental activity as well. Perhaps there is a parallel between the two lobes.
Paradox can be experienced and expressed in many ways, not the least of which is the visual arts. A vibrant, engaged Christianity, for instance, will change over time, and continue to debate its own nature as changes sweep through it. Zen is about change, so perhaps Brooks' "neural Buddhism" is less a challenge than a workshop for people of all faiths actively sorting out suffering, love, endurance, and faith. As people always have.
