table of contents

05/02/2012

Tanya Luhrmann on Magic, God, and the Supernatural

Tanya Marie Luhrmann is the Watkins University Professor in the Stanford Anthropology Department. She also holds a courtesy appointment in the Stanford Psychology Department.  She received her PhD from Cambridge University in 1986. Her books include “Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft,” (Harvard, 1989); “The Good Parsi” (Harvard 1996); “Of Two Minds” (Knopf 2000) and “When […]

download transcript [vtt]
00:00:00.000
[ Music ]
00:00:06.500
This is KZSU Stanford.
00:00:10.000
Welcome to entitled opinions.
00:00:12.000
My name is Robert Harrison.
00:00:15.000
We're coming to you from the Stanford campus.
00:00:18.000
[ Music ]
00:00:28.000
[ Music ]
00:00:52.000
Why don't we start today with a quote from comrade, "Hara Clitus."
00:00:56.000
Though the logos is common to all, most men live as if they had a private intelligence of their own.
00:01:04.000
It would take years to unpack that saying, "Here's another one.
00:01:09.000
Man is not rational, only the surrounding substance is rational."
00:01:14.000
I wonder about that surrounding substance.
00:01:17.000
The hundred billion galaxies in our visible universe make up only 5% of the cosmos as a whole.
00:01:25.000
The other 95% consists of inscrutable dark matter and dark energy.
00:01:31.000
That's strangely similar to the universe of the human mind.
00:01:35.000
I reckon no more than 5% of our mental life is governed by logic and reason,
00:01:40.000
or what "Hara Clitus" called the logos.
00:01:44.000
The other 95% includes our dreams and delusions,
00:01:49.000
our most deeply held convictions, our varieties of religious experience,
00:01:55.000
and our irrepressible subconscious thoughts.
00:01:59.000
That's right, most of our psychic life takes place in the dark matter and dark energy of the mind.
00:02:05.000
Stay tuned in titled opinions, goes for the roots.
00:02:09.000
[Music]
00:02:37.000
One of my cherished colleagues at Stanford,
00:02:51.000
the professor of religious studies, now retired,
00:02:55.000
said something in passing many years back that obviously made an impression on me,
00:03:01.000
since I can still see him shaking his head as he said it.
00:03:05.000
I never ceased to be amazed at what some people believe.
00:03:10.000
He wasn't talking about uneducated gullible people out in some backwater,
00:03:14.000
he was talking about fellow colleagues at Stanford and other institutions of higher learning.
00:03:20.000
I'm sure that everyone would be amazed to learn what his or her neighbors really believe in the depths of their psyches.
00:03:28.000
Fortunately, in our institutional and social interactions,
00:03:32.000
we stick mostly to the logos that is common to all and never find out what an extravagant stranger,
00:03:39.000
my closest friend or relative really is when it comes to their intimate beliefs.
00:03:45.000
Of course, the next issue here is what we mean when we say that someone believes something.
00:03:52.000
Just as there are more things in heaven and earth than our dreamt of in Horatio's philosophy,
00:03:57.000
there's a lot more to the phenomenon of belief than merely subscribing to improbable, unverifiable, or absurd opinions.
00:04:07.000
Belief is far too narrow a word for all that takes place in the swirl of dark energy and dark matter that agitates our psychic lives.
00:04:18.000
The person who joins me in the studio today is devoted much of her career to exploring certain aspects of this swirl.
00:04:25.000
Tanya Lourman is a professor in the Department of Anthropology here at Stanford,
00:04:30.000
and her most recent book, which has just hit the shelves, is called "When God Talks Back."
00:04:37.000
This book investigates, and I'm reading here from the catalog description,
00:04:41.000
"How sensible people of faith are able to experience the presence of a powerful, yet invisible being, and sustain that belief in an environment of overwhelming skepticism."
00:04:54.000
A couple of decades ago, Professor Lourman wrote another fascinating book about the widespread practice of magic and witchcraft among educated middle-class people in contemporary England.
00:05:07.000
We're going to be talking with her today about those two books and what she has learned about how ordinary people engage with the supernatural on an everyday basis. Tanya, welcome to the program.
00:05:19.000
It's great to be here, thanks. Before we talk about "When God Talks Back," which is obviously the new book that's been getting a lot of attention in the last week,
00:05:29.000
has just come out, this book that you wrote in the 80s called "Perswations of the Witches Craft,"
00:05:37.000
subtitle "Ritual Magic in Contemporary England." I think is a kind of in a continuum with the book on God speaking back.
00:05:48.000
In the introduction to that book, you write the following, and maybe we can begin with that. You say that the broad question at the theoretical center of this inquiry is the nature of rationality and irrationality and the basic form of human cognition.
00:06:06.000
You go on to say, one of our most comfortable assumptions is of the rational human, of our purposeful effective action and our logically consistent ideas and motivations.
00:06:18.000
Most people will consciously acknowledge this to be an unnatural ideal, nevertheless faith in one's own basic rationality has a strong hold on this culture, and the way in which we are not rational is not well understood.
00:06:34.000
Now, you're what you self-described kind of psychological anthropologist in part.
00:06:40.000
That's right, yes.
00:06:41.000
Would you, would it be fair to say that a lot of your work has been devoted to trying to figure out the ways in which we are not rational?
00:06:50.000
Yes, I would say that I've been really interested in the domain of these invisible supernatural forces or beings and how people find that they have a lot of the same thing.
00:07:03.000
So, find that they have evidence for their existence.
00:07:09.000
So, beginning with your first study there, I don't take it that it's your first book, I don't know if it's your first field work as such, but you discovered when you were in England that a number of people, surprisingly large amount of people, were engaged in kind of Neil Pagan forms of ritual practice that we associate either,
00:07:32.000
with witchcraft or with magic.
00:07:35.000
So, these are people who call themselves witches and druids and initiates to the Western mysteries, but they all shared the idea that they were practicing magic, and what they meant by magic was that there were these supernatural forces in the world that didn't necessarily use that word, but that there were these forces in the world that many scientists might feel skeptical about,
00:07:59.000
that you could use your mind to manipulate these forces and direct them in particular ways.
00:08:05.000
So, people would do spells to get the house next door, they would do rituals to import truth into British politics,
00:08:14.000
they would do these practices that seemed to have pretty concrete outcomes, and what interested me or the story of this book is that I began this project in the early days of cognitive science,
00:08:28.000
and I thought that what I was going to do was to figure out the narrative structures that help people to interpret the presence of these forces, take a kind of agnostic approach towards these forces,
00:08:41.000
I don't really have a horse in the race of what's real, but it's certainly striking that with magic many people don't believe that the magic is real, so you can ask why do some people report that they effectively use magic to organize their lives.
00:08:57.000
And I have to say that I was kind of skeptical about whether the magical ritual really would change the nature of British politics myself.
00:09:05.000
British politics.
00:09:06.000
Yeah, so people did, when I was with anthropologists go native and then they come back, so one of the groups that I was with did a ritual to change the nature of political discourse in England.
00:09:19.000
And when I found, so I expected to find a set of narratives, prototypes, cognitive concepts, ways of thinking about the world that people would acquire as they came into these groups, and that these new ways of categorizing would help them reorganize the way that they interpreted evidence, and that these new concepts would help them see that the magic worked.
00:09:48.000
And I found that, but what I was much more struck by is that people would say, if you want to do magic, you've got to practice, practice is hard, some people are going to be better than others, and that people who practice and are good, they're going to change.
00:10:06.000
And what I found is that I started practicing magic, and I felt the magical power. Now, again, I'm not like I don't have a horse in the race or whether it's real, but I can tell you that it was a physical experience.
00:10:23.000
You could feel, I could feel something change in my body, I could feel what I was tempted to call force moving through me.
00:10:31.000
And so that made me really, really interested in the practices and how the practices changed the mind and trained the mind in certain ways.
00:10:43.000
Well, of course, the big question is, it can change the mind, it can change the person or the subject who practices magic, there can be a kind of spiritual metamorphosis within, and all that can be attested to by the experience of the person practicing.
00:11:00.000
The other question, though, is whether the practice of magic actually changes anything in the outside reality, outside of the psyche of the practitioner.
00:11:11.000
And here's where the claims of magic bump up often against the empirical, the kind of absolute "no," or what the French called, "lude non du pé," the "no of the father," who says, "no."
00:11:26.000
So your practice is not actually bringing about a series of effects in the real world, it's not transforming the matter into gold and so forth. It might be transforming the soul, but not the world of matter.
00:11:40.000
So I don't think that a social scientist can answer that question. I guess I put into the same domain claims about spirits and magic and God in the divine.
00:11:55.000
These are impassioned domains of human experience, people have powerful beliefs and ideas about them.
00:12:04.000
I don't think that I can answer that question. What I can say, or the way that I think about it, is that if the magic is real, look God is real, these experiences happen through the human mind.
00:12:22.000
And a psychological anthropologist can say something about what the mind is doing, how the mind changes, and why people report these experiences.
00:12:32.000
So it's important for you as a social scientist to undergo the experience within your own, let's say, psychic subjectivity in order to substantiate, or legitimate the claims that you make.
00:12:51.000
As a social scientist, about the phenomenon or consideration.
00:12:55.000
So anthropology is a particular kind of social science. And what the anthropologist does is to in effect learn to enter the world that he or she has come to study, to try to figure out what it would take to really enter that world, and to observe what people are doing, the practices they share, the concepts they share, and then to return to the
00:13:01.000
to in effect learn to enter the world that he or she has come to study, to try to figure
00:13:07.340
out what it would take to really enter that world, and to observe what people are doing,
00:13:14.360
the practices they share, the concepts they share, and then to return to the desk and describe
00:13:22.480
it.
00:13:23.480
Now I don't think that my personal experience tells us very much unless what I see is
00:13:34.720
what I experience is matched by other people and their experiences.
00:13:38.960
So would I say that my experience of feeling force run through my body, is that what
00:13:46.600
magicians experience, who knows, is it true that people talk about magical power, or
00:13:54.080
when I knew them in London that they talked about magical power as if it was an electrical
00:13:59.120
force that they felt in their body, absolutely.
00:14:03.440
And I think what was so powerful for me is that I had gone into that project thinking,
00:14:08.160
look, this is about ideas.
00:14:10.720
You acquire ways of talking.
00:14:13.640
So you talk about the world differently.
00:14:16.560
And while that's true, I realize that these practices are far more powerful than that.
00:14:25.440
In fact, you say in your introduction that the word belief is a highly vexed term and that
00:14:32.440
you are going to try to avoid using it until the very last chapter and you do a good
00:14:35.760
job of not using that, which I think is interesting.
00:14:41.640
At the same time, you refer to this as an impassioned domain.
00:14:47.280
And I guess if I understood you correctly, the anthropologist and you has to undergo this
00:14:53.400
passion in the first person in order to go back to the desk and then speak about it with
00:15:01.440
some kind of authority.
00:15:02.680
I certainly think it helps.
00:15:05.400
So that if you enter a world, it could glosses, religious or spiritual, which the folks
00:15:13.640
in these magical domains would do.
00:15:16.360
If you enter that world with the sense that these people are fools, I don't think you're
00:15:23.200
going to write a very sympathetic or deep understanding of their experience.
00:15:28.040
Oh, I agree with that.
00:15:29.640
And here we're talking about a phenomenon magic which has a kind of universal extension
00:15:36.800
in human cultures and it's not just the primitive cultures.
00:15:40.000
And it's not just in our prehistory, but as you discovered in contemporary England among
00:15:45.280
well-educated middle class people, it still has a lot of purchase.
00:15:50.800
You have a note that struck me where you say that one might say that a central task in sociology
00:16:01.480
has been to explain how the elimination of magic was ever possible and how it was that Western
00:16:09.640
society moved into its rational mode.
00:16:13.440
And I find that persuasive, namely that rationality, which we take to be the laws of truth
00:16:18.040
and evidence and so forth is actually historically speaking and culturally speaking from
00:16:22.520
a broad point of view now, a very radical exception in an otherwise long continuous story
00:16:29.800
of belief in magic or practices of magic or some kind of commitment to the magical nature
00:16:37.800
of reality itself.
00:16:39.880
So I would actually use the word secularism.
00:16:42.520
So I think that what has happened in the last 100, 150, 200 years, depending on the way
00:16:49.520
you count, in Western settings and in Westernized settings is that people do not routinely
00:16:59.400
reach for the divine or the supernatural of the spiritual as the explanation for events,
00:17:09.280
at least in America we rarely see God as an explanation on national secular TV.
00:17:20.240
And that is arguably an exception over the course of human history.
00:17:25.320
I'm not sure we're smarter or more logical, but I do think that that domain, that explanatory
00:17:33.040
domain has been sharply curtailed and any person who is religious or practicing whatever.
00:17:42.680
In this kind of society is sharply aware that there are smart, reasonable people who don't
00:17:50.160
take those ideas for granted.
00:17:52.600
Right.
00:17:53.600
Well, here are two remarks.
00:17:55.720
I did a show recently where we were discussing Nietzsche's dictum that God is dead.
00:18:00.800
And if you were to tell Nietzsche that 100 years later, or under 20 years later, that 95%
00:18:07.040
of Americans believe in God or some kind of higher power, he would not say that that changes
00:18:14.880
anything in the equation in the sense that it's one thing to believe in a personal God
00:18:19.480
that is part of my own personal psychic experience.
00:18:22.680
It's another to have God be the foundation of a society, of the geopolitics, of the age,
00:18:27.680
of the art, of the age, of the philosophy and ideology.
00:18:32.680
So it's yes.
00:18:34.720
I agree that in the last 100 years or 200 years, the secularization has removed God from
00:18:40.920
the institutional forms of embodiment of that.
00:18:45.960
At the same time, magic as something that lives on in our own secular world is quite fascinating
00:18:57.640
and I think it must say something about the human psyche that it must fulfill some desire, if
00:19:06.320
not need in some people's psyche, that in other words, it may be sponsored by desire,
00:19:15.520
which I believe is always a more powerful.
00:19:18.760
In fact, I think knowledge is no match for the will of desire to that certain things
00:19:26.240
be the case and is there a strong, willful element in the magicians that you were exposed
00:19:34.800
to in your experience in England?
00:19:38.280
I think magic like religion is fueled by fear and by hope and what happens developmentally
00:19:46.160
we know is that children, young children, don't separate their mind from the world.
00:19:55.200
They see they often experience their mind as affecting things in the world.
00:20:02.480
They think that they, if they shut a two-year-old, if you tell a two-year-old to hide,
00:20:07.240
a two-year-old will sometimes shut his or her eyes and believe that if the two-year-old
00:20:12.080
can't see, the two-year-old can't be seen.
00:20:15.160
And so very early on, there is a sense that human thought affects the world at large.
00:20:23.440
So somebody like Jean Piaget, thought that the task of adulthood was to dampen down that
00:20:31.240
experience of thought.
00:20:34.240
And actually Freud and Piaget are both on the same page with this.
00:20:37.960
And they talk about it as imagination.
00:20:40.320
They see that the imagination is something very childish.
00:20:45.280
There's a psychologist called Paul Harris who's now making the good argument that, in
00:20:50.880
fact, the imagination is something different and that it is a source of great creativity.
00:20:57.920
I mean, why we needed a psychologist to tell us this, I don't know.
00:21:00.760
But in any event, the capacity to imagine things that are not present before us is part
00:21:11.120
of the greatest part of the source of our empathy.
00:21:16.000
It's part of the source of our ability to change the world around us.
00:21:20.600
And that has a connection with this capacity to see one's thought active in the world.
00:21:28.440
So I think that magical thinking has, which basically is the idea that you use your mind
00:21:34.600
and you change something in the world.
00:21:37.640
Has its roots in early human consciousness?
00:21:41.720
It fuels our ambitions and our drives and our desires.
00:21:47.600
It enables us to change the world around us.
00:21:52.200
And it is a powerful response.
00:21:55.160
It gives us hope when things look bleak and it gives us protects us from fear when things
00:21:59.360
look scary.
00:22:02.040
So it's not a question of using the powers of magic to exercise greater control over
00:22:07.800
the world.
00:22:20.200
natural between thought and matter or thought and the world and it may well turn out
00:22:28.840
and I think it will turn out eventually through physics and science that the mind is actually
00:22:36.240
a very active agent, when it comes to determining the nature of reality. In fact, a lot of Western
00:22:40.820
metaphysics, traditional philosophy has already told the story of the way in which the mind
00:22:47.240
is in many ways the shaper of what are the conditions of the possibility of perception
00:22:52.280
and so on and so forth. The jury is still out on that.
00:22:56.520
I mean, we also call that psychotherapy, the way that you change your mind, changes the
00:23:01.320
way you are in the world. And so the thoughts, if you can replace fearful critical thoughts
00:23:09.160
with positive hopeful thoughts, you're going to be happier, you can be more effective,
00:23:14.040
the world actually will change more. Well, we're also in an era I think recently where there's
00:23:19.440
this kind of dogmatic orthodoxy of the power of positive thinking, which I think is rather
00:23:24.800
a trivialized degraded version. I actually prefer magic. The power of positive thinking,
00:23:31.040
are you going New York City and all these ambitious people in the system of business
00:23:38.840
corporations and things are all reading the power of positive thinking that is going to
00:23:43.280
get them the next promotion and so forth. These magicians that you spent time with, and then
00:23:50.280
we'll talk about the other evangelicals, but they therefore believed in a highly disciplined
00:23:57.960
cultivation of the inner imagination in order to allow the forces of magic to be released.
00:24:06.160
Right. And so what made them different from people is that we're off a lot of people
00:24:12.000
will carry a special pen to write an important exam so there are people who do little superstitious
00:24:18.880
things all the time to really throw your identity into sustaining that belief in magic.
00:24:27.160
I mean most people who carry superstitious print pen into an exam will laugh about it
00:24:32.520
that they doesn't really write. But you know, I just feel more comfortable with it.
00:24:36.120
These refokes are putting on long robes and meeting in living rooms to invoke higher powers
00:24:42.400
and directing them in places. So the idea of magical practice that I found in these groups
00:24:50.360
was that you would use your mind to represent a mental image and that you would really
00:24:56.880
focus on that image and you would try to use all your inner senses, your mind's eye,
00:25:03.240
your mind's ear, your mind's nose, to really imagine that vividly in your mind. And somehow
00:25:12.740
power would shoot through that image out into the world. So these ideas have a very long
00:25:18.200
history. Most of these people would trace the writing that's often mentioned is Hermeas
00:25:26.360
Trismadjustice. And this is his work is described as Hermeasic magic. He's a second century author
00:25:36.360
borrowed, borrowed ideas from Christianity and Platonism. And the tools that he's describing
00:25:44.200
are basically the tools that you find throughout magical practice. It's also you also find
00:25:50.240
them throughout Christian practice and Jewish practice and Islamic practice. But so this idea
00:25:55.160
that the mind can somehow change something in the world by imagining it vividly is at the
00:26:02.480
heart of what these magicians did. And they would read Greek myths and Celtic myths and
00:26:10.360
Nordic myths and Egyptian myths and they sort of weaved together originally a imaginative
00:26:16.400
world in which I mean I knew people who had 100 goddess statues in the room that they
00:26:24.920
had a side for ritual. And they'd organize these ideas in particular ways. And it was a lot
00:26:32.440
of fun. Actually I mean people knew all of these, you know, they'd use tarot, they'd use astrology,
00:26:37.880
they'd pay attention to their dreams and they lived in this symbolically rich world.
00:26:44.440
In fact you say that there's a great deal of spiritual diversity or kind of promiscuity that
00:26:50.200
can take their inspiration from all sorts of heterogeneous sources. Christian, pagan, Celtic,
00:26:59.040
Egyptian, occult, yeah. So there's a way in which this, and this is interesting because
00:27:05.520
it means that they're not particularly anxious about boundaries. Boundaries or porous boundaries
00:27:11.240
are fluid and it's the same kind of relaxed attitude about the boundary between the mind
00:27:17.120
and matter or the, you know, so therefore there's a syncretic, let's say, tendency that
00:27:24.760
you noticed in most of these practitioners, these magicians, right?
00:27:29.280
So these were folks who, I mean depending on their brand of magic, saw themselves as practicing
00:27:34.600
a very ancient spiritual form, the witches in particular would see themselves following
00:27:41.040
an earth goddess who is represented around the world in many, many different ways. So
00:27:46.360
she has many, many different names and it doesn't really matter whether you go to an African
00:27:51.340
source or an Egyptian source or a Celtic source. You know, she's still, she's carried
00:27:56.120
when she's ISIS, she's in another form, she's hecadate and they would see so that they,
00:28:03.680
you know, there's this quaint book Edwardian treasure trove by James George Frazier called
00:28:09.920
the Golden Bough, which talks about all of these different nature fertility rituals
00:28:15.120
in which the sort of transformation of the world in the spring and the fall and the winter
00:28:22.400
are represented by different legends. And so, but the legends, the people acting, the
00:28:29.120
legends have different names anywhere you go. So this is, so people would build together
00:28:35.240
this, whatever story is about this goddess that spoke to them.
00:28:42.480
One of my favorite books on this topic is called The Great Mother, The Great Mother,
00:28:47.680
and it's called The Great Cosmic Mother. It's co-author and mine.
00:28:50.920
Like a zoo. Monica Sedu and the other, there's two authors. Fabulous book, I think it's
00:28:58.120
a great book. So I guess the question that we can start approaching now is this book of yours
00:29:11.120
out, which is called when God talks back. And here, you know, the, I know that early history
00:29:19.440
of Christianity, the church was extremely paranoid about distinguishing its own agenda
00:29:25.080
from all these pagan practices that involved a great deal of magic and so forth. And some
00:29:31.920
of the early Christians were just adopting Jesus as just another person of personifications,
00:29:39.680
and of course, that would draw into this kind of promiscuous, kind of rather chaotic world
00:29:45.800
of witchcraft and so forth. And the church was highly suspicious and when it gained institutional
00:29:53.520
power, it was extremely prosecutorial. I mean, it persecuted the remnants of these
00:30:00.680
in the opaque traditions quite forcefully. Also, because perhaps there was an anxiety about the
00:30:10.040
truth claims for its own doctrines that could easily be assimilated to magic. I mean,
00:30:17.720
some of the doctrines can be as unbelievable as some of the others. So anyway, now,
00:30:24.040
you know, 20 years later you start studying a completely different group of people in the
00:30:30.360
United States this time and these are people, these are evangelicals in the vineyard Christian
00:30:38.220
fellowship is at the name that has an evangelical church that has what about 600 chapters
00:30:43.680
around the United States. And can you tell us a little bit about the vineyard and these
00:30:49.520
people that you spent some time with?
00:30:51.480
So the vineyard represents, as I see it, the shift in American spirituality since 1965.
00:30:58.520
So since that time, since that great period of social upheaval, people have wanted to experience
00:31:04.680
the divine directly. They've wanted to touch God here on earth. They wanted to have, they've
00:31:09.960
wanted an intimate personal relationship with God. And the vineyard represents that reach
00:31:18.200
for experiencing God. It also represents it in the way that many of these movements,
00:31:25.280
and so there are thousands of thousands of churches like this. They barred some of the
00:31:31.080
spiritual practices of Pentecostalism and made them tone them down and made them sort of
00:31:37.280
tolerable and appropriate for the white middle class audience. So these are folks who might
00:31:44.360
speak in tongues, but at home, usually privately. They yearn to feel the Holy Spirit move
00:31:52.280
through them. They believe that God will speak back to them, that they will talk to God and
00:31:58.360
God will talk back. They also take, they are also evangelical. They treat the Bible as
00:32:07.160
nearly true, true in the all-letter to firms. They see that they should evangelize to
00:32:13.320
some extent to folks who do not know Jesus. And then that sort of central pillar of
00:32:21.360
the evangelical faith, they expected a personal relationship with Jesus. The evangelical faith
00:32:28.680
is I think the numbers are a little hard to understand, but sort of splits into or it's
00:32:36.960
splits into two halves. There are folks who regard themselves as evangelical and sometimes
00:32:41.700
are called fundamentalist, who do not expect to have an interactive relationship with
00:32:47.720
God. And then they are the folks who do. So the vineyard represents those interactive people.
00:32:56.120
God and Jesus is it always, it does God always take the form of Jesus for these people
00:33:04.160
when they have their personal interactions. One of the things that also happened in 1965
00:33:09.480
is that God became unconditionally loving, arguably for the first time in Christian
00:33:15.840
history. And I'd get some pushback from people who aren't bad this, but one of the big
00:33:21.560
shift in 1965 is also that there are other ways to have faith. They'll at mainstream churches,
00:33:27.840
start losing adherence, and the Christianity becomes what I think of as a buyer's market.
00:33:37.360
So people don't necessarily go to the church that grew up in. In fact, an awful something
00:33:41.840
like a third of the baby boomers, no, even toothers of the baby boomers start stopped going
00:33:46.860
to the church that they grew up in. That's a huge percentage. So the God that was imagined
00:33:55.320
in these churches was also a God that would lure people back to practice, would be a
00:34:01.160
pleasing God for people. And God has been a much kinder gentler soul since 1965. So there's
00:34:08.480
not a lot of difference between Jesus and God. John, Edward's God, terrible God. You know,
00:34:14.000
John, Edward's preached the sermon called the wrath of an angry God. Sinners, something
00:34:23.040
like that. And he has this image of the God with his hands holding a bow and an arrow
00:34:30.240
pulled back pointed right at your heart. And he's going to slay you. And it's only Jesus
00:34:35.240
who steps in. That's not the vineyard God. Right. So he's in the hands of an angry God.
00:34:41.240
That's right. Yeah, that's in the great awakening phenomenon. I'm interested in this.
00:34:46.360
If you don't mind, I'd like to engage you on a little bit of the, well, first the claim
00:34:54.760
that you make that in 1965 is when this, there's this shift in you get this buyer's
00:35:01.600
market parentheses with the show that we did with Deppressatz. I said that God is dead. And
00:35:08.600
it's the madman has to go into the marketplace to announce the news that God is dead, which
00:35:12.680
means that the marketplace takes over what the space that God left. And now that God is subject
00:35:20.000
to the market forces is quite interesting. I think it just lends confirmation to that.
00:35:24.360
However, when you say that these vineyard people want, or in 1965, the segment of people
00:35:33.240
wanted to experience the divine directly, I have studied for my own personal curiosity
00:35:41.700
quite intensely the early Puritans in the 17th century, early 17th century came. And these
00:35:51.880
people did not leave England and go through the travails of crossing the Atlantic and undergoing
00:35:57.080
hardships and uncertainties and so forth, just to be told by their elders and their pastors
00:36:04.080
and their seniors in the church that you have to have patience and patience and that nothing
00:36:09.680
has changed and they came to this new England called new, not because it was more recent
00:36:17.840
version of the old because of another order of a Christian kind of renewal. This is new birth.
00:36:23.280
They didn't come to these shores for the same old story. They came to have the experience
00:36:28.960
of God directly and so many of the controversies that erupted in the early church, the
00:36:35.960
congregations in Massachusetts. I'm thinking of, for example, the antinomian controversy
00:36:39.800
and Hutchinson and so forth. These enthusiasts, as they were called, wanted to walk in the
00:36:47.440
covenant of grace and not in the covenant of works and they wanted the world and they wanted
00:36:52.000
it now. They wanted God in their lives and they thought that their churches were conspiring
00:36:57.480
to, again, substantiate and so forth. And so I think it's an extremely American phenomenon.
00:37:05.560
This idea of wanting to close the gap between the self and God that Christianity insists
00:37:15.600
on. So more than American, when you find periods throughout the world in which people seek
00:37:21.240
to touch the divine directly, Pentecostalism is arguably the fastest growing religion
00:37:27.120
in the world. And so I don't mean to claim that 1965 is the first time that people wanted
00:37:32.800
to direct an audience. I was thinking of Harold Bloom, for example, as a book called
00:37:37.760
the American Religion. When he looks at all these completely different, apparently different
00:37:41.680
denominations, but he finds that there's a common core among them, which is that first thing
00:37:48.200
that God is going to be now located in the self. And that this self, that there's a
00:37:54.000
self within myself, which is, and that's why he calls it a "nostic" rather than a Christian
00:37:59.920
religion, this American religion, that this core of self within the self is antecede,
00:38:06.160
the creation of the world. It's not part of the contaminated or corrupt demyergic created
00:38:13.520
the world. And that if you can go deep enough into that self, you will find their God within
00:38:20.720
the self. And he traces that all the way through trans-American transcendentalism and
00:38:25.760
Mormonism and so on and so forth. Now, I take your point that maybe in 1965, there was
00:38:34.000
a new sort of liberation or a new chapter of this among these people, but it does have roots,
00:38:41.760
I think, in that I think are particularly American. It might not be only American, but it seems to.
00:38:47.360
Some people would describe our periods since 1965 as the fourth grade awakening. And I think that
00:38:55.760
it has, it may have different causes. And it certainly has a different context because it takes place
00:39:02.960
in a world in which it is socially acceptable to be an atheist or a Hindu for the first time.
00:39:10.080
And so that's the big change. I think that this very vivid God is actually a reaction to
00:39:20.640
secular modernity because it enables people to protect people in certain ways from the availability
00:39:28.640
of their own skepticism and doubt. Well, I don't want to presume to either judge or psychoanalyze
00:39:38.960
people who were the ones that you were living with studying their behavior and so forth.
00:39:47.040
I hope many of them will tune into listening to this show out of curiosity. But however,
00:39:55.280
what would you say to prevent me from assuming that the relationship with God that these people
00:40:03.360
are insisting on is an extremely narcissistic self-involved and ultimately selfish kind of relationship
00:40:21.360
where they want to turn God into their best friend that you have all these fascinating examples of
00:40:28.480
how people will leave a cup of coffee for God or someone goes into the park and imagines God.
00:40:35.120
God has his arm around her and is like the best friend or the boyfriend or some and that there is
00:40:42.400
a way in which God talks to me directly and he gives me advice. He's my bosom pal. This is from
00:40:50.720
a traditional Christian point of view about the kind of deus abscondi to us. So this kind of sublime
00:40:58.000
and often terrifying. God, this is really quite, well, let's say if I'm playing the devil's advocate,
00:41:05.280
I would say this is extremely trivializing of God because he's just you're reducing the
00:41:11.680
grandeur of God to the status of not a Facebook friend per se but someone who are relative.
00:41:19.280
So they would say that they weren't reducing God and that the attempt to experience God intimately
00:41:28.480
is not meant to trivialize his majesty and holiness. And in fact, I mean, I did certainly see that
00:41:36.640
people had very complicated understandings of God and what it meant. The truth state is of sitting there
00:41:44.880
in a park bench with God's arm around your shoulders. And people didn't treat that as true in the
00:41:50.240
same way that they thought about God as the creator of the universe. So let me make an argument to
00:41:55.760
invite you to think about it differently than you've just laid out. It's the way that you can
00:42:04.480
think about this practice is that it's making your conscience or your sense of the best part of
00:42:11.360
yourself come alive. So if you see what people are actually doing, they're using their imagination to
00:42:18.000
grasp God to represent this invisible, unknowable being in their mind. They, in order to do that,
00:42:26.480
they draw on their understanding of this of the wisest, most compassionate parts themselves to
00:42:36.000
represent who God is. And they're also drawing on their sense of God from the Bible shape by the way
00:42:41.920
that the social community of the church imagines God. So in these churches, typically God is not
00:42:48.560
the God of the Old Testament. God is a particularly kindly version of a New Testament God.
00:42:55.520
And so they kind of create this imagined representation of God as being
00:43:01.520
much better and kinder and more loving than they are. And then they imagine themselves as seen
00:43:09.600
from God's perspective. And so seen like that, it looks a lot more like cognitive behavioral therapy
00:43:19.600
looks much more like good psychoanalytic psychotherapy. It looks like a way of not treating what you know
00:43:28.000
to be right behavior is something that you kind of know in the back of your mind, but it's something
00:43:31.920
that's very present and sort of available to you and thinking about how to talk to your annoying
00:43:38.480
physical friend. So I certainly true that I was taken aback by these practices at first. I mean,
00:43:46.240
that's why I decided to study this. I mean, I was just, I couldn't believe that people were
00:43:50.160
talked about having coffee with God. But the more that I came to watch people using their ideas
00:43:58.000
about God this way, the more impressed I was by their thoughtfulness and the value of this experience.
00:44:05.600
It's kind of like, I think it enables them to comfort themselves and to decotastrophies and to
00:44:15.920
reframe the difficult events of their day. Well, you know, I have no doubts about that. And again,
00:44:25.040
I don't want to be in the role of the secularist to prosecutor. However, that's okay.
00:44:32.240
I have to say that what disturbs me about it is it seems to confirm some of the worst stereotypes
00:44:44.720
about the religious impulse that you get in people like Freud and so forth, which is that religion is
00:44:50.080
something but a projection of infantile desires where God is a father figure and what the child
00:44:56.640
wants more than anything else is the unconditional love of the father or maybe the mother. And that
00:45:03.840
the idea that God has all this unconditional love for me seems to be the primary narcissistic
00:45:09.200
investment in this kind of personalization of the relationship to God. And I'm not a big fan of the
00:45:16.720
wrathful God either who tells me I hate you. But I think there's something about God's rejection
00:45:26.640
or hatred for a certain kind of fallen humanity. And I'm just speaking here again from a historical
00:45:33.920
point of view. I brought along quote of the early Puritan, one of the early Puritan critics of the
00:45:42.640
Quakers, because Quakers now they believed Fox, the founder of the Quaker, things he believed in
00:45:49.120
invisible God that is within the self. And one of the early Puritans, Roger Williams has this quote
00:45:58.000
where he says that, let me see if I can, that for all their talk about this invisible place where God
00:46:05.840
resides in the soul, yet they disown not their own visible congregateings and assembling their
00:46:12.480
visible teachers overseers or bishops, their visible and audible performances and worships,
00:46:18.080
praying, preaching, singing, etc. And why then doth this poor notoriously visible cheater,
00:46:24.960
Fox, thus, Pratt of invisibilities. And the essence of his polemic is summarized in the sense,
00:46:32.960
the wound lies here in the soothing up and flattering of rotten nature from whence, from within the
00:46:42.000
Lord Jesus tells us, proceeds all the rotten and hellish speeches and actions.
00:46:47.600
So, and I don't think that these folks that have been your approved of rotten, specious actions,
00:46:54.800
they don't believe in original sin, that's right. In other words, some kind of people
00:46:58.800
that thought the way they would talk about it, or at least I think that they might use that phrase,
00:47:05.200
but the way that they talk about sin is actually not so far from the way Augustine talked about sin,
00:47:10.800
which is as a shadow between you and God. So, it's not so much the bad behavior you do,
00:47:18.560
but the inability to connect to God. And so, there's a couple of things to say. First of all,
00:47:26.400
I think if a non-Christian college student went into a church and found the thought about
00:47:35.920
converting to Christianity and found that the church was explaining about a thundering,
00:47:42.800
Helen Brimstone kind of preacher, a God that would destroy you with you or that you had to fear.
00:47:50.560
Not sure that that kid would come back. No, no, you're not going to sell well.
00:47:53.760
Well, that doesn't sell well. Second thing is that we do have, again, I think about this kind of
00:48:00.560
slightly dynamically in the way I use this idea of a self-object. So, I think that we carry with us
00:48:08.160
all of our personal relationships, particularly the important ones, and that when we bump into rough spots,
00:48:17.360
we are able to reach for people that we have good, solid, loving relationships with, and they can
00:48:27.440
make us feel more soot. I think that's what people are doing with this sort of,
00:48:33.440
this less, let's pretend dimension with God, making God into a self-object. And there's actually
00:48:39.840
increasing evidence that if you look at people who have a, who experience a loving God versus
00:48:46.640
people who experience a wrathful God, the folks, the loving God, have better immune response,
00:48:51.840
they have, you know, their T-cell counts are better, they seem to be less ill, internalizing a
00:49:00.400
wrathful God is associated with the higher risk of mental illness. So, it looks like, at least for
00:49:07.840
the, for Americans who have many different choices to think about spiritually, a loving God
00:49:16.560
serves you better in the world. But I admit, there is, you know.
00:49:22.400
No, that's fine. I agree with you just intuitively that those cultures which have been most committed
00:49:33.920
to the notion of an angry, wrathful, vengeful God probably enact that kind of behavior in history,
00:49:44.560
more than those who believe in love. So I think it's, we're far better off as culturally speaking
00:49:50.720
when we, when our divinity becomes more gentle. But there is just a long history, obviously,
00:49:58.560
of Christianity where God had, has a very different status than he seems to have here in this
00:50:06.720
kinder and gentler divinity that you've been describing. And the, again, to sell that God because
00:50:17.360
he's better for your health and better for your, your psychic serenity is kind of a weird, I mean,
00:50:22.720
it's perversion, right, because this conjugation between capitalism and evangelism that America is so
00:50:32.240
distinct for is, it gets very interesting from, from an anthropological view, it's really very interesting.
00:50:40.240
It is really interesting. Americans like happiness, they think they have a right for happiness and
00:50:45.520
they think they have a right to reach for it. And I think in that sense you are absolutely right,
00:50:49.120
there's a very American quality to this envisioning of God. We live in a psychotherapeutic
00:50:56.400
century. So what other forms would this personalization take? I mean, we talked about, you know,
00:51:02.160
leaving the coffee or a place at the table for him at the meal or walking, walking with him is
00:51:10.880
is it another big thing, no? I think that would be the most common. So people, what people are really
00:51:16.720
doing when they're praying is talking to God in their minds. And they are seeking to experience
00:51:22.320
God is talking back and they're seeking to experience this dialogue as not being something that's just
00:51:28.080
they're thinking about their own daydream, but something bigger and more external. So some people,
00:51:35.600
I've heard the term God dreams to talk about this process. Some people will use techniques that
00:51:42.960
we think of as more associated with the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises,
00:51:46.720
loyal Ignatius Loyola founded the Jesuit faith and they would try to go into the scriptures and try
00:51:55.760
to experience it as if they were there. So, you know, there you are at the Annunciation and you
00:52:01.360
try to see with your mind's eye what Mary looks like, whether she's scared, whether she's excited,
00:52:06.960
you see how young she is, you look at the weather or what does that, is she inside the house,
00:52:13.440
outside the house. And so they try to bring these biblical narratives to life in their own experience.
00:52:21.040
And that's can be quite powerful because that's sort of, not only does the biblical story become
00:52:28.560
more vivid, but you're fusing with your own personal memories of Palestine or the desert or
00:52:36.080
young girls. And so you literally craft your thought and this is actually something that people
00:52:42.400
would talk about in the, my gosh, and also talks about this in the medieval monastery. They wanted to
00:52:47.600
replace the human bricks of thought with scriptural bricks so that all your thoughts were sort of
00:52:54.160
saturated in these ideas of scripture. And of course this is part of the cultivation of the
00:53:00.480
mind and of the imagination that you've noticed in your work on the magic in England.
00:53:08.560
And how then do, because I take it from your book that there is, there are certain criteria where
00:53:16.160
they presume to actually verify when it is the voice of God speaking to them rather than some
00:53:22.800
other kind of imagined voice. Right, so there are really a couple of pieces to this story.
00:53:29.360
The first thing they have to do is learn what I call a new theory of mind. They have to think about
00:53:33.760
their mind differently, not as being private and walled off from the world, which is kind of the
00:53:37.840
secular American model of mind. But as containing this external presence God, so they have to,
00:53:44.400
they have to learn to pick out which thoughts came from God and which thoughts came from themselves.
00:53:50.080
And so they do that with what they call discernment. And there are, you know, nobody lays at a bullet
00:53:57.760
point list, but they do talk about looking for thoughts and stand out in some way. You weren't
00:54:03.200
thinking about the topic before, the thought felt loud or the thought felt different. It should
00:54:09.360
be the kind of thing that God would say. And again, you had this representation of a loving God.
00:54:14.320
And it should make you feel good when you had that thought, you should feel terrible.
00:54:19.520
And then they talk about testing it against circumstances. So, you know, mostly, you know, when God
00:54:30.160
sort of speaks on a very practical issue, like should you move across the country to Los Angeles,
00:54:38.080
people are very attentive to, you know, whether they're right and they'll get a lot of people to
00:54:42.720
pray with them and they'll ask people about how they think that God just becomes then about this issue.
00:54:47.360
If it's something pretty small, like, you know, should I go to the watch at Shampu, should I buy?
00:54:52.560
They're like not. So they don't take it so seriously, but they don't
00:54:57.680
believe in ask those kind of questions. Oh, I have this wonderful Facebook posting of somebody who
00:55:04.640
was really getting the sense of God as a live in her life and she was dancing in the hair products
00:55:11.120
aisle and so excited and singing to him this shower. And it becomes, and people talk about falling
00:55:17.280
in love with Jesus and they have the sense that it's this, you know, giggly, wonderful thing. And
00:55:21.920
it's like finding your best friend and your best friend is really perfect and always with you.
00:55:27.040
And it's a lot of fun for people. Yeah. There's another piece of this process, which is just
00:55:34.320
training mental imagery and training sense, the inner senses. And I think that we know that we see
00:55:42.640
the cultivation of inner senses throughout religious practice. And I think we also see and I have
00:55:48.560
evidence to support that if you cultivate the inner senses, those inner senses become sharper,
00:55:54.640
more powerful. They feel more real. They generate more unusual experience. They make God feel more
00:56:00.960
like a person. Yeah. I don't know. I get annoyed when the undergraduates, you ask them, who's your
00:56:09.040
best friend? They say, my parents are my best friends because we I come from a generation where
00:56:15.760
at a certain point, your relations with your parents have to become antagonistic. Otherwise,
00:56:20.800
you're not undergoing that sort of crucial initiation into adulthood and independence and there
00:56:26.640
has to be a turn against. So in a certain sense, I think also the same thing would apply. I
00:56:32.080
almost more comfortable that you turn against and you declare your independence. You don't make
00:56:36.400
I ain't going to become my best friend. He's not going to be on a lover and the person that I speak to
00:56:42.000
in the aisles of the supermarket. I think a little distance from, but that's me speaking now.
00:56:48.000
So these folks will say things like it was when I began to yell at God that he became real for me.
00:56:53.760
So people will talk about, you know, I had somebody you talked about, you know, she and God went
00:57:00.720
off to silk in different corners at each other. She talked, you know, other people would talk
00:57:05.600
about yelling with God. And it's not actually where does it end? They'll end up hand-pecking
00:57:12.320
God like they hand-peck their husbands or they'll end up, you know, reducing things where it's just
00:57:18.560
there's no distinction between the experience of the divine and the experience of the everyday.
00:57:22.800
I mean, I think it's a dangerous path to go on. Yeah, I mean, I can see that, but it's again,
00:57:28.240
it's not that people ignore that sort of more, you know, I mean, it's Sunday mornings are actually
00:57:35.760
really interesting because the worship songs go back and forth between this very intense intimacy
00:57:41.360
and the sense of, you know, holy majesty. And again, I think that people's, so sometimes when
00:57:49.280
secular observers look at the evangelicals, they think that they, you know, hold this proposition,
00:57:55.600
you know, I believe in God and it's really simple-minded. I actually think that these God concepts
00:58:03.600
are really complicated. There's a piece for the best friend. There's a piece for the creator of the
00:58:09.920
universe. There's a piece for magnificent otherness. There's a piece for utter confusion. And it's
00:58:16.480
like there's this complicated set of ideas that loosely hang together and get used in different
00:58:23.600
settings. Yeah. Well, that's fascinating. I just, because the show is called entitled opinions,
00:58:28.560
my opinion is that I will take Kafka's God, who, where Kafka said that the reason God is
00:58:34.160
completely inaccessible and hidden and perhaps, you know, you think he doesn't exist is because
00:58:38.320
if we had any access to him whatsoever, we would overthrow him because that is a nature of human beings.
00:58:44.800
And so this kind of easy access, I worry, not for us. I worry for God what happens when he gets
00:58:51.920
that close to us. So thank you very much, Tanya. We've been speaking with Professor Tanya
00:58:56.720
Lerman from the Department of Anthropology here at Stanford on behalf of entitled opinions,
00:59:01.760
I'm Robert Harrison. Please tune in next week. We'll be back with you. Thanks again, Tanya.
00:59:06.960
Thanks for being on.
00:59:08.960
[Music]
00:59:26.960
[Music]
00:59:30.960
[Music]
00:59:34.960
[Music]
00:59:40.960
[Music]
00:59:50.960
[Music]
00:59:56.960
[Music]
01:00:06.960
[Music]
01:00:12.960
[Music]
01:00:20.960
[Music]
01:00:30.960
[Music]
01:00:36.960
[Music]
01:00:40.960
[Music]
01:00:46.960
[Music]
01:00:56.960
[Music]
01:01:06.960
[Music]
01:01:16.960
[Music]
01:01:26.960
[Music]
01:01:30.960
[Music]
01:01:36.960
[Music]
01:01:42.960
[Music]
01:01:46.960
[Music]
01:01:56.960
[Music]
01:02:06.960
[Music]
01:02:14.960
[Music]
01:02:24.960
[Music]
01:02:30.960
[Music]
01:02:34.960
[Music]
01:02:40.960
[Music]
01:02:50.960
[Music]
01:02:54.960
[Music]
01:03:00.960
[Music]
01:03:10.960
[Music]
01:03:20.960
[Music]
01:03:26.960
[Music]
01:03:32.960
[Music]
01:03:36.960
[Music]