The state-run Saudi news agency announced that a woman named Amina bint Abdulhalim Nassar was publicly beheaded because she claimed to be a healer who could cure ailments for a fee of $800. The religious police arrested her for practicing “witchcraft,” which in this case sounds like a euphemism for faith healing outside of Wahabbist orthodoxy. In Saudi Arabia it is perfectly acceptable to pray to Allah for healing but it is a death sentence to appeal to any other kinds of spirits or forces for healing.

In an interview with Bikya Masr, a Saudi activist complained: “It is wrong and disgusting to kill anyone in this way. Doing this just gets people thinking we live in the Dark Ages.” It apparently would be better if the unorthodox faith healer had been executed in some other less disgusting way. Saudis are living in a high-tech version of the Dark Ages, even if executions remain low-tech.

At the same time Science reports the Saudis are pumping billions of dollars into flagship universities “to help the country move from an oil-based to a knowledge economy.” It goes without saying that only certain kinds of narrow scientific and technological knowledge are acceptable.

This, however, hasn’t deterred at least 60 scientists from accepting yearly stipends of $72,000 for doing little more than naming Saudi universities as affiliate institutions on all their academic publications. Such listings result in higher rankings for Saudi universities.

Scientists can rationalize this however they want and when money is being offered, they will. Neil Robertson, a mathematics professor at Ohio State, commented:

It’s just capitalism. They have the capital and they want to build something out of it. Yes, visibility is very important to them, but they also want to start a Ph.D. program in mathematics. I’m thinking this might be a breath of fresh air in a closed society.

Robertson is “hopeful that outside influence” will help accelerate social reforms in the Kingdom. Unless Robertson can devise equations which prove that beheading a woman for unorthodox beliefs is wrong, I can’t see it happening. Scientists and other academics should think hard about selling their souls to the Saudis.

While Weber surely was right to argue that religion and economy influence one another dialectically, few scholars accept his argument that capitalism was made possible by Calvinism. Although the Protestant Ethic remains a classic, its reputation has dimmed. Few have been more scathing in their criticism than Rodney Stark, who takes Weber to the woodshed in “Putting an End to Ancestor Worship“:

[E]conomic historians long ago dismissed Weber’s monograph as anti-Catholic nonsense on the irrefutable grounds that the rise of capitalism in Europe preceded the Reformation by centuries. Weber was aware that economic historians rejected his thesis on the basis of time order. Consequently, he progressively made his definitions finer in an attempt to restrict capitalism to “modern” Reformation business organizations. Clearly, Weber inserted the adjective “modern” in order to confound those who argued that capitalism was far older than Protestantism.

If Protestant ideals didn’t create capitalism, this doesn’t mean religion had no impact on the mercantilism and mindset that led to it. It simply means we should shift our temporal focus and look for earlier possible influences.

In “The Protestant Ethic and the Parsis,” Robert Kennedy does just this and suggests that Zoroastrianism — an ancestral monotheism — set the stage for Modernity, which encompasses not only capitalism but also science. Kennedy identifies five abstract values associated with Modernity: (1) an underlying order in nature, (2) sensory standard of verification, (3) material work is intrinsically good, (4) maximization of material prosperity, and (5) accumulation rather than consumption of material goods.

Zoroastrian and Parsi Symbol-Motif

Using historical data on the Parsis or Zoroastrian Persians who fled from Iran to India after the Islamic conquest in the 8th century AD, Kennedy examines their beliefs, culture, and society for correspondences. Finding many, Kennedy suggests that modern economy and science may have roots in Zoroastrian religion.

It is an unfortunate fact that we know less about Zoroastrianism than we would like. Although it was the official state religion of the Persian Empire for nearly seven centuries, the conquering Muslims attempted to eradicate every vestige of the faith. One thing is certain: Zoroastrian ideas and influences can be found in Judaism and Christianity. This raises an interesting possibility.

Nietzsche asserted that modern science arose in the West because the West was Christian. To make a long intellectual history short, Christianity’s obsessive search for sacred “Truth” turned on itself and (paradoxically) gave rise to a profane search for truth, which we now call science. If there is in fact a connection between Christianity and science, there may be an even deeper (or older) connection between Zoroastrianism and science.

References:

Stark, R. (2004). SSSR Presidential Address, 2004: Putting an End to Ancestor Worship Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43 (4), 465-475 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00249.x

Kennedy, Jr., R. (1962). The Protestant Ethic and the Parsis American Journal of Sociology, 68 (1) DOI: 10.1086/223262

Brown then asks a series of nonsensical questions which imply that because Neanderthal brains were different from human brains (Neanderthals in fact had bigger brains than humans; the difference is in shape), a cloned Neanderthal would have different supernatural beliefs:

What religion would these creatures have? We know that Neanderthals had rituals, and presumably beliefs, around death. These are lost forever. Should they be replaced? If Neanderthals are enough like us to bury their dead, they will make mythologies with or without our help. What should those be? If two separate countries or cultures cloned two different Neanderthal cultures, would each regard the other as heretics?

While it is true that brains capable of symbolic thinking and language fluency will naturally generate supernatural concepts, the particulars of these ideas are not imprinted on the brain or dependent on it. Brains don’t have ritual or myth modules.

Religions are social constructions. Individuals do not spontaneously create particular kinds of belief. Brains may be naturally wired and primed for religion, but the content of such belief is never predetermined.

The cloned Neanderthal’s cultural environment will determine what s/he believes. If the cloned Neanderthal is raised in Oxford, s/he will probably have Anglican beliefs. If the cloned Neanderthal is raised in the bible belt of America, s/he will probably have Protestant evangelical beliefs. If the cloned Neanderthal is raised in Saudi Arabia, s/he will probably have Muslim beliefs. If the cloned Neanderthal is raised in India, s/he will probably have Hindu beliefs. If the cloned Neanderthal is raised in Thailand, s/he will probably have Buddhist beliefs.

And if Richard Dawkins raises our cloned Neanderthal, s/he will probably think all such beliefs are ridiculous.

As for one cloned Neanderthal regarding another cloned Neanderthal as a heretic, this kind of belief is mostly limited to exclusivist forms of monotheism. So if we had a cloned Neanderthal who was raised Catholic and another raised Sunni, they might regard one another as heretics.

If Neanderthals had anything like religion, it surely would have been similar to the shamanic practices of Upper Paleolithic humans. Because shamanic supernaturalism is pluralist and not exclusivist, the concept of heresy would not have existed.

I was reminded of this effect while reading an article about the “religious” beliefs and practices of a Scandinavian hunter-gatherer society, the Sami. The authors discuss these beliefs and practices using terms and concepts developed primarily in the context of Abrahamic religions. We are told that Sami “Religious practices included a variety of rituals and gestures connected to sacrifices. Offerings expressed veneration of the divine powers and established a relationship with the gods.” We also learn that the Sami worshiped a “sacred wooden idol,” which is considered to be a “deity” and tree carvings are “images of gods.” Elsewhere the authors talk about Sami “holy places.”

Sacrifice, divinity, god, holiness, idols, and deity sound suspiciously like Western rather than Sami constructs. Although we can trace these ideas back to the many polytheisms that first arose in Mesopotamia and then spread throughout the Mediterranean, they were systematically elaborated by the monotheistic traditions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While it is possible that the Sami did in fact think and talk in these terms, there are several reasons for doubt.

The first comes from what might be considered naive or non-professional chronicling of native traditions. In most cases, our earliest knowledge of indigenous peoples comes from writings produced by explorers, traders, colonizers, and missionaries. They were not trained in ethnographic methods and inevitably recorded what they saw using concepts and language with which they were familiar. Our earliest accounts of indigenous people must be read with this in mind. The second doubt springs from the straightforward difficulties of language. Few of the earliest chroniclers were linguists and much was lost in translation. The third difficulty is the product of contact and diffusion. Ecumenical in their supernatural outlook, many indigenous peoples picked up on new ideas and incorporated them into their beliefs. Early chroniclers were often astonished to hear them talk about things that sounded suspiciously Christian, apparently without realizing that Christian ideas had long been in circulation.

Elsewhere in the article, we are told that Sami “religious beliefs were animistic, centered on animal ceremonialism.” While this seems simple enough, what does “animism” actually mean? I will confess to not having given this much thought until reading Nurit Bird-David’s superb history and analysis of the term. In “Animism Revisited: Personhood, Environment, and Relational Epistemology” (open access), she locates the origin of “animism” in E.B. Tylor’s Primitive Culture (1871) and sketches a genealogy of its deployment since that time.

For Tylor, animism was the attribution of life and personality to plants, animals, weather, and landscapes. He considered it to be a “primitive” trait that originated in dreams and thus was a form of error. Although most of Tylor’s ideas have been abandoned or substantially modified, Bird-David demonstrates that his thoughts on animism have been uncritically accepted and incorporated into the anthropological and historical mainstream. She convincingly shows that animism is an ossified and untroubled category that needs substantial revision.

For Bird-David, the anthropomorphism that characterizes animism is a form of relational epistemology and when viewed this way, it makes considerable sense. Because hunter-gatherers are profoundly and daily affected by plants, animals, weather, and landscapes, putting them into a personal or social relationship — one that is some ways negotiable — is a valid way of understanding and knowing the world.

Having intimate and life altering contact with plants, animals, weather, landscapes, and most importantly other people, hunter-gatherer epistemology does not begin with the individualistic and detached statement “I think, therefore I am.” This Cartesian construct, so deeply embedded (and essentialized) in Western thought, makes little sense to hunter-gatherers who consider relationships to be of paramount importance. Their first principle might thus be stated: “I relate, therefore I am.”

Animism is not, when considered this way, a simplistic or “primitive” way of knowing the world. It is a much richer (and more complex) idea that requires the careful use of concepts which differ from those used to construct the Western world.

References:

Bird-David, Nurit (1999). “Animism” Revisited: Personhood, Environment, and Relational Epistemology. Current Anthropology, 40 DOI: 10.1086/200061

Bergman, I., Ostlund, L., Zackrisson, O., & Liedgren, L. (2008). Varro Muorra: The Landscape Significance of Sami Sacred Wooden Objects and Sacrificial Altars. Ethnohistory, 55 (1), 1-28 DOI: 10.1215/00141801-2007-044

Heaven is for Real currently occupies the number one slot on the New York Times bestseller list and is Amazon’s number one seller. As of today, 1.5 million copies are in print but with a heavy promotional tour underway, expect that figure to go much higher. The book retails for $16.99.

Covering the story for the New York Times, Julie Bosman interviewed Colton’s father, who attempted to deflect any suspicions that money was the motive: “People say we just did this to make money, and it’s not the truth,” Mr. Burpo said, referring to anonymous online comments about the book. “We were expecting nothing. We were just hoping the publisher would break even.”

Before you begin thinking this was a homespun effort, with Colton patiently telling his dad all about heaven while the pastor faithfully transcribed, think again. The book’s “co-author” is the high-powered Lynn Vincent, author of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. Vincent does not sign on for just any book and does not work for charity. She is a writer of great skill who knows how to push all the right buttons for a Christian audience. This one appears to be a home run.

What are to make of all this? Besides the obvious (American Christians are a credulous lot), we have to wonder about Colton and his father. They seem like good people and I will give them the benefit of the doubt: they probably believe what they are saying. The question then becomes: How can this be? It would be a mistake to underestimate our evolved powers of self-deception, especially when coupled with a brain-mind that naturally generates beliefs in the supernatural and strong cultural support for such beliefs.

We can find some additional clues by watching this astonishing interview:

“Wow!” That is Gretchen Carlson, a Stanford degree holder who is clearly smitten by Colton’s story. Because Colton’s parents are both pastors, we know that in the seven years since his surgery he has been hearing stories about God, Jesus, John the Baptist, and Heaven. Some of these sound a bit familiar.

What is God like? He’s really big and can “fit the entire world in his hands.” I wonder where Colton got this idea? What about Jesus? Despite his non-European heritage, he has “sea blue eyes.” Hopefully, Razib over at Gene Expression will give us a rundown on this remote possibility. What about people? Everyone is “young again” and can fly — wings are apparently given out on arrival. Angel races anyone?

Here is the rub in all this: Why is it that when Hindus have near death experiences (NDE), they meet Krishna or Vishnu in an ornate temple? Why is it that when Buddhists have an NDE, they meet Buddha under a tree? Why is it that when Muslims have an NDE, they meet Mohammad in the garden of virgins? Why is it that when Crow Indians had one, they visited the happy hunting grounds?

There must be different kinds of afterlives and heavens for different kinds of faiths.

The Romans were justly known as wise administrators of conquered provinces, allowing native peoples to continue worshiping their own gods, while the Roman administrators and garrisons would build temples for Roman deities.  This pagan tolerance often had syncretic effects so that over time the result would be something like what was found near Le Mans: a temple complex where Gallic-Celtic deities were worshiped alongside Roman gods and goddesses.  It is highly likely that locals adopted some Roman beliefs and practices while the occupying Romans adopted some local beliefs and practices.  Indeed, this is what the archaeologists have found:

“Given the size of the site, hundreds of pilgrims, possibly thousands, would have come here to honour the gods,” said Guillier. “They probably held other mass events here too.”

[The archaeologists] uncovered a marvelous selection of objects placed as offerings. They include Gallic, Celtic and Roman silver coins, bronze and silver-plated bronze fibulae (broaches), some jewelery including a gold ring with a green quartz representing a deity, as well as bronze keys, pottery and knives. They also found a dagger, sledgehammers and hammers, possibly offerings from soldiers and ironmongers, who held high-risk occupations requiring more divine protection than others.

But what gods were worshipped there? No statues or inscriptions have been found as clues, and the Gallic pantheon was as plentiful as the Roman one.

It appears that all kinds of deities were worshiped at the site, including one god — Mars Mullo — who had his own temple and was a synthesis of the Roman god Mars and the Celtic-Gallic god Mullo.  The offerings of Roman soldiers, including daggers and hammers, were mostly likely made to Mithras, the imported Persian deity and mystery cult (often symbolized by a bull) that was Latinized and a long-time favorite of the Legions.

Unfortunately, archaeologists will not be able to work at this site for long, as the area is slated for urban development.  It is a shame that this massive and informative complex will be subject to salvage operations only.

There is one lesson we can learn from this highly civilized and cosmopolitan “pagan” site right now: religious beliefs need not be exclusive and tolerance can be a virtue.  This is an especially poignant point at a time when 60 million Americans schizophrenically believe their president is a closet Muslim and political discourse is dominated by fear mongering.

• American Christianity is not well, and there’s evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize — or at least want to admit.
• Culturally, America is still a Christian nation.

Vampire writer and gothicist Anne Rice may be many things, but bellwether of American Christianity she is not — this probably accounts for Lobdell’s confusion.

While it may be true that more Americans are distancing themselves from organized Christianity, the majority of Americans — 78.5% to be exact — claim affiliation with Christian denominations.  The statistic that has Lobdell concerned about Christianity in America is the growing number of people who say they are “Unaffiliated” (16% of Americans) with any particular faith or denomination.

What Lobdell seems to misunderstand is that the majority of these unaffiliated remain Christian; they simply do not identify with any particular Christian denomination or church.  This in fact is what Anne Rice said she was doing — leaving the Catholic Church but retaining her Christian faith in the gospels.  An astonishing 98% of Americans believe in God, and most of these believe in a Christian God.

This churched and unchurched Christianity, in turn, accounts for the widespread hostility to the construction of an Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero, and a more generalized hostility toward Islam.  In “Why Has Islam Become So Controversial in America,” Max Fisher puzzles over this hostility and surveys seven attempts to explain it.

While there is some truth to each of these explanations, none address the fundamental issue: most Americans are Christians and American Christianity has long been — and remains today — exclusivist and intolerant.

This is not simply my perception or sense of the situation after too many trips to Wal-Mart.  It is a fact confirmed by sociologist Stephen Merino in his recently published article — Religious Diversity in a “Christian Nation”: The Effects of Theological Exclusivity on the Acceptance of Religious Diversity.

Merino’s findings are hardly surprising:

• 66% of Americans believe it is “important” to be Christian in order to be “truly American”;
• 65% of Americans believe that the founders intended for America to be a “Christian nation”;
• 55% of Americans believe that the US Constitution actually establishes a “Christian nation”; and
• 80% of Americans believe that the nation was founded on “Christian principles.”

Of these Americans, a large majority also profess belief in the principle of “religious freedom.”  But the freedom they have in mind is the freedom to practice a Christian faith — they are quite intolerant and unwelcoming of “other faiths.”  As Merino suggests, “when many Americans think of religious diversity, the have only Christian diversity in mind.”

Among evangelical protestants (and especially those in the south), Merino found that special enmity is reserved for two groups: Muslims and atheists.  This fact may explain Christopher Hitchens’ surprising article defending the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.  The atheist Hitchens may have concluded that the enemy (Islam) of his enemy (evangelicals) is a friend.

As I have emphasized again and again in this blog, there is no singular Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism.  No faith tradition is unified and there is no “correct” or “authentic” version.

One of the falsehoods about “Islam” (which is an empty category) that Boaz attempted to correct was this:  “Misconception 2: Islam calls for the oppression of women.”

While in Boaz’ version of Islam this may be a misconception, it is not so in others.  While I pointed out the problems with Boaz’ argument using words, this picture is a more powerful rebuttal:

This woman’s name is Aisha and she lives in Afghanistan.  She recently appeared on the cover of Time Magazine and this additional photo was taken by a Time photographer.

Her marriage was arranged according to Islamic custom, and after being abused by her husband and in laws, she ran away.  She was, in her words, “treated like a slave.”  Upon being re-captured, she was punished by the Taliban, her husband, and in-laws according to their reading of Islam and sharia law.

This gruesome punishment consisted of having her ears and nose cut-off.  She was left for dead (which would have occurred slowly through loss of blood) but found by US soldiers, treated, and now lives in a safehouse.

Again, this is not the sort of thing I enjoy pointing out because it adds to the mass hysteria and ignorance that most Americans have regarding the imaginary thing they call “Islam.”  But I feel compelled to point this out because the educated and progressive left, in their efforts to minimize the hysteria and ameliorate the ignorance, often go too far: they fail to see that Islam is many different things to many different people.

Like all religious traditions, Islam is hydra headed.   In some versions, the religiously inspired practices are positively heinous and the oppression of women — which may include torture or murder — is perfectly acceptable.  Several versions of Vedic faiths sanction similar treatments of women.

Would Boaz look at this picture, consider Aisha’s story, and conclude that the Taliban’s version of Islam is wrong, false, incorrect, or inauthentic?  If so, I suggest that she read Terry Eagleton’s Literary Theory or Stanley Fish’s Is There a Text in This Class?, and then get back to us with a revised essay on the many faces of Islam.

Postscript — I just visited Missives from Marx and one of my favorite bloggers has a different and important take on Aisha’s picture and the accompanying cover story.  I completely agree with his comments, and my blog post in no way addresses Time’s article or the political-power interests that story may serve.  In addition, all this interest in a photograph attests to the power of images.

Most share the same description: accelerated thought processes, peacefulness, joy, and encounters with mystical entities or deceased persons. NDEs have features associated with the phenomenon of dissociation — a psychiatric disorder in which a person’s identity becomes disconnected from bodily sensation. However, most people who report NDEs do not have a pathological mechanism contributing to the psychiatric condition.

It appears that these experiences may be triggered by high carbon dioxide levels in the brain, which in turn has marked effects on conscious functioning:

NDEs were more common in patients with higher levels of carbon dioxide on admission to the hospital. The connection with carbon dioxide suggests that NDEs might be associated with changes in the acid-base equilibrium of the brain. Previous studies have proved that changes in the brain’s equilibrium can trigger visions of bright lights and out-of-body experiences. Inhaled carbon dioxide has been studied as a psychotherapeutic agent and caused NDE-like experiences.

Gibson concludes by suggesting that NDEs may be manifestations of the supernatural:

Many believe that NDEs are proof that humans are more than just a collection of cells and neural processes and that humans have a soul or level of consciousness that is separate from the physical body. But, have the researchers in the current study debunked that theory in explaining NDEs with scientific details?

The studies that Gibson reports may not answer this question, but in a comprehensive survey of NDE studies titled “The Near Death Experience,” Glenn Roberts and John Owen observe that the specifics of NDEs often correspond to a person’s particular religious beliefs:

Schoerer (1985) presented two historical accounts of core NDEs in American Indians where the dominant imagery is of moccasins, snakes, eagles, bows, and arrows.  [Asian] Indians have NDEs in which they are characteristically sent back to live because of a seeming bureaucratic mistake having been made in the after-life, and many encounter Yamraj, the Hindu king of the dead, and the Yamdoots, his messengers.

In one large and systematic cross-cultural study of 442 Americans and 435 Asian Indians who had NDEs, 140 people reported seeing religious figures; “where these [figures] were specifically identified, they were always named according to a person’s religious beliefs; no Hindu reported seeing Jesus, and no Christian reported seeing a Hindu deity.”

A person’s previously held religious beliefs, in other words, pattern the nature of the NDE, a fact which prompted Roberts and Owen to observe:

This supports the view of many authors that, whereas the central features the NDE are universally present [due to pan-human biological and neural systems], the specific imagery and interpretation is determined by the cultural expectations and beliefs of the individual.

Thus, a Muslim who has a near death experience might see Muhammad; a Buddhist may see Siddhartha; a Christian might see Jesus or an angel; a Hindu may see Krishna or Vishnu; a Lakota might see Wakan Tanka, and so on.  This patterning strongly suggests that NDEs are a matter of consciousness and not metaphysics.

In Islamic Iran where clerics rule, unofficial “prayer sellers,” who promise to intercede with the divine to solve all manner of life’s problems, are seeing their business boom.

Backstreet spiritual guides like YaAli are tolerated by the authorities and increasingly sought after by Iranians seeking help from on high.

“People from all walks of life — mostly young women — come here asking for prayers that can solve their problems,” says YaAli sitting on a chair in a crumbly old alley in Tehran.

Stroking his white beard, YaAli — a nickname he has been given by his customers — explains how each prayer must be used in its own specific way.

“There are lots of methods depending on the problems. Some prayers (written on a piece of paper) should be burned and some should be put in a bowl of water. You should follow the instructions.”

In a stark demonstration of the conceptual confusion that surrounds this trade, the article further notes:

Iran’s clerics also believe in the power of prayer but they advise people against using prayers that lack a religious basis. Magic and superstition are both illegal under Islamic law.

“Writing prayers quoting Shia’s immaculate Imams and receiving money for that has no legal obstacle,” said Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi Golpaygani when asked about the religious legitimacy of the prayer sellers.

“But referring to prayers written by hustlers without reliable sources is not permitted, and getting money for those kinds of prayers is (religiously) forbidden,” he told news website hawzah.net.

Magic and superstition are both illegal under Islamic law?  At step one, this should mean that prayers are illegal.  It is always interesting to note how groups define their particular practices as “religious,” whereas the same practices by others of different faiths constitute “magic and superstition.”  This is a distinction without a difference.  At step two, prayer selling raises doctrinal issues of legitimacy.  This has long constituted the primary source of conflict — and endless debate — among peoples of the books.

Somewhere Stanley Fish is smiling.  It would be nice to see him apply his interpretive theory to the thorny issue of legitimate and illegitimate prayers.  The essay might be called: “Is There a Prayer in this Mosque?”