Fingerprints of God

"And it will be interesting also to keep an eye on the functioning of the human mind, or brain, and its valiant and often pathetic efforts to comprehend the nature of things."

It's ironic that I became aware of Fingerprints of God (Barbara Bradley Hagerty, 2009) by reading a physicist's snark about it. Had said physicist actually read the book, he might have come away not with "convincing empirical evidence for the soul's existence", but with an enhanced appreciation for how simple fluctuations in brain activity can dramatically alter our perceptions of what is 'real'.

I'm going to quote the next bit out of context because I think it illustrates the point...

"When the prefrontal cortex malfunctions, you have a sense of calm, serenity, peace, joy, and painlessness. When the primary motor cortex malfunctions, you can't move. When the postcentral gyrus malfunctions, you can't perceive touch or sensation. When the parietal cortex malfunctions, you can't perceive where your body ends and the universe begins, making you feel at one with the universe. When the angular gyrus malfunctions, together with muscle spindles, you can believe you are moving or flying." (p. 224)

Fingerprints of God examines everything from peyote to the God helmet in a quest for answers about the journalist-author's own mystical/spiritual experiences, evoking memories of an earlier book - Rational Mysticism (John Horgan, 2003). What is striking about Fingerprints of God is that the author weaves in her own honest questioning (not outright dismissal) of her Christian Science upbringing/beliefs.

While atheists may be tempted to bypass this book because it does not present its data as an outright refutation of the existence of God, I think that would be a mistake, as the scientific data itself is thorough and worth the read. The author does present (and subsequently question) the idea that God may have designed our brains to be able to communicate with Him. That idea is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it suggests that God has somehow chosen/favored those among us who have more of these mystical/spiritual mental experiences. This seems incompatible with most ideas about a God who loves all of His children/creations. The idea that one/some is/are 'chosen' generally leads to painful social division, rather than promoting social harmony, which also seems incompatible with a loving God.

Second, it ignores the fact that there are many similar types of experiences (hallucinations, etc) , which no one (except possibly the percipient) would argue are from God, and which result not in positive and pro-social attitudes and behaviors but in the exact opposite. Where does one type of experience stop and the other begin, and how can we tell the difference? Perhaps it is best to simply judge the worth of such experiences by the actions that they produce.

I see the data presented in this book as being relevant to humanism in the following ways...

• What we experience as humans is fairly constant most of the time, but it is possible to go beyond our ordinary range of spacetime-limited experience in ways that produce meaningful and dramatic physical and psychological changes, and therefore our definition of what it means to be 'human' must accommodate those types of experiences.
• When we can pinpoint with such accuracy how deviations in brain activity can give rise to life-altering and belief-shifting experiences, it becomes necessary to consider the ethics of permitting or withholding such experiences, both in terms of individual rights and larger social impact.

And as to any spirituality to which such experiences might speak, I think that such a spirituality should be defined by questions rather than answers. What am I really? What is really out there? Such a spirituality is a journey rather than a destination. Where a destination says 'I am here and you are not', a journey will say 'Share with me what you know. Walk with me awhile.' A destination implies that one can stop, but a journey is ongoing. A destination implies territory that must be defined and defended, but a journey is a group of companions that changes as one moves along. Such a spirituality embraces inquiry and rejects dogma. It is a state of being, not a doctrine.

“Now, when I say this, you could accuse me of being a mystic. And I am, but of a very ordinary kind. I don’t doubt that some people throughout history, and some living today, have heard voices and seen visions. But my mysticism involves no access to other realms, only the deeper experience of this one. Mine is the mysticism of everyday life, of the heaped laundry and the bruised toe, of overcooked broccoli and dew-spangled leaves, of sunrise and sorrow, laughter and linguine, music and mold. This every day mysticism requires no special powers, only imagination, a doting and practiced attention to the ordinary and a willingness to be surprised by grace.”

For the Love of Life

The core beliefs of humanism center around valuing human life and promoting the betterment of the human condition. Many of the ethical dilemmas we try to solve with reason revolve around certain ideas about life. Let's start with these three ideas...

Life is finite. It has a beginning and an ending. We tend to view the taking of human life as the most abhorrent of acts, and much of our social structure is designed to prevent violence against each other and the ending of human life. But we are not so well-structured as a society when it comes to how we value the beginning of human life.

Life is imperfect. Life is wonderfully complex, and each living creature is unique. To expect perfection of any living creature - whether it be genetically or behaviorally - is to set oneself up for disappointment. Yet we are growing more intolerant of imperfections as we design new ways to anticipate and treat them.

Life exists on a continuum. We tend to value human life above animal and plant life. And, right or wrong, we have succeeded in extending the idea of a continuum into our definitions of human life. We suggest that the rights that we give to an individual be proportionate to the degree of self-awareness and cognitive capacity that the individual possesses. This becomes problematic, however, when the potential for self-awareness and full cognitive capacity is denied.

The point of this blog is to figure out what I believe, not to tell you what to believe, so examine what follows for yourself to determine what you agree or disagree with, and why. Understand that this is a beginning, that this subject is complex, and that thinking (mine and yours) will evolve and change with experience and exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking.

For now my gut reaction starts here...We cannot fully value human life if we do not value the process by which it begins, and life begins at conception. I would not be here today if you had removed any moment of my spatiotemporal existence up to and including the moment of my conception. It does not matter that, while a fetus, zygote, or embryo, I was not a physically or cognitively mature human being. What matters is that these states are necessary precursor states to my being here now. I have a hard time understanding why, if you would not kill me now, you would feel it okay to kill me while I was a zygote, fetus, or embryo. I am not now, and never have been, your property.

If this is what I truly believe, then my actions must reflect it. I must make responsible decisions about sex and birth control, and if I fail to take reasonable precautions against creating a life, then I bear the responsibility for the life that has been created. As there is almost always the possibility that sex can create a life, I've found it easier to make responsible decisions about sex when I ask the following question... Would I be proud to say that I am carrying that man's child? (Yes, this invokes social factors associated with relationship status, and suggests that the father is relevant and necessary to the identity of the child. These should be important considerations.)

But what if I were raped and became pregnant? What would I do then? Fortunately I have never been in that position, and I wouldn't presume to dictate to any woman what she should do if she found herself in that situation. Years ago I was a proponent of a one-choice model - If you made the choice to have sex, then you don't get to make the choice to end the life you created; if you didn't make the choice to have sex, then you still have a choice in dealing with what resulted from that act. One person should never be forced to give her life, in full or in part, for another. Perhaps if the rape resulted in conception, and that pregnancy were voluntarily terminated, the rapist should be accountable for something more than rape and closer to murder, as he forced the creation and subsequent termination of a life.

If I have chosen to create a life, or have failed to take reasonable precautions against creating a life, am I obligated to accept whatever life results from that act of creation? Am I obligated to accept a child who may have genetic differences so severe as to make raising her a significantly more expensive and time-consuming proposition? Am I obligated to accept a child, the time and expense of whose care would significantly detract from that which I am able to provide to my other children?

I would suggest that the resolution to those questions comes not from how we define the zygote/embryo/fetus as life (or not), but from a broader examination of the ethics of valuing human life. What sacrifice can one person reasonably be expected to make for another? What obligations does a parent have to a child? What right or responsibility do we have to ensure that another does not suffer, even if it means ending their life prematurely to stop future suffering? What about groups of people who might face eugenic elimination as our technology advances our ability to predict certain outcomes? What obligation to we have to ensure that the full range of human diversity is allowed expression?

Obviously none of this will be solved in a single blog (or a single post). But it's worthwhile to engage yourself in a dialogue that challenges you to identify and defend your values.

"You could respond that all of this is hypothetical or contingent, but I would suggest that we should think deeply about such decisions before we are ever in a position to make them (or to influence others who might make them). Emerging technologies may put much greater power into the hands of individuals, so it’s not unreasonable for you to imagine what you would do in certain situations and carefully consider the ethics you might apply." (q)

Welcome to the World

"Now you're coming down to earth
Okay, hello, welcome to the world"

AHS has spent this week courting her inner narcissist. She acquired a Facebook account (under a pen name), and the beginnings of a website to which she is still uploading content. She has discovered that, while she enjoys talking about herself in the third person, she really isn't enough of a narcissist to fully embrace the Facebook experience. (Some of you are probably quite skeptical of that last bit. ;)

(clears throat)

So I've heard that this Facebook thing is addicting, but the biggest buzz I've gotten from Facebook so far is a message from a group I joined that let me know about a lecture (on black holes and cosmology) of which I had been unaware. (Now that is my kind of cyber-crack!)

And after studying the Facebook wall of one of my friends (the one who insisted that I join), I just had to google 'Facebook' and 'narcissism'. My working hypothesis had been that Facebook promoted narcissism, as it appeared to be simply an excuse to share information about oneself. And not even particularly good information. (I'm thrilled that the 'Which Star Wars character are you?' quiz told you that you were Yoda, but come on! How much validation do you need?! Quit with the quizzes already!)

As it turns out, narcissism is easy to spot on Facebook, but that doesn't mean that Facebook promotes or encourages narcissism. If people are becoming addicted to Facebook, what is it exactly that they are addicted to? "But even more addicting were the never-ending possibilities to introduce, enhance and reveal more of myself." (quoted) That sounds vaguely like my own affection for blogging... But where is the line between enjoying the creative process and the battle of wits that one can engage in while blogging/Facebooking, and narcissism?

It's been suggested that we are in the middle of a narcissism epidemic that goes hand-in-hand with the birth of Generation I. "We are witnessing the initiation of a modern custom of absolute exposure, a side effect of the information age." (quoted) Are we barreling headlong into a brave new world where "every one belongs to every one else"? Is the adaptive response then to embrace such exposure by cultivating a greater degree of narcissism? Will we respond to an every-increasing invasion of privacy/expectation of sharing with an increased tendency to love and shield ourselves in a way that puts distance between us and others?

I found, in taking the narcissism quiz as 'research' for this post, that my responses were largely determined by specific experiences that I had had. And while I didn't score particularly high overall, it did make me wonder about how we might acquire narcissistic attitudes, and to what degree such attitudes might be encouraged by participation in things like Facebook. Perhaps not only are we driven by narcissism to participate, but the act of participating also creates narcissism. It would be interesting to see before and after narcissism ratings of Facebook users spanning a year of average Facebook use...

By the way, you can find me on Facebook if you know where to look, and if you can find me, you can friend me. We'll call it 'narcissism research'...