In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

54 T I K K U N W W W. T I K K U N . O R G S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7 S omething changed.Whether it happened gradually over several hundred thousand years, as noted anthropologists Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks suggest, or quickly in a “great leap forward,” as Jared Diamond puts it, we are at least certain of this: early humans became dissatisfied with their circumstances and began to diverge from what was practiced and known. Stone implements gave way to the more easily shaped and versatile bone. Bare cave walls werebroughttolifewithpaintings.Adorningjewelrywascarefullyfashioned from ordinary objects previously ignored. Simple weapons, somehow now seen as insufficient, gave way to more complex and multi-piece devices. The notions to plant instead of gather, to breed captive animals rather than hunt them, took hold. Humans have altered their environments and enhanced their well-being unlike any other life form on the planet. This unique capacity to diverge from what is, and create something which has never before existed, resides solely within the domain of humanity. The gifts of diverse artistic expression, societal development, and technologicalinnovationallresultfromtheabilitytoquestion—and to conceive of things beyond—the status quo. And this magnificent and advanced capability results, not unexpectedly, from an evolved and complex brain. Clinging or adhering to a currently accepted practice, for example believing stone tools are perfectly fine, and questioning and searchingfornewtoolsolutions(inotherwords,towonderifbonemight makeamoresuitableimplement)representtwoverydifferentwaysofdealing with current circumstances. Adherence begets consistency or stability; questioning, searching, and discovering innovative alternatives, which is creativity , leads to change. Certainly, human acts of consistency or creativity require a highly elaborate and functional brain. If stone was an adequate tool material, we at least had the good sense to continue using it after the first try. Still, there is something special about the desire for novel alternatives. No other being with which we share the planet demonstrates the human capacity to continuously spawn newness. It is the height of evolution and stems from some of the most evolved and sophisticated parts of the brain. The implication that adherence behavior could involve a more primitive or phylogenetically older portion of the brain should not be an altogether startling notion. After all, given the most basic understanding, we would expect that early humans eventually became unstuck from various conditions because of an increasingly evolved reasoning power. Our capacity for creativity expanded and so we conceived of new and often Neuroscience and Fundamentalism by Kenneth M. Heilman and Russell S. Donda The evolving and growing complexity of the human brain allowed our ancestors the ability to question, wonder, and consider new possibilities—to be creative . Life altering advances were the result. Is unconditional adherence to dogma (whether religious or secular) at odds with this evolved capability and our full potential as creative beings? ISTOCK/LUIS BELLAGAMBA 6.Politics_3:Politics 8/7/07 10:23 AM Page 54 better ways to do things. Couldthissamelogicbegintooffersomeinsightintowhy,today,somepeopleseemunwillingtobreakfreefromcertainbeliefsorideologieswhicharecontrarytosoundscience , or worse, lead to terrible acts of inhumanity? Especially when those beliefs stem from an unconditional adherence to religious fundamentalism? While there have been many reasons offered about why people differ in their interpretation of authoritative texts like the KoranandBible,mostseembasedonenvironmental/educationalinfluences.Butperhaps there is another explanation worth exploring. A common thread that may weave its way through fundamentalist extremism was perhaps aptly expressed by three so-called reformed fundamentalists during the American Public Media special, “The Power of Fundamentalism.” Representing each of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they implied they were taught to believe as they were told, and that personal interpretation and imagination were to be marginalized. Deviation and creativity were unacceptable. If this is the case, how is it that one person can find it utterly intolerable to believe anything other than a given interpretation of religious doctrine, while another appears comfortable with adding his or her own meaning to the same literature? It is conceivable that the mystery underlying these distinct approaches arises from a not often considered, yet key difference in brain function. A Difference in Reasoning A number of the behaviors we employ are either genetically programmed or imprinted at an early stage...

pdf

Share