Articles that attempt to deconstruct, analyze and explain faith and religion in purely scientific terms always remind me of academic studies that attempt to explain why a particular joke is funny. With a joke, you usually either get it or you don’t. Reverse engineering a joke is so detached from the actual experience of humor that it seems like the authors of studies like this are the ones that don’t get it. They can’t see the Mona Lisa for the paint. The studies themselves begin to sound like the better joke.

I think of similar science-based inquiries into religion in much the same way. With the understanding that the terms faith and religion cover a near infinite spectrum of beliefs, you basically either understand the purpose, meaning and experience of faith and religion on a personal level, or you don’t. No amount of psychological, neurological, anthropological or analysis of cultural evolution can bring you to a complete understanding or appreciation of the religious experience or dissuade you from it.
No amount of studying the construct of the inner ear can lead you to a complete understanding and appreciation of Mozart, or diminish the mystery and majesty of his compositions. Music is not disproved as a result of discovering that we hear with our ears. Neither is religion disproved because it’s discovered to meet a basic human need or leverage aspects of human physiology. If anything, music and religion are strengthened by inquiry and seem even more essential as a result.

The importance of narrative

Still, I enjoy reading articles like this. It’s all interesting. Check out: Why Are Some Religions More Popular Than Others? This article reviews a number of scientific studies that suggest, among other things, that successful religions are ones that:

• Demand some degree of self-sacrifice, and that
• Include one or two surprising and “non-natural” events in their foundational narratives. That makes them easier to remember and easier to propagate.

According to the article, some religions tend to be more successful than others. Obviously. Religions that require no self-sacrifice or that feature either too few or too many events in their foundation myths, fail to become widely embraced. The author invokes Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus as extreme examples of imaginary (non-natural) beings that failed to develop world religions around them. Really? It’s been my experience that trips to Disney World with young children DO require an enormous amount of self-sacrifice and super-human effort, as does pulling off Christmas at your house for the extended family. I know many people who are enraptured by both Disney and holiday shopping.

Both core observations in this article make sense. This is how things work in this world. Although they may try, I don’t think studies like this effectively discount or argue against the power and validity of the religious experience. And Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus as failed religious idols are false equivalents and cheap straw men.
But what I like about this article are the two papers referenced, presenting research that supports the ideas that a) compelling narratives are a key part of successful religions and b) that they are easier to remember when they include a limited number of extraordinary non-natural events: like a worldwide flood, or a parting of the sea, or walking on water… I seem to be fixated on water here for some reason … or miraculous healing. This is an Interesting observation. And good to know. This is how things work. That’s why powerful narratives are good: they get and hold our attention and we are eager to share them.

Reading scripture aloud

We read scripture aloud because we are immersing ourselves in the narratives contained in the Bible. Narratives are important to us and that may be why the Bible relies on them. We remember them. We experience and relate to the sacrifice of the lives presented in the Bible – some willing, some unwilling – that we are called to emulate or derive cautionary tales from. We encounter events in the Bible that are truly extraordinary and emotionally arresting and worthy of sharing. The fact that non-natural events help make these narratives easier to remember makes perfect sense. We want these events to be remembered so we put them into narratives in an easily digestible way.
The Mona Lisa can’t be dismissed as just paint. The fact that it’s accomplished with just paint makes it the more remarkable and makes it something you must see.

I’ve often wondered why Jesus relied so heavily on parables as a didactic method. Because they are easier to remember than long lists and easier to propagate? The fact that parables are an effective medium of communication in an illiterate society does not undermine the essential truths contained in each parable. It just means they work.
It’s important to hear these narratives read aloud in order to really hear the Gospel. That’s what they are for. That’s how they work. By design. No apologies required.