Sunday, April 13, 2014

Suffering--a Catholic|Jewish perspective*

Job's Despair (Wm Blake)
from images wikinut
 "Whether we will or not, we must suffer...There are two ways of suffering — to suffer with love, and to suffer without love. The saints suffered everything with joy, patience, and perseverance, because they loved. As for us, we suffer with anger, vexation, and weariness, because we do not love. If we loved God, we should love crosses, we should wish for them, we should take pleasure in them." St. John Vianney, Catechism on Suffering
"One must not think that a person who is suffering is not praying. He is offering up his sufferings to God, and many a time he is praying much more truly than one who goes away by himself and meditates his head off, and, if he has squeezed out a few tears, thinks that is prayer."--St. Teresa of Avila 
"Our people have experienced suffering in its many forms, as a nation as well as individually. Every so often, someone suggests a reason for suffering. This is presumptuous, because while there may be various reasons for suffering, they are largely unknown to us." Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski, The Mystery of Suffering
Lent soon will be over, and Good Friday, which celebrates the Passion of Our Lord, will be upon us.    A comment on Catholic Answers Forum to the effect that Christians and Jews have different perspectives on suffering has given me cause to ponder.   Is this true, and if so, what are the differences and what are the similarities?   I'll  have to add that I was a cultural, not a religious Jew, so that some of my knowledge was acquired after my conversion to Catholicism (and partially through my wife, a cradle Catholic and historian of all things Judaica).

Let's start off by considering the differences.   The most important, I believe, is the notion (not accepted by all Jewish faithful) stated in Rabbi Dr. Twerski's quote above, and much earlier in the book of Job:  the reason for suffering is mysterious, because we cannot know the mind of G-d.   To this must be added historical evidence that "Schverzer sein a Yid" (Yiddish for "It is hard to be a Jew").    Even in the happiest of occasions, a Jewish wedding, the groom smashes the glass cup under his feet as a commemoration of the destruction of the Second Temple.   Historical testimony to Jewish suffering is given by the persecutions and massacres culminating in the Holocaust--indeed, the terms  "ghetto", "pogrom", "holocaust" have gained a usage for more universal suffering than just Jewish.     I refer readers to an article by Marc Krell, Suffering and the Problem of Evil , which gives a much better account of the history of Jewish suffering and the several theodicies engendered in response  than I could in this brief post.  
Lazarus and the Rich Man
From Orthodox Christian Meditations
   One point I will add to his article:  no explanation other than that given in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), namely, that the arms of Abraham await those who have greatly suffered in their earthly life,  can possibly suffice to justify God's allowing the Holocaust to occur.   In fact there is a strain of Jewish  Talmudic teaching that does credit heaven (as a Garden of Eden) as recompense for earthly suffering:
"Rabbi Ya'akov taught: This world is compared to an ante-chamber that leads to Olam Ha-Ba, (the World-to-Come)" (Pirkei Avot 4:21). That is, while a righteous person might suffer in this lifetime, he or she will certainly be rewarded in the next world, and that reward will be much greater. In fact, in some cases, the rabbis claim that the righteous are made to suffer in this world so that their reward will be that much greater in the next (Leviticus Rabbah 27:1)."  (See Heaven and Hell in Jewish Tradition)
This compensation theodicy and the notion of suffering found in the writings of Deutero-Isaiah, the hymns on The Suffering Servant, are links, a commonality between the Jewish and Catholic concepts of suffering:
" Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.   But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.  ... for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken... Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin... by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."  Isaiah 53:3-11 (KJV)
A theodicy  proposed by the Medieval sage,  rebbe Rashi, after the massacres of the Crusades, held that the Jews, not Jesus, suffered for the sins of the world.   To the extent that all of us to a degree suffer for the sins of the world, that may be true, but it omits a very important part of the suffering of Jesus:  it was by this that He procured our salvation, and thus fulfilled the prophecy of Deutero-Isaiah.

And therein is one great difference between Jewish and Catholic interpretations of suffering.   To discuss others I'm going to rely on the thoughts of  Bl. John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Salvici Doloris and of  C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain.    One view of suffering in the Old Testament was as a punishment for sins, but this explanation is only partially successful, and recognized thus in Job.    In Salvici Doloris, John Paul acknowledges the punishment aspect of suffering, but adds another dimension:
 "Suffering must serve for conversion, that is, for the rebuilding of goodness in the subject, who can recognize the divine mercy in this call to repentance. The purpose of penance is to overcome evil, which under different forms lies dormant in man. Its purpose is also to strengthen goodness both in man himself and in his relationships with others and especially with God. " Bl. John Paul II, Salvici Doloris 
In more homely terms, C.S. Lewis echoes this:
"While what we call 'our own life' remains agreeable we will not surrender it to Him.  What then can God do in our own interests but make 'our own life' less agreeable to us and take away the sources of false happiness (emphasis added)?   It is just here, where God's providence seems at first to be most cruel, that the Divine humility...deserves most praise."  C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain 
On a personal note, I can testify to this:  it was through suffering that I came to a Twelve-Step Program and thence to the Catholic Church.

As  said in Salvici Doloris, Christ's love for us saves us from that most extreme suffering, an eternity without God, damnation.   We are called therefore to participate in the suffering of the Passion, to "offer it up" continually and happily.   When I recite the Fourth Sorrowful Mystery,  I preface it with a prayer, offering up my sins, faults and failures that they might make the Cross less burdensome, for the Passion exists always, not just at an instant in time.  St. Teresa, in the quote given above, acknowledged that suffering is a form of prayer.

Suffering is a necessary consequence of Free Will.    If we are not automatons, constrained to do good only, then we must have the capacity to do evil and thereby to suffer from evil done by others.   And even with inanimate non-sentient entities, God so chooses a framework of physical laws that will ultimately be for our good, but that may also entail natural catastrophe.   Voltaire, when he gloated over the deaths of tens of thousands in the Lisbon earthquake (to contradict Leibniz's best of all possible worlds), did not consider that many of those dead would be eventually in heaven.   It is by the vision of an eternal paradise that we are enabled to endure earthly suffering.
"In the Cross He showed us how to bear suffering.  In His resurrection He showed us what we are to hope for."  St. Augustine, On the Creed 9
*Note: The notation Catholic|Jewish has a special meaning for me; a conditional probability is denoted as P(B|A),  that is the probability of event B given that event A occurs.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Are We Hard-wired for Faith? The Religious Experience and Neuro-imaging.

"Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God" St. John Damascene, as quoted in the Catechism, 2559.                             
“The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven..” John Milton, Paradise Lost"
 "Interestingly, the average human brain weighs about 1.5 kilograms, has about 160 billion cells and about 100 billion neurons connecting the cells. The complexities of the brain are inconceivable. One can look at the brain and see the incredible complexities and the miracles of the Divine ...or one can respond ... that this has nothing to do with G-d. Some people will be inspired with belief in the Almighty; others will claim that somehow billions of cells and neurons working together can be created through random evolution."  Rabbi Dr. Warren Goldstein, Jewish World Review, 17 January, 2014

My favorite way to spend driving time is listening to audiobooks, the latest being "The Spiritual Brain: Science and Religious Experience" by Professor Andrew Newberg.  ('s better than texting!).     Dr. Newberg, Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, has used SPECT imaging (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography)  to show what brain regions (and thus, what brain functions) are activated or deactivated by such religious acts as prayer, meditation, contemplation.   The technique involves intravenous injection of a radioactive chemical that is metabolized by the brain during activity;  the metabolic act/brain activity occurs almost immediately after injection, and enough residual radioactivity remains for it to be detected by imaging carried out a short time after the injection.

Another technique, fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has also been used to correlate brain activity with religious/spiritual acts.    Based on my own experience in MRI (both as a subject and as an MRI research physicist), I would credit SPECT results more than fMRI for studying the religious experience.   The imaging of metabolic activity in fMRI is real-time, so it is carried on during the act of brain metabolism.   One is constrained to lie within a narrow tube, so for those with more than average girth (myself included), this leads to a feeling of claustrophobia, not always conducive to spiritual calm.   Moreover, in order to achieve the high-speed imaging required for  fMRI, intense field gradient pulses are used, which are exceedingly noisy and distracting, as one study has shown.    Therefore we will focus on the SPECT results, even though they suffer from a lower spatial and temporal resolution than fMRI.

Before discussing Newberg's experiments and interpretation, I want to set forth two relevant issues, which will be addressed in more detail at the end of this post: the first question, "Is mind purely material--is the brain simply a meat computer or something more/other?"; the second question, "Given the relation between brain function and religious experience, how was this acquired--by adaptive evolution or bestowed by God?"   If it were possible to build a self-aware android--Data of Star Trek--would that android naturally have a religious sense, or would it have to be endowed by his creator?

Let's start off with a condensed discussion about which brain regions are important for various cognitive and emotional functions (for more details please see the web presentation by  Professor Elaine Hull or books by Dr. Newberg, Why God Won't Go Away and/or How God Changes Your Brain.
Without anatomical nomenclature (see web references),  the figure at the left shows what regions of the brain are involved in various cognitive and emotional functions.   Now the interesting result for Prof. Newberg's study is that such regions are activated  or deactivated (as appropriate) in different ways during prayer or contemplation of the Deity by those experienced in prayer and by atheists.
His early study was on Franciscan Nuns who had decades of experience in contemplative prayer.   During the act of prayer the "attention" and "language" regions of the brain were more activated than for a baseline study while the spatial orientation (sense of location) were deactivated, as shown in the figures below.

Franciscan Nun SPECT scan, from Prof. Newberg
 In the figure at the right, the brain image under "Baseline Scan" is taken during "normal" activity (no prayer or meditation).  The image under "Prayer Scan" is the brain image corresponding to intense  Centered Prayer.   In the prayer image, the frontal lobe region ("attention") is red, more activated  than during the baseline.   Similarly, the "language center" (lower left) is more activated (redder) during prayer than for the baseline.  (Metabolic activity of the brain is color coded--blue is least, red is most; the color coding is on a relative, not absolute scale.   Prof. Newberg notes that changes in brain activity are more evident on a gray scale than with the color coding.)
Franciscan Nun SPECT scan, from Prof. Newberg
   The figure at the right is also a SPECT scan image of one of the Franciscan nuns.    Note the less intense  spatial orientation area during prayer (yellow versus red).  Prof. Newberg argues  that the lower activity of the orientation area corresponds to a feeling of losing self, of oneness with the universe, a feeling  often associated with deep meditation and contemplation.   The same sort of changes are found for other adepts at meditation, for example, for Buddhist monks.     On the other hand, an atheist contemplating God (or his/her notion of God) shows little change in brain activity,
Atheist contemplating God, from Prof. Newberg
as shown in the figure above.

These examples are a small part of the body of work published by Newberg and other researchers on imaging that show how functional changes in brain activity differ between believers and non-believers during prayer, meditation, contemplation and speaking in tongues.  Other work also is relevant: studies of chemicals involved in neural transmission show changes in the regions of the brain governing emotional reactions and pleasure centers.

One MRI study cited by Newberg (I can't find the original reference) finds that those practicing prayer and contemplation have larger frontal lobes (concerned with attention and focussing activity) than do non-practitioners.  Since this was not a study over time, one can't know whether the  prayer / contemplation activity is a consequence of the greater size or  that the brain has increased in size after years of prayer.    With some knowledge of statistical practices amongst radiologists (I've seen published figures with regression lines drawn through scatterplots that looked like random shots at a barn wall), I'm going to be skeptical of this result until I go through the paper itself.  

Newberg also proposes that the practice of prayer/meditation will improve brain function, memory, and help alleviate various kinds of brain dysfunction.   One point Newberg raises is quite important:  if religious experience modifies brain activity, and if one has a sudden conversion experience, how can that change brain activity if it is due only to some physical mechanism?   Changes in the physiology of the brain take time, they're not accomplished in an instant.

Let's accept the proposition that changes in functional brain activity can be correlated with prayer, contemplation and other religious activity.   What then?  Is it the case, as Newberg proposes in the title for his book, that God changes the brains of the faithful?  Is it the case, as he also proposes, that the functional correlation of brain activity with religious activity is due to adaptive evolution?

I'll tackle the second question first, because it is easier to deal with.   The notion of adaptive evolution rests on a Darwinian mechanism for evolution--that prayer increases survival prospects and thus the transmission of a genetic predisposition to prayer is enhanced.   Now both Pope John Paul II and I believe that evolution--the descent of species--is more than just a hypothesis.   However, as far as the Darwinian model goes, some scientists and philosophers--faithful and non-believers--and I are skeptical;  the Scottish verdict "Not Proven" applies.

Consider the example Newberg gives:  a prehistoric savage chieftain is distraught over the death of a comrade and while watching the flames of a funeral pyre conceives of the spirit of the comrade going above, like the flames, and finds peace.    I find it hard to credit that a disposition to think of an afterlife is 1) genetically implanted and inheritable and 2) contributes to survival.    Granted that general qualities--intelligence, the ability to form abstractions, imagination--may be due to genetic endowments and will therefore enhance survivability, that does not imply that particular aspects of those qualities are also due to particular genes.   Indeed, the so called "God gene" proposal rests on minimal statistical evidence.  As  Carl Zimmer's criticism would have it:
"Instead the book we have today would be better titled: A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study." Carl Zimmer, Scientific American Review of "The God Gene".
I think we can dispose of the argument that religious feelings have been engendered by adaptive evolution, or at least conclude that this proposition is not proven.     The deeper and more difficult question is the nature and source of religious experience.    If mind and consciousness are but emergent properties of a meat computer, the brain, then are religious feelings due only to fortuitous neural physiology, as philosophers such as Dennett, Churchland, Chalmers, would propose?   Or, do  these thoughts and experiences come from another source, the Holy Spirit?

To address this question adequately requires a book at the very least: one would have to consider the nature of "Mind" and "Consciousness", and that is a matter distinct from labeling the neuro-physiological factors at play during a religious experience.*  Quantum mechanics may have a role, as suggested in two of my previous blogs, "Do quantum entities have free will.."and "Quantum  Intervention via God, the Berkeleyan Observer"  and by several philosophers and physicists**.

An aspect of this problem that has not been explored fully by philosophers is the growth of self-awareness/consciousness and intelligence.   We are born with only a rudimentary sense of self, and this progresses through infancy and early childhood  in several stages to a more complete development, five stages according to Philippe Rochat.   How does this development proceed?  Is it genetically programmed?

Finally, I can only say that I don't have enough knowledge to come to a conclusion.   Although it seems evident from the arguments of Penrose and Searle that our brain is not a meat computer, it is not clear to me how the mental and physical elements of consciousness are separable.   I think that quantum mechanics plays a part in consciousness, but I don't know how that can be specified.    I have faith that the Holy Spirit inspires us, but I'm not sure how that is done, although evidence for this might be found from conversion experiences.    Perhaps the most trenchant comment on consciousness and The Divine has been given by Rabbi Goldstein in the opening quote.   That being said, I believe that consciousness, along with the deeper levels of quantum mechanics, is now and may continue to be a mystery.

 * The various views of Mind and Consciousness are explained nicely by John Searle in his book "The Mystery of Consciousness".    A later book by Searle, Freedom and Neurobiology  proposes that quantum mechanics is a necessary basis for free will and thus enters into consciousness.

**In addition to Penrose's books on quantum mechanics and consciousness, there are Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, The Mindful Universe by Henry Stapp, Mind,Brain & the Quantum by Michael Lockwood, Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Albert, and The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers.  The last three explore the relation of the Many Worlds/Many Minds interpretation of quantum mechanics to consciousness.

Bob Doyle's website on information theory, consciousness and quantum mechanics is interesting and informative.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Should we shun the God of the Old Testament?

The Lord answering Job out of the Whirlwind
William Blake
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion 
"... the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of rhe two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible." C.S. Lewis, Letter to John Beversluis, God in the Dock
"...As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New." Catechism of the Catholic Church #129 (reference is to St. Augustine of Hippo).
While reading a very fine post by Matt Briggs, You can't get something from nothing, a commentary on Hart's The Experience of God, I came across the following comments to his post:
 "The Abrahamic tradition – all its branches – conflates the infinite entity which has a huge number of names given to it – God, Brahma, the Tao (I think), the Source and probably numbers of others, which is by definition unknowable and beyond space and time and may or may not have a personality – with Yahweh, the vicious, bloodthirsty, jealous and utterly unreasonable god of a desert people in 3000 BCE. Some time around then, some priest came up with the idea that THEIR god was chief among them all, and made it stick."
"However, why must everyone confuse this putative Being with that rank imposter – the vicious, jealous, bloodthirsty deity of an ancient nomadic desert tribe?"
I'll disregard the nascent anti-semitism (anti-judaism?) of these comments and put them down as due to naive, untutored knowledge of Holy Scripture, that cherry-pick the bad amongst all that the Old Testament offers.   They bring to mind the 2nd century heretic Marcion, a Gnostic who proclaimed that the god of the Old Testament was a demiurge, an evil and lesser counterpart of God, the Father of Jesus, and that the Old Testament was not to be regarded as Holy Scripture.    Tertullian and Augustine both disproved his arguments.

Now I'll admit that I am bothered during my daily readings in the Liturgy of the Hours when I come across " that your feet may wade in the blood of your foes, while the tongues of your dogs have their share." (Psalm 68:23) and particularly Psalm 149, which occurs frequently for the Morning Prayer:  
"May the praise of God be in their mouths    and a double-edged sword in their hands,to inflict vengeance on the nations    and punishment on the peoples,to bind their kings with fetters,    their nobles with shackles of iron,"
There are other parts of the Old Testament that disturb contemporary sensibilities:    Abram offering his wife Sarai to the Pharaoh, as his sister (Gen 12:10-20); Joshua slaughtering all the inhabitants of Jericho down to children and animals, except for the prostitute Rahab (Joshua 6:1-27); Judah, Er, Onan and Tamar in a story straight out of the raunchiest TV soap opera (Gen 28).    What can we say to all this blood, guts and sex?  That God did not intend  His word to be proclaimed by dictating machines: the Holy Spirit inspired those who put Scripture into writing, but the words and matter would be that which would be meaningful to the intended audience.   I would guess that in Hebrew, like contemporary Arabic, imagery was an important component of the message.   Moreover, in the warlike world of the ancient Middle East, a God who did not smite your enemy was not really a God worth worshipping.   And can one claim any peace loving message from the Greek, Roman, Norse or Teutonic pantheon?

All the above neglects the fundamental message of the Old Testament:  that God has chosen his people Israel, the children of Abraham, to be a light unto the world, that he is a forgiving and loving God, who over and over again has forgiven them for straying from him.   We see the messages of love: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord" (Lev 19:18); "for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16); Hosea 11.    Moreover, if we believe that our life on earth is only an interlude in an eternity--heaven, hell, purgatory--and that even for those who did not or have not yet heard the message of Christ there may be salvation, then these bloody deaths are secondary in achieving what God wills, that He be known, first to His Chosen People, and then through Christ and the Apostles to the world.     Thus, the Old Testament commandment to love your neighbor (and the alien in your midst) becomes the New Testament commandment to love your enemy.    Benedict XVI's comment sums this up:
"The great difficulty with the Old Testament, because of its lack of rhetorical beauty and of lofty philosophy, was resolved in Saint Ambrose’s preaching through his typological interpretation of the Old Testament: Augustine realized that the whole of the Old Testament was a journey toward Jesus Christ. Thus, he found the key to understanding the beauty and even the philosophical depth of the Old Testament and grasped the whole unity of the mystery of Christ in history as well as the synthesis between philosophy, rationality, and faith in the Logos, in Christ, the Eternal Word who was made flesh. "   Church Fathers: from Clement of Rome to Augustine.
I urge those more knowledgeable than I in Scripture (and there are many) to flesh out these arguments.

About Me

My Photo

Retired, cranky, old physicist.   Convert to Catholicism in 1995.   Trying to show that there is no contradiction between what science tells us about the world and our Catholic faith.   Intermittent blogs and adult education classes to achieve this end (see   and

Extraordinary Minister of Communion volunteer to federal prison and hospital; lector, EOMC.
Sometime player of bass clarinet, alto clarinet, clarinet, bass, tenor bowed psaltery for parish instrumental group and local folk group.

And, finally, my motivation:
“It is also necessary—may God grant it!—that in providing others with books to read I myself should make progress, and that in trying to answer their questions I myself should find what I am seeking.
Therefore at the command of God our Lord and with his help, I have undertaken not so much to discourse with authority on matters known to me as to know them better by discoursing devoutly of them.”
St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity I,8.