Interpretations of Abstract Art

Abstract art is called "abstract" for a reason. A definition on the internet calls abstract art that which "does not represent recognizable objects". People view art, abstract art in particular, through their own eyes. Again, I see the theme of different lenses coming out in the study of art in general and more appropriately for this class, religious themes in abstract art as well. The abstract images we viewed in class by the artist Pollock are easily interpreted in many different ways. During the discussion of the first image, I realized that everyone saw something different in the painting. Some saw multiple figures which they assumed to be human. But how do we know that they were actually men? What did the artist intend for us to see? What did he himself see when he painted the figures? A classmate whom I talked with saw a dog, not a human. Others saw the portrayal of death in the painting with the red marks representing blood and the set up of the painting being something of a funeral setting. Still, someone saw positive charges running along the left side of the painting. But who is to say that those symbols were charges? They could just as easily been viewed as crosses or even the letter "t". The difference between everyone's interpretation of such a painting draws light to the fact that everything we look at and use in our daily life is influenced by our own personal experiences and education. Of course a student of natural science would see positive charges just as logically as a very religious Christian would interpret those symbols to be crosses. The beauty of abstract art is the fact that you can see whatever you want, or whatever you need to see in a painting. This is much the same as in religion. If you view religion as having just as much freedom for interpretation as art does, then you can find a use for it in every situation and make it mean something on a personal level for you. And this all depends on the lens through which you view the world.

Unitarian Universalism and Jane Addams

I'd like to take some time to draw what I think are similarities between the beliefs of Unitarianism and those of Quakers. Most specifically, those beliefs that are embodied in Jane Addams' actions in her childhood and adulthood. Unitarians, as far as I know, are all accepting. A Unitarian church welcomes people of many different religions, ethnicities, backgrounds and sexual orientations. The only condition of religions invited into Unitarian churches is that you believe in one God. Their teachings rely on a core set of values. The national website of Unitarian Universalism describes their belief system as follows...

"Unitarian Universalists search for truth along many paths. Instead of centering our religion on specific beliefs, we gather around shared moral values that include the inherent worth and dignity of every person."

In my last post, I talked about how moral background and values are more important to a child's upbringing and personal identity than belief in a specific reason. Particularly because these values cross over so many different religions. The system of moral values can unite different religions with one another, much like the Unitarian Universalits do in their church.

To me, this seems similar to the way Jane Addams was raised and the Quaker beliefs and values that she held as a child and through her adulthood. Take for example the instance when she had a new cloak that was beautiful and expensive. It was of much nicer quality than any of the other children at her school. Her father advised her not to wear it so as not to make the other girls jealous, and Jane Addams obliged. This is a value that her father taught her: not to make others feel less fortunate and not to flaunt your wealth and possessions.

When Jane Addams founded her Settlement House, she sought to give education and help to others who were less fortunate than herself. Obviously, her father's advice and morality wore off on her. Much like a Unitarian, Jane Addams did not try to force her religious beliefs upon other people, she merely focused on teaching them life skills and sharing her moral values. She certainly believed in the worth of every human being like the Unitarians did. By giving others an education, she was allowing them to explore their own path to religion and life. I wonder if today Jane Addams would be an active participant in the Unitarian Universalist faith.

Jane Addams' Settlement House: Social Morality or Organized Religion?

Reading the chapters in Jane Addams' book, "Twenty Years at Hull House", makes me think about how much influence outside forces and upbringing has on a person.

I was talking with a friend a few days ago about whether children should be raised a certain religion and expected to follow it, or raised without any religious influence and given the choice as to what to believe and what to follow when they are old enough to know the difference and make decisions for themselves.

I certainly don't believe parents should push their children to believe anything, however, I do think it is important to have a strong family background and that might include religious beliefs. More importantly, it includes moral and cultural traditions and values. There is a certain level of goodness and certain types of values that can be considered important in every religion. Jane Addams' childhood and upbringing with her father's kind, helping towards others nature definitely influenced her growth and maturity and helped her become the type of person who would open a settlement house. In class we talked about whether Jane Addams was putting her religious and personal beliefs upon the women she took into her settlement house. I believe that while she may have been sharing and teaching values to other people in that house, those were values that are similar to many religions and groups of people, not values that just focus on the teaching and belief in one specific religion. By only sharing her values and not her religious beliefs, she was able to reach a large spectrum of people and avoid imposing her religion onto them.

Some people really take religion to be an important part of their lives and others do not. But regardless of whether you use religion or some other system of values and traditions, each group of people and each family in particular has that set background that makes them unique and helps them raise children, grow, and face troubled times. I am thankful that my parents have always been a supportive influence in my life and that they have constantly taught me the value of other people and the importance of caring and respecting everyone around me. That has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do with being a kind hearted, respectful human being. In that sense, Jane Addams was simply doing what she knew best and was taught by her father (and also consequently by the Quaker religion that she followed). She was just doing what a good person would do, regardless of what religion they may believe in.

Learn to be still

I think personal meditation is an important part not only of religion but of everyday life. Sometimes we get so worked up over all that we have to do and the responsibilities and stress we put on ourselves that we don't take anytime to just sit and relax and think. Its important to take time for yourself to think about your day, reflect on what you have done and learned, and just wind down. My mother always used to, and still sometimes does, tell me to "learn to be still", like that old Eagles song. Learn to be still and let your brain take a rest. Do you ever notice that the best ideas come to you late at night when you wake up to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water? Or sometimes a solution will just come to you during the day when you aren't even thinking about the problem at hand? Your brain needs time to shut off and "meditate" so to speak in order to let everything settle. We take in so much stimulus and thought, emotion and expression that its no wonder so many people today have mental and emotional issues. We don't give ourselves a break. Meditation is important, no matter what form you take it in. I like to listen to music, I like to go running. It helps me clear my head. I think of it as my meditation time. I also like to write in a journal. Even if I don't write anything important or particularly profound, its like a way to rid my head of all these thoughts that might not be productive or to clarify thoughts that might be necessary to solve a problem or reach a conclusion or arrive at a decision. I look forward to this time in my day. It gives me a chance to unwind and collect my thoughts. It also really helps with falling asleep at night to write in a journal or read for pleasure before turning off the light. In fact, I'm going to go write right now and spend some time being still.

The Secret and Rationalist Philosophy

My roommate gave me a book to read a few weeks ago. It is called "The Secret". The Secret is a way of life, a philosophy, a way to take control and make things happen for yourself. It draws off of the principle of magnetism. The main principle is that the universe works like one big magnet and if you think and want and wish for what you desire then the universe will bend to your will and give you what you want. Sounds impossible, right? When I began reading this book I was quite skeptical, in fact, I still am skeptical of its worth and credibility. To believe that the world works as a magnet and that you can control what you get simply by believing and thinking what you want to happen will happen is absurd. This is a way of life for many people. The Secret has a myriad of followers, some of whom are quite famous people. There are books, a dvd and even a website devoted to learning The Secret and living life the way The Secret outlines. But doesn't this seem like a religion? Religion is just a way of life. There are certain components that make up religion. Take for example the idea of a God or a divine power and force. For many Western religions it is one God. For some religions it is many gods. For others it is Nature. The Rationalist philosopher Spinzoa believed that God referred not to a single entity possessing absolute power, but considered the word "God" to be comparable to Nature. According to Spinoza, everything was "God". The fact that I am writing this blog right now is a force of God. What I will do when I wake up tomorrow morning I do because it is part of God and because God wills it. Every religion, every religious person, everyone who has a belief in something higher than themselves relates that belief to their way of life. Because Spinoza believes that God is everything, God is nature and God wills everything, he acts accordingly. This belief forms his way of life. It forms the way of life of many Rationalists who believe in Spinoza's philosophy. So isn't the Secret in turn also a religion? It tells you how to live your life in accordance with a guiding force, in this case, the universe. It is actually quite similar to Spinoza and his belief that God is Nature and Nature makes up everything.

Similarities

I always seem to come back to comparing modern religions that we study with that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. In the reading about The Hakluyt Society, I again noticed many similarities between the religious and cultural aspects of life for the different Ethiopian cultures, particularly in their marriage and burial rites. In cases of adultery, the offending party, whether it be the man or woman, need only to compensate the other with animals or goods because the man and woman both provide for themselves independently. This is similar to the practice in Roman culture of manus which refers to how women pass down their wealth from their fathers when they are married. In ancient Rome, women also were allowed to own their own property and to manage their own funds. Even though this was only allowed with the guidance of the woman's father or male guardian, it meant that the property and wealth the woman held was not tied to her husband.

Another similarity between classical cultures and the Abyssinians is how they mourn their dead. The Abyssinians literally lament their dead, much like the Greeks did, women in particular. The Gafates, another Ethiopian culture, "give themselves very large wounds in the head and arms" and "scratch their faces". This is very similar to how Greek women mourn for the dead by scratching at their faces and pulling out their hair.

This is a Geometric krater from the Dipylon cemetery near Athens from 740 BC. It shows Greek women surrounding the dead man, mourning by pulling their hair with their hands.

The Lawrence Pilgrimage: Documentary of a Sacred Event or Outlandish Video?

I really enjoyed the Kebra Nagast readings that we had assigned. I found it really interesting the discussion that we continued in both class periods about how the book was written to explain events and give reason to the Ethiopian culture and society. It seems that we draw a lot on how or why things happen or why things are the way they are in this world. It is important for us humans to have an explanation for everything, which is a theme we continue to address throughout this class.

I also found the video on the Lawrence Pilgrimage to be interesting and not only entertaining, but enlightening as well. Since it seemed to us to be such an outlandish perception of common place things that make up Lawrence University, such as the gazelle on the crest and the random artwork outside of Briggs, it was hard to take it seriously. But it made me think and question: Is this any more farfetched of an interpretation and explanation of common everyday things in the Lawrence community as it was to explain events and things in books like the Kebra Nagast or even the Bible that we consider to hold great religious value? Someone in class made the comment that perhaps the reason we don't view the Lawrence pilgrimage video as a real explanation and something sacred is because it is too recent and hasn't had any time to develop a mystical sense to it. Would people hundreds of years from now who discover or view the video believe that a giant gazelle reigned over the entire Fox valley? Popular opinion would say, no. We know too much about the world and we have progressed too far scientifically and technologically to make that sort of an assumption from a simple, college student video. But have we? Would it be possible that in some situation we would take that video to be the truth and to be an explanation for things we don't understand? I just find it very interesting how much circumstance and situation has to play into the development and belief of a religious text and the forming of a religion.

The Kebra Nagast

Wikipedia calls the Kebra Nagast "clearly a composite work", a definition with which I wholeheartedly agree. While I was reading these passages, I noticed how all the citations were from many different sources, such as books of the bible, psalms and other holy texts. The citations also gave some enlightenment as to how the stories in the Kebra Nagast compared to those in the traditional bible, for example, pages 10 and 11 have citations that give comparison with the book of Genesis. This is also something I noticed, though I am not well versed enough in the actual text of the bible to make concise comparisons, I was able to identify that some of the stories in the Kebra Nagast were obviously variations on traditional stories in the bible.

To me, this indicates the versatility of religion. The Ethiopian Christians have a somewhat different representation of all the stories in the bible that are written in Western Christianity. And I am sure that there are differences between every variation of Christianity. I find it inspiring that religion can cross boundaries like that and become useful for different peoples and cultures. The Ethiopian Christians and Rastafarians have this book which explains their origin and how the Queen of Ethiopia gained wisdom from King Solomon and basically outlines their entire origin as a Christian culture. It is adapted to fit their societal history and their beliefs much as Western Christianity has the bible which fits their history and culture.

Sam Harris: King of Unfounded Conclusions

After searching through the blogs tonight looking for someone who had read or written on the Sam Harris article, I was thrilled to see that Sarah had found the article as preposterous and offensive as I did. While I did not address this in my own post on the Harris article, I certainly felt some of the same shock and distress Sarah portrays in her post about Harris' views on the Islamic religion.

I agree with Sarah, it is possible to prove anything that has any grain of truth to it if you take a view general facts and make a bunch of unsupported claims. I did not find any sort of usefulness in many of the examples that Harris threw into his argument. It was as if he took a bunch of random facts that had something to do with violence in the Islam religion and said "here, read this and believe that I am right".

Thank you Sarah, for recognizing that Harris completely ignores the parallel between Islam and Christianity and their subsequent advancements which you dub the terrible twos. This I did touch on in my blog post and would like to argue further for it makes me just as annoyed and disappointed as it seems to have made you.

Different lenses

As a Western civilization, we Americans are always trying to force our opinions and our beliefs onto others. In reading Harris' article about the violent advancement of Islamic religion, I got the distinct impression this is exactly what he was trying to do, put the views of Western civilizations onto the Muslim people and their religious beliefs. Harris talks about how the Muslims "expect victory in this world" (p.111) and that they will do anything, especially committ acts of war and violence under the principle of jihad (the holy war) to further their religion. What Harris says about the deliberation of the Muslims to invole their religion on the rest of the world to me seems oddly reminiscent of some of the ways Americans have tried to impose their traditions and religious beliefs on other peoples in the past.

The concept of "manifest destiny" in early American history is one of these examples. The American settlers continued to move throuhgout the country which they believed to have a rightful claim over. They took over other peoples already settled and set in their own beliefs and ways because that was what God intended for the American, Christian, settlers to do when they reached America. It was their duty and their destiny to spread their beliefs all over the new land, regardless of who they crushed on the way. Surely this concept is not all that different from what harris is proposing about the advancement of Islam.

It seems to me that throughout the ages every civilization or culture has been guilty of attempting to spread their own beliefs and values to others. The problem lies in that an individual culture tries too hard to see different cultures and religions through their own lens which is undoubtably biased from the history of their own peoples and their beliefs. Harris invokes a double standard on Muslims for doing what every other culture, including American, has done throughout time. the only reason Harris views what the Muslims are trying to do as wrong is because it is another culture, rather than his own, trying to impose their beliefs on us. We would have no problem busting in and placing our values on them. From our standpoint and through our lens we are only doing what is right. But according to the Muslims, what they are doing is right for them. By no means am I in support of violence and the imposition of beliefs on other people. However, I merely want to realize that who is right and who is wrong all depends on your point of view and the lens through which you view the world.

Questions

I find it interesting that so many religions are consumed with determining the source and original author or authors of texts and writings. I understand how it can seem important to be able to identify where a text comes from and when it was written. The time and place and circumstances all have a lot to do with the meaning of a text and the way it was written. However, I think almost too much emphasis is placed on this aspect of studying religious texts. Breaking it down into such historical analysis and theory takes away from the beauty and experience of reading and appreciating religious texts. Not only is this seen in the Origen readings we had earlier, but also in the readings about the Zohar. The Wikipedia entry focused on how the commentaries of the Zohar were met by different Jewish denominations. Some accept the book as authentic and others do not. Even those who accept the book argue about who wrote it and when it was written. This makes me think of the way classicists have argued over who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey and whether it was Homer the entire time or not. The long debated "Homeric question" is the same sort of problem. However, in looking at the different theories about the origin and authors of the Zohar, the Wikipedia article makes it seem that a lot of the theories are far flung and random. It would certainly make sense that the book was written either by de Leon or by a group of people with de Leon as the leader, since it is a mystical commentary on the Torah. But this still puzzles me, because I don't really understand why people need to find answers as to who wrote what and when. Does it really matter? Would it make that big of a difference whether it was written by de Leon or by a group of people with de Leon at the top? Either way, this is how the religion has evolved, through this commentary. Admittedly, you can't go around believing every random book or commentary that is thrown out there, but with something like the Bible, the Zohar and even the Iliad and the Odyssey, isn't it enough to take it for what it is?

Is God human?

Since we started this class, I have been trying to draw relationships between Classical gods and goddesses and the religious figures we are studying. I am thrilled to see that someone else, Dave Skogen, has also seen the connection and drawn some similarities between the two. I agree with Dave, that God is portrayed as a human and assigned human attributes. It is obvious from our Bible readings that God is portrayed as human. Dave notes that the Greek gods, and the Roman as well, were created as representing the city-state. Later, in the high classical period, particularly Greek gods, acted as representations for abstract concepts such as the goddess of hope, Elpis, and the god of medicine, Asclepios. I think that across the board, gods and goddesses, no matter what religion they come from, are portrayed as inherently human. This happens because people identify with each other and form their personal and cultural identity as being human. God is traditionally represented as being human because people can easier relate to a human God. The Greeks represented their gods in the same way, as do many other cultures with different religions and different deities.

Granted, these gods are not only human, but superhuman, a larger-than-life representation. For the Greeks and Romans, the gods were an extension of humans. They had no consequence for their actions, no regret and no conscience. This made them more liable to act in ways that humans themselves could not act for fear of death or punishment. Gods would throw fits, destroy things, and cause mass pandemonium, sometimes merely because they were bored. I don't want to say that the God in Lamentations destroyed Jerusalem because he was bored, but I do want to draw a similarity between the way Greek and Roman gods acted on a large scale to how God was portrayed as acting in the sack of Babylon. Perhaps this will be something I can expand on further in a later post.

Timothy Treadwell

In Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell said he was going out to become one with the bears. I don't think that could ever be possible. As we discussed in class, there is what I consider to be a distinct line between animals and humans, particularly between large, dangerous animals like bears and humans because these larger animals present more of a competitive nature to humans. The line between humans and bears represents a difference and corresponds with the existence of a mutual respect. Past cultures recognize this difference. Native American's and even the paleolithic people respected and revered larger, threatening animals. Because these animals are at the same level, if not above the level of humans as far as strength and aggression goes, it is important to observe the disctinction between human and bear that the line holds.

Along with the recognition of the line and respect for the bears, Native Americans and other past cultures also revered them. As we saw in our readings about Paleolithic art and the Effigy Mound Builders, people used animals as symbols and felt a connection with them that continued to develop through time. There was a spiritual and religious relationship between the humans and animals which was shown through art. Paleolithic people and Native American's respected animals that were larger than them and that were competing for the same level of hierarchy as themselves. Timothy Treadwell on the other hand, did not.

Treadwell had something of a warped perception of the relationship between humans and bears. He wanted to educate the world and prove that bears had been misunderstood. He also fancied himself as a protector of the bears, a feat which proved to be impossible. How can one human protect bears? I don't believe any Native American, nor any paleolithic person would ever dream of connecting with bears and protecting them like Treadwell did. Over time, I think we humans, particularly Treadwell and others like him, have lost track of what it is like to live with nature. Living in harmony and being one with nature does not necessarily mean one has to interact with animals, like Treadwell did with the bears. Harmony and spiritual connection with animals has just as much to do with with how we don't interact with them as it does with how we do interact. It is much more of a harmonic and spiritualistic relationship if we live life by leaving the bears alone. In my opinion, Treadwell did not understand what it really meant to be living with the bears. He should have observed them more and interacted with them less. Yes, he believed and it may have been true, that he needed to show them who was in charge in order to stay alive. However, in bullying them around like he did, while he secured his safety for some time, he was not completing what he considered to be his mission to become one with the bears. At that time, he was more of a protector of the bears, which I have already identified to be a silly aim.

Ultimately, Treadwell tried to do too many things. He could not be one of the bears, a bear protector and a human educator all at the same time. At this time in our development as society, I think it was easy for Treadwell to be disillusioned about what being in nature is really about. We read and study about Native American tribes and the paleolithic people and how they held nature and animals close to their hearts and their spiritual rituals, but we don't realize that they also respected and revered the animals they lived with. They understood that the animals were dangerous and had a certain power over them. It was sort of a push-pull relationship that had to be delicately balanced. This is what Treadwell lacked. The knowledge and understanding of the relationship between animals and humans. A relationship that has lasted for years which he chose to ignore.

Neanderthals to Mound Builders

The Effigy Mound Builders picked up where the Neanderthal, Paleolithic and Holocene people left off. In each culture, the people are looking for a way to explain their existence and the events that make up their daily lives. The progression from Neanderthal to Paleolithic to Holocene and finally Effigy mound builders is all connected to the environment the groups lived in and the changes that happened over their course of existence.

The earlier cultures, the Neanderthals, Paleolithics and Holocenes, created art that reflected what they saw in everyday life, like men being killed, such as the painting in the Lascaux cave we studied on Wednesday. They painted pictures of animals that they had a connection to; animals that they interacted with and related to. This is much the same as what the mound builders did with their images on their pottery of the upperworld and lowerworld. They obviously are representations of animals, such as birds and serpents and fish. Perhaps this is where the earlier cultures, like the Paleolithic people, were going when they painted images of deer and bison. These were animals they saw and interacted with on a regular basis. The people knew the animals were powerful and important to their daily life and their general survival, or in many cases, their death. So they painted them and represented them. Perhaps they were trying to glorify them in the only way they knew possible.

The mound builders certainly succeeded beyond the efforts of the earlier cultures in glorifying their spirits. Instead of just painting them, they connected with them in a way even the Holocene people failed to do. They gave them symbols, they turned them into burial mounds and held elaborate ceremonies to honor the dead buried in the figures. According to Robert Hall, the representation of spirits in mounds and on other forms of art actually connect with the symbols or totems belonging to Indian tribes. The mound builders really tried to make a connection with these animals and bring them into their lives as a way to find harmony and connection in their world.

The Nature of Paleolithic Art

Analyzing Paleolithic art seems to be a very exhausting process. Many questions arise with answers that lead to different interpretations. Is there religious meaning behind certain representations? What does it mean that the art is only found deep in caves where it may not have often been seen? It is possible that the reason art is so abundant in caves is that it was supposed to be religious or sacred. However, Guthrie argues that the obscure placement of artwork in caves has no implication of sacred or religious meaning. It is possible that the reason we have evidence of artwork only in caves is because other forms of art, such as that drawn on paper or made out of clay, would not have been as easily preserved. This may very well be true, but I don't believe it is enough to completely discount the religious or sacred meaning of the Paleolithic art we have been studying.

Religion for Paleolithic people may have meant something entirely different than what wetake it to mean today. Religion has not always been organized in the same way we practice it, however, I believe it has always been present in everyday life. I feel it is necessary to acknowledge the differences and similarities between what we consider religion and what we also consider culture. They are often linked together but also can be seen as being quite different. I wonder if the shape of religion the Paleolithic people had was more of what we may today consider to be tradition and culture. I think it is important to recognize that we are probably trying to place our own constraints of religion on the artwork.

A Valid Language

This post is written in response to Alex's critique of Neanderthal's in Love.

While I recognize that there is a definite argument for and against the existence of developed language in Neanderthal culture, I am compelled to take the opposing side and defend Mithen's belief that the Neanderthal hmming is enough evidence, along with physiological traits, to conclude that the Neanderthals had a sufficient form of communication through sound. Music and sound is an important part of everyday life for many people. We as humans communicate not only through our developed language but also through other verbal sounds and expressions. Sighs, groans, exclamations and other expressions of emotion or feeling punctuate our lives. I believe it would be easy for us to get along without any sort of symbolic language, that is language that conveys thoughts and ideas through specific words and explanations.

Imagine talking to someone who does not have any experience with language. In order to communicate with this person, one would have to not only use gestures and body language but also I imagine sound. Music and sound is the one "language" that can cross through all cultures, whether they exist with a spoken language of their own or not. A symphony is the same no matter what language you speak. The music is the same and the feelings the music invokes is the same. It conveys a basic emotion or sensation that the composer intended.

This is what the Neanderthals seemed to be doing with their hmming. Granted, they could not convey specific ideas and details, but they could communicate emotion and feeling. The communication of emotion is just as important as the communication of fact. There are many cultures that still use forms of sound to communicate rather than a set language like we do. And the inclusion of the Neanderthal hmmming seems to me to be just as valid a form of language as any we may have today.

The Puzzle of God

I am not a very religious person, however I have always been curious about it. How different religions relate to one another, how and why religion was formed, and what impact it has had and continues to have on society. In that respect, I found this article very interesting.

The disagreement that Henig identifies in the first section about why we have a tendency to believe in God, whether it is adaptive or an evolutionary byproduct, really got me thinking. I have always been slightly critical of religion and of God existing independent of human creation and thought. Whether God and religion grew out of adaptation or out of a byproduct of evolution, it is clear that Henig argues for a scientific explanation of God.

I feel that the article really took off when Henig introduced the idea of the spandrel. If religion is a spandrel, then it is simply an evolutionary byproduct that occurred over time. But would religion as a spandrel be functional or neutral? I don't know if that is a question that can be answered. Those who are devoted to their religion and feel that it is a strong part of their life and culture would say that it is certainly functional. That is assuming that these people accept that religion is a spandrel at all. However, I would think that people who are less religious or atheist would tend to believe that religion is a neutral spandrel. That we could get along without it, it has no real purpose, it just evolved along with us.

This concept of spandrel helps to answer my remaining question about whether we created God ourselves or did God create us. What also helps is the outline of agent detection, causal reasoning and theory of mind that Henig gives immediately following the introduction of the spandrel idea. In agent detection, I was reminded of our discussion on Monday about the section in our brain reserved for prayer or any other religious activity. The theory of agent detection reveals that our brains are ready for belief in the supernatural. Causal reasoning gives a more explanatory reasoning for supernatural activities. Henig uses the example that thunder was caused by Zeus' thunderbolt. Obviously, as science progresses, such explanations like this will become inadequate because we will learn what really does cause thunder or lightening. Does that then eliminate the belief of there being a God or a supernatural being? It can't. Because even today if we recognize that there is a logical explanation for something, we still maintain the belief in God or a supernatural being. That goes back to the agent detection where we have an innate ability to believe in the supernatural, even if we have to deny what we know as logical.