A "God Gene"? Or Spiritual Heliotropism?

I take a different lesson from the Tower of Babel story. God caused men to speak in different languages. Surely, if God created all of those languages, he must understand them all. And, just as He understands all languages, He must also understand all of the various ways that humans worship Him. Therefore, there is no need for a universal religion as long as humans worship Him in the ways that are best suited for them or in the ways God finds are best suited for that person.
R

Over time, religion became for me less and less of an emotional experience and more and more of an intellectual experience. It became, for me, a partner to physics and mathematics in a theory of "how the world actually works," specifically the part of the theory that addresses the moral, human, familial, communal, national, and some aspects of the spiritual dimensions of the world (though other aspects of the "spiritual," in the simplest sense of non-material, are addressed by mathematics, and there is overlap that I will spend the rest of my life trying to grasp :) My earliest religious experiences were based on more emotional appeals that didn't withstand my attempts to understand them deeply. One more ingredient is the inherent logic and depth of the Hebrew language itself. Add these two ingredients and Torah is irresistible, at least to me.

Excellent post, David! One of your best and most interesting, of late! I've long believed much as you do. Obviously, God, if He felt like it, could have arranged for one religion to be unquestionably the One True Religion, with all others being manifestly false. Given that people convert from one religion to another every day, given that people of manifest goodness and holiness exist in all religions, and given that people exist who perfectly well understand, on an intellectual basis, a given religion and yet are never moved to embrace it, all indicate to me that God, for whatever mysterious reasons, in a sense actively wills the different religions and in some sense is "OK" with those who sincerely embrace them.

Certainly this has been my experience. I spent the time between the ages of seventeen and about twenty-five studying all the world religions and reading as many holy scriptures as possible. The only religions that resonated with me at all, on a deep level, were Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Buddhism. I became Catholic, since that was the one that struck the deepest chords. There is a phrase in Christian theology, anima naturaliter Christiana, "the soul [that is] naturally Christian". I think this captures a deep truth; and there are probably animae naturaliter Judaicae, Buddhistae, even atheistae.

In this regard, I have always liked the verse from the Koran, 5:38, "Had god pleased, He could have made of you one community: but it is His wish to prove you by that which He has bestowed upon you. Vie with each other in good works, for to God you shall all return and He will resolve for you your differences." I think these are words for all of us to live by, Muslim, Christian, Jew, and all others.

Your Name at 2:57 PM: How does this explain atheists, pagans, etc?

I think some people by their natural temperament or as David says, taam, do indeed find belief difficult and are "naturally" atheist or agnostic (ditto pagans of various flavors). For whatever reason there is no "belief" circuit in their makeup, so to speak. This is why I think that an honest and sincere atheist/agnostic of this type is pleasing to God. They "would" believe if they "could"--it's just not part of their makeup, and I can't imagine God would demand the impossible of us. He wouldn't demand belief of a "natural" atheist any more than He would demand of a human that he flap his arms and fly. What God's purpose is in this is unknowable to us, but that's OK--it's His problem, not ours.

Glen Davidson: Oh come on, the ____ gene is and always was a ridiculous view of genetics.

Agreed completely. My main problem is not only that it is biologically ridiculous, but that its promoters want to use it in ridiculous ways. Some seem to imply that if there is a "gene" for spirituality, God, religion, or whatever, that this necessarily implies that said spirituality, God, or religion is therefore false. This is a complete non sequitur. We have genes and physiology that allow us to see, but that does not mean that light is an illusion programmed into us! The jury is still out about all this, but if there is some physiological or somatic basis for religion, mystic experience, or whatnot, such basis, in and of itself, says not a single thing either way as to the reality or unreality of religious phenomena.

Glen: Mathematicians are sometimes Platonists (Plato himself was considered a Pythagorean in his time), and it seems that at least some physicists couple physics and religion.

As a holder of a degree in math, I am myself an unapologetic Platonist (though I am aware that not all mathematicians are), since I can't see how it is possible for mathematical entities not to be real, independently existing entities. I'm also a bit of a Pythagorean, too. As I've said in the past, it's not surprising that more mathematicians and physicists hold religious views, on average, than scientists in other disciplines. That doesn't prove or disprove anything, either, of course, but it's interesting.

Denial of logic and reason, however, is the nearly identical flip side of a too-abstract view of the world, for it also reduces mystery down to "facts" like "goddidit." Nothing at all is gained by trying to deny what's apparently "real," instead any meaningful religion/spirituality must learn to allow both thought and spirituality to live together.

Well put--something I think thoughtful people, religious or non-religious, should be able to agree on.

Baruch S. (a/k/a Yochanan, a/k/a Rochelle, a/k/a Grover, a/k/a Bar Emes, etc.), so let's get this straight. My favorably citing a Jewish-born Christian on a non-theological matter is a disgrace, but your citing as authoritative a Reform rabbi's theological stance, adding a new mitzvah no less, is just fine. Keep in mind that Reform today results in the loss of far, far more Jews than any demographically tiny contemporary migration of Jews to Christianity. Sorry, I don't get it. BTW, if you don't have the guts to use your real name, why not at least stick to one pseudonym? Also please don't distort my book, falsely crediting me with bizarre actions as you do. Re-read the passage in question if you want to be accurate.

I appreciate Matt Schneeweis' time and effort in his thoughtful presentation of Maimonedes' concepts in the context of DK's post. It was, at least to me, rational and educational.

I can't resist offering a high-five to Baruch S on his reaction to DK. I basically agree nor do I think all that much of his blogs. However, I have never met him so the best I can offer is that perhaps he is a better thinker and speaker than is evident, at least to me, from his writings.

David,

I definitely appreciate the distinction between (1) attempting to clarify ideas which resonate with human experience, regardless of whether or not they are true, and (2) merely “throwing quotations back and forth at each other.” Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik begins his book, The Lonely Man of Faith, with the following disclaimer: “Theory is not my concern at the moment . . . whatever I am going to say here has been derived not from philosophical dialectics, abstract speculation, or detached impersonal reflections, but from actual situations and experiences with which I have been confronted.”

When an idea fails to register in one’s mind as a reality – that is, when it doesn’t meet James’s standard of a “live” idea – then that failure should be taken as a symptomatic of a deficiency. Either the individual lacks sufficient clarity of understanding to make the idea real to his mind, or the idea doesn’t register as a reality in his mind because it is false. Unfortunately, people tend to draw conclusions about the truth of an idea on the sole basis of whether it “seems” or “feels” right. According to the Oral Tradition, the verse, “Do not stray after your heart and after your eyes” (Numbers 15:39) is a Biblical commandment prohibiting us from engaging in this type of speculative musing. This type of analysis – if it can even be called analysis – ultimately boils down to the following principle: “What feels true is true, and what feels false is false” (see Maimonides’ Laws of Idolatry 2:3). We need not look far to see how dangerous this type of thinking can be.

It may be that you were “writing less about theology than about experience,” but to me, this was not clear from your article. First you raised the question, “So can spiritual multi-sun heliotropism be reconciled with any traditional faith?” You then took a (hesitant) stance by answering, “Possibly so,” and then proceeded to cite Rav Hirsch, the Midrash Rabbah, and the story of the Tower of Babel to support your point. I inferred from all this that you were discussing theology, and that your endeavor was to demonstrate that your spiritual heliotropism hypothesis can be reconciled with Torah.

Having said that, let’s return to a discussion of whether or not your theory of spiritual heliotropism is true. You said that you don’t know whether Maimonides’ explanation settles the matter. Maimonides, according to my understanding, would argue that this taam of which you speak is nothing more than a psychological or physiological phenomenon. People are predisposed to be drawn to different beliefs, practices, and lifestyles due to their natural dispositions and/or upbringing, not by divine decree or spiritual predilection. According to Maimonides, to say that the non-physical soul – as opposed to the physical body or psyche – is drawn to a certain path would constitute a denial of free will.

What makes you favor your explanation over that of Maimonides?

Hi Matt, so would you compare someone's strong attraction to a religion other than Orthodox Judaism to a condition like alcoholism or homosexuality where he's simply been given a challenge from God to overcome a negative proclivity, and that's it?

On a basic level, I agree with your summary. However, I would like to make two qualifications, which will also address the objection you raised.

(1) “a condition like alcoholism or homosexuality”: If it’s alright with you, I suggest that we dispense with the rhetorically charged examples you mentioned (i.e. alcoholism and homosexuality), unless they are critical to your position. Not only do I find such examples unnecessarily inflammatory – not to me, but to the practitioners of other religions – but their specificity is misleading and lends itself to a misunderstanding of my position.

Instead, let’s stick to more general predispositions which draw people to or away from different religions. Here are a few examples: asceticism and hedonism, subservience and rebelliousness, scientism and mysticism, objectivism and relativism, the need for love, the need for security, love of philosophy, the need to follow a leader, the desire to control one’s own destiny, the desire for self-improvement, and the like. These are the types of predispositions which I maintain are responsible for the attraction to and repulsion from the various religions. These predispositions result from a combination of nature and nurture. In some instances, those who have them are consciously aware of them. More often than not, they operate on an unconscious level.

(2) “If it’s a proper analogy, then it seems you’d have to admit there’s at least one difference in need of explaining”: The answer to the question you pose at the end is that not all natural dispositions or acquired predilections are the same, neither in their intensity nor in their specificity, as you mentioned in your comment. For example, some people are naturally predisposed to be universally athletic. They are gifted with strength, agility, stamina, hand-eye coordination, and many other excellences which are advantageous in a wide range of sports. Other people are naturally predisposed to excel in specific sports. Tiger Woods is a natural golfer, but is probably not too talented in gymnastics, hockey, or bowling. Likewise, there is a wide range within sexual dispositions. Some men have a strong sexual attraction to any and all women; some are exclusively drawn to women who are blond, or thin, or pouty-lipped, but would be turned off by women with other physical characteristics; still other men are only attracted to a specific type of look and personality.

I maintain that the same is true when it comes to religion. You have many cases of people born into a certain very specific non-Jewish tradition, who never feel entirely at home in it, who then search the world of spirituality until finally they discover some totally unrelated but equally specific non-Jewish faith tradition, foreign to their roots, that makes their heart sing in a way no other faith does. You also have many cases of people who are born into a very specific ethnic group who search for a spouse within their group, until they finally discover someone who belongs to some totally unrelated but equally specific ethnic group, with whom they fall in love. Likewise, there are many cases of people who find that they have a natural knack for specific skills and techniques (carpentry, music, mathematics) to which they were never previously exposed, but which are a perfect match for them.

These dispositions might manifest produce specific results, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t predispositions. The same is true for the examples of religious predispositions I listed above. For example, a person who is predisposed towards the mystical might be equally at home with any mystically inclined religion, or he might be drawn to a specific brand of mysticism. The same is true for the other predispositions. Someone searching for a religion of rituals and restrictions might be equally happy as a religious Jew or a religious Muslim, whereas another person might have a more specific predilection. This specificity can be determined by unconscious factors or shaped by specific causes in one’s upbringing.

To sum it up, my response to your question is that predispositions vary in their specificity and intensity. Some predispositions are very specific, other predispositions are general, and others can be both. The only way to explain the difference – and to thereby fully answer your question – is to investigate the nature and causes of each predisposition. Unfortunately, this investigation is beyond my present knowledge.