An Opinion piece in yesterday’s Sunday NYTs, by psychologist David Desteno, identifies several practices that science could borrow from religion: What Science Can Learn From Religion.

I like articles that explore the intersection of science and religion because I’m a big fan of both. A frontier exists between the two in the U.S. today, where opinion, trolling, and agendas have become partisan, treacherous, and unforgiving. So, articles like this can help.

A good faith attempt is made here to find common ground. The author presents recent scientific studies reinforcing the validity and effectiveness of several “religious” practices. He cautions that science should not be too eager to dismiss religion in its entirety.

He suggests that we should keep those practices that can be validated by science and discard the faith part, if you must. (I’ll come back to this last point later.)

Three proven “religious” practices

Three “religious” practices are presented which are proven by science. These should come as no surprise to anyone who has attend church services regularly. We’ve been practicing these for thousands of years and I doubt we would have continued to do so if they weren’t effective.

Meditation

The author defines meditation as a religious practice that attempts to reduce suffering and enhance ethical behavior. The same might be said of reflection and prayer. He cites his own research indicating that meditation can lead practitioners to experience greater compassion in the face of suffering, and to “forgo vengeance” in response to perceived insults. Echos of “As we forgive those…”?

Ritual

The article notes that religious ritual involving actions, or “synchronous movement” or collective song on the part of participants has been shown to promote “increased self-control” and a “greater feeling of affiliation and empathy.”  We follow the liturgy, rise together, and read responsively or sing in unison.

Public performance

Finally, “publicly stating beliefs that we don’t initially endorse leads to a psychological tension that is often remedied by altering our beliefs and behaviors to match our public pronouncements”. We recite the Apostles Creed, offer the Lord’s Prayer and read scripture aloud in public to strengthen our faith. We speak affirmatively, with conviction, in a way that engages us emotionally and requires commitment.

Now, science tells us that these “religious” practices work. I’m not sure we needed science to tell us this. These practices have been followed for millennia…because they work.

 

Principles of live performance

Of course, what interests me the most is how closely these practices mirror principles of live performance that can be applied to the public reading of scripture. We apply the principles of live performance to initiate a dramatic encounter with scripture, invite the audience to participate in that encounter, and share in a trans-formative experience. We do this because these principles work.

Meditation: Lose yourself. The public reading of scripture is not about you. It’s about a shared experience between the reader and the audience via an encounter with the text. Reading aloud requires a level of concentration that takes us outside of ourselves and focuses our attention (mindfully) on something bigger than ourselves. This can be a transcendent experience for both reader and listeners.

Ritual: The regular and familiar reading of scripture aloud in church – including the responsive readings of Psalms — evokes empathy for the experience of those lives captured in the text. It binds us together as reader and listening audience.

Public professions of faith:  Reading scripture aloud is the most basic form of evangelism. Speaking with distinction and conviction increases our own confidence and makes God’s words our own.

The article suggests that these practices are all proven by research, and can help participants endure difficulties, change their views or move them toward action. Isn’t that our goal as lay readers?

My two cents

I do like articles like this but they’re not without faults. They tend to come from the “religion is not all bad…but mostly” school of thought. So, a little patience and forbearance is required. A few observations:

1.     After highlighting some positive aspects of religious [practice], a general disclaimer is offered by the author, “religion as a whole must be judged by its full set of positive and negative effects.” Of course, the same could and should be said for science and technology.

 2.     Horrible things have been done in the name of religion, and articles like this always imply that religion is to blame. Horrible things have been done in the name of science, but in articles like this science seems never to blame. Regarding science, they seem content to blame a  few bad or misguided men (predominantly men to date) who have misused science.

3.     Science is always positioned as the new, innovative, progressive way of thinking and religion as the old, retrograde way of thinking. Of course, science has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. It wasn’t invented yesterday. No one “discovered” agriculture or animal husbandry in a lab. We figured it out through trial and error. What is relatively  recent is the professionalizing of science and achieving industrial scale. And that has not always resulted in compassion, empathy, or feelings of affiliation.

Neither did God or the Bible instruct Adam and his progeny how to hunt, or plant, or fish. Much of what we have learned including how we actually practice our faith (after Leviticus) may actually be the result of hypothesis, endless trial and error and constant peer review: i.e. the scientific method.

Science need not stand in opposition to religion. Religion need not stand in opposition to science. Science is a part of creation. What we may be witnessing is those who have adopted science as a new religion demonstrating an eagerness to appropriate.

Etc.

The public reading of scripture

But on the whole, its nice to know that science agrees with what came to be known as “religious” practice and the effort of the author is appreciated. And we should continue to read scripture aloud in public.  Keep practicing what we know works.