Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/marilynne-robinson1.jpg?w=450&h=483

I was reading Marilynne Robinson’s *Absence of Mind *(the published version of her splendid Terry Lectures, delivered at Yale in 2009 ) when I came across David Bently Hart’s review and its perspicuous observations:

“Much of the joy of reading Robinson comes from her ability to translate complex ideas into words suited to their subtleties. Beginning with her remarkable debut novel Housekeeping (1980), all of her work, fiction and essays alike, has been marked by a luminous intelligence and a rather attractive intellectual severity, communicated in a language that wastes no words and that demands attentiveness. *Absence of Mind *is a short book, but also an intensely reflective and penetrating one, and it offers considerable rewards for anyone willing to read it carefully, and to think along with it. For all its brevity, it makes its case with surprising comprehensiveness.”

Yes, read it and think along with it. Here are (Part One) reading selections from the chapter titled On Human Nature

dj

 

[bschneid]

I really enjoyed reading this, it definitely game me a lot of things to consider. I am now very curious so I think I am going to have to get the full copies of her essays

 

[djeter]

I really enjoyed reading this, it definitely game me a lot of things to consider. I am now very curious so I think I am going to have to get the full copies of her essays

I have the second part up today which brings in some of what the orthodox theologian David Bently Hart refers to here:

“The reductionist project apparently understands itself, and certainly presents itself, as a kind of scientific project. Thus it generates the literature of what Robinson aptly calls “parascience”: a form of discourse whose rather grand, frequently incoherent, and usually irreducibly metaphysical assertions about the nature of the universe, the self, the genealogy of morality, and so on, masquerade as purely scientific claims. This is a literature that systematically blurs the distinction between fact and theory, and between legitimate theory and ideological invention; but it is marketed to readers who for the most part lack the special training needed to recognize when they are being misled, and so enjoys — as Robinson says of the works of Dawkins and Dennett — “the effective authority that comes from successful popularization.” OUCH! I love it!!!

A great deal of the pleasure that *Absence of Mind *affords the reader comes from Robinson’s patient deflation of parascientific pretensions. She does not counter the reductionist case with vague appeals to hopeful sentiment, but instead quite effectively demonstrates how much of that case consists in baseless assumptions, ungoverned metaphors, and sheer assertion. In two pages, for instances, she deftly demolishes Steven Pinker’s “statistical” proof that the modern, secular era has been less violent than earlier epochs by pointing out the shoddiness of his method and reasoning.”

If this doesn’t cause you to run not walk to your bookstore or library I don’t know what will. Yes, I’m shamelessly pushing her book…

dj

 

[greylorn]

Thank you for firing up this thread and introducing Marilynne Robinson, who I’d probably never have read otherwise. I followed your excerpt up with a Wikipedia study and a few essays. Reading very long sentences is a great way to stretch one’s attention span.

I love the job she did on Richard Dawkins in one essay. Logical, elegant, and right on.

However, her work suffers from a flaw shared by all Christian apologists: She seems to tacitly assume that by showing the errors of atheists like Dawkins, she makes a case for Christianity. Not so.

Proving one viewpoint wrong simply proves that viewpoint wrong. Suppose she shows definitively that atheism is an incorrect belief system (although this does not appear to be on her agenda). However, unless one has first proved that Christianity or some other belief system is the only possible credible alternative to atheism, proving atheism wrong does not enhance the viability of any other belief system.

I studied reviews of Absence of Mind looking for presence of mind, not for absence. In better words, did she have any insights to offer into the nature of mind, or its origin and purpose? No reviews offered any hint of such a thing, which makes the book of little value to me.

If anyone who has read her stuff can apprise me otherwise, please do. I like Robinson. She has a fine, analytic mind and a good heart. Christians would do better to read her than to read most of the Bible, IMO.

 

[bschneid]

Greylorn I think you missed the main point of the essay

"

What I wish to question are not the methods of science, but the methods of a kind of argument that claims the authority of science or highly specialized knowledge, that assumes a protective coloration that allows it to pass for science yet does not practice the self-discipline or self-criticism for which science is distinguished?

Although proving Christianity was not her main intention, breaking down flawed logic does nothing but promote a clear perspective on the topic. The person is then given the opportunity for a spiritual outlet which wasn’t possible due to the restrictions of scientism. This is a possible win for Christianity!

 

[djeter]

Thank you for firing up this thread and introducing Marilynne Robinson, who I’d probably never have read otherwise. I followed your excerpt up with a Wikipedia study and a few essays. Reading very long sentences is a great way to stretch one’s attention span.

If anyone who has read her stuff can apprise me otherwise, please do. I like Robinson. She has a fine, analytic mind and a good heart. Christians would do better to read her than to read most of the Bible, IMO.

Well I don’t offer her as an alternative to the Bible, but if you’re interested I did another post of her novel Gilead

dj

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn I think you missed the main point of the essay

Although proving Christianity was not her main intention, breaking down flawed logic does nothing but promote a clear perspective on the topic. The person is then given the opportunity for a spiritual outlet which wasn’t possible due to the restrictions of scientism. This is a possible win for Christianity!

Thank you!

Robinson makes so many interesting and relevant sub-points in the course of promoting her primary agenda that a guy can get confused as to what her primary agenda actually is. Without reading her entire book I’d be a nit to declare that I understood her agenda. So, like most readers, I tackled points that were of interest to me and relevant to my own agenda.

I agree completely with her views on scientism. I tackle the same subject in my book. Rather than take an intellectual’s perspective on it (I’d come across as pretty stupid) I take the engineer’s perspective: Look— there are lots of nits pretending to know something about serious science, but who are completely unqualified because they do not understand physics, and here’s a solution.

Consequently I also agree completely with your comment, but with the inevitable “however” appended…

Showing how lots of people who yap about “scientific” ideas are simply incompetent camp followers is a fine thing to do. Robinson does this admirably. But it is not enough, because when all the bad ideas promoted in the name of science are taken away, what is left? Spiritual stuff, religions, as you imply— Christianity you hope. But the fundamental beliefs of religions are no more credible than those of phony science.

By “fundamental beliefs” I specifically mean core ideas, particularly with regard to the beginnings of things. The critical thinker will see that neither Big Bang theory nor Darwinism offers an intelligent explanation for the origin of the universe and biological life. Neither one can even touch the question of human consciousness.

But neither can any religion. Scientism came into power because of the failure of religions— and in reaction to some silly religious ideas. IMO the only religion which ever had the potential to deal with profound metaphysical issues was the old Catholic Church. When younger and more naive I even sought to influence Church thinking on these matters. Bad plan!

I wonder how you personally feel about this. Since we both agree with Robinson that scientism sucks, do you personally believe that there is a credible spiritual answer, or set thereof, to fundamental questions about the beginning?

If so, note that anyone undertaking to provide such ideas must answer an annoying question which scientism does not need to address— Why?

Not, “Why a Creator?” but rather, “Why did the Creator create the nits mucking up planet earth?”

 

[greylorn]

Well I don’t offer her as an alternative to the Bible, but if you’re interested I did another post of her novel Gilead

dj

You are indeed a Marilynne Robinson fan. You would find it easier to do worse than to find better. I’ve just read your Gilead post. Here are my comments:

She reminds me of an old ladyfriend who also won literary prizes, and was indeed a beautiful writer. But my friend had nothing to say. Her literary efforts were well regarded by those who focus upon how a thing is said, more so than what is actually said. Thus my friend’s irrelevant babblings were taken seriously by some. We broke up when I reviewed her novel and suggested that it needed a plot and storyline.

Robinson writes like that. Although she does make occasional points, she is so concerned with presentation that she misses the crux of her own talking points. For her, the talking is primary to the point. Her thoughts on existence are a fine example. She misses the true miracle, that anything whatsoever should happen to exist.

Her line, “‘Do you ever wonder why American Christianity seems to wait for the real thinking to be done elsewhere?’” is an absolute gem. I will probably quote it.

Why, when she has the power to encapsulate volumes of verbiage in such a pithy line, does she elsewhere employ so much verbiage? Well, I probably know why. She adores writing, and enjoys applying her expertise to the job.

I suggest that her style of writing appeals to speed-readers, one of which I am not. One must be pretty smart to understand her stuff (and I’ve probably missed much of what she says for being too simple to grasp it), and speed-readers are typically bright people. But I lack the time to plow through so much chaff at my 200 word-per-minute reading speed. I depend upon someone like yourself to discover the occasional nourishing grain of wheat amongst all the fiber.

By way of alternative, there is an old novel, The Soul of Anna Klane, which deals with religion, science, and philosophy amid a page-turner of a story, in fewer words. It may have failed because it contains a high ratio of content to words, and speed-readers cannot absorb the content from such a format.

I wonder what Robinson might do by pursuing her own question, the aforementioned, “‘Do you ever wonder why American Christianity seems to wait for the real thinking to be done elsewhere?’” She might need to study some physics, and come to see herself as part of the problem. Christianity is composed of individuals, few of whom are competent enough to do any thinking on the religion in which they’ve been indoctrinated. She is one who might do such thinking. She certainly has the mind for it, and seems to vaguely recognize the problem.

Why then does she not engage her own question by becoming a Christian willing to think beyond the confines of dogma?

 

[bschneid]

Showing how lots of people who yap about “scientific” ideas are simply incompetent camp followers is a fine thing to do. Robinson does this admirably. But it is not enough, because when all the bad ideas promoted in the name of science are taken away, what is left? Spiritual stuff, religions, as you imply— Christianity you hope. But the fundamental beliefs of religions are no more credible than those of phony science.

By “fundamental beliefs” I specifically mean core ideas, particularly with regard to the beginnings of things. The critical thinker will see that neither Big Bang theory nor Darwinism offers an intelligent explanation for the origin of the universe and biological life. Neither one can even touch the question of human consciousness.

I’m a little confused about what it is you are asking. You say that after scientism is removed that religion cannot answer questions about the beginnings of things. You then mentioned Big Band and Darwinism so I’m assuming that you are looking for the “how”? Later in your response you did bring up the question of “why”. I’ll try my best to answer you

I do not think religion can answer the “how”, unless you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I think religion can answer the question of “who created” or “what created” to a certain degree. Humans are capable of love and I believe that it is through love we can reach our highest potential. After understanding the potentiality that love brings I think it is a likely conclusion to say our Creator is loving as well.

There is a lot of evil and suffering in the world. Part of the problem is not enough love going (as cliche as that sounds) and that we are afraid to suffer. I am very blessed to have the family and friends that I have and I am very blessed to have a comfortable life that allows me the opportunity to surf the internet in my free time. However, like many other people, I am afraid of suffering. In the news there are countless stories of violence and poverty in third world countries. I think there are very few people who don’t feel sad or sympathetic towards the victims, we all have the capacity to love. We would all like to help these people, but we usually don’t if it means we must share their burden of suffering as well. I’m not an evil dictator, but I definitely see how I am part of the problem. If I am worrying about not having food its because I don’t wan’t to have to take the time to drive to the store.

I hope you don’t feel I’m rabbling too much, I suddenly felt inclined to give my own personal argument for substantiating an evil world with an all loving Creator. For your last question:

“Why did the Creator create the nits mucking up planet earth?”

Probably because he knew I would like existing

 

[greylorn]

I’m a little confused about what it is you are asking. You say that after scientism is removed that religion cannot answer questions about the beginnings of things. You then mentioned Big Band and Darwinism so I’m assuming that you are looking for the “how”? Later in your response you did bring up the question of “why”. I’ll try my best to answer you

I do not think religion can answer the “how”, unless you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Any credible answer to any of the fundamental questions about the beginnings of things must answer the “how” question. Big Bang theory fails to do so. In fact, by declaring the “thing that went poof” to be a physical singularity, it pretty much declared its own theory to be a religious belief, since there can be no such thing as a physical singularity.

Darwinism’s “how” mechanisms amount to vague handwaving attempts to explain the evolution of critters by invoking random mutations to DNA, despite absurd mathematical (read scientific) odds against that happening. But at least Darwinists have a mechanism, albeit a poor one.

However, they have no clue as to how the first self-reproducing cell might have self-assembled from constituent molecules. In other words, they cannot answer the question of how life began.

Scientism does not need to answer any “why” questions, because these are only applicable to intelligence.

Religion has the same responsibility to answer “how” questions, else it is not a credible explanation for anything. Even if one takes Genesis literally, it is no help because it only addresses the “who” question, without defining the “who.” It declares that God created things but not how He might have done so. It fails to define God in terms of nature and properties.

Religions do not adequately answer the “why” question either. Your meanderings about love suggest that God created us out of love. This is a flawed explanation. Before creating us, He could not have loved us. Thus, creation from love implies that God created us because he needed something to love.

That means God is needy, a concept which I find especially distasteful in light of the evil He would seem to have created to fulfill His needs. (Oh, you probably don’t believe in evil. Perhaps you should visit a prison or spend a week in a Mexican border town, or just pay attention to the daily news from around the world.)

I refuse to believe in a Creator so desperately needy that he must create me in order to have something to love.

So, lacking a better explanation for God’s motivation behind creation, I would have to say that there is little reason to blame Him for ourselves.

So, I return to the point: that Marilynne’s fine literary work is irrelevant. So what if she demolishes scientism’s explanations for existence? Religions offer no explanations at all.

I conclude that religion is home for the naive, uncritical, unthinking mind. Scientism is a place for the naive, critical, incompetently thinking mind. A choice between either is a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.

 

[bschneid]

Scientism does not need to answer any “why” questions, because these are only applicable to intelligence.

Religion has the same responsibility to answer “how” questions, else it is not a credible explanation for anything

Science does not need to answer the “why” because it deals strictly with studying and testing the physical. Religion on the other hand must be able to both explain and test the physical, as well as answer the question of purpose. This seems a bit illogical… I think you are comparing apples and oranges or rather confused that an apple doesn’t taste like both an apple…and an orange.

Your meanderings about love suggest that God created us out of love.

Oh, you probably don’t believe in evil.

I’m not sure how you managed to do this again.

If you carefully read my response maybe you will see how both of your statements are a bit misguided; however I will try to make your job a little easier.

There is a lot of evil and suffering in the world

…

And if you carefully re-read my response you will see my very last line answers your question of: “Why did the Creator create the nits mucking up planet earth?”

As for this comment again

Your meanderings about love suggest that God created us out of love.

Read this statement:

I suddenly felt inclined to give my own personal argument for substantiating an evil world with an all loving Creator

I do not believe that God created us because he needed something to love. When you make a statement like “Why did the Creator create the nits mucking up planet earth?” it implies that you believe there is more evil than good. My paragraph about love was to hopefully show you how an all loving Creator is compatible with our current world.

I did not answer many questions in my lost post and I did not answer many questions in this one mainly because I had to address a large amount of issues that should not have needed to be addressed. Although you gave my responses very little attention, I thought you provided some interesting things for me to consider in your very first post.

I conclude that religion is home for the naive, uncritical, unthinking mind. Scientism is a place for the naive, critical, incompetently thinking mind. A choice between either is a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.

I don’t know what your beliefs are but I know that both Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee can read.