SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson: One makes arguments to persuade. Arguments based on a common religious belief are going to...
  • Kevin: Here are the truths from which we can not escape. SSM involves a pledge. It’s a pledge of committed...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: Tom Gilson to Nikolai Volk: “Wrong. Obviously wrong. Blazingly, glaringly, wrong....
  • Bret Lythgoe: I think that it’s fair to say that we have people on both sides of the SSM “debate”,...
  • Nikolai Volk: Okay, this could help clarify things. Suppose we did what I want the state to do, and not regulate...
  • Tom Gilson: No, Nikolai. I find that in the public sphere, Christians are advocating for a severely watered down...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Thursday, March 11, 2010, 6:19 PM

    It turns out Karl Marx was wrong: religion is not the opiate of the people; it’s the Prozac of the people. So says the man who originated the concept of male bonding in this fascinating article in Canada’s foremost English-language newsweekly: Macleans interview: Lionel Tiger. Here’s a brief sample:

    Q: That’s why you call churches “serotonin factories.” You hint about possibly developing the brain equivalent of bodily exercise. Serotonin pills as a religion replacement?
    A: I’m not sure we’ll ever learn to manage brain secretions in any manner, and it may be that we don’t want to, but at least we now know that the feeling of oceanic identification with others in an assembly—a church assembly or whenever—is not magical, it’s neurophysiological. We can identify the juices. I think that’s fantastic, actually. And Mike [McGuire]’s work on serotonin did generate Prozac and a whole array of medications.

    Q: Despite increasing secularization, especially in the West, most people have not become flat-out rationalists. Do you think that for many environmentalism is a religion?
    A: That’s absolutely right, and that’s interesting because it is finally the fruit of pantheism, a very, very old religious idea. For many people, not using more than four sheets of toilet paper is an act of moral purification.

    In addition to illuminating the roots of environmentalism, Tiger’s analysis further clears up an ancient and vexing mystery: why did so many saints willingly suffer a martyr’s death for the cause of Christ? It seems they just wanted to feel good.

    3 Comments

      David Strunk
      March 11th, 2010 | 7:25 pm | #1

      I always love it when the atheists/secularists go at the pantheists and vice versa.

      If a neurophysiological action explains everything, then Tiger had to say and believe what he did based on prior stimuli. Determinism reigns! And it’s quite the self-refuting argument!

      However if there is something immaterial about the human person, then all of his comments are bunk. Neuro-science, then, doesn’t get to speak authoritatively on religious experience as if science is higher than all us mere irrational creatures (speaking sarcasticly).

      But you probably said it better with the comment about the martyrs.

      Kyle
      March 11th, 2010 | 7:59 pm | #2

      David Strunk,
      You ought to read the interview. He actually goes after the Dawkinites rather intensely as well.

      David T. Koyzis
      March 12th, 2010 | 11:53 am | #3

      Tiger does indeed go after the Dawkinites. That said, I wonder whether we can take that much comfort in an “ally” who has a so obviously biological reductionist notion of man.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact