Two must-read books for every religious liberal

Another Okanagan columnist, David Bond, annually shares his year-end reading recommendations. My recommendations are quite short. Just two books.

I’ve read more than that, of course. But, these two that left a lasting impression on me: “A God That Could Be Real,” by

Nancy Ellen Abrams, and “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt.

Traditionalists should not bother reading either of these books — you might have to consider some new ideas.

I like the Abrams’ book because it takes a totally different approach to discussing the reality — or not — of a divine being. I don’t recall her ever quoting the Bible. Or the doctrines of any church. Or the theories of any theologian.

Instead of starting with whatever people already know and assume about the nature of God, she starts with science. With what we already know, and we can know, about the universe we live in.

She has some qualifications for that approach. Her husband, Joel Primack, was a co-discoverer of that mysterious “dark matter” and “dark energy” that make up 95 per cent of the universe. Even though we don’t know what it is, how to measure it, or even how to find it. But, it has to be there.

That in itself could be a useful analogy for God. But Abrams doesn’t stop there. As she works through biology, evolution, psychology, chemistry, and even quantum physics, she argues that things can be very real, even if their nature makes them undefinable.

Love is an obvious example. Or trust. Or loathing. Any relationship between people. Or between any living things.

Yes, even if it is created by those living things. Traditionally, we have assumed that there must be a Creator, who set all the wheels in motion. Abrams shows that the wheels themselves can themselves create something. Something that influences their existence. Their perceptions. And their reality.

Abrams dispels the notion that God — or whatever you call God — has to be a supernatural being, s “person” somewhere out there, watching over us “from a distance,” as Bette Midler sang.

God can be right here, right now, and be just as real as gravity, friendship, or a corporation.

The only problem with Abrams’ work is that it’s hard to gather a worshipping congregation around her concepts. That’s where Jonathan Haidt comes in. Haidt subtitles his book, “Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” but he’s not trying to sell religion, in any sense. Rather, he explores why people turn to any group activity. He doesn’t care whether that’s white supremacy, soccer, or worship.

We don’t use our rational minds to make decisions, he demonstrates. We respond from deep-seated preconceptions; later, we apply reason to justify our decisions.

And what are those preconceptions? Haidt identifies six dominant themes. Liberals value fairness and compassion highest. Conservatives prefer

• loyalty: the greatest sin is betrayal of your buddies;

• purity of doctrine or ideology: such as unwavering opposition to abortion and/or immigrants, while ignoring crotch groping;

• reliance on external authority: be it a fivestar general, a president, or the Bible.

These values explain why the political left and right tend to talk past each other. They think they’re speaking the same language, but they perceive issues through a drastically different set of lenses.

The same principles apply to economics. To new paradigms within science. And certainly to religion.

And yet all people want to gather in groups — whether as hockey fans in an arena or worshippers in a cathedral. Like philosopher Ken Wilbur, Haidt argues that everything, from protons to cells to humans, wants both to be individual and unique, and to transcend that loneliness by being part of something larger, greater, more significant.

We have what he calls “groupish” genes. That’s why we form churches and service clubs, professional associations and political parties.

Haidt himself takes no moral stand. Whether you commit yourself to the KKK or the Catholic church, you’re following the same basic urge to transcend the isolation of individuality.

But, those core conservative values of loyalty, authority, and conformity, mean that right-leaning organizations — such as the military, big corporations, and religious cults build cohesive social movements far more effectively of than left-leaning organizations. Indeed, the left commonly scorns those community-building factors as “tribalism” at best, fascism at worst.

Liberals need to recognize that compassion and fairness alone do not build community. And without community, no social momentum.

These two books should be essential reading for every liberal. Especially those in today’s churches.