,n N v) a) = z 7) Tanner scientific °-,7, study well develop° MasiENetworkCacioppo 1,9worked .... represented Nusbaum

,n N v) a) = z 7) Tanner scientific °-,7, study well develop° MasiENetworkCacioppo 1,9worked .... represented Nusbaum spiritualitymembers geographical -sEpley Luhrmann boundariesdisciplinary epistemological t forcesBrowning sociality health nx c.-74 O zprecincts °) czu 7.'.— (1)'' 7 comfort . Esmallpecety _Q- .,,,,,9 netts ° L9. irtnovative nerntson6 =E t_sp O. el.) ..... , ulc f - Invisible Forces and Powerful Beliefs: Gravity, Gods, and Minds By the Chicago Social Brain Network FT Press Upper Saddle River, NJ EFTA_R1_01522086 EFTA02444849 Page 12 Invisible Forces and Unseen Powers: Gravity, Gods, and Minds Preface 1. Invisible Forces Operating on Human Bodies Gravity is an invisible force that holds us to the surface of the earth, and the fact that gravity is invisible does not place it beyond scientific scrutiny. Similarly, humans arc a quintessentially social species whose need for social connection produces invisible forces on our brain, behavior, and biology that are subject to scientific investigation. Among these are forces that compel us to seek trusting and meaningful connections with others and to seek meaning and connection with something bigger than ourselves. The story of these invisible forces speaks to who we are as a species. From Selfish Genes to Social Brains 2. The Social Nature of Humankind The human brain has evolved under the guidance of selfish genes to produce more than a brain that is capable of powerful, isolated information processing operations. The human brain also evolved with inherent capacities for social cognition, compassion, empathy. bonding, coordination, cooperation, values, mortality and a need for social connection that extends beyond kin and even other individuals. From Inclusive Fitness to Spiritual Striving 3. Science, Religion, and a Revised Religious Humanism The dialogue between science and religion, if properly pursued, can usher in a new era of religious humanism in the leading world religions. Their central beliefs and practices largely would remain intact, but their views of nature and their concerns with health and well- being would be refined through their conversations with the sciences. How this model would work is discussed in terms of the relation between love and health in Christian theology - especially the tension between the agape, caritas. and eros models of Christian love. The Status of the Body Politic and the Status of the Body Itself 4. Health by Connection: From Social Brains to Resilient Bodies Most people feel socially connected most of the time. Felt connectedness is typically taken for granted. but the effects of its absence, as experienced in feelings of isolation, demonstrate that our evolutionary heritage as a social species has potent implications for health and well-being. From Relationships to People and Groups to Relationships with God 5. Psychosomatic Relations: From Superstition to Mortality It has long been recognized that mental states can impact health and well being. but the causal pathways have only recently begun to be understood. Thoughts, beliefs and attitudes can have powerful effects on physiological functions, health and disease. Examples range from superstitious beliefs associated with voodoo, bone pointing, or other black rituals to the more positive states associated with spirituality. The present essay considers these disparate psychological states and how they might translate into physiological effects having real health implications. The Mind and Body Are One 6. The Suspension of Individual Consciousness and the Dissolution of Self and Other Boundaries A special case of social interaction concerns two or more individuals engaging in temporally coordinated EFTA_R1_0 1522087 EFTA02444850 Page 13 actions that imply particular timing patterns such as synchrony or rhythmic turn taking such as applauding in unison or the 'wave' that is produced by thousands of individual sports fans in a stadium. A model to explain such synchronized behavior is proposed in terms of the neural processes that are jointly recruited. One of the main implications suggested by this model is that taking part in or being part of a synchronized social interaction gives rise to a qualitative shift in subjective experience due to the difficulty of applying an individual centered explanation to collectively produced spontaneous co-action. You and I as One 7. Action at a Distance: The Invisible Force of Language Language forms the fabric of our social institutions and makes tangible the nature of our relationships. Although the function of language is typically viewed in terms of the information content that it provides, some of the social function of language may depend on the way it affects us. The idea of language impact - how language directly affects our emotions and social connections - may be fundamental to the way the social brain functions to connect people. Systems and Signals for Social Coordination 8. Hidden Forces in Understanding Others: Mirror Neurons and Neurobiological Underpinnings Specific brain regions in the monkey contain individual brain cells, or neurons, that respond to both observation and execution of identical hand and mouth actions. Brain imaging in humans has demonstrated that our brains have similarly localized regions with similar properties. These areas respond to execution of goal-directed actions of the hand and mouth and during observation of the same or similar actions. Interestingly, these brain regions in the human are also responsive to observation and imitation of facial movements, and appear to be sensitive to their emotional content. Connecting and Binding Social Brains and Minds 9. Empathy and Interpersonal Sensitivity Empathy is thought to play a key role in motivating prosocial behavior, guiding our preferences and behavioral responses, and providing the affective and motivational base for moral development. While folk conceptions of empathy view it as the capacity to share, understand and respond with care to the affective states of others, neuroscience research demonstrates that these components can be dissociated. Empathy is not a unique characteristic of human consciousness, but it is an important adaptive behavior that evolved with the mammalian brain. However, humans arc special in the sense that high-level cognitive abilities (language, theory of mind, executive functions) are layered on top of phylogenetically older social and emotional capacities. These higher level cognitive and social capacities expand the range of behaviors that can be driven by empathy. Seeing into My Mind and Other Minds 10. Seeing Invisible Minds Other minds are inherently invisible. Being able to "see" them requires learning about other minds, attending to other minds, and projecting one's own mind onto others, and seeing minds in other agents can mean the difference between treating others as humans versus as objects. Inferring Minds When None Can be Seen 11. Anthropomorphism: Human Connection to a Universal Society EFTA_R1_0 1522088 EFTA02444851 I' age 14 The human motivation for social connection extends beyond the boundary of the human in the (often misunderstood) religious language of anthropomorphism. In this chapter, an infamous sermon from colonial America—"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"—is used to illustrate the way anthropomorphic language works to incorporate human society in a web of ethical obligations that connect to the natural environment and, by imaginative extension, to the universe as a whole. Personifications of God 12. How Does God Become Real Becoming a person of faith is not so much about acquiring certain beliefs but about learning to use one's mind in particular ways; the often intensely private experience of God is built through a profoundly social learning process. Belief and Connection 13. Theological Perspectives on God as an Invisible Force The beliefs that religious individuals hold about the way God operates in human life are potential factors affecting perceived social isolation. My paper discusses a specific type of such belief that is common in the history of Christian thought: the belief that God is an invisible force of a rather impersonal sort working for the good in everything that happens. The paper argues that this sort of belief has as great or greater potential than belief in God as a personal friend to give one the sense that one is never alone, but the conception of God as pervasive can also lead to inattention and disconnection. The Elusiveness of Meaningful Connection 14. Visible Efforts to Change Invisible Connections Despite the human need for social connection, many individuals are lonely because they are unable to create meaningful social bonds. Interventions designed to reduce loneliness have not been successful, suggesting that a better understanding of loneliness, social connection, and the obstacles to forming meaningful connections with others is needed. Reflections on Invisible Connections 15. Social Brain, Spiritual Medicine? Science and religion are inextricably intertwined in the practice of medicine. Science has provided modern medicine with extraordinary diagnostic and therapeutic capacities that can be employed to care for patients. Religions provide a fuller vision for the worthiness of caring for the sick, a framework to guide the application of medical science in that endeavor, and practices that strengthen the human capacity for treating patients as the mindful persons they are. Invisible Forces 16. Epilogue Invisible forces that connect individuals to society, or to each other, have effects at both ends of the connection. As humans we are fundamentally individual and fundamentally social. We encompass both the pursuit of rational self interest of Homo economicus and the pursuit of approval, belonging, and intimacy of Homo sodas. the former grounded in eras, the latter in agape. These forces acting together represent a signature feature of Homo sapiens (the wise ones) and have contributed a record of influence and impact- both positive and negative -that is unmatched in biology. EFTA_R1_01522089 EFTA02444852 Page IS belief:len—a Waist nipathy behaykijaw<n° 1" ,,kras ,...4. n • offitra= 1111=-1' oorhumans —r . rub =el Clinstan'r B, i bo,ail Eli I witIsible i (Fir; ab...1 SiZeS I tv3 Lwli- 0.11-riTan -- 1 Connection= jr-'••• •v„ others I ' Lsogrizrr — -524rittle— i cti nconnttc, bT4imifin elf .c.F.A.V._,-531,pc,Lai ifivisiblerriesi-i32.=„ti tiriWeividuitio..pthyiza... ,1 •-• ;tato 2 4,. actionvii-- I -.4.-Aciyft‘• rni4....:-Yeet! 1 i Preface We view our past through a reverse telescope, making it seem like contemporary events are a much larger part of our history than they are. Hominids have been estimated to have evolved about 7 million years ago, with our species having evolved only within approximately the last 1% of that period. The human brain was sculpted by evolutionary forces over tens of thousands of years, whereas the human achievements we take for granted, such as civilizations, law, and art, have emerged only during the past few thousands of years. A mere 300 years ago, theology and philosophy were the principal disciplinary lenses through which the world was viewed, and from which explanations and instruction were sought. Advances in science over the past 300 years have transformed how we think, act, and live. Nearly every aspect of human existence, ranging from agriculture, commerce, and transportation to technology, communication, and medicine, has been transformed by contemporary science. We have no hesitation to accept scientific explanations of physical entities being influenced by invisible forces such as gravity, magnetism, and genes. But when human mentation and behavior are the objects to be explained, deterministic scientific accounts seem to many to be less satisfying. For some, science and modernity are akin to the apple in the Garden of Eden, responsible for our fall from Grace. For others, theology and religion represent little more than the stuff of superstition with no place in an educated society. About six years ago, we had the opportunity to create a most unusual group of scholars to examine questions about the invisible forces acting on, within, and between human bodies. Superb scholars who individually had made major contributions to their own disciplinary field — fields as divergent as neuroscience and medicine to philosophy and theology — were invited to form an interdisciplinary network of scholars to consider such questions. The development of these discussions even over the first few meetings truly astonished us all. We decided to share what we learned through the present book, which represents a different perspective, one in which our understanding of human nature is enriched by serious insights and scrutiny that each perspective has to offer. Theology and religion have always relied on unseen forces as the basis for explanations of human behavior and experience. Science has been able to explicate those forces even if along different lines than originally conceived. As we start to consider some of the more complex aspects of human nature, science and theology may be able to work together to shed light on some of these complexities. We begin this preface and each chapter with a word cloud produced using Wordle at II. i tilemet. In the case of this preface, it illustrates key concepts that are found in this book. In the case of the chapters, the word cloud in each provides a visualization of EFTA_R1_01522090 EFTA02444853 I' age 16 the key terms and ideas expressed in that chapter. Each chapter, in turn, represents a contribution led by a particular member to the network but broadened to reflect the interactions of the network on that topic. Perusal of the word clouds across chapters makes the flow of ideas more visible. Together, the chapters speak to who we are as a species and the nature of the invisible forces that make us such a unique species. For instance, humans seem to strive for social connections in a variety of ways from friendships to identification with groups to religious affiliations. A major thesis of this book is that we are fundamentally a social species, and that this journey is less a march toward isolation and autonomy than it is a march to competence, interdependence, coordination, cooperation, and social resilience. Guiding us through this journey are our social brains, which have evolved to create anything but a blank slate at birth. We owe a debt of thanks to many for their contributions and support over the years, but we owe special thanks to Bamaby Marsh for approaching us with the idea of forming such a network and for his many contributions to the network, and to the John Templeton Foundation for their support and for their encouragement to pursue questions, ideas, and conclusions of our science regardless of where they led. EFTA_R1_01522091 EFTA02444854 l' a g e 17 fikrZttri tfr:ition et— — I reed WiundektlanTrgtosinctbeht?,erits—: I kEntiviektylirid:,,igund itagosititOrGeS7,ibeireiskierttilc fnUi Manilpsocia A rm tit:11 g I sciericeuraYirMi Chapter 1 Invisible Forces Operating on I Inman Bodies We may believe we know why we think, feel, and act as we do, but various forces influence us in ways that are largely invisible to our senses. Gravity is an invisible force that holds us to the surface of the earth, and magnetism is an invisible force that we use in everyday life. The fact that gravity and magnetism are invisible to us does not place them beyond scientific scrutiny. Similarly, there are a host of forces that, over the course of human evolution, have emerged to influence our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Because many of these forces are I The Chicago Social Brain Network is a group of more than a dozen scholars from the neurosciences, behavioral sciences, social sciences, and humanities who share an interest in who we are as a species and the role of biological and social factors in the shaping of individuals, institutions, and societies across human history. The scientists and scholars in the Network differ in background, epistemologies, beliefs, and methods. After five years of working together, we found a common set of themes to have emerged in our work despite the differences among us. These themes, which provide a different perspective on how we might think about human history, experience, and spirituality, are examined here and explored in more detail in subsequent chapters. elemental, we will be dealing with an area of human behavior that has also been addressed for centuries by various religions. Among these are forces that compel us to seek trusting and meaningful connections with others and to seek meaning and connection with something larger than ourselves. The story of these invisible forces speaks to who we are and what our potential might be as a species. In short, it is the story of the human mind. The mind can be thought of as the structure and processes responsible for cognition, emotion, and behavior. It is now widely recognized that many structures and processes of the mind operate outside of awareness, with only the end products reaching awareness, and then only sometimes. But clearly we know a great deal about the mind from what we experience through our senses. It is just commonsense that we know the shape or color of an object from simply seeing it. Or do we? It is obvious that the tops of the tables depicted in the top panel of Figure I differ in size and shape. You may be surprised to learn that your mind is fooling you, that the tops of the table are precisely the same size and shape. If you don't believe it, trace and cut a piece of paper the size of one table top and then place it over the other. Self- evident truths can sometimes be absolutely false. EFTA_R 1 _O 1 522092 EFTA02444855 Page IS The science of the mind is not unique in this regard. As the historian Daniel Boorstin (1983, 1) noted: Nothing could be more obvious than that the earth is stable and unmoving, and that we are the center of the universe. Modern Western science takes its beginning from the denial of this commonsense axiom ... Common sense, the foundation of everyday life, could no longer serve for the governance of the world. When "scientific" knowledge, the sophisticated product of complicated instruments and subtle calculations, provided unimpeachable truths, things were no longer as they seemed." (p. 294) And just as the observation that we roam on stable ground led to the incorrect inference that we are the center of the universe, so too is the modern notion that the human brain is a solitary, autonomous instrument whose connections with other brains is a matter of deliberate choice and of no real import. The human brain, the organ of the mind, is housed deep within the cranial vault, where it is protected and isolated from others, so it may seem obvious that the brain is a solitary information processing device that has no special means of connecting with other brains. But we are fundamentally a social species. Faces, expressive displays, and human speech receive preferential processing in neonate as well as adult brains. When a person feels rejected by others, their brain shows the same pattern of activation as when they are exposed to a physically painful stimulus. Permit a person to cooperate with others, and their brain shows the same pattern of activation as when they are given a rich reward such as delicious food or drink. We may not be aware of it, but human evolution has sculpted a human need for social connection, along with neural circuits and hormonal processes that enable and promote communication and connection across brains. As we shall see in the chapters to follow, our sociality is an important pan of who we are as a species and it plays an important though often invisible role in the operations of our brain and our biology. Among the questions we examine is whether our social brain also contributes to the ubiquitous human quest for spirituality. The Chicago Social Brain Network For hundreds of years, theology and philosophy were the hub disciplines of scholarship, and other fields of inquiry orbited around this dyad and were tightly constrained by it. Over the past three centuries, the sciences have come into their own, displacing theology and philosophy at the center of the academic universe. In so doing, they have produced extraordinary advances in everyday life. People may reminisce about the good old days, but thanks to science and technology the amount of total income spent on the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter dropped from 80% in 1901 to 50% in 2002/2003. Yet there remains an inchoate sense that something is missing in our lives, something intangible and elusive. Science has improved our material lives, but improvements in material life may not be enough to optimize human well being. Can these two very different ways of seeing the world be used EFTA_R1_0 1522093 EFTA02444856 Page 19 synergistically to shed new light on the human mind? In the Fall of 2004, we established an ongoing network of more than a dozen scholars unbounded by disciplinary precincts, geographical borders, or methodological perspectives to set aside antagonisms that had grown up between science and humanities in order to explore this question. These Network scholars hail from disciplines as disparate as psychology, neurology, theology, statistics, philosophy, internal medicine, anthropology, and sociology. Each of these scholars was well known in their own field and were busy with other obligations, but it was the opportunity to achieve a deeper, more comprehensive discussion of the human mind that made it worth the time and effort it required to be part of the Network. Although various members of the Network interact on a daily or weekly basis, the entire Network convenes twice annually for a four-day retreat to discuss each other's research, to critique each other and to learn from one other. Scientific analyses characterized by rigorous experimental designs and data analytic strategies are interlaced with rich philosophical, theological, and historical analyses of the same questions about invisible forces that act on us all. The dialogue between the Network scientists and the scholars from the humanities and theology is bidirectional. For instance, the beliefs and behavior described in the humanities and theology are rich in hypotheses that can now be tested empirically, and the measures and methods of the behavioral sciences and neurosciences now permit rigorous investigation of some of these hypotheses. Each of the Network members brings a unique perspective to the study of the human mind, and the provocative story of the mind that is emerging from the collective efforts of the Network is the subject of this book. The Network is unconventional in other ways, as well. Traditionally, scientists and scholars work together to achieve a common understanding and a consensus position. We quickly learned that we did not need to come to a consensus to benefit tremendously from the dialogue on the capacity and motivation for the ubiquitous human quest for sociality and spirituality. For instance, there is no consensus within the Network on whether there is a God, and we do not seek here to provide the final word on what science and the humanities each have to say to the other about the human mind. Instead, our purpose is to illustrate the possibility and importance of engaging others whose views we may not share in a serious dialogue on such topics. Among the lessons we as a Network have learned are: 1. that some questions about human nature and our social and spiritual aspirations have been asked by humankind for thousands of years. Accordingly, there may be more to be gained from engaging in a collaborative process of thinking about these questions than from demanding simple and immediate answers. We discuss what we see as possible answers to questions about our nature and strivings, but the value in stating these positions is to have clear positions from which to move thinking and research forward. Thus, our purpose in writing this book is to articulate ideas to be shaped and refined, not to provide the final word. EFTA_R1_01522094 EFTA02444857 Page 110 2. that one need not agree with a position to perform a deep and thorough analysis of the arguments for and against the position. Objectivity in thought and analysis are keys to reaching a deep understanding of a topic. By taking a position, developing arguments for and against the position, then taking the opposite position and doing likewise, we develop the capacity to be more dispassionate and powerful thinkers — and gain deeper insight into a topic. 3. that one need not reach agreement with someone to learn a great deal from discussions with them or to make significant advances in addressing a complex question. The salve of affirmation can lead us to seek like-minded others and to denigrate and avoid those who disagree with us. Although this may provide temporary comfort, it does little to help address deep divisions or solve problems with which we must deal in an increasingly complex and diverse world. There are inherent tensions between the sciences and the humanities, and these tensions have led to a polarization of views, an "it's my way or the highway" approach toward those holding divergent points of view. The contents of this book illustrate an alternative possibility. The Network is a very interdisciplinary group, and the perspectives captured in the subsequent chapters reflect some of the same tensions with which other books dealing with science and religion have dealt — and from which they have not benefitted. The tensions reflect deep and enduring differences in the way in which scholars in the humanities, the social sciences, and the sciences think about theory, methods, and evidence. These differences can test one's mettle but if acknowledged, respected, embraced, and pursued, they result in a richer, more innovative and synergistic collaborative effort. In the case of our Network, this was neither easy nor quick, but it was achieved through a mutual respect and exchange of ideas and a shared conviction regarding the importance of the Network's combination of approaches from the humanities and the sciences. In a sense, our Network is a microcosm of the structure that exists in our society. if these tensions are embraced and used to their full catapultic effect, one can make progress on serious problems, transforming not only how we think about the problem, but also how we think about those who hold different or opposing views. 4. that the insights or advances we can achieve need not be our or our opponent's position, or a less-than optimal compromise between the two, but rather they can be truly innovative, building on and transcending both initial positions. The specific forms of such creative and transcendent solutions arc difficult to articulate in advance but there is a thought process — characterized by clarity, openness, constructive criticism, and synthesis — that EFTA_R1_0 1522095 EFTA02444858 Page III increases the likelihood one will reach such solutions. All of the perspectives discussed in this book have been transformed through this process. Background In pursuing the tandem lines of inquiry of science and the humanities, the Network itself serves as an example of the human capacities and emergent processes that can derive from collective social structures and actions. In the chapters to follow, the Network examines the nature and power of unseen forces ranging from human co- regulation to physiological effects of spiritual beliefs. The exchanges across disciplinary perspectives suggest that the "dominion of the solitary individual" is insufficient to understand the human mind or to optimize human health and well being. To understand human nature and the human mind, one may need to appreciate human needs and capabilities that have not been given due attention. Homo sapiens are a social species, which means there are emergent organizations beyond individuals that contribute to the ability of our species to survive, reproduce, and care for our offspring sufficiently long that they too survive to reproduce. As a consequence, evolutionary forces have sculpted neural, hormonal, and genetic mechanisms that support these social structures. Among the possible consequences explored in this book arc that: 1) people are not the entirely self-interested, short-term thinking, rational decision makers assumed by the mythical creature, Homo economicus. and 2) some of the amorphous dissatisfaction and chronic diseases that characterize contemporary society may be, in part, the consequence of the denial of the differences between the nature of these two beings. Existing scientific studies of religion have established the pervasiveness of religious beliefs and practices and an association between these beliefs or practices and physical as well as mental health. Religious beliefs and practices have also contributed to failures to heed life-saving medical advice and to the horrendous treatment of others. It will be through the serious investigation of such beliefs and practices, not through their denial, that we may ultimately be able to identify which aspects of these beliefs and practices are beneficial, for what individuals and in what contexts, and through what specific mechanisms. Recent research has made it patently clear that William James (1890, p. 442, 2) underestimated the faculties of human infants when he suggested that their first sensory experiences were a "blooming, buzzing confitsion." But what James' sentiment did capture is the overwhelming complexity and uncertainty that exists in the child's environment, and the inherent difficulty in making sense of that complexity from scratch. Our drive to make meaning is irrepressible ---and when we do not understand the forces that drive our actions, we invent narratives that make these invisible forces feel more predictable and understandable even if only in hindsight. But we do not do it alone. Adults as well as children must explain the uncertainty and ambiguity of natural phenomena (calamities of weather, death and reproduction) as well as social phenomena (human agents) in order to operate effectively. But not all actions are perceived as being equivalent. Forces operating on objects to compel action, as when gravity causes rocks to slide down a mountain, are EFTA_R1_01522096 EFTA02444859 Page 112 viewed as external causes. Forces operating on human bodies to produce action, in contrast, arc viewed as reflective of purpose, driven not only by external causes but, more importantly, by abstract reasons such as goals, aspirations, and destiny. The meaning- making proclivities of humans are so irrepressible that when external forces operate on human bodies to produce a significant impact on humankind, even the causes of the actions of these human bodies tend to be regarded in terms of more abstract purposes and reasons. The anthropomorphic description of hurricanes is a case in point. Actions of objects have causes, whereas actions of humans have reasons. Invisible forces that operate on humans but that appear to operate independent of human agency have been the subject of religious speculations for centuries. These invisible forces include: internal neural and biological forces (e.g., homeostatic processes, autonomic activity) that exert regulatory forces which are largely hidden from conscious experience or control; strong emotions that seem to arise apart from conscious human intention (e.g., rage, fear, empathy); phenomena such as dreams or hallucinations that seemingly operate independent from the human will; motivations, biases, inclinations, predilections (such as anthropomorphism, ambiguity avoidance, preference for simple explanations, etc.) whose presence is so universal that, like language, the capacities for their development or expression may have an evolutionary basis; individual beliefs (such as the belief that there is a reality outside our head/we are not dreaming; the belief in human freedom; in values such as equality, etc), attitudes, preferences, goals, or intentions; aggregated beliefs that result in social norms, values, religion, culture, and social movements; and codified forces such as decrees, rules, alliances, and laws. Before the enlightenment of the 18th century, many scholars believed that thought was instantaneous and that action was governed by an indivisible mind separate from the body. If a palpable cause for a person's behavior could not be identified, the Divine or some counterpart constituted a more agreeable explanatory construct than invisible forces acting through scientifically specifiable mechanisms. Unparalleled advances in the sciences have occurred since the dawn of the Enlightenment, including the development of scientific theories about magnetism, gravity, quantum mechanics, and dark matter that depict invisible forces operating with measurable effects on physical bodies. During this same period, serious scientific research on invisible forces acting within, on and across human bodies was slowed and underfunded in part because the study of the human mind and behavior was regarded by many in the public and in politics as soft and of dubious validity. The result is that many still regard the mind and behavior as best understood in terms of the actions of non-scientific agents, such as a god or gods, and the manifestations of mental illness as the result of a failure of individual will — a denial of the possibility that invisible forces (that is, forces that are tractable scientifically but of which a person is not normally aware) can affect mind and behavior. One could try to explain away the gap in scientific knowledge about invisible forces by referring to the conception of science and religion as EFTA_R1_01522097 EFTA02444860 Page 113 systems of knowledge that are in opposition. This approach is common and evident in a spate of contemporary books that take the position that science and religion represent competing ways of understanding the world and that science (or religion) is the one and only valid way of understanding human behavior and the world around us (3-8). For instance, in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins places specific Judeo- Christian theological doctrines under the scrutiny of science only to find that none passes scientific muster. The vast majority of people from all educational backgrounds continue to harbor strong religious beliefs that affect their daily decisions and behavior, with both good and ill effects. These religious belief systems most commonly bump into scientific claims around invisible forces. When science opens up opportunities to improve the human condition by providing a more complete understanding of the causes of events, their measurable effects, and possible interventions— ranging from valid science education to medical advancements based on stem cell research — these opportunities are often threatened by the application of specific religious beliefs to these endeavors. Scientific research to understand religion and religious belief systems may be a more productive response than broad denouncements by scientists of any who hold such beliefs. Conversely, when religion opens up opportunities for improving the human condition by questioning the emphasis on short-term self-interests at the expense of the collective, providing a more complete understanding of the human need to attribute meaning to events and their effects, and identifying possible interventions— ranging from the provision of tangible support to individuals in need, to the promotion of healthy lifestyles and ethical behavior— scientific research to understand these influences may again be a more productive response than broad denouncements by scientists that such beliefs are irrational. Indeed, the question of whether God exists is of much less scientific interest, and of much more questionable scientific merit (how would one scientifically falsify such a claim?), than the question of the causes, consequences, and underlying mechanisms for the observable human behaviors affected by invisible forces-- whether they be physical (gravity), social (groups), or perceived spiritual (gods). Contemporary science explains many of these phenomena but also points to the human capacities and emergent processes that derive from collective social structures and actions and, underlying the emergence of these structures, the human need for meaning- making and connecting to something beyond oneself. The dominant metaphor for the scientific study of the human mind during the latter half of the 200% century has been the computer — a solitary device with massive information processing capacities. Computers today are massively interconnected devices with capacities that extend far beyond the resident hardware and software of a solitary computer. The extended capacities made possible by the internet can be said to be emergent because they represent a whole that is greater than the simple sum of the actions that are possible by the sum of the individual (disconnected) computers that constitute the Internet. The telereceptors (e.g., eyes, ears) of the human brain have provided wireless broadband EFTA_R1_01522098 EFTA02444861 Page 114 interconnectivity to humans for millennia. Just as computers have capacities and processes that are transduced through but extend far beyond the hardware of a single computer, the human brain has evolved to promote social and cultural capacities and processes that are transduced through but that extend far beyond a solitary brain. To understand the full capacity of humans, one needs to appreciate not only the memory and computational power of the brain but its capacity for representing, understanding, and connecting with other individuals. That is, one needs to recognize that we have evolved a powerful, meaning making social brain. Social species, by definition, create structures beyond the individual — structures ranging from dyads and families to institutions and cultures. These emergent structures have evolved hand in hand with neural and hormonal mechanisms to support them because the consequent social behaviors (e.g., cooperation, empathy, altruism, etc.) helped these organisms survive, reproduce, and care for offspring sufficiently long that they too reproduced. From an evolutionary perspective then, the social context is fundamental in the evolution and development of the human brain. The observable consequences of these higher organizations have long been apparent, but we are only now beginning to understand their genetic, neural, and biochemical basis and consequences. To fully delve into these complex behaviors, science needs to deal with the invisible forces that shape human life, whether it is in the form of physical, biological, or psychological forces. For instance, anthropomorphism, the irrepressible proclivity to attribute human characteristics onto nonhuman objects to achieve meaning, predictability, and human connection, is beginning to be subjected to productive multi-level scientific analysis. Experimental studies have shown that manipulations which increase feelings of social isolation without the possibility of resolving these feelings through human interaction have the compensatory effect of increasing people's tendency to anthropomorphize, including heightened beliefs in God. This scientific work has implications for understanding claims regarding the success of religious practices such as solitude as paths to feeling closer God. Research on anthropomorphism has now identified developmental, situational, dispositional, and cultural factors that modulate people's tendency to anthropomorphize nonhuman agents ranging from technological gadgets to animals to gods, and the neural mechanisms underlying this transconfiguration of nonhuman objects into human-like agents are beginning to be revealed. Guided by the insights from these new scientific theories of anthropomorphism, historical analyses may be worthwhile to determine whether concepts of god have changed across time and cultures such that god was created in the image of the believer rather than vice versa. Xenophanes (6th century B.C., cited in 9), for instance, was apparently the first to use the term "anthropomorphism" when describing the similarities between religious agents and their believers, noting that Greek gods were invariably fair skinned and blue-eyed whereas African gods were invariably dark skinned and dark-eyed (joking that cows would surely worship gods that looked strikingly cow-like). Brain imaging research has confirmed EFTA_R1_01522099 EFTA02444862 Page 115 that anthropomorphism is associated with the activation of the same prefrontal areas that are active when people think about themselves or project themselves onto others. Conclusion Just as critically, the study of invisible forces requires a discussion of the method that successful teams use to work together as they cross disciplinary boundaries. Over the past few decades, there has been a demonstrable shift from the individual genius as the source of scientific and scholarly breakthroughs to interdisciplinary teams. This shift in the production of cutting-edge knowledge has been documented in all fields of scholarly activity, ranging from mathematics and theoretical physics to the humanities. This shift has both made possible and been necessitated by a need to understand complex behaviors. Although this project is primarily about the ways that scientists seek to study the impact of invisible forces, it will also reflect the methodologies that these researchers use so that their work is not constrained by common knowledge. The philosophy of science also looks different when dealing with simple causality (one-to-one relations) than with complex causality. Affirmation of the consequent, a logical error in which a given cause for an effect is inferred based on the observation of the effect, does not lead to a scientific error when there is but a single cause for the observed effect. However, as scientific inquiry addresses increasingly complex phenomena, and increasingly complexly determined phenomena, the philosophy of science needs to become more nuanced. A core challenge is to develop a "science" of identification and aggregation of these invisible forces at different levels. Related research questions include why they exist, and measures of robustness. One of our central goals is to demonstrate not only that considerations of these forces matter, but that that they can matter a lot. There also are questions of value and ethics that could be implicated: descriptive knowledge, models, awareness of causal relationships, and so on, might not be enough to answer some kinds of questions, especially those related to value and purpose, which are the very energies that animate and invigorate real human systems. Economics comes close with its proxy measure of value based on the distribution of scarce resources and people's varying need for these resources. But this theory comes up short in many instances where other values are at play that are beyond markets, such as in assessing the value of a human life, or whether all lives are of equal value. It is an especially poor model for helping us understand something as simple as the value of articles of sentimental value, such as family photographs, which may have little or no market value at all. Thus, how do we best understand the "sentiments" that are important in the real world? The members of the Network have worked beyond the boundaries of disciplinary borders, geographical precincts, and epistemological comfort zones to develop a rigorous but innovative approach to the study of the human mind, sociality, spirituality, health, and well being. The Network members represented in this book are Gary Bemtson from Ohio State University, Don Browning from the EFTA_R1_01522100 EFTA02444863 Page 116 University of Chicago, John Cacioppo 2. W. James, The principles of (Network Director) from the University of Chicago, Farr Curlin from the psychology. (Holt, New York, 1890). University of Chicago Medical Center, Jean Decety from the University of Chicago, Nick Epley from the University of Chicago Booth School, Clark Gilpin 3. 4. R. Dawkins, The God delusion. (Bantam, London, 2006). D. C. Dennett, Breaking the from the University of Chicago, Louise spell: Religion as a natural Hawkley from the University of phenomenon. (Penguin, New Chicago, Tanya Luhrmann from York, 2006). Stanford University, Chris Masi from the 5. S. Harris, The end offaith: University of Chicago Medical Center, Howard Nusbaum from the University Religion, terror, and the future of reason. (W. W. Norton, New of Chicago, Gun Semin from the York, 2004). University of Utrecht, Steve Small from the University of Chicago Medical 6. S. Harris, Letter to a Christian Center, Kathryn Tanner from the nation. (Vintage Books, New University of Chicago, and Ron Thisted York, 2006). from the University of Chicago Medical 7. C. Hitchens, God is not great: Center. The biography of each along How religion poisons everything. with an explanation for the essay each (Hachette Book Group, New presents is provided at the beginning of each of their essays on invisible forces. York, 2007). 8. D. Mills, Atheist universe: The thinking person's answer to References Christian fundamentalism. 1. D. J. Boorstin, The Discoverers. (Ulysses Press, Berkeley, CA, 2004). (Random House., New York, 1983). 9. J. H. Lesher, Xenophanes: Fragments. (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1992). EFTA_R1_01522101 EFTA02444864 Page 117 From Selfish Genes to Social Brains The Chicago Social Brain Network was established to examine how science might inform us about our fundamental human nature, including the apparently irrepressible quest for connection with a higher understanding and organization. Science can describe what religion does in rigorous ways that benefit religion, and religion can serve a meaning-making function that science itself disclaims. This is not to say that science can address the existence of God. Our Network instead focuses on the consequences of believing in such a mind and of seeing into that mind. In the next chapter, John Cacioppo, a social neuroscientist, draws on work on evolutionary theory, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology to examine the implications of the selfish gene hypothesis for Homo sapiens. He shows how the notion of the selfish gene has been joined with political theory, consumerism, and economics to produce a dominant modern image of humans summarized by the phrase "what is best for me is best for the society." Without rejecting the selfish gene view, Cacioppo shows how it evolves in humans into what he calls the "social brain"— a large cerebral cortex and an interconnected limbic lobule that together are sensitive to the complexities of physical and social environments. Central to this complexity is the long period of dependency of the human infant and the interdependencies of adult humans for survival especially in hostile environments (e.g., warfare). For the selfish gene to contribute its DNA to the ongoing gene pool, the individual must not only reproduce but also cooperate with others to assure that his or her offspring also grow to maturity and reproduce. This leads to natural selection choosing those genes and capacities that contribute to cooperation, reciprocity, attachments, and generosity. Over the millennia of human evolution, this process has created the social brain and made humans a unique social animal. EFTA_R1_01522102 EFTA02444865 Page 118 , I memaill•- -rvra.,,,,,, gene r7td ... I 74+,0._ MrI llI Co one nlniness ectiof; ...7• -a 4O1 i ..., pet212. u1t et griciesbrain st.,0,ecist, chaman g-rgp king ,"''" othesresita% iniii 1.1u bArvior-E Tri, Jr...am* humanil 51:711.tu fa! Ent= vitigenes [1 leonngstir smolt oisurvi it.'"•=ime i maim I . Et". Chapter 22 2 The lead author is John T. Cacioppo, Ph.D., the Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry and the Director of the Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience at the University of Chicago. He is a co-founder (with Gary Bemtson) of the field of social neuroscience, a past president of the Association for Psychological Science a