Elaine. Our cultural conditioning at the top level overrules the bottom level.
Daniel. Uh-huh.
Elaine. If it’s valid to think of top-down thinking operating on concentration-camp guards and on hostages in the Stockholm syndrome, then it’s valid to think of top-down thinking operating on us on a very wide scale.
Daniel. Uh-huh.
Elaine. So your friend’s observation seems completely valid to me. Although there’s no specific or single act of hypnotism, the constant hum of Mother Culture’s voice in our ears from the cradle on up causes us to overrule the raw evidence of our senses. In our own way, as we go about the task of devouring the world, we’re like those concentration-camp guards. They viewed exterminating Jews as just something that had to be done. At the bottom, they were aware that other nations would regard what they were doing as profoundly wicked, but this awareness was overruled by their cultural conditioning at the top. We’re similarly aware — at the bottom — that other peoples and our own descendants are going to view our destruction of the world as profoundly wicked, but this awareness is overruled by our cultural conditioning at the top, which tells us that this is just something that has to be done. It’s a job, like exterminating Jews.
Daniel. Uh-huh.
Elaine [after waiting awhile for Daniel to continue]. So?
Daniel. So, what?
Elaine [laughs]. I guess I’m waiting for a grade.
Daniel. In other words, you think you’re finished.
Elaine. Is there more?
Daniel. If there was more, how would you go about seeing it?
Elaine. Oh … I’d pull back and look at the matter from a higher angle.
Daniel. That’s the procedure. What is it you see by pulling back and looking at things from a higher angle?
Elaine. I’d say … more ground.
Daniel. Of course.
Elaine. Okay. [After a few minutes.] Okay, here’s what I see … Your friend was referring to our Mother Culture. At least I assume so.
Daniel. So do I.
Elaine. But every culture has a Mother Culture who hums in everyone’s ears from the cradle up.
Daniel. Of course.
Elaine. I even supplied an example of my own. The Mother Culture of Australia’s aborigines tells them, among other things, that their witch doctors wield immense occult powers.
Daniel. That’s right. Among many other thousands or millions of things, just like our Mother Culture. When my hard drive failed a few months ago I lost a very significant quote from, I believe, the chief of a northwestern American tribe. He said, approximately — referring to us, of course — “It didn’t occur to us that you meant to stay.” Their top-level cultural conditioning told them that people don’t just move into someone else’s territory and settle down as if it were their own, and this overruled what their eyes were telling them.
Elaine. Yes, that’s very clear.
Daniel. And now what do you think of the apparently odd fact that downward neural paths outnumber upward paths ten to one?
Elaine [after some thought]. I think it means that humans are hardwired for culture.
Daniel. Yes, I think so, too. We evolved as cultural beings, and cultural conditioning at the top level serves to tell us how to evaluate and act on the information we receive from the bottom level — a much more complex task for us than it is for squirrels or sharks.
Elaine. Though what this conditioning tells us is not always … reliable.
Daniel. That’s true — and that’s one reason why it’s worth examining. The cultural conditioning of Native Americans told them we didn’t mean to stay — couldn’t possibly mean to stay. Our cultural conditioning tells us that the way we live is the way humans were meant to live from the beginning of time and that we have to hold on to this way of living even if it kills us.
Sunday: Morning
Elaine. I feel bad that this has to be our last day.
Daniel. Why is that?
Elaine. I’m sure we could go on this way for weeks.
Daniel. I wish you were right. The fact is I’ve run out of questions that seem worth exploring. I’ve gone over the hundreds I have on hand a dozen times.
Elaine. That’s hard to believe.
Daniel. They’re just very straightforward. Have no hidden depths, present no challenge.
Elaine [alarmed]. Does that mean we’re finished?
Daniel [laughs]. Oh no. We have a question we left unanswered from the first day, and then I’ve saved a really munchy problem till last.
Elaine. Good. What’s the question we left unanswered?
Daniel. We were talking about why the first three million years of human life had been swept under the rug by the people of our culture.
Elaine. Oh yeah.
Daniel. We’d gotten to the fact that these three million years pose a threat to the understanding of ourselves that informs our cultural mythology. Care to summarize?
Elaine. Let me think … According to our cultural mythology, we and we alone are humanity. To acknowledge that our ancient ancestors have any claim to humanity — to acknowledge that their lives amounted to anything — is obviously a threat to that mythology. The way we live is the way humans were meant to live from the beginning, and our ancient ancestors were just passing the time, accomplishing nothing. Truly human life didn’t start until we came along to begin building civilization.
Daniel. Very good. And you remember I said there was an even more dangerous threat involved in acknowledging the first three million years of human life.
Elaine. Yes …
Daniel. Are you ready to tackle that now?
Elaine. I should’ve been thinking about it …
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine. I remember I asked some question you didn’t want to answer, but I don’t remember what it was. It must have been relevant.
Daniel. What should you be doing now?
Elaine. Backing off. Trying to get a higher, wider view of the terrain.
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine [after a minute]. I remember what it was now. I asked who would feel threatened. Actually … Okay, this might be useful. What I’m thinking about is the period when people were being compelled to consider the possibility that humans were not the product of a special act of creation that occurred just a few thousand years ago. That was obviously a very distressing idea to a lot of people … But we already knew that.
Daniel. Take your time.
Elaine. But it was especially distressing to … Christian thinkers.
Daniel [after a minute]. Maybe it would help to come at the problem from a different angle.
Elaine. What angle?
Daniel. What are some of the things we’ve done before that have been helpful?
Elaine. Well, there was turning the tables.
Daniel. Try anything.
Elaine [sighing]. Turning the tables … What would that mean here?
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine. Here was the setup. “We detest the idea that humans were not the product of a special creation just a few thousand years ago.” Instead of trying to call up evidence to change their minds, I’m going to ask why this is so detestable. Why don’t you say, “Hurray! The human family is vastly larger and older than we thought!” Why aren’t you cheering instead of grousing?
Daniel. Uh-huh.
Elaine. What do you find so disturbing about the idea that we’ve been here for three million years?
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine [after thinking for a couple of minutes]. I’ve got it, I think. If we’ve been around for three million years, where was God all this time? Now, that’s a dangerous question.
Daniel. I’d say so.
Elaine. I think I see it now. We are humanity, therefore our religions are the religions of humanity. But our religions are only three or four thousand years old — Christianity only two thousand years old. So how can these be considered the religions of humanity if hum
anity is three million years old? That just doesn’t make sense.
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine. It was okay when that bishop’s date was in place. What was it?
Daniel. It was 4004 BC. According to Bishop Ussher’s calculation, Adam and Eve, along with the rest of the universe, came into existence almost exactly six thousand years ago.
Elaine. And that was okay, because … Because that meant that God began to interact with humanity right from the start, from the very first day. The whole biblical story was safe … How did Ussher make his calculation?
Daniel. Basically he added up the ages provided in Old Testament genealogies, which can be traced right up into the historical period — up to the first destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, in fact. I don’t recall how he determined the date of this event, but after that it was just simple arithmetic.
Elaine. I see. But in any case, this puts the notion that Christianity is humanity’s religion on a solid footing, generation after generation and event by event right from the beginning. That’s what you lose if you toss out Ussher’s date — that foundation.
Daniel. Yes, so it would seem.
Elaine. But it occurs to me that the only religionists outraged by losing humanity’s special creation were — and are — Christians. I’ve never heard of any outrage among Jews or Buddhists over it.
Daniel. And where does that lead you?
Elaine. I’m not sure … I guess it leads me here: Christianity is the only one of our religions that actually represents itself as a religion for the whole of humanity. Judaism and Hinduism are both specifically ethnic religions, wouldn’t you say? I mean, Judaism is for Jews and Hinduism is for the people of India.
Daniel. It seems clear enough that Judaism is for Jews, since they are a specifically Chosen people. I’m not aware of any evangelical tendency among Hindus.
Elaine. But what about Islam?
Daniel. Offhand, it does seem to be represented as a religion of the whole of humanity. Let me check a source. [Returning twenty minutes later.] This is from The World’s Religions, by J. N. D. Anderson: “There can be little doubt that Muhammad at first believed that he had only to proclaim his message to gain Jewish support, for was not his message the one, true religion preached by Abraham and all the patriarchs and prophets, ever corrupted only to be proclaimed anew?”
Elaine. Um. That shoots my theory.
Daniel. What was your theory?
Elaine. Maybe it doesn’t. Islam’s book is the Koran, not the Bible.
Daniel. And so?
Elaine. And so they’re not tied to the creation account in Genesis — or to Bishop Ussher’s date for creation. Or at least not as tied as the Christians, who were upset by losing that foundation that enabled them to trace their roots back to the beginning of human life.
Daniel. That seems plausible. But I’m still not sure what point you’re reaching for.
Elaine [laughing]. By this time, I’m not quite sure myself.
Daniel. Let’s take a little break and maybe it’ll come to you.
Elaine. Okay.
Daniel [half an hour later]. Any luck?
Elaine. No. I think I reached my point and then overshot it. You can skip this part of the dialogue when you do the book.
Daniel. Not at all. I wouldn’t dream of it. You did brilliantly. And you made some points that I missed in a lecture I delivered on this subject at Southwestern University* a few years ago.
Elaine. Huh. I guess that’s something to brag about.
Daniel. It is. So … Anything to add?
Elaine. You mean to this particular subject? No.
Daniel. Are you ready to move on to something completely different?
Elaine. Sure.
Daniel. Good. While on tour for The Holy in the fall of 2002 I happened to see a billboard showing some golfers and displaying the message “Golfers Against Cancer.”
Elaine. Uh-huh.
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine. That’s it?
Daniel. That’s it. Right out of the air, about sixty feet above the ground, by the expressway. Just the thing for a Martian anthropologist.
Elaine. Lord. Golfers against cancer. That’s all?
Daniel. That’s all.
Elaine. Why golfers?
Daniel. The organization was founded in 1997. As of today they’ve raised more than seven million dollars for cancer research.
Elaine. But why golfers?
Daniel. Are you asking me?
Elaine. No, not really. It’s just my first question. Wasn’t it yours?
Daniel. I’m afraid I don’t remember. It may have been. If you see something there to explore, explore it.
Elaine. Do you know what motivated the thing?
Daniel. I believe it was founded in support of a golf pro with cancer. I don’t know the details.
Elaine [after thinking for a time]. Would it be different if it were dentists against cancer, or hairdressers? Of course it would.
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine. I guess there’s nothing really there in that line of questioning, beyond the obvious.
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine. Golfers Against Cancer. As if it were an issue, like abortion or capital punishment. As if there might be another organization, Golfers For Cancer … I guess the expected reaction to this initiative is supposed to be “Hooray for golfers!” But everyone’s against cancer, aren’t they? It makes you wonder why film stars, lawyers, baseball players, prizefighters, and tennis pros haven’t also come together against cancer. What are they waiting for?
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine. I’m really floundering here.
Daniel. Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’ve only had it for a minute.
Elaine. Lord … Golfers Against Cancer …
Daniel. What should you be doing now?
Elaine. Pulling back. Trying to get a wider view.
Daniel. Right.
Elaine [sighing]. Golfers Against Cancer … Why not Parkinson’s or muscular dystrophy?
Daniel says nothing.
Elaine [after thinking it over]. There’s nothing in that … I think I should take a walk. I just feel too much pressure with you sitting here waiting for me to come up with something.
Daniel. Yes, that’s probably a good idea.
Elaine [about an hour later]. Can I use your computer to do some research?
Daniel. Of course.
Elaine. I may need to make some notes.
Daniel. Grab a sheet from my printer.
Elaine [three-quarters of an hour later]. I have no idea where this will go.
Daniel. That’s how it works. You pick a starting point and see where it goes.
Elaine. It started with my question about Parkinson’s and muscular dystrophy. Or maybe it didn’t. I don’t know …
Daniel. Go ahead.
Elaine. What I wondered was this: What would these golfers say if I asked them if God is against cancer. My guess is that they’d say yes. What do you think?
Daniel. You can figure that out.
Elaine [sighing]. Well, people in general — or believers in general — certainly pray to God to cure them of illnesses. This means …
Daniel [after a minute]. Yes?
Elaine. This means there’s an assumption of sidedness. Believers have to assume that God is against cancer.
Daniel. Okay.
Elaine. If the answer is yes, God’s against cancer, I’d next ask if he’s also against plague, AIDS, HIV, anthrax, polio, rabies, measles, and all the thousands of other diseases we suffer from.
Daniel. Smallpox, tetanus, pneumonia, scarlet fever, typhoid fever.
Elaine. Yes. I’ve got all those and dozens more [referring to a list she’s holding]. Anthrax, meningitis, cowpox, croup, botulism, Lyme disease, brucellosis, yellow fever, ebola hemorrhagic fever, cholera, necrotizing fasciitis — that’s the “flesh-eating disease” that’s so much fun — dysentery, tuberculosis, monon
ucleosis, diphtheria, mumps, glanders, influenza, leprosy, herpes, Legionnaire’s disease, gonorrhea, leptospirosis, hepatitis, listeriosis, peritonitis, and on and on. Okay. Now what causes all these diseases? Viruses, bacteria, and fungi. I think that’s it.
Daniel. It is, as far as I know.
Elaine. Anyway … If God is against all these diseases, then he must surely be against all the fungi, bacteria, and viruses that cause them.
Daniel. That makes sense.
Elaine. And if he’s against these fungi, bacteria, and viruses, then it seems logical that he has to be against all the creatures that can injure or kill us with a bite or a sting — black widow spiders, scorpions, mosquitoes, tarantulas …
Daniel. Bees, wasps, brown recluse spiders …
Elaine. Rattlesnakes, coral snakes, copperheads, cottonmouths, cobras …
Daniel. Green mambas, bushmasters, pythons, puff adders …
Elaine. Barracudas, sharks …
Daniel. Jellyfish, stingrays. Not to mention lions, tigers, grizzly bears, and wolves.
Elaine. Right. And then there are all the parasites and plants that are deadly or harmful to us. [Reading from her list.] Roundworms, pinworms, hookworms, flukes, tapeworms, whipworms, poison ivy, acanthamoebae, monkshood, bird’s-foot trefoil, black locust, death angel mushrooms, celandine, death camas, devil’s trumpet, dogbane, henbane, Dutchman’s-breeches, foxglove, laburnum, ragworts, mayapple, moonseed, deadly nightshade, oleander, poison hemlock, poison oak, poison sumac, pokeweed, rosary pea, skunk cabbage, purple vetch, cowbane, white snakeroot …
Daniel. You really went to town on those.
Elaine [laughs]. Okay … This is where I’ve got to. I said I wasn’t sure where this was going, and I’m still not.
Daniel. It seems like you’re building to some sort of conclusion.
Elaine. Conclusion?
Daniel. About God.
Elaine. Oh yes, of course. Since all these creatures continue to thrive, either God is not against them or he’s extremely ineffectual in getting his way.
Daniel. So it would seem.
Elaine. But does this have anything to do with golfers being against cancer?
Daniel. It seems highly relevant to me. Relevant to the thinking behind it, which is what an anthropologist is interested in.