Exaggerating the Influence of Religious Faith - The Bias & Blindsight Of Rodney Stark

As rationalism and secularism has grown ever more during the past few decades it is natural that those still adhering to religiosity would try to strike back and also engage in wholesale revisionism. For example, sociologist Rodney Stark - who is actually more of a religionist - has been a prolific writer of numerous books on Christianity, God and faith -  often with a revisionist framing and themes.

One of those is his insistence that, contrary to originating with a tiny sect, Christianity was actually far more powerful and influential. This take is flatly refuted by some of the best theologians and exegetical researchers, including John Dominic Crossan.

In this light, Crossan's monograph: The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, arguably outweighs the value of all of Stark's writings in concert.. But the depth of his research clearly shows his conclusion is overpowering: That no genuine divine being existed identified with Yeshua. Instead one beheld a very unusual "hippie" persona, who evinced a disdain for all the normal customs, rituals, formalities of his time. In other words, given the era and time, an "Augustan Hippie".

Nor did he undertake to establish any powerful church or religion. This was done after his death, by none other than Paul of Tarsus otherwise known as "Saint Paul".  A formidable problem in researching and writing about historical personages, is that myth often becomes conflated with facts. This is especially true when the research entails exhaustive dredging up of numerous obscure scrolls, manuscripts- not to mention cross checking of sources. That is why John Dominic Crossan's book is all the more remarkable. It shines out like a beacon, against a morass of many other comparable books with far less scholarly qualities- like Rodney Stark's.

All of this is important background including Stark's earlier work : Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief, which I reviewed some 7 years ago.  At the time, I pointed out his confession that it was impossible to analyze said God “discovery” outside of specific contexts. Stark then invokes his own brand of “theology” to ferret out God’s nature from “Revelation”.  At the end of it all, after discussing Islam, Taoism, etc, he is led to conclude that "Christianity is the only true religion."

But peeling back the dross all one finds is that he had applied “rational choice theory” to the anthropology and sociology of religions to try to show Christianity is an optimal choice. (Read the text, ‘The Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory’ to behold all its defects, and also note that the term “rational” in this context is NOT the same as we define it in terms of normative reasoned arguments, etc. You can also read this summary .pdf document: https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~rnau/choice/choice_pathologies.pdf

Clearly also, when one's mind is already constrained by its own biases and  speculative selection of "rational choice" then anything outside this context will appear irrational or unjustified.

Further, as I pointed out in an earlier book (‘The Atheist’s Handbook to Modern Materialism’, 2000) it is impossible to “reason” about theology or theology’s tracts and dogmas. The reason is simple: theology lacks objects of inquiry that are the basis of genuine knowledge.  While quantum mechanics provides us insights into the behavior and properties of atoms, and we can actually observe certain atoms in electron micrographs, e.g.

Where is the comparable basis for accepting "soul"?

 WHAT exactly is  a "soul"? This entity hasn't even been defined properly - the word has merely been coined (invented) by theologians and circulated (by those like Rodney Stark) as if some real underlying entity exists- as much as silicon atoms. Where is it? How do I discriminate it from ordinary consciousness? What specific identifying attributes does it have that can be immediately recognized and subjected to distinctive tests - such that I may assert: "Look - here is the SOUL!"

As Sir A.J. Ayer has noted (‘Language, Truth and Logic’, p. 158):

“The fact that people have religious experiences is interesting from a psychological point of view, but it does not in any way imply that there is such a thing as religious knowledge.”

While Ayer's standard for acceptance of legitimate knowledge may have been somewhat excessive (he demanded that any word or term used be tied to empirical verification) a case can certainly be made that at least a basic epistemological basis be provided. In all of this, the rationalist can see problems that Stark never does. Or wants to!

Which brings us to his current work, 'The Triumph Of Faith' also recently reviewed in The Wall Street Journal ('The God Profusion', Jan. 4, p. A13). True to form from his earlier sociological revisionism, we learn that Stark is ":pushing back against the secularization thesis", i.e. according to the WSJ reviewer (Naomi Schaeffer Riley):

"Intellectual elites have been declaring the  demise of religion  for centuries. Religious belief is a susceptibility of the illiterate and the ignorant. With education, people see the foolishness of their ways and abandon their beliefs"

We are then informed that Stark has shown "in one country after another today, more educated people are choosing religion in larger numbers than their less educated peers.""

Which begs the question of what kind of education they received. Did it include biblical exegesis, the textual analysis of so called sacred books? Did it include ANY scientific  courses or training at all, say in physics, chemistry or biology?  Did it include any critical thinking courses? If not, I would not use that form of education to brag on, i.e. as having distinctive quality, to promote as a basis for expanding religious belief.

As if to emphasize the point, Riley then avers (ibid.):

"This is certainly true in the United States, where college-educated Americans are more likely to attend religious services than their counterparts with only a high school diploma"

Which again, is egregious and also laden with disinformation. She might have better observed that liberal arts college grads with no science exposure are more likely to attend religious services than their counterparts with physics, chemistry, math and biology degrees. THAT would be far more honest, but why try to be when you are trying to push propaganda?

This includes her specious claim (and Stark's which she references) that the U.S. is "not becoming less religious as a whole" - contrary to numerous Pew surveys that disclose the increase of "nones" (i.e. the religiously unaffiliated who have allegiance to no particular faith . She even goes so far to criticize Alan Cooperman of the Pew Research Center for claiming that "the country is becoming less religious as a whole".

This prompted a reply from Cooperman in the WSJ letters section two days ago, and he noted ("Stark is Wrong About U.S.  'Nones' and Faith"):

"In fact, Pew Research surveys are far from alone in documenting the growth of religious 'nones' Gallup polls and the American Religious Identification Survey document the same trend as does the General Social Survey, an academic study with very high response rates."

But why let facts get in the way, when one is more invested in spreading revisionist swill and propaganda as Stark did earlier by claiming Christianity's origins as a nominal, Middle Eastern sect were a "myth".  Clearly, Stark's mission is to attempt to overturn historical facts as well as recent sociological data that shows faith in decline. What else is a propagandizer to do?

Indeed, to try to pump up his claims for increasing "faith" Stark actually goes so far as to conflate religious faith with  "all sorts of supernatural beliefs" held by Europeans - according to Riley. (Since Europe has been vastly more secularized than the U.S.) That includes: fortune telling, astrology, lucky charms, reincarnation and telepathy.

Here, neither Stark or Riley appear to be aware that telepathy need have no "supernatural" component at all. Experiments conducted by Dr. Robert G. Jahn (using random number generators), as published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration. (Vol. 1, No. 1) shows a possible way that assorted students actually affected computer random number generators to 'tilt' then to significance in churning out one set of numbers over others.

Astrology also has no supernatural element.  Rather, it has simply neglected to update according to the findings of astronomy. For example, in the two thousand years since the Sun signs were devised, the Earth's axis has precessed out of the original alignment, and with it the equinoxes.   This means that each of the other eleven so-called Sun signs used in horoscopes is out by the same amount: one entire Sun sign. (So if your birthday is in July, you are no longer a Cancer but a Gemini! )

In addition, astrology employs the long ago refuted model of the geocentric (Earth-centered) universe.  In the end, astrology isn't so much a "supernatural" belief system as a faux psychology for fragile human egos . Thereby attributing meaning to human lives based on planetary positions in certain constellations - where no such meaning exists. We are basically cosmic orphans, but astrology attempts to allay that reality, so the stars and planets are literally a 'code' for our flawed personas.

The whole point here is that dragging in all these marginal beliefs and putting them (speciously) under the category of "faith" (in order to convince people of the "triumph of faith")  is simply not cricket or kosher -  when one is really about religious faith. It would be roughly analogous to me trying to show that atheists outnumber Christians by including all 1.1. billion odd Buddhists as atheists, as well as all the Hindus!

But for Rodney Stark, what's a little obfuscation and conflation when there's a larger purpose - based on religious propaganda - to be fulfilled?

"Jen Ratio" and Goodness: Maybe We Should Take Note

 Sandra Fluke Embodies a high jen person of goodness
According to Dacher Keltner, in his book, 'Born to Be Good', "Jen is a central concept in the teachings of Confucius and refers to a complex mixture of kindness, humanity and respect that transpires between people."

In later parts of his book, he even makes the case that there are biological markers that are signatures for "high jen" humans, including: vagus nerve operation (eliciting lower heartbeat and release of oxytocin inducing more compassion for fellow humans), oxytocin itself - inducing greater empathy for others, more trust, and the Duchenne smile - embodying the outward manifestation of love of humanity and a general trust.

As we can see by examination of the photo of Sandra Fluke - at the Democratic Convention- her face captures the "Duchenne smile", and hence manifests higher oxytocin levels in her physiology, as well as being a "vagal superstar" in the parlance of Prof. Keltner. These also reflect a "high jen" persona or to quote Confucius: "A person of high jen brings the good things of others to completeness." By contrast, a negative, scowling persona indicates low jen and he is more likely to bring the bad things of others to completion. Moreover he doesn't trust others unless they are part of his immediate kin.

Keltner's claim and which is expatiated upon in his book, is that the jen concept "reveals a new way to think about the evolution of human goodness." Also, why is it that those like Sandra Fluke exhibit high jen while her calumniators, say like Rush Limbaugh - exhibit very low jen? It could be on account of their upbringing. Very often, as Keltner observes, low -jen humans originate in the cradle. They are seldom held by their mothers, they are usually slapped or screamed at rather than embraced, hugged, and these actions lead to negative physiological markers - including low oxytocin levels, and overly excited vagus nerve response to most situations.

The "jen ratio" is the somewhat subjective measure that allows the quality of jen in a person to be assessed. According to Prof. Keltner, when assessing the jen ratio in another person, we place all his negative recent actions in the denominator, and all his positive actions in the numerator. For example, let's say he's a blogger who professes to be religious and aspires to carry forth "God's holy word". Then in the numerator we place all those times he has encouraged others and shown true Christian love to them, and in the denominator we place all those occasions in his blogs where he's threatened them with hell even indirectly (e.g. putting 'tick, tick tock' up ) or inserted any hellish images - say of atheists burning up. Let's say just once he's written an inspiring piece on his blog that elevates other religions, while 25 times he'd put up hell images or condemning words in the past month. Then his jen ratio is: 1/ 25 = 0.04.

Keltner also maintains one can apply the jen ratio to just about anything: one's interior life, the tenor of a family reunion, the goodwill of a neighborhood, the rhetoric of a president or the actions of a political party. From this, one would be able to say that very plausibly Obama's rhetoric is "high jen" while the GOP's  behavior, standoffs on the fiscal cliff and (coming soon) the debt ceiling is very, very low jen.

Sandra Fluke's caring for her sisters facing health problems because of their being unable to access affordable contraceptives, is very high jen. She obviously seeks to bring the good of other young women to completeness. She even put herself on the line, exposing herself to the vitriol of pigs like Limbaugh! Her speech also at the Dem convention disclosed her as a high jen, basically good person. Her Duchenne smile is the physiological marker and confirmation. It is the outward signature of an innate, humane goodness which trusts other people implicitly and seeks to bring their best potential to fruition.

Keltner also makes the case that just as people have jen ratios, so also do nations. As he observes:

"Nations whose citizens bring the good in others to completion thrive. High jen ratios are the hallmark of healthy societies."

He goes on to cite a study that showed (ibid.):

"For every 15 percent increase in the trust of a nation's citizens, their economic fortunes rise by $430."

What about the United States? Is it gaining or losing jen? According to Keltner (p. 9):

In the recent explosion of studies in social well being, signs of loss of jen in the United States are incontrovertible. The percentage of Americans who trust their fellow citizens has dropped fifteen percentage points in the past fifteen years."

He lists the symptoms of ill health/ low jen  as follows:

- increasing feelings of anomie, greater loneliness

- the trend toward less happy marriages,

- People have fewer close friends, intimates

- Young babies have "more contact with their strollers" than human hands

Keltner also attributes (p. 195)  the American low jen ratio to a "touch-deprived culture". This ends up triggering a cycle whose outcome is inevitably lower oxytocin, less national trust. The lower oxytocin resulting from lack of tactile stimulation then initiates even less trust, and lower oxytocin. He asserts that the widespread tactile deprivation in the U.S. - from the case of parents ignoring crying infants, to teachers fearful of patting students on the head for good work (on account of possible abuse charges) "owes its deep roots to the Puritans, well known for their attempts at extirpating human delights".  The 40 -year long hostile "drug war"  (especially against MJ) is also a creature originating with this dynamic, as is the widespread fear of sex, intimacy.

Interestingly, Prof. Keltner ties these trends to an "ideology" that if pursued further will lead to a national jen ratio of 0. He refers to the main culprit as "rational choice theory"  and the "strongest proponents are in the halls of economic departments". The deformed creature resulting is "Homo Economicus" - a misshapen critter solely looking out for himself and his financial advancement, and a believer in the Neoliberal idiom that each person must disdain governmental supports or assistance in favor of "personal initiative". This also feeds into the nation's overt hyper-consumption, since each individual as a worker is then expected to consume, consume and consume using his wages....so remain on the work-spend treadmill til he croaks.

A high jen society with a view to correcting the unemployment problem, for example,  would instead leave out rational choice theory and de-prioritize consumption. It would see the problem as too many work hours by a relative small proportion, so would seek to partition those work hours so they are more equitably allotted to all who need work. Thus, instead of current 50-60 hour weeks (imperiling family health and personal time), we'd go down to the more reasonable 30-35 hours a week. This would enable more people to be hired, albeit at the shorter hours. They'd initially earn less income, for sure, but they'd also have less for infantile consumption. As the new wage -work tableaux then settled in, a new wage-price structure would be the outcome ...so prices would be held in concordance with the new wage structures. But by then, a firm saving ethic would already be established, having been reinforced by earlier lower income.

The problem is that the rational choice theorist doesn't trust for this to happen, or be beneficial to society. It more suits his Neoliberal fancy to have definite income winners and losers as opposed to spreading the wealth (income, resources) so more of the society benefits. It also suits his fancy,say if a shareholder of some company like Mattel, to have more 'Barbie' buyers not fewer. Naturally, this person is severely low jen!

The general outcome of this inverse jen thinking abounds: "economic losses loom larger than equivalent gains, losing twenty dollars stings more than finding a twenty pleases, " and thus the affected person is further induced to pursue rigorous self-interest.

Interestingly, this same exact dynamic is what Benjamin Barber has defined as in accord with the "infantile consumer ethos" in his book, CONSUMED.  Thus, we see that the Neoliberal, self-interested pursuit of economic gains is tied to a naturally infantile, low jen persona.

Is there more to it? I believe there is. I, for one, hypothesize it's not merely a matter of rational choice theory taking hold but rather excess militarism too. Militarism extolled as a national virtue debases a country, and causes it to pursue decidedly low jen goals such as less international cooperation, perpetual war (to keep the military industrial complex fed), building of empire - with military bases scattered by the thousands across the globe, and a military culture which praises all soldiers who've "served" as some kind of super-citizens, but disparages other citizens, say like Peace Corps workers, or even the medical volunteers for 'Doctors without Borders'. The sure sign of a sick, low -jen society is none other than one for which the glorification of the military is paramount. And the more money we cast into its maw the worse it will get, including manifesting in outbreaks of irrational gun violence.

Keltner is basically correct, but he needed to extend his net of low jen culprits a bit wider!