Down the Wormhole

Time Part 2 with Dr. Timothy Maness

Episode 99
Last time, we talked about relativistic time and its implications for faith in a theistic god. That conversation was... heady to say the least. So, here to help us further understand what all that means is our good friend Dr. Timothy Maness. We talk about the flow of time, where/when God is, fate, and more. Ready to have your mind blown? 
 
Timothy Maness is a scholar of science and religion whose recent dissertation, which he is currently adapting into a book, discusses ways of reconciling relativistic physics with a flowing model of time, in which past, present and future are really distinct from one another. It also explores how a relativistic theory of flowing time can complement Abrahamic theology, and serve as the basis for a view of existence centered on personhood. 
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
 
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
 
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.
 
 
Zack Jackson 00:06
You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion. Our guest today is an incredible scholar of science and religion whose recent dissertation which he is currently adapting into a book discusses ways of reconciling relativistic physics with a flowing model of time, in which past, present and future are really distinct from one another. It also explores how a relativistic theory of flowing time can complement Abrahamic theology, and serve as the basis for a view of existence centered on personhood, here to unpack what all of that means, and more is our good friend, Dr. Timothy Maness. Welcome to the podcast. Tim.
 
Tim Maness 00:50
Hi. It's great to be here. Yeah, I've been I've been a regular listener. And I've been I've been wanting to get on for quite some time.
 
Zack Jackson 00:57
I have been, we have been talking about having you on since almost the beginning of the podcast. So I do apologize.
 
Tim Maness 01:03
I know you guys have had a lot of things to talk about to, to clarify for our listeners, the wonderful Sinai and Synapses fellowship that is, is run by the the Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, the the same cohort of fellows were the hosts of the podcast met, I also had the privilege of meeting them as well. So we were we were all friends in that, that fellowship. So we've known each other for a while now. It was
 
Zack Jackson 01:33
a very good cohort. And the very first time that I met him, I remember us standing awkwardly as people do when they first meet, maybe nibbling on a bagel or something and saying, What are you doing? And of course, I felt completely out of place. Because, you know, I'm a, I'm a pastor who likes science, and I'm in a room filled with people with advanced degrees and understandings of things that are beyond my, my understanding, and that, you know that what do they call it? That imposter syndrome that everyone? You know, everyone will? I do? Say everyone, because we all think we're imposters, right? Yep, yep. Yeah, I was really feeling it. And I was all I had done some work in seminary on on relativistic time, and theology and our understanding of God and salvation. And so when I asked him, What is he was working on. And he said, he explained some of his dissertation and how it was exactly what I had been working on, I got so excited, I said, we need to talk, I need to read this, I need to, we need to hear it. And then when he started explaining it, to me, it went so far over my head, I realized how much I still had to learn. And I have and he's been really helpful in helping me to understand some things and inspiring me to learn more and to dig deeper into the things I thought I knew, and the implications that I thought were there. And so it's, it's, it's really nice to have you here to help unpack and open up some of this stuff. I think it was St. Augustine that said, I understand time fully until you asked me to explain it. I,
 
Tim Maness 03:07
that's that's one of my go to quotations, I think might be the introduction of my dissertation starts with that.
 
Zack Jackson 03:15
Oh, well, there you go. That's, that'd be fun to defend, I would imagine, where you just start off by saying, I can't explain any of this stuff.
 
Tim Maness 03:24
Yeah, yeah. But one of the things I want to argue is that is that you know, the average person, but But you, dear listener, understand time in you that you have in an important understanding of time, that, that you that ought to be taken into account. And that one of the ways that, that a lot of the philosophy of time over the past, you know, century and a bit has has failed, is in failing to take our everyday experience of time into account. So, I think that, you know, I want to be careful about trying about about going over people's heads. I think it was Einstein, who said that, if that happens is that one of the things that that's a sign of is that the person who is explaining doesn't understand their subject as well as they should.
 
Zack Jackson 04:25
So yeah, that's the, that's what sets like Jesus's teachings apart is that you can say a whole lot in a little bit because you really get it or Mr. Rogers. Yeah. So maybe you can help us to understand a little bit, you mentioned that we have an experience of time. I think that kind of goes without saying that the past is what you did. The present is what you're doing in the future is what you will do, and they're all connected causally. But that's about it. Right? You know, and that there's a static flow of time like a conveyor belt, almost Right, but that's not, that's not exactly how things panned out in the early 1900s.
 
Tim Maness 05:06
Yes, that's true. There are these these three modes of time, these three sort of general tenses, you might say there, if you get into the grammar, but you can come up with more that, that constitute our relationship with time. The, the philosopher, Immanuel Kant talked about PILOTs, one of the categories of our experience, you know, this thing that sort of gives shape to, to the way we experience the world. And, you know, we experienced that the past is accessed through through memory, that's the past is, is this set thing that we, that we, that we know, of, it's definite for us. To some extent, it's definite, but we forget things as well. But it's it's set, it has its own existence, and the future doesn't exist yet. It's some, it's the, the domain of, of sort of planning and also guesswork. It's, it's there to be defined, and the present is where those two things come together. But it's also more than that. It's, it's the, it's the way of, of the mode of times existence in which we can act, in which we make decisions, and, and do things. And it's those decisions, that that shape, the future. And all of those things are, are, are deeply tied in to our way of living in the world as human beings. Right, you know, that's all of those have a very sort of narrative kind of character to them. That it's like, it's like a story, right? That we talked about having a beginning and a middle and an ending. And even before Einstein, a lot of philosophers and scientists were kind of suspicious about that way of talking about time, precisely because it was so human. So, you know, the, the great philosopher, Bertrand Russell, who, you know, contributed so much to the philosophy of mathematics, among other things. Writing before Einstein said that, basically, the fact that this way of thinking about time has so much of the human in it has so much of our subjective, personal way of, of experiencing things into it, that, but there must be something wrong with it. Basically, that in order to be really scientific, where a scientific, you know, is considered to mean the same thing as rigorous. And, you know, and well thought out, then, a way of thinking also has to be objective, it can't rely on any particular point of view. And so Rafal, among others, thought it was better to imagine that that time, was I didn't really have this, this past present future character, that the differences among these three ways of, of experiencing time, were just an illusion, that are brought on by by some, some weird thing about human consciousness or another. And that, in reality, all events in time, exist in the same kind of way. In my work, and in the work of a lot of philosophers of time, we draw on the A category that got set up by this, this philosopher named James McTaggart, who wrote about sort of two ways that we have of talking about time, the A Series and the B series, like many philosophers, he was not really great at creative names. And so the A Series is, is it involves differences in past and present and future in that way that we talked about, imagines that, that the time flows, you might say that, that an event is, is in the future, and then it's in the present, and then it's in the past. And it has all of these different characteristics of past present and future as time goes on. And then on the other hand, there is the B series, and in the B Series events don't have the past, present and future relationships. All they have are the relationships with earlier and later on So for instance, if you can imagine looking at like a history textbook, and you see events on a timeline, where, you know, pen 66, the, the, the Norman invasion of England happens. And, you know, there's in, in this month of that year, this happens. And then a later month of the year, this happens and all of the events are sort of laid out next to each other on a line. All of those events sort of have the same kind of existence. They're, they're, they're sort of different modes of existence that used to see in the A series, the past, the present, and the future stuff. And in our daily lives, we use both of these all the time. Whenever you are planning out your schedule for the day, you are thinking about time in a B Series kind of way. You're saying, Well, alright, I'm gonna sit down to record this podcast at 9am. And then, you know, for my, you know, I should probably have lunch in there somewhere. So it's penciled in for noon, I've got this this other phone call that's scheduled at 330. And you're sort of laying these things out. That way, sort of, in kind of as though you're laying them out in space. And, and again, it's just, it's just an earlier later kind of relationship. But in order to, to take that schedule and translate it into something that you actually do, you also have to bring in the A series there comes a point where, you know, it's not enough just to say, you know, alright, I am starting this podcast at 9am, you are not able to actually do the things necessary to start the, you start the podcast, until unless you have the the impression that at some point 9am is now and and now is a concept that the B series does not have. There is there is no one moment that it picks out is having that special characteristic of noun, it's that moment where, you know, we are where we are acting in the present where things are present to us. You know, there's there's just earliness and lateness and, and so it takes that that intersection between the A Series and the B series in order to to make the the events that we schedule happen. So we have both a ways of picking the time and B ways of taking that time and we use them both all the time. McTaggart his question, or his way of framing the question is, which one of these two ways of thinking is the more fundamental one? Is it the case that time is is really like the B series that, you know, events all have the same kind of existence, and they're ordered by earlier and delayed earlier and later? And our sense of past, present and future is some weird kind of illusion that comes out of our brains? Or is it the case that time really has a past or present in the future, and the B series just comes out of our way of writing things down? And it turns out that, that McTaggart actually thought that neither of these was true, and that he thought that time was the time was just an illusion. But the use terminology sort of gave names to two of the major camps, the people who think that the past present future way of thinking about time is the more fundamental one tend to call themselves a theorist or talk or to talk about flowing time and the people who think that the B series of time the earlier and later there is no now, way of thinking about time is more fundamental They call themselves the B theorists. So, for instance, Bertrand Russell is is a good example of a a b theorist. And you have you know, even quite quite distinguished philosophers and and scientists people like like the, the eminent French, the French philosopher Ali Belkacem was a major proponent of the a theory. The the physicist Arthur Eddington was a major proponent of the a theory. So, this is this is already a hot topic of discussion coming into the 20th century, when Einstein is still a patent clerk and hasn't haven't made a name for himself yet. But then comes relativity as as as Zack has has already talked about, dear listeners and, and that throws a wrench in everything. thing. And it turns out that the assumption that was made in Newtonian physics and, frankly, has probably been made by just about everyone else ever. That, that everybody shares the same now. And that, you know, now is the same moment, you know, here on the East Coast of the United States, as it is in, you know, on the west coast that, you know, it might be the case that the time that we call, you know, 1030, on the east coast, is 630. On the west coast, we, you know, we assign it to different times on the clock, but we can agree that it's now, right, that, you know, you see this in like in like, you know, TV scheduling, for instance, you know, or at least you know, in the days before streaming, we used to we used to talk about TV scheduling this way, but you know, this thing is this, the show is going to come on at, you know, 730 Eastern 630 Central. That, you know, we assign the time when the show begins different moments on the clock, depending on the timezone, but we can agree that the time when the show starts is the same, even if people assign it to two different moments on the clock. So, so this assumption that, that there's the same now that exists here on the East Coast, and over there on the West Coast, and over on the planet Mars, and over in the Andromeda Galaxy, it is all one now, Einstein says, nope, nope, that's not true. That how we experience time, depends on where we are and how fast we're moving. And that people are going to disagree about how long things take. And about what things take place at the same time as each other, depending on how they're moving relative to the events that they're talking about. And that this sort of multisyllabic way of talking about that concept is the relativity of simultaneity. Simultaneous the fact of happening at the same time, simultaneously, the quality of happening at the same time. That's relative in in Einstein's terms, and, and the sort of classic example that that we have for that is, goes back to Einstein. It involves trains. And I think that the trains are going to come up a lot as an image has, as I talked about this. So you mentioned you've got a train that's that's moving past a station. And in the middle of one of the train cars, there is a flashbulb that will go off, let's say for an art project. And the flashbulb goes off in the middle of the train. And light starts coming out of the flashbulb and going towards the two ends of the train. You remember from the previous episode on relativity, that the speed of light is invariant, it's the same for all observers, we might say, for observers in all reference frames, for all points of view. And so a person who is sitting in the middle of the train next to the flashbulb, let's say it's the artist is going to, from that person's point of view, since the light bulb is in the middle of the train, light from the light bulb, is going to hit both ends of the car at the same time, light bulb is exactly in the middle, lightest traveling at the same speed. So it is going to take the same amount of time to hit both ends of the of the car, the front in the back. So from in that person's reference frame, the reference room with the artist on the train, the moment when the light hits the front of the car. And the moment when the light hits the back of the car are going to be simultaneous will happen at the same time. From the perspective of a person who is sitting on a platform as the train goes by, you know, presumably they're waiting for the local and this is the Express that's passing. And they're they're looking at this car wondering what on earth is going on with this flashbulb in this train car. From their perspective, the back of the car is is instead of moving toward this, this is the place where where the where the light was emitted, and the front of the car is moving away from it. So from the perspective of the person who is, you know, sitting at sitting on the platform with the train cars moving past, the light will hit the back of the train earlier than it hits the front of the train. So those two events are not simultaneous, one happens before the other. And the weird thing about relativity, or one of the many weird things about relativity is that it tells us that, that neither of these people is right, and neither of them is wrong. It's not the case that that motion is introducing some kind of distortion into things and that the person who was sitting still is right, because you can't say who's sitting still and who's in motion, all you can do is say that, you know, this is in motion with respect to this. So there's no matter of fact, about whether or not these two events happen at the same time, they happen at the same time in one reference frame, and they don't happen at the same time in in another reference frame. And that's all you can say, the the simultaneity of these two events is relative. So, if that's the case, then the idea of now becomes kind of complicated. You can't say that, you know, you can't say definitively I should say that, you know, a given set of events are all happening at the same time, a time that we can call now, some people moving at some speed with respect to those events are going to assign them all to the same. Now, some people are going to say that, you know, events, A and B are in the past of events C, and some people are going to divide things up differently altogether. So, past and present and future, from a point of view of relativity become a lot harder to divide up. And so, a lot of people, what they get out of this is the idea that this must mean that relativity is basically giving us a knockdown, scientific physical argument, that the are not just an argument that are proof that the beef theory, the the only earlier and later no past present, and future way of looking at time, is really the more fundamental one, that past and present and future are just things that human beings with their weird little brains are imposing on the the grand, impersonal scientific universe. How are we doing so far?
 
Zack Jackson 23:06
Great.
 
Ian Binns 23:07
I'm just listening. Because it still always blows my mind. All the time just blows my mind.
 
Zack Jackson 23:14
It's mind blowing. Well, anytime you say that, anytime you say that. You experience it this way. But the mathematics suggests that it's this other way. I mean, that in and of itself, you know, you've heard it said, But I say to you, right, you're blowing minds.
 
Tim Maness 23:29
Right? And, and, and that's, you know, that plays in with, with that, that way of thinking about science that Russell had, right? That, you know, here we have this this problem that philosophers were debating about, for centuries and centuries, and long come the physicists, and they solve it. Right? That, that, you know, it's the philosophy is, is about endless, fruitless debate. And science comes in and cuts the Gordian knot, and gives us, you know, the way things really are, and, you know, avoids all of this fog of mere language and gives us the truth in mathematics. And, you know, that's, that's something that philosopher after philosopher in the 20th century, brings out of this. And one of the things that they that they do, not universally, but really kind of a lot is that they, they go on from saying, mathematics is, you know, is reliable in a way that subjectivity and language aren't to saying that basically, the human experience of personhood is an illusion of of a similar kind. That, that all of all of our the subjectivities of our experience What what is sometimes called qualia, the hardness of our perceptions, you might see people talk about the redness of a rose, as opposed to the knowledge that you know, light is being reflected off of the rose itself in such a, such a wavelength, you know, or the, the, the emotional side of, of hearing music, as opposed to just being able to describe it in terms of, you know, frequency and amplitude, that all of that stuff is, you know, is is illusion. And that the, the math of those experiences is all that's really real. So, that has a lot of implications for religion, right? Because, so much of you know, of, of our religious experience is personal. In this way. One of my my favorite philosopher theologians, the, the Dane with the rather difficult to pronounce, name of Sir and Kierkegaard, you know, has has this, this whole book, where he talks about how the sort of basis of, of religious experience is this thing that happens inside of you that you can never fully communicate to someone else. And that all of our attempts to talk about religion are attempts that fail, more or less, to take this inexpressible thing, and put it out where other people can see it. And, you know, and and you hear you have this, this, this emerging philosophical viewpoint that, that claims to have, you know, to perceive basically scientific proof for itself, that that's just nonsense, that that nothing that's inexpressible in mathematics can even really exist, that anything else is a delusion. And even if you don't follow things quite that far, even if you don't take from this, the, that, you know, the science is really showing that human subjectivity is an illusion. Taking this, this sort of be theory view of time, poses a lot of problems for religion by itself. So if the B theory is true, time looks a lot like space. And all, you know, all the parts of space, all spots in space exists sort of alongside each other. And in the same way. Here's where here's where I bring in another one of my training analogies, that lots of train, what's the train analogies train?
 
Zack Jackson 27:55
Well, they go in straight lines. So it's very convenient.
 
Tim Maness 27:57
Most of the time, you know, if you're, if you're, if you're, if you're in the loop in Chicago, all bets are off for a lot of reasons. But so but but imagine that I'm going to train this traveling in a reasonably straight line, I'm on the Amtrak going up the East Coast, right? And imagine that my train is temporarily stopped in Philadelphia. And you know, maybe I'm going to get off at the station and grab a cheese steak and then get on before I move on north. So when I'm there on the train in Philadelphia, right. Washington DC still exists, even though I've left it, right. It's not present to me now. But it's still there. And New York and Boston, even though I haven't gotten there yet, exist, they're real. There are things going on there that are that are happening, even though I don't perceive them, they are real. So the, in this be theoretic way of looking at time now is like Philadelphia, and the pastor's like, DC. And the future is like New York and Boston. The past is still there, even though that's not where I am now. And the the future is out there that exists, like York and Boston do even though I'm not there now. And the present doesn't have anything really special about it. It's just where I happen to find myself at a particular moment. Right. So if that's the case, if that really is the best description of how time is and a lot of the stories that we tell, that involve time, which is to say all stories that we tell become, well, they become sort of different. So, in, in, in religion, right, we have a lot of stories about, say about people changing their lives. Right? Where, you know, in, in, in the Bible, God says to God says to people, you know, turn your lives around. And then as a result of your turning your life around, this will happen to you. Or if you don't turn your life around, this won't happen to you. Yes. So that sort of way of thinking about about the stories of people's lives depends on a particular way of talking about time, right? The the events, after you make that that critical decision to turn your life around or not to, you know, have some conversion or some repentance or some whatever else, that depends on an idea that the future doesn't exist yet, but it's there to be shaped by your decisions. And so it makes sense to talk about the events that happen after that, that decision as being in some way more important than the events that happen before. Right? That what happens later, can change the meaning of what happened earlier, can in some limited way, maybe make up for what happened earlier, can be more relevant than what happened earlier. This, this is sounding plausible, based on on, you know, the way that you think about time and, you know, regular everyday way
 
Zack Jackson 31:44
I hear kind of, at least in the scriptural analogy, there's kind of two stories that popped to my mind, I think of that whole, that whole paradigm is so important for the province, right? They they come before the people and they say, here's what you've done. Here's what you need to change, or else, this is what will happen, right? That's sort of the formula of every one of the problems, they're giving you a chance to repent, to change to move. So your future is not totally decided yet. The future is uncertain, it's being written now. And then the other story I think of is that of Moses and Pharaoh, where God tells Moses, go to Pharaoh say, Let my people go. And he goes to Pharaoh and says, Let my people go. And then God hardens Pharaoh's heart, because God has an ending in mind already, and is going to, like the future is unchangeable. In that story, there was always going to be plagues always going to be an exodus always going to be that. And God is still telling Moses to do this thing now, despite the fact that it's not going to change anything, because God is going to intervene, because the future is fixed. All right. And of those two stories, people generally tend to accept the prophetic version a lot easier than the the future is already fixed. And God is behind the scenes, you know, making this a deterministic situation, right? Because then they think, why do I even bother? Yeah, what's the point of any of this if the future is already if the future is already real? And whatever, you know, I should just sit back and do nothing. Yeah. Yeah.
 
Tim Maness 33:23
And which is not to say that there haven't been some theologians who have tried to embrace that, that sort of the future is set way of looking at things, right. Where you have people who are in favor of have a strong view of looking what gets hold predestination, where, where God has already set out your entire future for you, where all of the events of your life exists, like, like, you know, like, like, all the events in a book, right, where everything has already happened, even before you've in a circumstance, even before you've read it, it's just a matter of, you know, going through the pages, until you get to the the ending that was already there. And people like, you know, like John Calvin, in the in the Christian tradition, tend to have a strong view of predestination. That's, that is a really common view in, in Muslim theology. It's, you get a lot of Muslim thinkers who have that that particular strong view that God has planned out all of history. It's very uncommon in Judaism, you will find very few Jewish thinkers who wouldn't rather go with that sort of open future. There's there there's very little Jewish support for the idea of predestination. So yeah, you have you have, you can find some theologians who are going to be on either side of this debate. But on the whole, you're right people do like to they do like to opt for the idea of the open future because it makes our choices more meaningful. Right? It means that our choices are made, or at least, are potentially made by us. They aren't sort of written out ahead of time for us by God. And that means, for instance, that, that if we're making our own choices, that that that has implications for God's responsibility for evil in the world. If God has already made everybody's choices for everybody beforehand, then that means that God is responsible for all of the evil that people do. That God decided already decided, every time somebody was going to commit a murder. God made that happen, rather than than the person choosing to commit that murder against God's will.
 
Zack Jackson 35:57
Yeah, it's holding a marionette responsible for its puppeteers act. Right. Exactly.
 
Ian Binns 36:03
The idea of fate, right? No.
 
Tim Maness 36:05
Yeah. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Right. Yeah, that's that's our
 
Ian Binns 36:09
that's already written or something like that. Is that kind of the same?
 
Tim Maness 36:13
thing? I think that's that's, that's a great one syllable way of putting it this is this is exactly fate. Right, in the way that that many cultures have had had it that the way you sometimes see like Greek and Roman ways of talking about the world, where everybody has their fate. It's laid out, you if you try to avoid it, it will just you'll just end up coming at it in a way that you didn't expect.
 
Zack Jackson 36:38
Yeah, that's all edifice. Yeah, there. Yeah.
 
Tim Maness 36:43
And that's, you know, it's not to say that that's, that that's a way of looking at God, that doesn't make sense, in a sort of abstract kind of way. But it's one that poses a lot of problems, especially for an Abrahamic view of God, where we want to talk about God as as loving, and as good. And in, it causes a lot of problems for the way we want to talk about the end of time. Right? We have this idea that at the end of time, God will will will wipe will wipe away every tear from people's eyes will make things okay. And that God will, to some extent treat people based on the choices that they've made during their lives. And if God has decided everybody's choices for them all along the line, then that makes a lot less sense. If people's, you know, if the will, the changes that people make in their lives. If the events that happen after those changes always exist, and the events that happen before those changes always exist, and they exist in the same way, then it doesn't seem like there's no particular reason to treat the events afterward as being more important than the events that happened before. Right? It's it's not as though if you're looking at a map of the US, right? But you would say, all right, everything that happens east of the Mississippi cancels out everything that happens west of the Mississippi, you know, that would be ridiculous. And if, if all events are laid out in time, the way, you know, places are laid out in space, then it seems ridiculous in the same way to talk about events, later, canceling out events that happened earlier. So there's, there's there's no particular reason for God to assign people to treat people differently based on on changes that they make. There's no sort of final victory of good over evil, because the evil always exists, it doesn't pass away. It's always there. In the same way that the good that God eventually brings him to be is always there. So even if you're if you even if you're not following these along these these be theorist philosophers in saying that, you know, the human personality doesn't really exist. The B theory causes all kinds of problems for for Abrahamic theology, and the the predestination list of theologians who would be happy to go along with the B theory. They don't have a lot of responses beyond Well, it's a mystery. You know, God see thing, God sees things differently. And it's not necessarily going to make sense to us. And that's something that we as theologians have to say a lot of the time because, you know, part of the way that we think about God is that yeah, God is different from us. And God does see things differently. But when you basically have to take that same explanation and apply it to literally everything in the way that we talk about God interacting with human beings, then speaking for myself, I don't find it very satisfying. It feels to me like, though it does make sense to say that there are there are things about God that we're not going to understand that we should, at a minimum, have some things that we can understand about the way God interacts with us in our own lives. If anything should be comprehensible to us, it seems like it should be that we should be able to understand the impact of what we do.
 
Zack Jackson 40:38
Yeah, that we can't necessarily understand the nature the full nature of a being that exists outside of our experience our universe, but we should be able to at least understand our experience of that. Right.
 
Tim Maness 40:57
Right. And especially if we're if retail was
 
Ian Binns 41:01
gonna, yeah, please go ahead. I was gonna ask about in, you just alluded to it that, Zach, that, because again, it's still this is still cooking my brain here a little bit, but so the idea that God would exist outside of our understanding of time, right, like, even based on all this stuff that you're talking about here, Tim? Um, is that okay, in a theological way or not? Okay, I'm not permission, but what are your thoughts on approaching it that
 
Tim Maness 41:31
way? Well, yeah, I mean, that's, that's, that's another big problem, that, that, that sort of exists at right angles to this one, right, you can have sort of different positions on that. And, and imagine it as impacting the way we think about time in different ways. Right? So people usually want to talk about God as knowing some things that exist in the future, right? Prophecy is, is assuming to some degree that God knows some things before they happen? And how are we going to reconcile that with the way that we think about time? Well, people have have proposed different things. You know, if the B theorists are right, and all events already exist, and that becomes very simple to explain, you know, God knows things. God knows everything that happens, because God sort of created it all. At you know, as it were, at the same moment, you know, God brought all that into existence together. With the great theologian, Augustine, the Christian theologian, Augustine, he, drawing on some, some sort of Greco Jewish ways of thinking about time, proposes that the time is this created thing. That, that, that there is no time, until God creates the universe. And when God creates the universe, you know, as God is saying, what it'd be like, then then time comes into being with things as as, as they start. And that would mean for Augustine, for instance, that God is is outside of time, in the same way that we say that God is outside of space. Right, that God doesn't you know, that God isn't located in space, you know, there's, there's not some place that you can go to the specialty that you've been, you know, getting the spaceship and travel to apply. And that's where God is, you know, this is one of the reasons why Star Trek five is a bad movie. And I'm wondering if
 
Ian Binns 43:31
you're gonna do that.
 
Tim Maness 43:34
And in the same way, there's, there's no particular moment where we're God is in time. And, and so, if God is outside of time, in that way, then then you could ask, you know, what is God's relationship to time like, there's this, this, this other Christian thinker on amblyseius, who has a way of thinking about time that has some subtle differences from Augustine, that we may or may not end up getting into he has this sort of famous image of God as it's the God's way of looking at time as is like a person in a watch tower looking down the road, right, that the person is not on the road, and what they see all events on the road from where they sit. So So God is sort of looking at time from outside and seeing it that way. And some people argue that God's knowledge of future events doesn't determine future events because God isn't really knowing them before they happen in a strict sense, because God isn't in the scheme of before and after.
 
Zack Jackson 44:53
That sounds like the sorts of ways that they handle pre cognition in dune Is that the he doesn't actually see what will happen. He sees what they describe as a series of threads that all come out and branch off of each other of possible probable futures based on where things are. And so when he has visions, they're things that don't necessarily happen, but are possible happenings and then is then current actions can then determine whether or not those potential futures happen. Yeah,
 
Tim Maness 45:30
you are it's also talked about that way in what is arguably the first time travel story. Christmas Carol. Where were we?
 
Zack Jackson 45:43
Oh, man, yeah, I hadn't thought about the Christmas Carol is as a time travel,
 
Tim Maness 45:48
we're screwed says to to the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come Are these the shadows of things that will be your those might have been things that might be only. And, and there's a moment there are other ways of looking at at time in which God's relationship to time is like that, in which God is in time with us. And that the future doesn't exist for God either. And that, that God has, maybe you might say that God knows, to some extent what might happen, because God knows us really well. In the same way that that, you know, you might say, if your best friend, or if some close family member, well, if you put this person in this situation, I don't know for certain what they would do. But I bet they do this. That if you have really good knowledge of someone, you have an idea of how they would react in a given situation. And so maybe God's knowledge of the future is like that, where God has perfect knowledge of all of the physical conditions, and God has really good knowledge of our personalities. So God can say with a high probability, yeah, this is what's likely to happen. But it's up to you.
 
Zack Jackson 47:06
When I was in seminary, I was a, I was in an arrogant little seminary, all army was all the things. And I had a professor who accused me of being more influenced by Greek philosophy than by the, you know, Christian theology, and which is fighting back against that
 
Tim Maness 47:31
theologians have been accusing each other of since the first century.
 
Zack Jackson 47:36
Sure, because it's true. Because what I was talking about with the the omnis of God, that God is omnipotent, so all powerful, omniscient, so all knowing omnipresent, so all prayer, all places, omnibenevolent, all loving these ideas of the omnis, which don't actually appear in Scripture, but that so very color, the way we think about God, and so what I was talking about what God being all knowing, so God knowing all of the things, and he challenged that and he said you where do you find that? And honestly, my basis of it was just the things that I was taught in Sunday school, that God these are the foundational characteristics of God, but not necessarily in Scripture other than in like the Psalms, which will say, you know, God, you've searched me, you know, me high and low, all those things. But he said, What if we follow instead, the line of thinking from Philippians? Two, and what we talked about kenosis, the emptying of God, and that instead of saying that God knows everything, what if you were to say that God knows what God chooses to know, that God is able to know everything, but in a way of as a way of interacting with finite beings, chooses instead to not know everything in order to interact with humanity. And so there is a kind of self emptying in order to enter into our world which, you know, if you imagine a three dimensional object, trying to interact in a two dimensional world, that three dimensional object would have to lose some of its three dimensional pneus and be emptied of its depth in order to interact with one of those.
 
Tim Maness 49:21
Edwin Abbott's great book Flatland.
 
Zack Jackson 49:24
Right, which ended up being I mean, that book was about economics, but ended up being a great illustration for all kinds of they also horribly
 
Tim Maness 49:32
sexist, I should I should point that out. So be warned. If you go in if you go in there, there's some some really awful stuff about the female.
 
Zack Jackson 49:43
Yeah, it's just a good illustration. But that's about
 
Tim Maness 49:46
I want to be careful. I call it a great book. And I want to be careful about that because there are ways we did is a super bad book.
 
Zack Jackson 49:55
That's kind of where where process theology comes up, that God is intimately involved. In the process of the unfolding of time that God has emptied God's self. And that's how God interacts in time and space is by leaving, the the timelessness and the unchanging pneus of the whatever imagined other dimensions and instead becoming, made flesh in in this existence. And that sounds really nice. Until I started learning about relativistic time and that there is no privileged present moment. And that so then in what moment, is God present in the now? At that point? Yeah, there is an acrobat now, actually, that does God exist in a black hole? Where the where time flows, so drastically different? does? Does God exist on the photons? Does God exist in the now of, you know, objects moving near the speed of light? It all kind of fell apart. And then yeah, wonderful narrative of God, growing and changing and loving and weeping with the death of the planet, all of that kind of fell apart, too. And I was sad to lose my beautiful theology,
 
Tim Maness 51:07
you might be interested to know that there are philosophers and theologians out there who are struggling mightily to take that beautiful theology and make it compatible with relativity.
 
Zack Jackson 51:22
Your being you being one of them?
 
Tim Maness 51:24
Well, yeah, I mean, in my dissertation, I talked about a couple of different ways that people try to, to reconcile that, that theology was depends so much on pulling time with relativity. And that idea of God is in time with us, is one of the ones that I look at. It's, that's, that's a way of looking at things that is being defended by by, for instance, William Lane, Craig, and John Lucas. I think, you know, I think that the way that they go about or I should say, specifically, the way that Craig goes about, trying to make this work, and relativity leaves some, some really big unanswered questions. So I think it's, it's maybe the less satisfying, of, of the two. But when I was finishing the dissertation, but before I had time to really do the research, and, and incorporate this, I was seeing some stuff about other physical ways of looking at time, that made me think, maybe, if I were to sit down and, and look at this in a future project, there might be more to be said, for, for that, that sort of God in time, way of of dealing with relativity. So that that may be a future project. And I should also say that, that specifically that idea of, of God not knowing the future, because it's not, you know, is is more characteristic of Lucas's way of looking at things than Craig's, because I think Craig takes a lot of the advantages of that way of thinking and first, not the window, again, by insisting that God has to know everything that happens in detail. Um,
 
Ian Binns 53:24
well, so, you know, I know we are slowly getting, you're starting to run out of time. I'm curious, how has the all this work that you've done the dissertation work, you just talked about, you know, future ideas, future things, you're curious about? How, if at all, has it impacted or influenced your personal theological journey?
 
Tim Maness 53:48
Well, personally is exactly the word for it. So, that, that brings me I guess, to the other way of trying to reconcile flowing time with relativity, that I think is the more satisfying one which comes out of the work that the the theologian Barbara John Russell, who is working at the the graduate theological Union are in Berkeley, the director of the Center for theology of the natural sciences, is instantly been a great friend tonight, a great friend to me. The way that that he tries to reconcile this is to say that a lot of the problems that that relativity causes here or that we we think of relativity as causing come from taking the idea of a now and trying to extend it in space. Right, to say that there should be a single now that can encompass, you know, where I am here and where you are there and where somebody else is on Mars and we're aliens are the Andromeda galaxy right? whereas one of the things that relativity should tell us is that the idea of now is inseparable from the idea of here. The what you have is not so much a universal now that we meet, you can fall about it, but here now, so I have one particular now. And, you know, you in in North Carolina, have a slightly different one, and use Zack in eastern pa have a slightly different one. And, you know, the farther you are away, but the more different your now is. And that the philosophers who want to say that, you know that everything breaks down, because you can't fundamentally assign things to a past and present and future, the mistake that they're making is trying to take different nouns and combine them into one to say that what is real for me, is real T is real to you. Because we exist in this, you know, that because we can interact with each other. You know, for instance, if I'm on the phone with one of you, right, and you're looking out your window, and you're seeing the squirrels doing something weird out there, the way they do that, even if even if you're not talking to me about the squirrels that those squirrels, and what they're doing is real to me on the other end of the phone. You know, that's the way we normally think about things happening, right? That what's real to you where you are, is real to me where I am, even if I don't know anything about it. And what Russell and a few others is saying is that maybe this is another one of those ideas that relativity should force us to abandon. Maybe what we should be thinking about is, rather than then one, universal now that encompasses everyone, maybe there are a myriad of individual here now that go with each particular observer, in each particular reference frame, whatever it might be, and they don't line up with each other, but maybe they don't have to. Maybe, because, you know, the thing is that all you disagree, we can disagree about what happens at the same time, or in some cases about the order that events take place. But we will never disagree about the causality of events. Right. That's that's one of the things that the big the big caveat to this story about, we tell about how relativity changes everything up is that relative even in relativity, even with all of these shenanigans about time, relativity never mixes up the order of events that are causally related to each other, you can always agree, no matter what reference frame you're in, that the cause happens before the effect. So in the end, we have different perspectives, but they kind of come out in the wash. And even though you might know something that I would consider repeated, so you might know something now that I would consider the time that you would call now that I was considered to be in the future. One of the things about relativity is that you can't get that information to me, before it would come to me anyway. You can't get me you can't transmit a signal to me at the speed of light in such a way that I find out about that event with advanced knowledge. So maybe what we should do, in Russell's point of view is rather than saying that, that God exists in a single universal now that defines what now really means, the way Craig would have done it to say that God is with us, each of our individual mouths. And that that's God's way of, of perceiving the universe is by looking at it through the eyes, so to speak, more or less metaphorically of everything in the universe, that that rather than, than sort of looking down at what's happening on the stage of creation from the Royal box, so to speak, that God is seeing what happens through the eyes of each of the actors. And for that matter, potentially through the through the eyes of all the props and all the pieces of scenery and if Go to a couple of theologians, or a number of theologians who get called the Boston personalist. Boston because they worked at Boston University. We find that they have, even outside the framework of relativity already come up with a way of thinking about God's interaction with the creation. It looks a lot like this. One of them incidentally, Edgar Brightman was Dr. Martin Luther King's PhD advisor. So when he was becoming Dr. King, he was working with Edgar Brightman. So I think these two things kind of fit together in a really productive, generative way. The idea that, rather than personhood, being this distortion of a timeless, pure mathematical, non linguistic reality, maybe personhood, is the core of what is maybe our individual, different irreconcilable ways of looking at the world is a really important feature of how the world is. And that because God, who created the universe who brought the universe into existence is a person. Not exactly in the same way that we are, because God is infinite, and has all sorts of characteristics that as we talked about, we can't know about or even talk about very well. But But God's personhood is in some way analogous to ours. And so that personhood becomes a really important thing for us to keep in mind as we talk about existence. And that if we can't translate that personhood into mathematics, then that's okay. Because mathematics doesn't have to be the only tool that we use to describe how things are.
 
Zack Jackson 1:01:57
Yeah, your explanation reminds me a lot of the way that Teresa of Avila saw the way that God interacts with people. Or she said, Christ has no body but yours, no hands, no feet on Earth, but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks compassion on the world, yours are the feet with which he walks to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses all the world, yours are the hands, yours are the feet, yours are the eyes, yours are the body. Christ has no body now on Earth, but you're right.
 
Tim Maness 1:02:24
And even I think this works beautifully. Well, even talking about Christ's incarnation, you know, during those 30 Some years in, in Judea, right? That, that when God became incarnate speaking, he was a Christian, that it was as a particular human being, in a particular time and place, that God was this one guy with a very, who only walked around a very small area of the earth. Right, that God did all that God had to do in that incarnation, even with this perspective, that was very circumscribed. Very short, in terms of of time, and very localized in terms of space. And, and that's okay, that's, that's just how things are.
 
Zack Jackson 1:03:16
Tim, as, as always, Tim, you've given me things to think about. You've given me scientific things to reread, as well as new perspectives on my own personal faith and theology to reconsider. So thank you again, for that. Any idea when this will all be turned into a book that everyone can read?
 
Tim Maness 1:03:40
The ways that publishers are mysterious to us mere mortals?
 
Ian Binns 1:03:45
Yes, this is true.
 
Tim Maness 1:03:47
And so one of the things that they unfortunately don't necessarily teach you in grad school is hard to put together a book proposal. So that's something that I'm having to learn on my own. But hopefully, it shouldn't be too long. You know, though, of course as as, as CS Lewis has gotten the former bass line saying I call all time soon.
 
Ian Binns 1:04:15
definitely agree with it. Yeah.
 
Zack Jackson 1:04:18
Yeah, with a quote from Aslan.
 
Tim Maness 1:04:20
Yeah. So it's been such a joy to to be a guest on the podcast and just to talk to you two guys, you're so great. And thanks.
 
Zack Jackson 1:04:29
We'll have to have you back on again sometime soon to
 
Tim Maness 1:04:32
say the word say the word and I am there and also then
 
Zack Jackson 1:04:36
alright at yes then and there at the same time. Yes, it also not and oh wibbly wobbly timey. Why me? Yep. God bless you all.

Time Part 1 (It’s All Relative)

Episode 98
This episode was originally recorded in early November and was set to be released at the end of December, but here we are at the end of January instead because time is a funny thing, isn't it? The moment you think you have a firm grasp on "now", it slips through your fingers. That's true both in terms of scheduling podcasts during the holidays and also understanding time from a relativistic perspective. Time might feel like it is moving at the same rate for everyone, but Einstein's theories (and later experimentation) prove otherwise. So without a universally agreed upon "now", how can we say anything true about a God who interacts within time? What good is repentance when the past and future are equally real? What about prophecy? Jesus' birth? Are we all destined for deism? Well, let's take some time to understand how relativity works first, and then we'll get to those (and many more) questions. 
Spoiler alert, we're going to talk about this one again in a special episode next time too because it's too much fun! 
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
 
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
 
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.
Zack Jackson 00:05
You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion. This week our hosts are
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 00:14
Kendra Holt-Moore, assistant professor of religion at Bethany college. And the thing I'm looking forward to in the next year is not being a first time first year Professor anymore, because the first year of teaching is really hard.
 
Rachael Jackson 00:34
Rachael Jackson, Rabbi at Agoudas, Israel congregation Hendersonville, North Carolina. And the thing I am looking forward to in this coming year, is first a nine week sabbatical and the ability to travel because of vaccines.
 
Ian Binns 00:56
Ian Binns Associate Professor of elementary science education at UNC Charlotte, the first thing that popped my mind when thinking about what I'm looking forward to is going to see Rob Bell speak in Dallas, with my good buddy mark. February in February,
 
Zack Jackson 01:14
Zack Jackson UCC pastor in Redding, Pennsylvania, and I am super excited for the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, which I don't want to, I don't want to say that it's going to happen in a couple of days, because this episode is supposed to launch like three days before it's supposed to launch. Because I don't know, it was originally supposed to launch in 2007. So it's had a couple of delays. But it's going to make the Hubble look like a like a pair of binoculars, it is going to be able to show all kinds of super exciting things from the very beginning of the universe. And I cannot wait to see that. So I mentioned James Webb as well, because I think satellites are super cool, in general. And so I want to I want to start today with a story about a satellite, a very famous satellite, you may have heard of it. Its name was Sputnik. It was the very first human satellite we ever put up there. And back way back in 1957, the Soviets kind of surprised everyone and was like, hey, look, we've got the technology. And we did it. And everyone in the world kind of freaked out because they weren't sure if there was going to be nukes or anything like that, and alien technology or whatever. And because they it had never been done before. They had to prove to people that it actually was happening. And not that they were just making the whole thing up. And so they equipped Sputnik with a radio pulse. So it would go around the earth and be like me, beep, beep, beep, beep, so anyone on Earth could listen in and be like, Oh, look at that. It is up there. It's beeping at me. That's really neat. And so at the at Johns Hopkins, couple days later, October 7 1957, a couple of junior physicists were sitting around at lunch talking. And these two guys, these buddies, William Guyer, and George weissenbach, they were just talking with their friends. And we're really surprised to learn that no one at Johns Hopkins had bothered to listen for it, using their radio technology. Like, honestly, that seems like something that divino fancy scientists people should do. So wife and Bach was working on microwave radiation for his Ph. D. Program at the time. And so he had a decent radio in his office. And so the two of them went upstairs and just start messing around with it, waiting for Sputnik to crossover. And there was Beep, beep, beep, beep. And they had the clarity of mind to be like, hey, this seems like it might be a historical event, we should grab a cassette tape. And we should take this thing, just, you know, so we can show our kids, this is what Sputnik sounded like. And so they did, and they recorded it. And then the next day, they were like, I wonder if we can we can get this a little clearer. And so they they messed with the frequencies and got it so they could hear it really clearly. And one of the things that they noticed was that just like, you know, when you're when you're standing on the side of the street and a car is coming, and it goes and it kind of like the sound goes up and then it goes down. That's called the Doppler effect. That has to do with things that are emitting sound or light that is also moving in relationship to you. And so like if it's moving towards you, the sound waves or the the waves of light, they get compressed, because it's moving towards you. If it's moving away from you, they get spread out. So the sound would sound higher or lower as it's going. Same is true with like radio waves. So the sound coming from the radio waves, if you looked at it from like, the, the wave perspective was kind of doing b, b be, though wouldn't made that sound. And so they were like, Oh, this is really interesting, hey, Johns Hopkins, can we use your supercomputer for a minute, which I say supercomputer, it probably has had the computing power of like a ti 83. Now, it was one of the very first digital computers in the world. And so they used it to do some really complicated math. And were able to calculate Sputnik's orbit, and their look at its location, and where it was going. And were able to predict when and where it would come back, using just the what we call the Doppler shift of the the width of the radio waves. And that was kind of a novel thing to do. When they released their information. The Russians were like, what, come on, guys, we have this one thing, and you had to go and top US that was so rude. I think that's what the Soviet said, I don't speak Russian. So that was fun. And then Sputnik burned out. And that was no more. But then the next May, their boss came to them, and called called them into his office, which is always a good thing and said, Hey, remember that thing you did was Sputnik? Do you think it's possible to do that backwards? Could you do that in reverse? Like, if we had satellites, where we knew where they were, at the time in orbit, sending a pulse down to earth? Would you be able to calculate where the receiver is, if we knew where the satellites were? And they were like, well, I guess the math is kind of the same, it's just backwards. And thus, the transit system was born, the very first satellite navigation system, because the Navy had this problem where they had these nuclear submarines that had the nuke nuclear missiles on them in the Arctic, which is waiting to blow up Russia. But the, they were supposed to be secret. And so they couldn't use the traditional means of navigation because they didn't want to give away their location. And so they kind of were getting lost up there in the Arctic. And so the, the Air Force sent up an array of five satellites orbiting the Arctic, and every couple of hours, it would pass overhead. And then they could get a ping on their location. And they could correct their maps, and they would know where they were. And that was great. And that was wonderful. And then we thought, I wonder what else we can use this technology for? And so the global positioning satellite system started to get dreamed up together, like, what if we took that, and we made a whole array of satellites, up in orbit, all sending pings down to earth, and we could triangulate, given the pings and the locations of a couple of them, and be able to tell where all kinds of things are airplanes. And, and, and, and like troops. And this is the military, they're always thinking about war stuff. And so what they would need to have a real time local navigation system was that the clocks on Earth would need to be synced with the clocks in the satellite. That would be real important if we're going to do real time navigation. So they have these really, really accurate atomic clocks, that one is in on Earth, and one is in orbit. And that was great. Except for one problem. There was this guy, you may have heard of him. He's kind of a big deal name is Albert Einstein. And about 60 years beforehand, he had proposed this crazy thing called general relativity, after his theory of special relativity, which suggested that Isaac Newton's laws, which had worked very well, by the way for the past, like 300 years, which were the laws, which helped them to get the satellites in orbit in the first place, it didn't work so well, when you were talking about the effects of gravity. So in a larger level, Newton's Laws kind of stop working, in particular, his theory of time, and the way that time moves, see a part of relativity stated that one's relationship to gravity affected the passage of time, which was a very counterintuitive thing, and at the time in 70s When this was getting put up, there were still testing. It seemed like it was passing all the tests general relativity was, was passing all of these tests. But they still weren't entirely convinced. And some of the scientists on this GPS project thought that we were going to disprove Einstein. And so we should just put the clocks up there, up there in the satellites, and the other scientists were like, no, if we put the clocks up there as they are, and not adjust them in any way for relativity, then they're going to be out of sync. And so they couldn't agree internally. And these satellites are very expensive. And back in the 70s, it was very, very expensive to send the satellite into space, it's still very expensive, but it was much more back then. And so they had, they kind of did this interesting trick. A sort of cheat, if you will, to appease both sides, and to be able to tell once and for all, if time actually does move differently, the further you get from Earth, in that they sent it up with just normal atomic clock. But they also had a sort of switch, where they could flip that switch, and then there was a little computer inside that would then adjust the time on the clock to then send back the corrected time to Earth. So they sent it up. And they let it be up there for about 20 days going around and discovered that yeah, it shifted the time in orbit past differently than the time on Earth. Seven microseconds per day, which I don't know, a microsecond doesn't seem like a whole lot of time. So seven microseconds per day of drift. But in terms of GPS, that's a drift of 10 kilometers per day, if not corrected. So one day of the satellites being up there, and they're useless. Because time travels, passes differently in orbit than it does on Earth. Yeah,
 
Rachael Jackson 12:14
so incredible. Like, yeah, that's subjective,
 
Zack Jackson 12:17
like you said, not just a fun theory,
 
Ian Binns 12:20
the seven microseconds thing, when you first say that, I'm just gonna like, oh, wow, what did he do? But the ramifications for those of us on the ground? That's just wow, like, I did not know that. That's crazy.
 
Zack Jackson 12:36
Yeah, the, the closer you are, so that, it's because there's less gravity less of Earth's gravity, the farther you get from the center of Earth. And so time, time will pass faster. On in orbit, the closer you get to the gravitational well, the slower time will pass. But because these things are relative to where they're being observed, I always get that backwards as to if you were on the earth, looking at the satellite, versus if you were on the satellite looking at the Earth, actually, relative to the Earth's age, you know, a couple billion years old, Earth's core is actually two and a half years younger than its surface. For what it's worth, you go. So now every single satellite that's in orbit, every single computer every single time, a piece that is up in orbit, and every all of the robots on Mars and the satellites flying out into deep space, all of that has to compensate for the fact that gravity affects time. That time passes differently for different people, for different observers in different places in different gravity wells. Depending on one's mass on one's gravity on one's velocity, time will pass differently. So GPS only works because time is weird. So in a manner of speaking, Albert Einstein is the father of Pokemon GO and so for that we give thanks
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 14:27
what a storyteller you are Zack to be able to craft to craft a narrative that leads to a conclusion.
 
Ian Binns 14:35
And to me, I love it, you know, so that we all roads
 
Zack Jackson 14:38
lead to Pokemon, right? That's but that's a lot to take in. And there's a lot of moving pieces to that and there's a lot of confusing counter intuitive things about how relativity bends space and time and what are the implications of the fact that there is not a solid steady passage of time. Which means there is no preferred present moment that the past and the future in the present are all on a spectrum instead of one, instead of us always being in the present and the past in the future being always somewhere else, the implications of that, and even understanding how that happens and why that happens. And all of that is a lot to unpack. So let's take a 15 second break, and take a breath. And be thankful that we can time 15 seconds unless you're on a spaceship, going half the speed of light, and then this could take a lot more than 50. All right, I want to tell you a quick thought experiment, that I'm adapting from one of Einstein's thought experiments, because I find any time we talk about things happening on trains, and lasers and things like that, in thought experiments to be hard to, to wrap my mind around. So I want to imagine for a second that we have a basketball robot. And basketball bot is an awesome robot, and he's predictable. And the things he does happen very predictably, he's got a hand that reaches out, it's one meter above the ground, it can bounce a basketball in one second. And it's steady and repeatable. You know, bum, bum, bum, bum, he's basketball bot, he's a robot, it's, it's easy to do. So you're watching basketball bot, as he's bouncing the ball in the airport. And, you know, one second, one second, one second, one meter, one meter, one meter, one meter, one meter, one meter, and then you and a basketball bot, because you're going to baggage claim, you walk on to the, to the moving sidewalk. And so you're standing there next to basketball bot, who is still bouncing the basketball because he's programmed to bounce the basketball. And he's still going one meter down, one meter up, one meter down one meter up in one second. And that hasn't changed for you. But the person standing on the side watching this strange basketball bot, bounce a basketball in the airport, on the people walk thing is not seeing the basketball goes straight down and straight up. Because we've added a velocity in another direction. So if that is moving sufficiently fast, while he's bouncing straight up and down, with a person on the side is seeing is really it bouncing in an angle, and then bouncing up in an angle, because of the way that they're seeing. And so in classic physics, that's not a problem, the old heads of physics, they were talking about the same thing, that just means you have now added velocity in a separate direction. And so now there's more speed to be had. Right? Speed is just distance divided by time. So you know, we're just adding a bit more distance if you're moving sideways, as well. So it's speeding up. According to the person on the outside, which is fine. Basketball can go faster, because it can write, there's no limit to the speed of basketballs. So basketball bot is not a problem. He's a great guy, now, laser basketball man, robot guy who is doing the same thing, except instead of bouncing a basketball, he is bouncing a photon, up and down, up and down, one meter up and down, up and down. You're standing next to him, that photon is moving at the speed of light, because that's what they do, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, bouncing off a mirror coming back up to his hand. And that's fine. So then he goes on the people walk, moving sidewalk thing, and a person on the outside now sees if it's moving sufficiently fast, it not going straight up and down, but following the same vector that bounces sideways and up, which means that it would have to have accelerated in one direction. But we know that the speed of light is a constant, and you can't go faster than the speed of light. So how is it then that to the person on the outside, it appears that it has moved faster than the speed of light, magic. Speed is just distance divided by time. And the speed has to be constant. That means that time then has to change. If all the mathematics are going to work out, fine. Then if distance changes, so does time. And so when we're talking about things that obey the speed of light, like a photon that can't go faster than time then starts to get wibbly wobbly. So that's the that's the insight that comes from special relativity is that Newtonian physics works really well, from the perspective of your everyday life. Right? Bouncing a basketball, Newtonian physics works great. But when you break it down to things that either are massive, like planets, or that move incredibly fast, like light, then it starts to break down and relativity takes over. And so we start to extrapolate outward from that, and finding out that time doesn't move the same for everyone, time is dependent on your frame of reference on your velocity on your mass on your, on your gravitational pull. And so for most of us, that's not going to matter. Most of us are going to live our whole lives in roughly the same gravity, well, at roughly the same velocity, we're not going to be traveling near the speed of light, we're not going to have to worry about this. Right? So why even talk about it?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 21:10
Why even talk about it?
 
Ian Binns 21:13
Because it's really fun. I mean, there's more reasons than that, obviously, but I've always found this stuff just quite fascinating. Blows my brain just
 
Zack Jackson 21:23
gonna end the episode right there. Just no reason to talk about it's not gonna affect us show.
 
Rachael Jackson 21:32
Let's move on with our day.
 
Zack Jackson 21:34
But it does kind of bust the whole way we think about past present future, doesn't it that, that there is this constant flow of time from past to future, that past is gone. It's just a memory. The present is where we live, and the future is what's coming, hasn't happened yet. And like, that way of thinking, permeates all of our religious tradition, the way we think about God, the way we think about God's interaction with humanity is all based in this there was the past, it calls the present. And now the present will influence the future, especially in Christianity, because we are an eschatological religion, which is fancy theological ways of saying we are a religion of the end, we have people who are looking forward to the end to the redemption of all to the sort of an end goal of things being made, right? That only works if there is a progression of time. How do you save something if the end and the beginning and the middle are all the same? How does God interact in time? Do we believe that God is time less? And if God is outside of the flow of time, as we experience it, then which one is God's preferred time God's preferred now? Like there's some beautiful theologies like process theology, which believes with which teaches that God and creation are intrinsically intertwined, and that God is growing and changing and moving with creation. And I love that, and that God doesn't know the future, and God is moving along with us. But it doesn't work. When you realize that there is no preferred present moment, and everything breaks down on the macro level. You don't for example, if you and your friend were in in twin spaceships, and you were hanging out near a black hole, and your buddy got a little bit too close, and then got sucked into the event horizon, from your perspective, you could stay there for the rest of your life and watch them slowly fall into the black hole. They would just be falling and falling and falling forever. But from their perspective, in an instant, they would be instantly spaghettified which is the actual technical term for when you get sucked into a black hole and get pulled down atom by atom into single strand of be of existence spaghettified we get a five spaghettified you can quote me on that. That's, that's the science word. Well, so
 
Ian Binns 24:26
I've always felt like in, you know, when you come to the notion of God, that just seemed limiting to me that we could only think of God as a being that is limited to our notion of time, to the human notion of time, right. Like, I would like to think that there is a God that God is more powerful than that, right? There's not there's not a limiting factor there. If that makes any sense. Yeah. No, like one man literally interpret, you know, the story of great the creation story, or stories and, and Genesis, when they see that, you know, on the first day this happened second day Ebola seventh day God rested. And people like See, look, it happened in one week. I'm kinda like you, like really like you can't you struggle with the notion that it's bigger than that like that God is limited to our personal understanding our own individual understanding of what a week is, and what a day is like that just to me that that kind of puts God into a into a bubble. Right? That's like, the only way I can understand God is by God is in a life like mine. And I would like to think that if God does exist, that God is outside of that mentality, that there's God's not limited in that situation. That's just how I view it.
 
Zack Jackson 26:01
So then how would a being outside of the flow of time interact within the flow of time?
 
Ian Binns 26:07
I don't know. You know, when I die, and if there is a God, and I get a chance to meet God, that may be one of my questions. How do you do that? Can you teach me that trick? I mean, I know. But I just I don't know. Yeah, I feel like that's another good thought experiment.
 
Rachael Jackson 26:28
Man, please. Yeah. One of the ways that we've sort of wrestled with this idea, I shouldn't say we, that I have wrestled with this idea of time, and God. I've heard the idea that is, God is all good, all knowing, all powerful, and all time. That doesn't work for my theology, when I look at the world around me. So it's like, Okay, which of these variables Am I comfortable eliminating? And I was not comfortable with eliminating that God is all good. That that that feels really terrible to think that God is not good. So and I'll spare you all the details of going through that that journey, where I end up for this conversation is that if God is all time, perhaps God is the present, as we know it, that it's, it is in our time, that God is of all times, but we experience time in a linear fashion. And so that's where God exists with us is in our times. And so God has the ability to move through time space continuum. Great. I don't and so I can experience God in this time. And I employ that in one of the prayers that I say where we, we ask for healing. And at the end, I always say, made those in need find healing in a time near to us. I don't if we're praying to God, I want God to know that I don't want this on a god time scale. I would like this on our time scale. So I, I agree with you and that there it seems confining to have God exists in a singular time frame. But I myself do exist in that time frame going back to Zach's point of like, no Newtonian physics, pretty much my life not gonna break out in Newtonian physics, I don't really need to think too much on this. So from a theological standpoint, I say, Okay, God experiences or relativity in a way that I don't. So it's my question then have to wrestle with myself of how do I then have God in my timeline? In my time, so I don't know if that makes any sense. But that's, that's sort of how I answer that question.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 29:02
So the way that I think about alternative, like, forms of guard, like the kinds of theologies that I think are really compatible with this, you know, revolution in the understanding of time, it I think that mystical theologies become so much more kind of intriguing, and it you know, it's like, it does. Accepting, like, Einsteinian mechanics of time and you know, mystical theologies. It requires an acceptance of, well, I think most of the time it requires an acceptance of a non theistic version of God, or like a non anthropomorphic version of God. And so what I mean when I say those things is, you know, A version of God that that's not like, made in the image of like human beings are human ish versions of God, you know the God with arms and legs and a face. And that's really hard I think for a lot of people to kind of let go of, especially if, if we're talking about like the monotheism 's of like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I mean, and really like the most of the major world religions that talk about God, there is something that tends to become very like humanoid about God, but that's never like there's always mystical strains of theology in, in religions. And so the, the ones that kind of come to mind that I think are are like some of the first ones that I thought of, and I know if Adam was here, this is probably something that he would bring up too is like Paul Tilex. Image of God as the ground of being. And Tillich kind of uses this phrase ground of being to, to be the stand in for God. And it kind of replaces this very anthropomorphic version of God with a vision of God that is, like a more like a foundation. And it's more like this stable, like, stable yet creative. floor at the bottom of all, all that is. And you know, there's, there's a lot in Tillich in theology and talking just about the ground of being if Adam listens to this and is like, Well, Adam, should have been here
 
Zack Jackson 32:01
wasn't the Paul Tillich society? At one point?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 32:05
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's true. But you know, that's like, that's your kind of letting go. It's a very, it's a more like, abstract kind of way of thinking about, like, what God is, but I actually, I think my personal favorite, like mystical kind of vision of God actually comes from a mystic named Nicholas of Cusa. And whenever I was, in my master's degree, I took a class called Nicolas of Cuza about this, like mystic theologian, and I remember Reading some of his primary works. And there was a chapter that was all about his, his, like, you know, his, kind of like systematic theology. And but there was a few pages in this one chapter that just had like math in it was like, what is happening? What, why I like circled all the math and wrote in the margins of my textbook, like, Excuse me, like, No, I think I even like wrote out a very dramatic like, no, with multiple exploits, XSplit exclamation, and was just like, This is not what I want to be, like thinking about when I'm trying to like foster a spiritual experience. And, and I have a, you know, a couple years later, after that class, I took a class called science literacy with my doctoral advisor. And in that class, it was like, one of the most fascinating and also difficult classes that I've taken, because it's like a crash course in physics. And like, you know, we talk about special theory of relativity, general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, like all of that, and what are the philosophical and like theological implications of those things. And it was during that class that I had to kind of go back to the theology of Nicholas of Cusa. And look at my margins, in the notes on the pages where there is mass and the universe and God, and then I just like, it made sense to me. I was like, I still, I'm just like, not someone who naturally thinks in a very mathy way, and so I always find that challenging. But there's also like, the only times that I have been able to have been able to, like have an experience of all thinking about math is when I'm thinking about the implication of, like, math on like, I don't know, like, like metaphysics or like the structure of the universe. And so, the point being that Nicolas of Cusa talks about the enfolding and unfolding of, of God or of of the universe, there's, there's this breath metaphor Almost of this enfolding everything kind of collapsing into one unit, one like period, one point. And in that enfolding every, like you and I, and all that is, we are one, it's like a oneness. And then the unfolding is this like, you know, it's the, the exhale or like the other side of the breath it unfolds. And again, we all kind of diverge into particularities and we have our, you know, our specific to kind of tie it back to our conversation wells of gravity, where we exist. But we also keep in folding and unfolding. So there's like this dual experience of like, oneness, and specificity and like divergence. That is just like, I think such a beautiful image of like wholeness, and like, it's like both the duality and oneness that I just think is like such a perfect, like, non theistic kind of theological representation of these like time dynamics that force us to think beyond, you know, Newtonian mechanics. So that's kind of what comes to mind for me.
 
Zack Jackson 36:42
Well, if you're into sacred mathematics, and mysticism, you would love by Sagaris. They were all about that life, almost worshipping numbers and mathematics, thinking of it as this ticket in small doses. You also if you're a pipe factory, and you can't eat beans, that was that was against their religion to
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 37:03
work for me. Yeah.
 
Zack Jackson 37:05
I think he thought that the beans in humans came from the same source. And so it was a bit of cannibalism. Who knows you're that part about
 
Ian Binns 37:16
Sagaris when I was studying that, but
 
Zack Jackson 37:18
you mostly just hear about the whole triangle thing, right? You don't hear about the toggery worship numbers.
 
Ian Binns 37:23
It's been a long time since I took that really cool history science class.
 
Zack Jackson 37:27
So yeah, it's been a couple 1000 years since the Python, Koreans. But we're at
 
Ian Binns 37:34
that times all relative, right?
 
Zack Jackson 37:36
Well, yeah. I mean, how do we think of time typically, we think of it like, like those moving sidewalks at the airport, right? That we're all standing on it. And we're all moving at the same rate, or like a flow of a river, that we're all moving together along the same rate. But we found out that you can kind of move on that river, you can paddle one way or the other, and you can slow down or speed up your position in time in that river. And so it time kind of then acts more like a frozen river with kids ice skating all over it, rather than a group of people on a lazy river in their tubes, all moving at the same speed. So it does, I think this has been my problem to Kandra is that I'm fine with almost all of these weird things in about relativity and time. But it hurts my conception of a real time theistic God like the God that is in the moment with me right now. It makes that harder to stomach harder to conceptualize. You know, if if, if God doesn't have a preferred present moment, then like, Oh, okay. Then.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 39:03
Yeah, yeah, implications of that are really like they are really far reaching for for Christianity and, and Judaism in Islam, I think in particular. And it's, you know, I think there are also people who maybe, and I don't know if this like kind of resonates with your experience, maybe not Zack, but people who kind of like if you kind of asked them or forced them to explain their theology, they might they might actually say something that sounds more non theistic. But in their day to day lives, they kind of like re impose a theistic like face on there, like non theistic theology, like it's, it's, it's, you know, again, that's not that's, it's almost like Like, I don't know that this is like the appropriate way to frame it but like a second naivete
 
Zack Jackson 40:06
almost of like, yes. What we're doing physics
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 40:09
come to Yeah, like if you're if your theology if it's important to you for the theology and the physics to kind of fit together then maybe that's like what you do. But for like, you know, religious and spiritual community and talking day to day, you still use language that has like familiarity and like personhood, and I don't like this is something that people will argue about, because some people think that's like a disingenuous, and I get that. But I also, I think it's just important for the way that people relate to each other and to other things in the world and to relationships. So I actually find that completely, like understandable and normal.
 
Zack Jackson 40:57
It's like my day to day theology is Newtonian. But my, if I'm thinking about it, my actual theology is Einsteinian. Right? That right? It makes sense in the day to day to have an eminent theistic God. But it makes sense in the quiet moments where I'm thinking, to think about a, a more universal presence than a theistic imminent God. And I think we do that all the time. With our theologies, we've got, we've got different types of theologies that apply to different situations, the theology that you have when you're suffering is different than the theology you have when you're not. And we just, we all do, and that's fine. Like I don't at like funerals and stuff, people always talk about how that person has gone on. And now they're watching over me and blah, blah, blah. But like, there's no part in the New Testament that talks about that, there that the New Testament teaches that you die, you die, and you go on the ground, and your soul, your spirit, all of that is over. And it's done, until the Second Coming, and the resurrection of the dead. And then everyone comes back together, there is no, like waiting up in heaven, and playing a harp and watching you as you live your life. There is none of that in the New Testament, but we all just pretend like it's there. Because it is comforting to us in the moment, even if we don't really believe that so and so was watching us from afar, we like to believe that it's true. You know, I think we do that practically. And it's okay to admit that as a way of contextualizing our theology in the moment.
 
Rachael Jackson 42:27
And it's and it can be used as a coping mechanism. Yeah, theology has coping.
 
Zack Jackson 42:33
So when this episode airs, it's going to be like, I don't know, two weeks from Christmas or so. Which is, I don't know, sort of one of the important parts of of the Christian year. It's like, this moment in Christian theology where just a little, a little bit, a little bit. It's this moment in Christian theology, where it's like, God has been working through people for eons, and moving through the cycles of time, and nations and empires and kings and prophets and priests and individuals. And then, at some point, God says, Alright, kids, you sit down, I'm gonna take care of this for a minute, and comes in and breaks through, and there's this. Countless theologies that have tried to explain how God becomes human. How do we break this barrier between the infinite in the finite this, this this, we call it kenosis, this emptying of divinity in order to become humanity. I mean, there's none of them actually make a whole lot of sense. Logically, there are, which you sort of have to have to get all mystical and non dualistic before anything makes any sense? If you really think about it for too long, in terms of the Incarnation. But it's this breaking through a moment that we celebrate, in which something that is entirely other breaks into time and into history, that which is universal becomes particular, that God has to become a single person in a single time with a single genetic makeup who lives a single life. And there's some, I mean, that's helpful to some extent, to imagine that in our day to day lives, I also wonder then, if we were to draw that outward, if we were to say that time and space are connected, are one in the same. And just like, I believe that San Diego still exists, even though I'm not there. I also believe that three BC exists, even though I'm not there. And so in that way of thinking about time, that the past is not something that is gone, but it's just something that I'm not experienced. In saying that the incarnation the breaking in of God into the world is something that is happening in an infinite present moment in what we would consider 1000s of years ago. And so in all of these places in which God is breaking into time, those are places that are infinitely being broken into time. And you can think then of the final redemption of the world less as something to look forward to, and something that as opposed to something that we're living into something that we're experiencing the ripples of redemption, the way that you would experience gravitational waves of a black hole collisions. But these just musings of ways that I like to try to think about things that I have no real theological grounding, and I'm trying to be careful not to draw those conclusions too far as just rereading a paper I wrote in seminary, I posted it to y'all, it's fine. No one reads, that's 20 pages. And the the, the final conclusion I made was just drawn way too broadly outward, because I got excited about the implications of a God that breaks into time infinitely. And the ripples of redemption that can get flow through time through single redemptive acts, which I don't know if I would draw those points anymore, but they were fun to dwell on back then. So I should say, to wrap things up, we don't actually know why we experienced the flow of time. All of these revelations that come out of relativity are counterintuitive. It doesn't feel like the past and the future are real, it feels like they are ideas. And the present is the only moment we've ever experienced, that's our lived reality. That's the way our brains have formed. And for some reason, the way that we experience the dimension of time, whether that's just a way that our consciousness adapted to be able to function well, or if there is some divine reason that we experience a single moment instead of an entirety of moments. Nobody really has a good explanation. So a lot of this sort of thinking is theoretical, and a lot of it is hard to wrap your head around. And I think it's probably okay to have a an eminent theology that works on the Newtonian level of day to day life, as well as having a sort of what if kind of theology in which you are imagining the implications of something that has implications but are hard to fathom in our everyday life? If that makes sense. Do you think that's okay? Or is that disingenuous? No, I think that's good. If Adam were here, he would argue with me that it would be disingenuous, but again, Adam is not here to defend himself
 
Ian Binns 48:23
that since so vault.
 
Zack Jackson 48:27
So I would just like to end this segment by saying that I am right and Adam is wrong, and there is nothing that he can do or say, to correct me. And if he would like to correct me, he will have to do so in a future episode when he leads. So there
 
Rachael Jackson 48:51
so today's today's day down the wormhole, minute story from the Talmud. This comes from the Babylonian Talmud in Tractate to a neat around page 23. That's in case anyone wants to check my citation or read the entire story. There's a character a person however, you want to understand the people in these texts, whose name is Honi. And there's quite a few stories about him. And so one of the stories that I want to tell you about is the day that Honi slept. And as a tired parent, it just sounds amazing. Story. One day, Connie, the circle maker was traveling along a road and he saw an old man planting a care of tree when he stops and asks him, how long will it take for this Tree to fully bear fruit. And the man replies 70 years. Astonished Honi asks, Do you think you will live another 70 years? There, the man replies calmly. I found care of trees growing when I was born, because my forefathers planted them for me, so I to plant them for my children. Thereupon, Connie sat down to have a meal, and sleep overcame him. As he slept, a rock formation grew around him hiding him from sight, and he slept and he slept. And he slept. He continued to sleep for 70 years. When he woke up, he saw what it look like to be this same man gathering beautiful fruit fully bloomed a fully mature fruit from a Carib tree. Astonished Honi then asks, Are You the man who planted this tree? No. The man replies, I am his grandson. That's when Connie realizes that he has slept for 70 years. Connie goes home and finds that his son has died, but his grandson was still alive. And so he says to the members of his household, I am Honi the circle maker, but they didn't believe him, because it had been 70 years since when he had passed and vise been seen. Since then he left the house and he went to the Beit Midrash the study hall, and he announces, I am Honi the circle maker, but no one believed him and they didn't give him any respect. So Honee an utter despairs, praise for Divine Mercy. And he dies. To this Raava another person of the time says, For this reason people say give me companionship, or give me death. And it is for this reason that we gravitate towards others. That though time might pass we experience it in a linear fashion that it is the people with whom we have connections with it is a way of thinking about the past providing for the future but really living in these moments that make it worthwhile. That is what Honi the circle maker can teach us from his sleep of 70 years.
 
Zack Jackson 52:52
May we all sleep for 70 years.

Womanist Psychology of Religion with Rev. Dr. Vikki Gaskin-Butler

Episode 97
Today we are joined by psychologist, pastor, professor, podcaster, and the most interesting person you will meet today, the Rev. Dr. Vikki Gaskin-Butler. We talk about how womanism and what the psychology of religion has to offer at the intersection of class, race, and gender. Does religion actually make us better or should we spend our weekends at the gym instead? How do we raise emotionally children? How do we become emotionally healthy adults? Let's talk about it! 
 
The Healing the Human Spirit Podcast
https://anchor.fm/vikki-gaskin-butler
 
Rev. Dr. Vikki Gaskin-Butler is a licensed psychologist (clinical and health psychology) and ordained clergy person. She received her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Spelman College and her Master of Science and Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Florida. She also received a Master of Divinity degree from the Candler School of Theology at Emory University.
Today’s guest has served as a psychologist in university counseling centers, clinic director in an interfaith-based counseling center, and as director of a university psychology clinic. She has supervised numerous students in pursuit of psychology, mental health counseling, and social work degrees. She has led clergy consultation groups and served as a consultant with church/church-affiliated and secular organizations. In addition, she has served as a minister of education and an associate pastor in local churches.
Our guest draws on her knowledge of human potential from her experience as a psychologist and ordained clergy person to support the psychological, spiritual, and physical well-being of all people. Through her first-hand knowledge of life as a wife, mother, musician, professor, clinician, and minister, she has the insight to support the needs of adults, including performing artists, clergy, and health professionals.
In her words:  "My passion is to constantly move toward my own divine potential. Throughout this journey, I have experienced struggle, doubt, grief, joy, peace, and all of the emotions that make us human. These emotions and the experiences connected with them have made me more whole as I followed the thread of healing to freedom. These emotional experiences have also created within me a deep well of compassion for others as they journey on their paths to health and wholeness."
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
 
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
 
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.
 
Zack Jackson 00:04
You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion.
 
Ian Binns 00:12
Our guest today is a licensed psychologist, both clinical and health psychology and ordained clergy person. She received her bachelor's degree in psychology from Spelman College and her Master of Science and PhD in Psychology from the University of Florida. She also received a master of divinity degree degree from the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. Today's guests who served as a psychologist in University Counseling Centers clinical director and interfaith based Counseling Center, and as director of a university psychology clinic. In addition, she has served as a minister of education and associate pastor in local churches. Our guests are all in her knowledge of human potential from her experience as a psychologist, an ordained clergy person to support the psychological, spiritual and physical well being of all people through her firsthand knowledge of life as a wife, mother, musician, Professor, clinician and minister. She has the insight to support the needs of adults, including performing artists, clergy and health professionals. We're very excited to welcome to the show Dr. Vicki T. Gaskin, Butler.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 01:15
Thank you. I'm so excited about being here. Welcome.
 
Ian Binns 01:18
Welcome. Welcome. Okay, so I've done my part. You guys. Go ahead. What? Zack, you have to edit that out.
 
Zack Jackson 01:28
Oh, yeah. Mike drop. He hands down. He's gonna go home now. Oh, you are home?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 01:35
Yes. Oh, yeah. It's nice to have you at this Vicki. Um, do you and he in one or both of you want to share a little bit about like your connection? How did you meet? And how did we get, you know, how, how did we get to this moment where we get to have you on to talk to you and ask you about, you know, the work that you do.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 02:02
Okay, so I can tell you my said, and I think Ian should tell you his side as well.
 
Ian Binns 02:09
Sounds good.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 02:10
My husband introduced me to Ian via email. But before that, he told me about Ian. And he said, She's really cool. And he's doing some really cool stuff. And I know you'll be interested in it. And so he told me about your podcast, and you told me about the fellowship you had. And so then I started being nosy and looking around and try to find out who Ian was. And my husband said, Yeah, I told him about you. And y'all should get in touch. And I think you'll he'll, he'll be a good guest on your podcast, which I thought was great, because now I want all of you to be guest on my podcast, just just so you know. And
 
Zack Jackson 03:04
on your podcast. You want to plug your podcast,
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 03:09
I just started it's called Healing the human spirit. And it covers any topic, literally any topic that's salient for human beings. Because I I've said this a million times, but for me, as a psychologist and a clergy person. I use my dad's phrase that I heard him say when I was like in high school and middle school, inextricably intertwined. Psychology and religion for me, and spirituality are inextricably intertwined. And so the podcast is really about all kinds of things that affect our human spirit and how we can use any occurrences in our lives to help us heal. Whether those things are quote unquote, labeled as good things, bad things or in between.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 04:06
When When could people expect the first episode?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 04:11
Actually, the first episode happened a month ago because I launched before I was ready. And my husband was my first guest and he we talked about gosh, we talked about the Coronavirus, science, the Coronavirus and religion. So we talked about those three topics because he is a science educator and undergraduate degree in physics. So, we have lots of interesting conversations around,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 04:42
I bet. And it's so fun to talk to people who cast those wide nets, which sounds like that's exactly what you're doing in your work and what the podcast is like, everything that matters for human beings and human flourishing, let's just tackle it all. So that's great.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 05:06
My topic though, is science and religion. So I'm gonna try not to be too heavy on that. science, religion and spirituality, oh,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 05:16
we invite that.
 
Zack Jackson 05:18
I mean, heavy. I'm gonna jump right into that. That is literally what this podcast is about.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 05:25
So, I want to I do want to cover lots of other things, but that, as you can see, I'm here today with you. It's my favorite.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 05:35
No, I'm excited to hear more about that. Um, and was there anything that you wanted to share about your meeting?
 
Ian Binns 05:43
Yeah, so, um, Vicki's husband, Malcolm and I have known each other for several years, since we're both science educators. And we got to know each other in one of our professional conferences, and just would stay in touch. And every time we see each other, we'd sit down and hang out and just talk and catch up and stuff. And then he became or was one of the finalists for the Dean position for my college, college education, and ended up getting the job. And when he came on the interview, I was actually we were going to be recording an episode while he was there. And he was really interested in the podcast again, because he knew about it. And then that's when he told me about Vicki and said, I think y'all need to meet because you guys have similar interests. And so when Vicki and I met, and we've only met like this one time, and, you know, I remember after I hung up, my wife was another room, and she knew that I was meeting Vicki, and she's like, Wow, you guys hit it off beautifully. I was like, Yeah, that was a lot of fun. So, um, so I knew we had to get her on. And yeah, as I said, Before, we were recording I think Vicki and I, once they move up here in a couple months are going to become good friends, because she just has a lot to
 
Zack Jackson 06:59
offer. Yeah, Ian texted all of us almost immediately. And like, like he had just met the president or something. And he's like, yeah, oh, my gosh, you have to meet this person. She's a wonderful.
 
Ian Binns 07:11
Now, so I was sharing some of the things you mentioned. And everyone was like, Oh, well, amen. We got to do this. And so. So yeah, and it was just neat. It was fun for me, you know, with Malcolm getting hired. And, you know, as my next Dean, to have a science educator, as the dean, but then to realize, you know, and I know that Malcolm is a person of faith as well. But then when he introduced me to Vicki, and your areas of interest and expertise, I just knew right away, we would get along. Well, so.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 07:43
Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, vier, it's exciting. Yeah. So So Vicki, I guess the first the first thing that I want to ask about your work is maybe more of a general question, just so you can say a bit and like, let everybody know, you know, what it is that you do? Generally? So do you just want to tell us, like, what it means to, to do this work as a clinician, like the kind of intersection of your various roles as a clinical psychologist, and, you know, your work in religion and spirituality? Like, what? What does that look like for you? What are your research interests? And yeah, anything that you want to share about that to get us started?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 08:24
So when I was talking with Ian, I told him I call myself a womanist, psychologist of religion. And why is because I did my PhD in Psychology before I went to seminary, because I hadn't never had any intention of going to seminary. And if any of you know about some clergy people, it's like, never doing that. And for me, it was, I even know I grew up. I grew up in a religious family. In terms of, there are so many people who are clergy in my family that I would start giving you a list and there will be too many of them to name but I'm including my dad. And as a result of that, I figured there were enough clergy people in my family, so they didn't need me to be clergy. Nobody needed me to be clergy because they had a cover. So I wanted to become a psychologist, and I did and actually is partially from witnessing my dad doing his work. And, and I'll tell you, just a quick, quick story. I let's see, when I was in elementary school, I would go to work with my mom. As my mom walked next door to our house, literally, they built our house, behind the nursing home, the nursing home was our family on nursing home. And so when school was out, I go over there sometimes, but we were there every day, literally just about every day, except for weekends, and then sometimes on weekends at the nursing home. So anytime I could not go to the nursing home, I would go to work with my dad. My dad was the director of a, let's see, I think it was a day program. I think that's what they called it, it was the 70 day program for youth who had some kind of criminal background, they might have gotten in trouble be in it. And it may have been related to drugs as well. But it was a drug treatment program. But they also may have had some other offenses, right. And so I would go to work with him. And witnessing his work with those. They were all teenagers, they seem much older to me because I was in elementary school, but witnessing his work with them, made me want to become a psychologist. But I didn't have the language to know that that's what I wanted to be I didn't know it was a what's called a psychologist at that point. And because of that experience, and there's so much that goes into that, and if you want to hear it, I'll tell you later, but because of that experience, I watched my dad work with them, I watched them, and the way they communicate with each other and how my dad and other people who worked in the center facilitated that communication. And so even communication that would seem negative, or hostile, or whatever you call it, that wasn't good for an elementary school person. Then I also noticed that they were just very honest with each other. And they will walk away from those interactions, more connected with each other, not angry, not upset, not hostile, they were just more connected in. And I said, I want to do that when I grow up, I want to work with people to help them have those kinds of honest relationships where you can communicate freely, and not run away when there's some kind of difficult interaction. And so that's why I wanted to become a psychologist. Still didn't have the language for it at that point. And then I have to say that in my life, I the church was always such a part of life, just going to different things. But the church was more like a community center to me. And that our church was a Community Church that helped so many. They build apartments for low income housing, they had a credit union, there were all kinds of things that that church did, and I just noticed those things growing up and I thought this is really cool. This is what the church is supposed to be to help people. And for me I just had a good experience growing up learning all those Bible stories that some kids didn't care about, but I love them. And I really wanted to be like Solomon wise like Solomon and I was I still remember learning about the story of Solomon and the two women who were fighting over a baby and Solomon said Okay, cut the baby in half and I was like, Oh my gosh, you know, kids do this you know the suspense and then of course he did not the woman whose baby it was said no, don't do it. And the other woman say yeah, cut it in half. And Selma said, Okay, now I know whose baby it is. And I thought, oh, man, I want to be like that when I grew up. I just want it to be wise. What
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 14:27
follow up question. Have you ever had to threaten to cut in half?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 14:32
No, I have not thank goodness. Thank goodness. And just for the record, I would not use that tactic. Find another way to figure it out.
 
Zack Jackson 14:47
That's kind of go in the nuclear option right away.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 14:54
But I was just impressed with that. So I thought okay, I want to be wise and those like those critical things just stuck with me throughout my life in training, and then fast forward all the way to becoming a psychologist. And I was in practice for about four, three, actually three years out of graduate school. And I was in this church and working with a group of women. And we had this group we all wanted to meet, we were all the same age, it was really funny. We were literally the same age, we were all like 30 to 32. And dealing with life and having children and all that stuff, and, and we had this group get together, and I ended up becoming the leader of the group, and bringing together resources that we would study together and all that stuff. And I've ended up being like the pastor of the group. And from that experience, that's when I decided to accept my call to ministry because I thought, okay, it's not going to be me just donating, quote, unquote, my idea was to donate my services to the church as a psychologist, but I also realized I could do the other stuff, too. And so I accepted my call, went to seminary, and then seminary, I learned that I was a psychologist. Can I say that because my friends are terrible. They're really terrible. If they're listening, y'all should know y'all are terrible, because I really terrible, they're my friends. But I had this aha moment in one of my classes as we were getting near the end of the process in seminary and getting closer to graduation. And I said, Oh, my God, I'm a psychologist. I'm a psychologist. And they were like, Yeah, we know, we've been getting free therapy this whole three years. But what I mean was, I, I've always known that I could do all the local church stuff, because I learned it growing up, it was a part of my life. And in my daily life, especially from, I don't know, almost birth, but a part of my life. So I knew I could do local church, I could run a church, I could do all those things. I could do parish ministry. But in seminary, what I learned is, I really I just would say the world is my pulpit. Because I, I look at the intersection of psychology and theology for me, and it helps me to really relate better to everyone, anyone and everyone I encounter. Even the people that might be difficult. And I mean, I was challenged in so many ways like the I think it was the Timothy McVeigh. All remember Timothy McVeigh that Oklahoma City. Okay, so I was in a class and we were talking about Timothy McVeigh and and we were wrestling with how does God feel about Timothy McVeigh? And he came away with it, like, Oh, God probably loves Timothy McVeigh. Even though he may seem unlovable to all of us, he did something very awful, awful, write something that was so harmful and caused so much pain. And we were like, okay, so if God loves Timothy McVeigh, God loves everyone. And then we went to lots of other historical figures that were pretty awful, and awful in my mind. But those are the kinds of challenging discussions we had in seminary, and those are the kinds of things that helped me to become a better psychologist and being non judgmental and more understanding, and more loving and more kind, kinder, just to help me figure out okay, often when people come in my office, they're in a difficult spot and they've had some really difficult experiences, and it's my job to help them to see themselves even though I don't necessarily say it this way, but to help them see themselves as God sees them, in my estimation. And so that's the work I do, I really try to help people see themselves for who they really are not by all the labels that are placed on them. So anyway, that was a really long answer.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 20:25
Great answer. And I guess a follow up question that I have, immediately, you know, when, when you identify yourself as a woman, a psychologist of religion, like you've talked about the pieces of like, where the psychology comes in where the religion comes in for you. But can you talk a little bit about what it means to do that from a womanist? Angle? And just, you know, considering that there's probably many people who will hear that and not necessarily know what that means? Like, what is it to be womanist versus feminist? And how, like, how has your journey with that identity kind of unfolded?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 21:04
Okay, so, also in seminary, I realized I was a womanist. And it was basically because of how I was reared by my mother, other aunts, uncles, you know, extended family, grandparents, all of that. And so, Alice Walker coined the phrase womanist is to feminist as purple is to lavender. And so, I was taught by a lot of womanist scholars, and, and I can't say a lot of them, I read a lot of their work, but I was taught by a couple of them. And so theologians, African American women theologians, took on the label of womanism, or womanist, because they read the stuff which is interested in the stuff my dad read, and seminary was Black Theology, by James Cohn and others, he kind of was the founder of Black Theology. And so those women were Reading it. And they were saying, well, we don't see ourselves in this literature. And so they started to read and write and interpret scriptures, and life experiences from their own perspective and not trying to read themselves into what was being written in Black Theology and, and feminist theology. And so, I say, for me, I live in the intersection every day of race, class, and gender, which is what woman is do. And so for me, and woman, as we say, those three things help us race, class and gender help us to relate to many different people, who have many different experiences and our role, our job, if you will, is to use those experiences to help others. So living in let's see, living with both privilege and oppression, at the same time, puts me in a different space than some other people who don't necessarily have both privilege and oppression, they're really living with oppression. And so, as a womanist, my goal, my role is to help elevate others, whomever they are not excluding anyone. And so, how I do that, or how I've done that is, in psychology, one of the two of the ways in particular, because of the things I like to do on learn about, I was able to pull psychology of religion into my work with others, and multicultural psychology into my work with others. And a special piece of multicultural psychology actually, is religion and spirituality. And not I shouldn't say not too many, but some psychologists aren't that comfortable dealing with those two topics. So I really helped my students explore those things and are, you know, allow and in a enable my clients or patients to do the same. So Oh, no,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 24:55
did I answer Yeah, no, I know. And I think it's, it's just helpful for people to hear because like the My first encounter with, like womanist scholarship was in grad school, and it's not, you know, I think that that's something for, for the person who's kind of on the outside of grad school in general, or, you know, just Reading, like totally different genres of stuff it, it just is, there's not a context, often I think, for people to know what that means, I think it's helpful. The way you frame that as being, you know, about, like, caring for people at the intersection of race and gender in particular, and classes you added. And, and I think that that's, that's interesting, too, like the, the intersection of identity as like a woman, a psychologist of religion, I want to ask you just about that a little bit more. Because a lot of my a lot of my own research is in psychology of religion. And so there's, there's a pattern in Psych of religion, just to kind of share for people on the outside. And I think we may have like, brought this up a couple times before, but a lot of the demographics of people who are studied in psychology research, I think, in general, but it also extends to like religion is it's the weird problem. It's that all a lot of the people the pattern is for them to be Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. And so I'm, I'm wondering, like you, Vicki, are sort of situated in a way where, like, the stuff that you do, and I also, I tried to do a little bit of stalking of you on the internet and found your CV and, you know, the work that you do, and is really like resisting that pattern of weirdness the acronym of the weird in psychology research. And I just, it's really, it's really cool to see that it's like filling a gap in a lot of the pattern of like, who gets studied and who gets brought into work and research on psychology. And so I'm just wondering, like, can you speak to that a little bit? Like, how does that? What are the kinds of things that you notice in your own work that seems to like resist, maybe, like, wider patterns that you see in publications in psychology on, you know, on stuff that you do? Or like, you know, how is that how does that feel different? I guess.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 27:44
So. Excuse me, one thing I wanted to say, I just thought of it. So I'm going to answer your question. But yeah. It just occurred to me again, that when I told you, I did that group with the women in the church, and that led to my call. The funny thing was, the first book we use was written by a womanist. theologian, in which she translated the she's an Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible scholar. And so she translated these different passages in the Hebrew Bible, interpreted them and then wrote a book to get other people to think about that. And so they're that womanism, and
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 28:28
I'm more shadowing you becoming a woman.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 28:35
But anyway, so. So let me talk a little bit about training, because I spent many years doing training of students. And so where I find this intersectionality is when we look at who becomes psychologist, right. So now worked in a training program in clinical psychology. Most recently, I worked in a training program for mental health counselors, school counselors, a mental health and school counselors. And then, prior to that, have worked with students who were in clinical programs as well, or pursuing a social work degree or counseling psychology degree. So those are the so this is the frame of reference I'm thinking about. And what I found is for me as a womanist. It's It's my calling, if you will, to make sure that students are learning about how to work with all people. Not that we'll be experts at working with all people, but we do really need to pay it tension to the people who come into our offices, whether it's a zoom office, or whether it's in reality, you know, face to face, we need to be able to look at all of the cultural issues that surface, right. And what I know from my own training is I didn't learn that I taught it to myself, honestly. And that's how I became this person who does multicultural work, I taught it to myself, in graduate school, and as a result of that, then I did the work while I was in graduate school, I was hired to do that work, working with multicultural populations in graduate school, and then it just kind of follow me until today. And so I was engaged in the work before I knew it was called womanist work. And so that's a key thing for me in training that I really work hard at helping students understand as much as they can about the different factors that affect people that aren't necessarily taught in the textbooks, the the traditional psychology textbooks, and I'll say traditional, because in traditional texts, there's not a lot of cultural diversity that's discussed in the traditional texts. But then there's always the separate multicultural,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 31:29
aka, white.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 31:34
Boy, and so many college students or, you know, middle class, you know, you just say that we're, and so. So that's one of the things I've done, and I, in terms of my teaching, that's one of the things I've enjoyed the most and also has been the most difficult at the same time. Because it's challenging when I'm the first person to bring all these things up, and somebody goes what, you me race does have an impact on health. Yeah, does a class has an impact on health? Yeah, it does. Physical health, yes, you know, those kinds of things. And so covering those kinds of things in my courses, that's been really fun for me, I'm really difficult, but I wouldn't have it any other way. And then the other side in terms of research, if you looked at one of the last things I did, before leaving USF St. Petersburg was working with a group, well, one of my colleagues, Jamie McHale, who is a zero to three experts, zero to three age expert, developmental clinical psychologist, but early childhood development, and do yoga, Bella, say he roped me into doing that work with because I was reluctant. I was like, I'm not an expert in zero to three. I'm not an expert, a zero to three. And he said, but you're the person I need to do this work because he was trying to develop co parenting intervention for first time parents of African American children. And first time parents together. And so again, that's woman his work, because most of the people involved in the study were low income, African American parents, and we work together to develop a curriculum and an intervention program to help them learn how to better co parent, their children. And I say children because often, they might have been having their first child together, but they had other children. And so one of the byproducts of the research was that not only did they do better with co parenting the first child together, but it also helped them with co parenting issues with other parents, you know, that they have been connected with previously. So it just pops up all the time. I don't really think about it. I just, I just live it.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 34:18
Yeah. Yeah. No, that that makes sense. And it's, it makes a lot of sense to to hear you talk about how a lot of the methods that you, you know, draw on to do the work that you do. It ends up being self taught for a lot of people. And that's, that's interesting, and like, of course challenging because it's like, you have to kind of be the one to pave the way for that to be more of the standard. I'm curious about how, you know, I I noticed that it looked like this might have been I can't remember when this was but you you've done some, like research and presentation on like religious coping, is that right? And so it, you know, it doesn't have to be like, religious coping specifically, but like, what is your experience of religious identity with things like race and gender? And how to how do those things come together in your work, especially since you have this interesting background where you did do an MDiv. And that's, you know, that gives you a lot of valuable experience and exposure to literature and care for people. But you know, it's like a different way of applying that kind of training in in research. So just yeah, what could you tell us about that?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 35:52
So, my work with religious coping, that was a long time ago. But I did teach psychology of religion for many years. And I have to say, my students want to ask, one student in particular asked me, How did I teach the course because I was a person of faith, and she knew it. Everybody knew it. But I taught it in a way that it taught it as a psychologist, really, I wanted people to understand that there are many different ways of looking at religion and spirituality. And it's not all helpful in terms of how it's applied, how religion and how spiritual things are applied, and people's lives. And so as psychologists, our job is really to help people utilize religion and spirituality in a way that's healthy for them. That's, that's our job. Our job is not to change people's religious beliefs, or any of that, to get them to believe or not believe any of that. It's really to help them understand the role of religion in their lives and figure out how it can be used to help them. And so. So my dissertation, oh, my gosh, I just laugh every time I think about what were my findings. So, in this when I was doing the research, I was in the space of oh my gosh, it's got to be this internal experience of the Divine that makes people you know, better people or makes them cope with life's difficulties. And then I laugh because what I found is what psychologists already knew, is that is not that not really bad internal thing. For the group that I study. It's not really that internal relationship with the divinity or with God, that matters most. It's really, these, it was called extrinsic social, religious coping. And what that means is, people go to mosques, people go to temples, people go to religious services of different kinds, or participate in religious bodies, not because of that, divinity. internal to the, you know, up, up relationship, it's the gathering around, it's the connection with other people that matters most. And with psychology, we call that social support. And that's one thing we know that work, social support helps people. So I did a dissertation to help us find out what
 
Zack Jackson 39:02
is there anything special then about, like, people who reach out to their religious organizations for that sort of support? Or do you see the same kind of coping being from book clubs and Zumba and CrossFit or whatever people are into?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 39:20
Honestly, with the dissertation? Yeah, it's, it's the same. It's just that there when people are gathered around something, whatever that something is, so it could be the religious thing. It could be zoom, but it could be the book club. What matters is the connection with the other people. That's the that's, that's the biggest thing. And now for because okay, how do I say this delicately, because sometimes when people gather with religious groups or people, the last thing they talk about Religion, sometimes they do, you know, if it's if it's a Bible study, or you know, a religious themed gathering, but what we found is these, these people will connect with each other beyond that, and the religion, religion was the thing that brought them together to connect. But it's not necessarily the thing that keeps them connected. It can be those other things like the same people might be in book clubs and other things like that, too. But social support really matters. Now, I'm not saying that religion doesn't matter, because that's the thing that brought them together in the first place.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 40:45
We're all watching the clergy person's facial expressions right now, like Zach.
 
Ian Binns 40:51
I just religion still matters by wish
 
Zack Jackson 40:54
that that wasn't. I wish that wasn't borne out in my experience so keenly, and the sort of thing that all US clergy people talk about all the time, where they're like, why are they even coming? When they don't care about this? They're here for the cookies. I'm like, Alright, so nobody comes to the Bible study. But 100 People come to the chicken barbecue. All right, then. Okay, this is we should just open a chicken shop.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 41:26
So you do like some organizations you have the chicken barbecue and Bible study together? Oh, there
 
Zack Jackson 41:33
you go. In the door, you have to quote a Bible verse in order to get your chicken that's that's how we do it. It's got to be Jesus. Oh, what is it Ecclesiastes 1019. Is that what it is? The food was made for laughter and whining gladdens the heart and money answers everything. My life first
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 42:07
answer your question Kim Jong
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 42:09
Yeah, no, I just Yeah, I and my question might have also been a little bit rambley. Because there's just so like, I love listening to people talk about like psych of religion stuff. And, and so yeah, like, just like anything that you want to share. I am curious about the class that you taught, or that you you taught or you do teach this still sometimes
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 42:32
I haven't taught it. I haven't taught it in five years now. I think Oh, yeah. How many years I'm trying to remember how many years it's been since I left, USA, three years, three years,
 
Zack Jackson 42:43
it's been at least five years, the past year.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 42:50
So psychology of religion, I approached it as. So we, we did a couple things. I'll use two different textbooks. One was on psychology and religion. And I can't remember the name of it. And I'm looking over here and I forget that's not my bookshelf and my other. But it's a very interesting empirical study of psychology and religion, right? You know, the empirical study. So I use that text. And I also used another text that was a psychology of religion and spirituality that, no, it wasn't empirical. It was really talking about a lot of Eastern religions, and how helping students understand the meanings of those religions, symbols and those religions, that kind of thing and how people utilize those religions in their day to day lives, right. But I also did something interesting where I threw in William James psychologist who wrote the varieties of religious experience and that the students, what is this rambling on and on and on? What is he doing? I used it because I wanted them first to see a psychologist who emphasize religion in a way that they perhaps weren't used to. And so and he had just had a lot of interesting life experiences moving all over the place moving back and forth from Europe to the United States and doing all this stuff. And then he was of course prolific in terms of writing and research and all that stuff. So anyway, I use that and I threw and stuff like that. Have you seen the video religious realist by Bill Maher? Yeah, I've
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 44:55
heard of it, but I haven't seen it.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 44:57
Okay, so I threw that a long time. I go, Yeah, it's old. But very good. I threw that in, I threw on stuff like What the Bleep doing? No, I threw in. See you. And if I was teaching it now I'd have them listen to your podcast too. But I put in a lot of different things to give them lots of different perspectives about religion, to help them understand that, whatever their way, is, is not the only way. Because inevitably, I'd have two camps in my class, every single class, the division, the people who are psychology, is it? What is this, the religion is the opiate of the people like this is ridiculous. And then I had the very religious students. And so I would try to get them to come toward center a little bit, just to move a little bit to understand the other side, I would, we would do debates on specific topics. And I would talk to them about the idea that what we're doing in this class is not to get you to change anybody else's mind. It's just to understand, try to understand others perspectives. And inevitably, they would do that many of them not all of them, because some of them would dig their heels in and say, You know what, that can damage your Gascon bowler, this religious stuff is just gone too far. I cannot, you know, this is awful. And I should also want call Jesus Camp heavy.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 46:38
But I'm gonna have to write down all these things. You're saying? I'm teaching this class in the spring?
 
Zack Jackson 46:43
Yeah, I live that. Jesus Camp both in in the documentary and also living through stuff like that. Yes.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 46:52
Yeah, it might hit too close to home for me to watch that. Yeah.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 46:57
So I will show all of those things. And we will have really rich discussions and relate it to the material we were covering in psychology of religion, especially on the empirical stuff, and then just looking at so what is it that? What is it about all of these things that helpful to the people involved? What's harmful? If you see it that way? Do they see it as harmful? Psychologically speaking, are they okay? I mean, and so we had lots of rich discussions about that. That was my absolute favorite class to teach.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 47:35
Yeah, that's so fun. What did you what what? What was the topic that people that? What was the topic that students got most worked up about? Or what was like, the favorite topic of the class?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 47:50
It wasn't a topic, but it was. It was the whole course. And I'll say it this way. Students were really upset with me that I could not say, the research definitively says this, oh, about anything, anything. Because I said, this is what we have, because psychology of religion is, it's still growing, right? But we don't have millions and millions of people studying this, right. But what we can say is, this is what we know, based on this research, and we went, I mean, we covered so many different topics, from clergy health, to religious attributions, and social psychology and all these different things. And, and they were just frustrated, because I wasn't giving them definitive answers. I said, this is the research we have. And you have to look at this research, and then look at the people you're with whom you're going to work, and figure out whether this research bears out or not. And it might not. And if it doesn't, at least you have a foundation to use to approach the people. And so that was the biggest issue. And on both sides, because students who were really religious, it didn't matter what their religious background was, because I had some diversity there. They really wanted me to just come down and say religion is great, it helps everyone and you know, because I'm a believer and this you know, particular faith tradition. And then the other who wanted me to just say, religion is awful, and doesn't help anybody else. Like Yeah, can't do that. So that was a big deal in Dallas. They were frustrated Oh,
 
Zack Jackson 49:51
we can approach our our like our theology or religion with that kind of mindset where you're like, here's what the here's what are this? Here's what scripture suggests, and here's how it bears out. And does that work in this context or not? And if not, like, what, where can we? How can we adapt? What can we do? Like, wow, what if that just that worldview that you just put forward, like apply that to our Faith Journeys? And I feel like we would all be so much more mature,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 50:18
knows that we need absolutely
 
50:22
no ambiguity, no room for a gray. ambiguity is hard to preach? I'll tell you.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 50:30
Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 50:34
I think that's really I imagine that there were days that that felt especially challenging to you, as the faculty member, like teaching that class, but there's something so satisfying about those moments in class to where students, they know, they're not going to get a clear cut answer from you. And they're forced to sit in the ambiguity, and you can just see the frustration. But it's like a constructive kind of frustration of like, you get the point. If you can see why this is complicated. And that is like a job well done, I think to like, have a roomful of students frustrated.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 51:15
The one of the last time that I taught of course, then students would leave class and follow each other down the hall and then go find a place to sit and talk and talk about what we talked about in class and then come back the next week and say, you know, we talked about this and
 
51:34
I love that that's awesome.
 
Ian Binns 51:42
Yeah, I don't know how many professors could actually claim that right that they would see their students especially in that type of class walking now and then continuing the conversation. That's, that's really cool. So
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 51:55
that was always they didn't know it. They didn't know that was my goal.
 
Ian Binns 52:03
No, I have to be honest, and you can delete this. It is fun for me to sit here and watch you. Kendra asked these questions, especially as a So Vicki, I don't know if you picked up on this. This is Kendra's first post as an assistant professor, as faculty. This semester, yeah. This semester, this is her very first semester as faculty, so
 
Zack Jackson 52:26
she's planning your syllabi right now. Talking to you. Yeah. Yeah,
 
Ian Binns 52:30
it's really fun to watch her do this.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 52:32
Yeah, like maybe I should email Vicki later, get some more tips.
 
Ian Binns 52:38
I will make sure you have her email. So
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 52:41
yeah. Um, yeah, no, I'm sorry, Carrie. I'm really excited though. Like I, I'm teaching psychology of religion in in the spring at, you know, 830 in the morning, so everyone who's registered for that class, like, wants to be there, I think because it's at 830 in the morning, and, and so I'm really excited, I think it'll be really fun. And it's fun to hear someone else who's taught this class, you know, reflect on that experience. Um, I, I'm wondering to just, you know, like, in talking about religion, and again, just considering like your, your roles and your experience in on the more like, spiritual, you know, MDiv side of that versus your experience with religion. As a psychologist. What do you notice, when, when, when people read, research or conduct research about religion, religion becomes a variable in a way that sometimes like you have to kind of, you know, we as researchers, we make decisions about how to simplify religion to fit as a variable that you can like, create, you know, find correlations with it with various other, you know, demographic factors or whatever. What are some of the challenges that you've noticed in, like simplifying religion in that way? And what what's something that you wish people knew about studying religion as a research variable, if that makes sense?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 54:20
So what I noticed in especially in teaching psychology and religion is looking at the, the way religion was operationalize as you said, it's, it's, it's very difficult to operationalize that was actually one of the exercises we did in class. We looked at words like faith, what does that mean belief? What does that mean and those kinds of things. And what I would say is psychologists of religion should be clear about what it is they want to No. And so, if I want to know how religion affects no cardiac health, then that's too big. All right? What aspect of religion? Are you concerned about? Is it something's simple, like church attendance? Is it something like, I walk in a group with people from my church? We have a walking group or you know, that kind of thing?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 55:36
I think it is a God.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 55:39
Yes. Right. Believing us What? What does it mean? And I think, and I also think that's just so hard to do, right? Because we're narrowing down something that's so big. But if you really want to answer some questions, I think it is important to operationalize, get it down to the, the more, the most specific thing you can think of that you really want to know about. Because that's what I noticed, makes the that's part of what leads to frustration with ambiguity. Because we could have 10 studies on how religion affects cardiac health, and they all operationalize religion differently. And so what do we really know, when we're looking at these 10 Different studies? Well, we know it, it's for the walking group, people, they walk with their, you know, friends from the synagogue, and they're good, right there, their health is really great. But then we also know, they probably eat more fruits and vegetables, like, external variables. Something else is going on there, too. So, um, so anyway, I think that's, that's one of the bigger things, and I that's a conversation that will I mean, in terms of research that's gonna go on forever and ever, I think, because we really have to, to keep working at it. And, yeah, just trying to understand what we really want to know. And that that's difficult, but I think it's, it does help in the study of religion when we get to those specific things. So does that answer your
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 57:28
question? Yeah. No, that's, that's a great answer. And I think, you know, like, what you're suggesting, too, about being very specific and narrow? I think part of that is also it's like the responsibility of researchers, I think, to to be transparent about that in their publications about like, what are we actually talking about? Because then, you know, we end up like, generalizing about religion, based on this, like, very specific oper operationalization of it. And so yeah, like, what you're saying it at all, that all makes perfect sense. Oh, God,
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 58:06
I just thought of, um, one of the things that I'm interested in and just read some about not a whole whole lot is just anecdotally, prayer can be a helpful thing, right? It can be. And so one of my colleagues said, he just looked at me with a frown. He was like, have you read this stuff? For it doesn't work. So I added that to the course. There was another study where prayer wasn't helpful. So anyway, but there, there's lots of books about how prayer is helpful. But it helps to define what's happening with prayer. Because sometimes people are praying in a way that increases their anxiety, and then it's not helpful. And then there are other times where they're praying in a way that makes them calmer and makes them less depressed, and you know, that kind of thing. And so, that I think, illustrates what I'm talking about, if we're gonna say we want to understand prayer, and its impact on people, what kind of prayer, you know, really be specific about that and, and try to understand how it can be helpful to to folks,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 59:27
yeah, I think that's a great example. The, the research on prayer like that, that really does, like hit on that point. Well, I have a question that I think could be a good final question. And unless Zach wants to add something else, but I was gonna say, Vicki, as we wrap up, like what do you want to share? Or maybe like, or maybe we kind of did this in the beginning, so I don't know if this is gonna work. But Vicki, what is it that you want to share with us as wrapped up about, like, work that you're doing right now, anything that, you know, you're excited about that you want people to know about. Let this be a shameless moment of self promotion of what you do.
 
Ian Binns 1:00:14
Can I can I actually, maybe make that question a little more specific? So, you know, as I said at the beginning, you and Malcolm will be coming to Charlotte. So what is it? Building on Kendra's question? What do you hope to do? Once you move? What are your goals when you come to Charlotte? Yeah, that's a good one and start a new.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 1:00:43
So excuse me. I actually started working in private practice here, virtual private practice here in Florida, just a couple months ago. And so I plan to get licensed in North Carolina, and started private practice there. But the funny thing is, I only want private practice to be a part of what I do, I don't want that to be my daily, like everyday, all day, kind of work. I really like working with groups of people. So here, you will see how that pastoral kind of influence comes out of me. Because I like working, and doing things like workshops and retreats that focus on spiritual, psychological and physical well being. And so those are some of the things that I want to do. And it'll be under the guise of my private practice. I also have this other project that I'm working on, I won't give you the name of it yet. But it's, it's a news network, I want to develop an online news network. And the site itself has already been developed, we're just needing to populate it with stories and stuff like that. So I had to put it on the back burner for a little bit while I got my private practice stuff up and running. But I want to do that as well. Because I just, I think that there are many ways to reach people. And I want to try to reach as many people as I can, in positive ways. And so my, my new site will do that, as well as my website. So, um, one more thing, I'm also working, I won't start start start, I've actually started writing, but I'm gonna work on my first book, started working with the editor in January. Because we're doing something small, like moving right.
 
Zack Jackson 1:03:00
Here at some point, you're asleep, right?
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 1:03:03
Yes, exactly. So I have a lot of things going on. But this is the thing I always said, I am a person that I chose to become a psychologist because I get bored easily. So I need to be doing different things. Have my hands in different parts, I guess. And so my career I've done a lot of different things. But I feel like now, this is my time where I'm going to do all of the things that I believe I'm called to do at this point in my life, which is writing and doing retreats and workshops and consulting and that network thing on either side.
 
Zack Jackson 1:03:55
podcast
 
1:03:56
that's pretty Yeah,
 
Ian Binns 1:03:57
yeah. And podcasts. Don't forget your podcast.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 1:03:59
Yes. And the podcast. The blog and the podcast are on my on my it's got to be Dr. Vicki website is almost done. I just have to add a couple podcast episodes and then we'll make it live.
 
Zack Jackson 1:04:14
But in the meantime, it cool when people are done listening to this episode, they should search in their preferred podcast provider for the healing the human spirit podcast with and they should definitely subscribe to that and listen to the one episode that's up so far. Yeah. Exciting. Or maybe multiple guests.
 
Ian Binns 1:04:37
What would you say? Yeah, I said, I hear I hear he's a good guest. Your first guest he's alright now you said decent the first time. I did say decent, right?
 
Zack Jackson 1:04:46
This is your future boss here.
 
Ian Binns 1:04:48
You can keep that in because Malcolm will hear him like get that. Laugh he'll just laugh. I expect nothing less.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 1:04:58
Well, it's exciting to hear everything You're doing Vicki. And we're really happy that you decided to talk to us today. So thank you for being with us.
 
Zack Jackson 1:05:08
Thanks so much. Yeah. Thank you.
 
Vikki Gaskin-Butler 1:05:12
Thank you. I'm so excited. I was really looking forward to this. And I have to say I was a little nervous. Oh God, what are they going to ask me? Will I be ready? Will I be ready? And what Ian, what did Malcolm my husband say to me, right before this, he says, Go have fun. And
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 1:05:36
absolutely, yeah, well, thank you. Thank you.
 

Faith, Astronomy, and Space Telescopes with Dr Jennifer Wiseman

Episode 96
We are beyond thrilled to welcome Dr Jennifer Wiseman to the podcast today. We talk about her faith journey as well as her work in astronomy as she helps us to understand why the James Webb Space Telescope (launching this week), is going to take the Hubble to the next level. Her enthusiasm and wonder is contagious, so I hope you're ready to be inspired! 
 
Dr Jennifer Wiseman is the Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER). She is also an astrophysicist, studying the formation of stars and planetary systems using radio, optical, and infrared telescopes. She studied physics for her bachelor’s degree at MIT, discovering comet Wiseman-Skiff in 1987. After earning her Ph.D. in astronomy from Harvard University in 1995, she continued her research as a Jansky Fellow at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and as a Hubble Fellow at the Johns Hopkins University. She also has an interest in national science policy and has served as an American Physical Society Congressional Science Fellow. She has worked with several major observatories and is currently a senior astrophysicist at the Goddard Space Flight Center.  She is also a public speaker and author, and enjoys giving talks on the inspiration of astronomy and scientific discovery to schools, youth and church groups, and civic organizations. She is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation and a former Councilor of the American Astronomical Society.
 
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/
https://hubblesite.org/
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 
 
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
 
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
 
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.
Zack Jackson 00:05
You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion.
 
Ian Binns 00:13
Our guest today is the director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science program of dialogue on science, ethics and religion, also known as dozer. She is also an astrophysicist studying the formation of stars and planetary systems using radio, optical and infrared telescopes. She studied physics for her bachelor's degree at MIT discovering comet Wiseman Skiff in 1987. After earning her PhD in astronomy from Harvard University in 1995, she continued her research as the Jansky fellow at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, and as a Hubble Fellow at the Johns Hopkins University. She also has an interest in national science policy and has served as an American Physical Society congressional science fellow. She has worked with several major observatories, and is currently a senior astrophysicist at the Goddard Space Flight Center. She's also a public speaker and author and enjoys giving talks and inspiration of astronomy and scientific discovery to schools, youth and church groups, and civic organizations. She's a fellow of the American scientific affiliation, and a former Counselor of the American Astronomical Society. We're very excited to welcome Dr. Jennifer Wiseman to the show today.
 
Jennifer Wiseman 01:22
Thank you, it's my pleasure to join you.
 
Ian Binns 01:25
So, um, Jennifer, again, thank you for agreeing to come and talk, we just, you know, we've met you and I met several years ago, I know that you and Zach know each other as well. And so we kind of wanted to start off with what got you into astronomy. And then how did that grow to include your science and religion work as well,
 
Jennifer Wiseman 01:47
I grew up out in a rural area in Arkansas, on a family farm. And so I was just surrounded by nature growing up, we lived in a pretty area that had nearby lakes and rivers. So I enjoyed everything about the natural world, I thought we had animals of our own livestock and pets, but also lots of wildlife that I enjoyed seeing. And then I also enjoy just wandering around meadows and the streams and, you know, swimming, and kayaking, and all those kinds of things. And that made me appreciate the natural world, we also had dark night skies when I was growing up. So we could go out at night and see stars from horizon to horizon. And that is such a rare treat these days, most people live in cities or suburbs and have stray light from parking lots and stores and streets that create a glow in the sky and really drown out a lot of the beauty of seeing stars, unfortunately. But I was able to see the night sky, we would go on evening walks my parents and dogs and and I would enjoy these these regular walks. And I would imagine what it was like to, to go up where the stars are. And I would I was curious. So I think that started me out just being naturally curious about nature. And then science was a kind of a natural affinity then because science is basically the formal study of how nature works. And I had good teachers in my public schools who encouraged me in all kinds of subjects, science, mathematics, but also humanities and music. But all of that together, I think was the foundation and then Pair that with as I was growing up, there was a lot of flurry of interest about space exploration, the Voyager spacecraft, were just sending the first images back to earth, of moons around planets in our solar system, close up views we've never had before. I just thought this was fascinating. And you know, a lot of science fiction like Star Wars movies and things were starting to come out in the late 70s and 80s. And I was caught up in that too. So there was a lot of social interest in space, as well as my own natural affinity for nature. And all of that together, I think set the foundation for my interest in doing something related to the space program, but I didn't have a clue as to how to get involved in it. But thankfully, I had teachers and encouraging family and church that just encouraged me to go on and try anything I wanted. So I went on to study science.
 
Zack Jackson 04:42
That's beautiful.
 
Ian Binns 04:43
Yeah, there's a lot to take away from that. One of the things I love the most is you referred to Star Wars and Star Wars fans. Thank you for that.
 
Zack Jackson 04:53
genre that we've we've spent quite some time on this podcast talking about the value of science fiction and how it implants This sorts of love of cosmos in love of the world into people into children's minds. And so they grow up to great things. Yeah, that's so sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, I'm walking all over you. So I'm, I hear you say that there was a lot of support from family from, from friends and teachers and even church. Did you get any of that? That sort of feeling that science and and God are at odds that so many young Christians did as they're growing up? Did you taste any of that? Or was it all supportive?
 
Jennifer Wiseman 05:36
I never had any sense that there should be some kind of conflict between science and faith. In fact, quite the opposite. I grew up again, in a in a place where nature just surrounded us, it was a rural area where people had farms or they enjoy recreation on the lakes and rivers, and it was pretty and so we just naturally correlated the beauty of the natural world with our faith and our love for God, because we understood that God is the Creator, and God is responsible for the creation and called it good. So I think at a very basic level there, there really wasn't any sense of conflict, quite the opposite that science was the study of God's handiwork. And we should be grateful for that. Now, when it came to the particulars, like how do you interpret the opening verses of the biblical book of Genesis, that seems to stipulate that all of creation came into being in a few literal days and those kinds of things? You know, I think we, we probably took that rather literally in church and so forth. We didn't have any reason not to. But I think I was also given a sense of humility that our pastors and things would would tell us that God doesn't give us all the details in in Scripture that, that He's given us just enough for what we need to know to have a relationship with God, but but he's also given us mines and other tools and giving us more knowledge as time goes on. And so I think, even though I was probably schooled in a more literalistic view of Scripture growing up, I was also given a sense of humility, that there might be more to it than just what is more two more information that that God will give us than just what's written in Scripture. So I think that enabled me as I began to learn more about the scientific picture of the vast size and age of the universe and the development of life, I was able to correlate that with a humble view of scripture that God didn't give us all these details in Scripture, but delights in us using scientific knowledge to learn some of these rich details, and wow, are they Rich, I mean, the universe is not small. It's enormous, beyond our wildest imaginations, both in space and time. And I think that's something that fascinates me the most about astronomy is that it is a time machine, we can use telescopes to see out and that is equivalent to seeing back in time has taken time for the light to get to us from either planets in our solar system, or other stars or distant galaxies. And we can see how the universe has changed over time by looking back in time to distant objects in space. So I think what I did pick up growing up in terms of attention is more of a philosophical tension. I remember watching my favorite program on television, which was the cosmos program, which was a wonderful exploration of the universe. And I really admire Carl Sagan to this day, I'm so grateful for how he opened my eyes to the mysteries of the solar system and the universe beyond and introduced me to these images coming from the Voyager probes of the outer solar system, things like that. But every once in a while he and some other well, spoken scientist would interject some philosophical opinions and things that were kind of denigrating toward religion or religious faith and I picked that up even as a teenager and as a child. I couldn't quite articulate it, but I even then could sense that while I loved the Science, I didn't like some of the content Have dismissive comments I was hearing about religious faith and I, you know, I just kind of put tuck that away, in my mind kind of puzzling. Why does there have to be some kind of, of denigration of faith when you're talking about the majesties of science and, and then, of course, as I became an adult and a scientist, I realized that there is, of course, a strong difference between what the science is telling us about the natural world and how it works. And human philosophical interpretation of which there can be different opinions. And and trying to separate, you know, what is the science telling us from? What are the different human interpretations of what the natural world is telling us about human purpose and meaning, and even our beliefs and God and purpose. And I'm able to do that much better as a as an adult scientist, and to see where that wind falls, then I think a lot of folks in the public may be prepared for when they hear a scientist kind of crossing the line between talking about just the science and expressing personal philosophical views.
 
Zack Jackson 11:12
But I think you do so with the same sort of humility, like it spills over from, from your study of astronomy into your, into your religion and philosophy, that, like you study the stars, and you see the unbelievable fakeness. And you just can't help but let that spill over into everything that well, why would I know everything about philosophy? Why would I know everything about God, that's absurd. I don't even know everything about our solar system. There's like a certain humility, I think that comes from, from when you're really into, into that kind of science that I appreciate, I think, I think astronomy makes me a better Christian, or at least a more of a mystical one. Anyway,
 
Jennifer Wiseman 11:57
I think what astronomy does for me is not you know, sort of prove God or something like that, I think it's very hard to take something from the natural world and use it to prove or disprove something that isn't confined to just the natural, observable world. But what it does do, being a person of faith as I am in enrich that faith, I mean, I believe in God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. And when I learn more about what that universe is like, that means that my reverence for God is much deeper. I mean, it's almost scary when you think about the ages of time we're talking about in terms of our own universe, and there may be other universes too, that we don't even know anything about. And yet we read in Scripture, that the same God who's responsible for this 13 point a billion years of the universe, and its content, and its evolution, is also concerned with the lives of us and of the sparrow, you know, of the, of the individual, what we would call insignificant wife in terms of time and space, and yet God chooses to call us significant because of God's own choosing and love. And so it's that kind of, you know, the infinitely large almost, and the infinitely small, almost, that God encompasses that's very hard for me to comprehend. But it does deepen my, my reverent fear and my appreciation for the kind of God that that we read about in Scripture, and that we experience as people of faith.
 
Zack Jackson 13:54
So you are the director of the American, the American Association for the Advancement of Science program of dialogue on science, ethics and religion, which is a huge mouthful. Which is triple A S. dozer, you know, for those who like acronyms, which is an organization that I think every single one of our listeners, like if you if you subscribe to this podcast, and this is an organization that you would be interested in learning more about, but I would wager to guess that a lot of them have never heard of it. Can you tell us a little bit about what you do and what the organization does and what kind of resources are available, how they can connect?
 
Jennifer Wiseman 14:40
Sure. Okay, so so the the world's largest scientific society is the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And that organization does exactly what it sounds like it triple as advances science for the good of people around the world. So AAA is publishes a journal scientific journal called science that many have heard of, or even written scientific articles for. AAA is also advocates the good use of science in society. So, AAA is has public education programs and programs helping legislators to see how science is beneficial to people in all walks of life, triple as sponsors some programs to advocate science for advancing human rights, and to work with different components of society to make sure science is being used to the benefit of all people. One of those programs is this dialogue program called the dialogue on science, ethics and religion, or doser. It's the you can find out about it by the website as.org/doser DDoS, er doser was thought of back in the 1990s, when scientists realized that to really be effective and communicating with people, we needed to understand how important religion and faith is in people's lives. And if we're really going to interface with different communities, especially in the US, we need to recognize that people's faith identity is a very important part of their worldview. Most people identify with a religion or a religious tradition, as an important aspect of their identity, and how they get a lot of their sense of values and worldview, including how they see the world and hear and articulate science and its use in their lives and work in ministries and so forth. So if scientists are not understanding of the importance of religion and faith in the lives of most people, and if they're not able to articulate science in a way that brings people on board and listen to the values of people from faith communities, then scientists are really missing a huge chance of understanding the value of science and how it can be incorporated into the lives of our culture. So the doser program was invented back in the 1990s, to start building those relationships between scientists and religious communities. These are religious communities of all faiths, and scientists of any faith or no faith, but building a dialogue about how science is important in the lives of our people in our culture. Today, the dozer program is very active, we have several projects, one of them, I think you guys are particularly knowledgeable, that is our science for seminaries project, where we work with seminaries from across the country, and even beyond the US that are interested in, in incorporating good science into the training of future pastors and congregational leaders, because science is a part of everyone's life today. So if a church wants to serve the world in the most effective way, they need to know to how to incorporate science into their ministries, if they want to be relevant to our culture, especially for young people, they need to understand the role of science. It's not just the old arguments about science and creation and evolution. A lot of people when they think about science and religion, they immediately wonder if there's some kind of an argument about how old the the world is. And you know, there are still some very interesting questions, of course, about How did life come into being and so forth. But most faith communities now are really much more excited about talking about many other aspects of science as well like space exploration. Could there be life beyond Earth or, or more practical things? How do we incorporate good science into ministries to the poor or helping people around the world have better food better, cleaner water? How do we get the best science incorporated into the best health care practices? I mean, this is of course come to the forefront during this pandemic with COVID-19 and trying to understand the science of vaccinations and the social reality of distributing vaccine and getting people to understand and trust the science enough to become protected as best we can against the terrible disease. So all these aspects Our I think invigorating a dialogue between faith communities and scientists in our dozer program really seeks to bring scientists and faith communities into better relationship and contact. And of course, these are overlapping communities. I mean, a lot of scientists themselves are people of faith from various faith traditions. But even scientists who are not or not, for the most part, are not hostile to faith communities, they just need a better architecture for building dialogue and relationship. In fact, most scientists already of course, are interfacing with people of faith, whether they know it or not the students in their classrooms, people in their lab and so forth. And so we also hold workshops for scientists, at scientific society meetings, and at research universities to help scientists better understand the important role that faith plays in the lives of many, probably most people in the US if you look at the polls, and how to make sure that they are incorporating a respect for that faith component of people's lives when they're talking about science in their classrooms, and, and in their interface with people in their public spheres of influence. Not just to help welcome people into science, but also to help people see how science is relevant to the values they already have.
 
Ian Binns 21:26
So I'm curious if we can shift a little bit a UML mentioned in your bio, that you've did have done some work with Hubble, the Hubble Space Telescope, and you know, we, this is going to be versus being released, hopefully, in the same day that the new The Next Generation Space Telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope will be launched. And so can you talk to us a little bit about your work with the Hubble Space Telescope, and then maybe the distinction between Hubble that a lot of people know about and the new one, the James Webb Space Telescope and what your hopes are for that.
 
Jennifer Wiseman 22:02
I've had the privilege of working with many different types of telescopes throughout my astronomical career. My own research is based on the use of radio telescopes, which are these big dish shaped telescopes. My doctoral research used an array of them out in New Mexico called the Very Large Array or the VLA. In fact, you can drive out there and see the Very Large Array, southwest of Albuquerque. And with these kinds of telescopes, I've been able to study how stars form in interstellar clouds, you can peer in through the dust and see some of these regions where infant stars are forming. I've also used and worked with the Hubble Space Telescope, which is a platform that's now become very famous Hubble is a is a satellite orbiting the Earth. It's not very far above the earth just a little over 300 miles above the surface of the Earth, but it's up there to get it above the clouds. So you can get a much clearer image of objects in deep space, whether you're observing planets or stars or distant galaxies and Hubble has been operating for almost 32 years now, thanks to repeated visits from astronauts that have kept the observatory functioning by replacing cameras from time to time and repairing electronics. So so the the observatories in very good shape. We're recording this discussion right now in mid December looking forward to next week what we're anticipating as it's the launch of another very large space telescope called the James Webb Space Telescope, named after a NASA administrator who was a science supporter back in the Apollo years. This telescope will be every bit as good as Hubble in terms of getting beautiful images of space. But it will also be different from Hubble because it will be very sensitive to infrared wavelengths of light, the Hubble telescope sees visible light like our eyes can see. And even energetic light that's bluer than blue ultraviolet light, which is emitted from energetic processes in galaxies and in regions where stars are forming. Hubble can even see a little bit into the infrared part of the spectrum of light, so that's a little redder than red, which helps us to see somewhat into these interstellar clouds I mentioned where stars are still forming and planets are forming and to see very distant galaxies because as we look out into distance space, light from very distant galaxies has taken millions, sometimes billions of years to come. To us, and as it's traveling through expanding space, that light loses some of its energy, it gets shifted into what we call the reddened part of the spectrum, we get red shifted. Because it's stretched the wavelength of light, we can think of it as being stretched as they pass through expanding space to get to our telescope. And so some of those galaxies even though the light started its trip as blue eight from stars and ends up being infrared light when we receive it here, Hubble can see some of those very distant galaxies, which we're seeing as they were very far back in time when they were just infant galaxies. But some of those galaxies that light is redshift, and even beyond what Hubble can see in this new Webb Space Telescope will see infrared light much farther into the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum than Hubble can see. So the Webb telescope will be able to see galaxies even earlier in the history of our universe, when they were just starting to form. And that will complement the kinds of galaxies and the kinds of information that Hubble sees for us. So, you know, we talked about the universe being about 13 point 8 billion years old, which we can glean from various different types of information about the universe. We're now seeing galaxies as they were forming for Well, within that first point, eight of the 13 point 8 billion year history of the universe, we're really seeing the universe at when it was basically in its childhood, and the Webb telescope will show us proto galaxies, the very first generations of stars and gas kind of coalescing as gravity holds it together in the very first few 100,200,000,000 years of the universe after its beginning, so we're excited about that closer to home, the Webb telescope will also see into that deeper into that infrared part of the spectrum that allows us to see deeper into these nurseries of interstellar gas in our own galaxy, where stars are forming and planets are forming and disks around those stars. And to gather the Hubble Telescope, which we anticipate will keep working for quite a few more years, and the Webb telescope will provide complimentary information. For example, when we look at star forming regions, the Hubble Telescope will tell us something about emission in visible light and ultraviolet light. Webb Telescope will give us the infrared part that gives us a lot more information about what those baby stars are like as they form. And even more exciting, we're now we're now discovering that there are planets around other stars we call those exoplanets because they're outside our solar system. We can study something about their atmospheres and in their composition of those atmospheres. Hubble tells us something about the atoms and molecules that emit their light and visible wavelengths and in ultraviolet wavelengths. The Webb telescope gives us information from molecules in these exoplanet atmospheres that emit in infrared wavelengths. So then we can get a whole spectrum of information, we can know whether some of these exoplanets have water vapor, whether they have oxygen, have other kinds of things that we really want to know about exoplanets, and what they're like. So, complimentary science is the name of the game as we look forward to the James Webb Space Telescope, and we think about how it will work in complement to the Hubble Space Telescope in the coming years.
 
Zack Jackson 28:56
I bet you blew my mind in about seven different times in the past couple of years. So I'm not entirely sure where to go with the fact that you can point to telescope towards an exoplanet and look at the way that light passes through the tiny sliver of an atmosphere and be able to then tell what that atmosphere is made out of. That blows my mind.
 
Jennifer Wiseman 29:32
Well, the Hubble Space Telescope was actually the pioneer of this method of studying exoplanets. To study exoplanets, you have to be kind of like a detective because you have to use indirect methods to detect them in the first place, and even to study much about them. I mean, we would all like to simply point a camera at another planet, outside our solar system and take a nice picture But these things are really small. They are tiny objects orbiting bright things we call stars, and they get lost in the glare of the star. So astronomers have to use indirect methods to detect them to detect exoplanets. The first ones were detected not by seeing the planet, but by seeing how the star it was orbiting would wobble in its orbit. And that's because there's a gravitational mutual tug between a planet and its parent star. So even if you can't see the planet, you can see the star wobbling a little bit in its position as the planet orbits around, and they're both actually orbiting what's called the center of mass between the two. So the first exoplanets were detected by noticing stars periodically wobbling in their position, and determining from that what mass of planet, we would need to create that much of a wobble. And then the idea of transiting exoplanets was explored. That is certain planets happened to orbit their parent star in a plane that's along our line of sight as we're looking toward that star. And that means every time the planet passes in front of its parent star, it blocks out a little bit of that star light from our view. So even if we can't see the planet, we can see the starlight dimming just a little bit periodically as the planet orbits in front of it. Those transit observations were used by the Kepler space telescope, to discover hundreds of new exoplanet candidates. In fact, we have 1000s of them of systems simply by looking at the parent star and seeing them dim periodically and then doing follow up observations with other telescopes to really confirm whether or not what's causing that is, is an exoplanet. They have Hubble Telescope has taken this one step farther, which is using transits to, to study the composition of the atmospheres of some of these exoplanets. So when a planet passes in front of its parent star, not only does it block out some of the starlight, but some of the starlight passes through that outer rim of the planet's atmosphere along the outer limb on its way to as it passes through. And that atmosphere, what depending on what's in the planet's atmosphere will absorb some of that light. If there are molecules and atoms in the atmosphere, it will absorb light at very certain colors or frequencies. So a spectroscopy just can take that light and spread it out into its constituent colors, kind of like using a prism. And you can see the very particular color band where light is missing because atoms or molecules in that exoplanet atmosphere have absorbed it. And so we have, we have instruments on the Hubble Space Telescope, that are what we call spectrograph. They don't take the pretty pictures, they simply take the light and spread it out into its constituent frequencies or colors, like a prism and see where there are very particular color bands missing. And that pattern tells us what's been munched out, and that tells us what kinds of atoms or molecules are in the exoplanet atmosphere. So Hubble was the first observatory to be used to determine the composition of an exoplanet atmosphere. And now this has grown into a huge astronomical industry, if you will, of using telescopes, Hubble and other telescopes to do spectroscopic analysis of the atmospheres of exoplanets to learn something about their composition. And here, we're excited about this new webb space telescope that's going to do that as well. But in the far infrared in the sorry, in the mid infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum, where we can do we can determine even more molecules and kinds of diagnostics that tell us more about what's in these exoplanet atmospheres. We want to know whether planets outside of our solar system are similar or different to planets inside our solar system. And of course, we'd like to know if any of them are habitable for life. We don't yet have the technology sadly to visit planets that are outside our solar system and take samples of their atmospheres or their their dirt if they have dirt or things like that, but we can observe them remotely and so that is what we're trying to perfect are these techniques of taking remote information Like the spectrum of light from an exoplanet atmosphere, and determining from that, what's in that atmosphere. And then from there we can discern whether or not there might be habitability for life. Like we know we need water for life as we know it. So could there be water on one of these exoplanets, or even signs of biological activity, we know that if we looked at Planet Earth from a distance, we would see oxygen in the atmosphere. And that's evidence of, of the work of plant life on our Earth's surface, generating oxygen, this kind of, of process photosynthesis tells us that there's an ongoing biological community, if you will, on planet Earth, otherwise, all the oxygen in the atmosphere would disappear through reactions, but the fact that we have continuing refreshed oxygen tells us that there's biological activity on our planet. If we saw oxygen, as well as other indicators in the atmospheres of other planets, that would be a clue that there might be biological activity there. So we're taking steps the Webb telescope will give us more information than Hubble and then future telescopes beyond Webb will be able to discern whether there are earth like planets with truly Earth light compositions in their atmospheres in in star systems around our galactic neighborhood. So the web is the next step in a whole series of future telescopes that astronomers are planning.
 
Ian Binns 36:39
That's exciting. Yeah. And I, and doing a little bit of research on James Webb and comparing it to the Hubble and and, you know, I've always been a huge fan of the Hubble Space Telescope and you know, have little models of it. Growing up when you know, I'm a huge LEGO fan, when Lego released the new space shuttle model. In the spring, the one that had Hubble with it was really exotic, so I could kind of build the space shuttle and Hubble. And so but doing those comparisons, I then saw just now the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, that's in production, I guess, right? And,
 
Jennifer Wiseman 37:22
yes, so So the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope is named after you guessed it, Nancy Grace Roman, who was just a phenomenal pioneer in the history of NASA's foray into space astronomy, she was the first chief astronomer at NASA headquarters. And back in the 1970s, she was the one who advocated the idea of NASA building a space telescope. Now scientists had been talking about this for even decades about what you could do if you could put a telescope in space, but to actually get it implemented, required someone with a NASA headquarters to champion this idea. And she did, she got it started with a NASA Headquarters back in the 1970s. And that ended up being the Hubble Space Telescope. So she's sometimes referred to as the mother of Hubble. She passed away just recently, but she remained an active interested scientist for all of her life. So this telescope now that's being developed is named in her honor the the Roman space telescope, and it will again complement these other space telescopes, it will complement the Webb Space Telescope, which will launch sooner. And the Hubble Space Telescope, which is already operating, the Roman telescope will be an infrared telescope, you know, like the Webb telescope is, is an infrared Space Telescope. But the difference is that Roman is going to have a much wider field of view, that means it will see a much wider swath of the sky than either Hubble, or the Webb telescope can do. If, if Hubble wants to survey a wide, wider region of the sky, it has to do hundreds of little postage stamp observations and stitch it all together. And we've done that and we've done for example, a Hubble observation of a big part of the disk of the Andromeda Galaxy, which is our nearest big spiral galaxy, and we learned a lot by stitching together little postage stamp observation after observation. This is a project led by Professor Julianne del Canton and her team called the fat program which which is is spelled ph 80. But it's it's Hubble Andromeda Treasury program to look at stars in this nearby galaxy. But it's taken a long time. The Roman telescope can do this wide swath of the sky with just, you know, one exposure because it can see such a wider swath of the sky. And the other thing, the other kind of science that it's really being designed to do is to study the distribution of galaxies. Hubble's really good at looking at an individual galaxy and telling us a lot of information. But if you want to know how hundreds or 1000s of galaxies are distributed around the sky, it takes a long time, my favorite image from Hubble is called the Ultra Deep Field. I don't know if you've seen it. But it was a product of just pointing Hubble in one direction, the sky and collecting faint light over many days. And the product is this collection of little blotches of light that you might think are stars, but each one of them is actually another galaxy like like like or unlike the Milky Way each one that can contain billions of stars. And so if you imagine that extrapolated over the entire sky, you get a sense of how rich our universe is. But as wonderful as that deep field is, and you can see 1000s of galaxies, you can't get a sense of how galaxies are really distributed across wider swaths of the sky because it is a small field of view. The Roman telescope, which should be launched later, this decade, will have a wide field of view that can see how the patterns of galaxies have taken shape. Throughout cosmic history. We know that galaxies are distributed in more of a honeycomb fashion, there are regions where there aren't many galaxies, we call them, voids, voids. And then there are regions where there are kind of quite a few galaxies collected together. We know now that throughout the billions of years of cosmic history, there's been kind of a tug of war between gravity, which is trying to pull things together. And that's creating galaxies and even clusters of galaxies that are held together by their mutual gravitational pool. And something that's pushing things apart, we now know that the universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is getting faster. So something is, is kind of pushing out. And we're calling that dark energy, because we don't really know what it is, it may be some repulsive aspect of gravity. Over time, this tug of war between dark energy pushing things apart, and the matter pulling things together, through what we would call traditional gravitational pull has resulted in the distribution of galaxies that we now have today, we would like to understand that better. And the Roman Space Telescope is going to help us see how galaxies have been distributed across space throughout cosmic time. And then the Webb telescope, and the Hubble telescope can help us hone in on very specific galaxies and small clusters to give us more detail. So again, we use different observatories in complement, because they each have their own kind of unique scientific niche of what they can tell us. And together, we get a much better bigger picture of what's going on in the universe. And we also use telescopes on the ground that are getting more and more sophisticated in what they can do to complement telescopes in space. So all of these facilities work in complement.
 
Ian Binns 43:51
So I'm curious, Jennifer, you know, with Hubble, and you're especially bringing up the Ultra Deep Field. And before that there was so the Hubble Deep Field, and then the hobo Ultra Deep Field, right. And they were both just unbelievable. To look at. I remember when they both came out. And I cannot remember the years, obviously, but I do remember, I think the Hubble are the first one I was able to use and I was a high school science teacher. But it was just unbelievable to look at these things. Will there be with the James Webb Space Telescope? For example? Will we is there will there be an effort to kind of point it in the same direction? You know, the Hubble has been pointing out and look at either the same areas that Hubble's looked at to see what else we could get from that location. And then also to Will there be something kind of like the Hubble Ultra Deep Field with the James Webb, like, is there going to be do you know, or is that just anything is possible?
 
Jennifer Wiseman 44:52
Oh, absolutely. I mean, one of the main drivers for the the James Webb Space Telescope was this desire to look at the Deep feels like Hubble has done. But to be able to see galaxies that are even more distant than what Hubble can pick up the these distant galaxies, of course, we're not seeing them as they actually are right this minute, we're seeing them as they were when the light began its track from those galaxies across space, to our telescope. And for some of these galaxies in these deep fields, those galaxies are billions of what we call light years away a light year is a unit of distance is the distance that light travels in a year. So when we see a galaxy that's billions of light years away, we're seeing it as it was billions of years back in time. And as that light has traveled across space to get to our telescope, it's traveled through space that is actually expanding, that creates what we call a red shifting effect, the light that we receive is redder than it was when it started, it's its journey. And sometimes that red shifting goes all the way into the infrared part of the spectrum, even beyond what Hubble can pick up. So for these most distant galaxies, we anticipate that a lot of them are shining most of their light in, in a wavelength that's become shifted into the infrared part of the spectrum that only the Webb telescope will pick up, it will pick up galaxies and see them that that the Hubble Deep fields haven't seen so we anticipate seeing even more galaxies with the Webb telescope than Hubble has seen. And yet Hubble can see galaxies in ways that the web won't be able to see Hubble can see the ultraviolet light from the more nearby galaxies. And we can then put a picture together as how as to how galaxies have changed. Over time, by comparing those early infant galaxies at the Webb telescope, we'll pick up with the galaxies that Hubble can see brightly in ultraviolet light that won't be as bright in the infrared light that Webb can see. And then all those intermediate galaxies that we pick up, the infrared light from the Webb telescope and the visible and ultraviolet light from Hubble, and we can put all that information together to make deep feels like we've never had before. So yes, we're going to see the same deals that Hubble has seen, Webb will look at and pick up more galaxies, and then other deep fields Webb will look at. And we will we're already doing preparatory science with Hubble knowing that we want to use Webb for the things that Webb uniquely can do, and can use it in complement with what Hubble can already do. So we're already doing what we call preparatory observations. With Hubble, that makes sure that we understand everything we can about these different fields of galaxies with Hubble, so that we know just the kinds of things we want to learn with JT VST. And we use that telescope as efficiently as we can, once it gets going. You know, the Webb telescope is anticipated as we record this to be launching in late December. But it'll take several months for it to get out where it will be perched a million miles more and more from Earth. That's a lot farther away than Hubble is, but it's being put that far away from Earth to keep it very cool. So that it can pick up the faintest infrared light from these distant galaxies, and from these closer to home star forming regions. So we won't be getting science images from the web for quite a few months, as it makes this trek out into a much more distant part of space than the Hubble telescope. So we're gonna have to be patient. But I'm looking forward to those first science images coming in, in the in the middle part of 2022. If all goes well,
 
Zack Jackson 48:57
so when we do start to get those images, wow, if they're in the infrared, what will they look like to us humans? Will they have to be artificially colored? Or?
 
Jennifer Wiseman 49:09
Yes, so so the the Webb telescope will see red light that we can see. But then beyond read into the infrared that we cannot see. And the Hubble itself also sees Light We Cannot See. So Hubble picks up visible light that we can see. But Hubble's picks up ultraviolet light that we can't see and also near infrared light that we cannot see. So already with Hubble images, we have to give them colors that our eyes can see so that we can have a picture to look at. So for Hubble images, if you read carefully, it will tell you whether what you're seeing is visible light or if it's for example, near infrared light, it will be given a red hue so that you can see that part of the spectrum showing up In in the eyes, your colors your eyes can see, we usually label the things on Hubble images. So you know exactly what the color coding is. The Webb telescope images will be likewise sort of translated into colors that we can see in pictures and photographs so that the part of the infrared spectrum that is closer to visible light will be colored, a little less red, maybe even blue. And the part of the infrared spectrum that the web will pick up that's deeper into the infrared part of the spectrum will be colored, very red. And so you'll you'll see probably a, a, a legend that, you know, next to these James Webb images that tell you the range of colors that it's actually picking up and what that has been translated to in the colors that have been put into the image, it's, it's not just any color goes these, usually what happens is you try to make the color range that's on the image as close to the span of color as the actual information is, but just transferred over into a band that our eyes can see. So yes, you have to do something, or else you couldn't see it, with our eyes looking at a picture, because we can't see infrared light. And the same is already true with Hubble images that go beyond just the visible light of the spectrum.
 
Ian Binns 51:35
I'm just in awe. It's just, I've always loved astronomy, and you know, it's something that I've always just been passionate about. What is it that you're most excited about? And I'm sorry, I just you know, in listening to you talk about it, you may have talked some already. But with this, the Webb Space Telescope, the Nancy Grace, Roman, and telescope and all these different ones that are coming, what is it that you're most excited about with these things?
 
Jennifer Wiseman 52:06
I think I'm most excited about what you might call two extremes of the spacial scale of the Universe. With these new telescopes, like the the Webb Space Telescope, and then later the Roman Space Telescope. I'm excited about getting even a better understanding of how the universe we live in has become hospitable over billions of years for life, we can actually, you know, look at the earliest galaxies and compare them to galaxies, like our own Milky Way and intermediate time galaxies as well. And we can see how they've changed over these billions of years of time, we can't follow an individual galaxy as it changed. But we can look at the whole population at these different epochs of time. And we can tell that galaxies have merged together and become bigger over time we think our own Milky Way is the project product of mergers. And we can tell that stars have come and gone in these galaxies, massive stars don't live that long. And so they they produce heavier elements that we need four planets in life. As they shine, they, they they go through a process, a process called Fusion that creates heavier elements. And then when the massive stars become unstable, and run out of fuel, they explode and disperse that material into these interstellar clouds where the next generations of stars form. So we know there's been several generations of stars building upon prior generations. And all that process does is to create heavier elements that enable things like planets to form around star. So in our own galaxy, when stars are still forming, we see them forming with discs of dusty debris and planets forming around them. We know that that's only possible because of previous generations of stars in the galaxy that have created heavier elements. So as as we look at this process of the whole universe, the whole cosmos becoming more hospitable to life over eons of time, and that fascinates me and I'm excited with these new telescopes to get a greater sense of how that process has worked. And that personally feeds my, my faith, my sense of offer, how our universe has been endowed with what we need for for life and eventually the ability to have these kinds of conversations to exist and to think about our purpose and our existence and to contemplate on greater meaning. So that excites me and then much closer to home. I really am excited about observations within our solar system, I like the idea that we, with these new telescopes can also study details about planets and moons in our own solar system. And also that we're sending probes, you know, the the kind of space exploration that got me excited in astronomy in the first place. Where are these probes that humans have constructed and sent out to send back images of other planets and their moons in our solar system, I still think that's the the one of the greatest things humans have done and can do, if we put our heads together and do constructive international cooperations. And so I'm excited about probes that will go to places like Europa in our own solar system, in the coming years, that's an ice covered moon that we know has water ocean underneath, I'd like to know what what that water is like, you know, and there are missions that are already sampling the region around Jupiter, and have probed the environment of Saturn. These are things that excite me. And so I'm looking forward also to probe and telescope studies of our own solar system in the coming years. That's our own backyard. And we can learn a lot about even our own planet, by studying our sister planets in our own solar system. So those are the things I'm most excited about.
 
Zack Jackson 56:29
Do you think we're going to find life on Venus?
 
Jennifer Wiseman 56:33
Venus is harsh. Venus is is hot, and you know, really inhospitable to life as we know it. Now you can say, well, what if there's life, that's not as we know it? But, you know, we've all watched a lot of science fiction. But the trouble is, we have to know how to identify life, what is life? And so we have to start with what we know, which is life, even in the most extreme conditions on planet Earth. And, you know, what, what are they? The conditions, even the most extreme ones that in which life can thrive? There's a whole field called astrobiology right? Now, that's, that's a new field. But it's a very vibrant field where scientists are trying to understand what are the even the extreme conditions in which life can exist in our own planet Earth? And then, how would that translate to environments in space, either in interstellar space or on other planets or other star systems? And then how would we identify it as life? You know, that's really the tough question, especially if you can't go someplace physically, you can only observe remotely, how would you know that? That's that there's life there? That's a hard question in the field of astrobiology is trying to address all those questions. One of the things I like about astronomy right now is it's very interdisciplinary. It's not that you know, astronomy is separate from geology, which is separate from physics, which is separate from chemistry. No, all these things are being used together now, including biology to try to understand environments of other star systems and planets. And you know, how these conditions of stellar radiation and geology and atmospheres and chemistry work together and how that might affect even biology. So everything is very interdisciplinary now. And I just encourage people to get excited about space exploration, even if that's not your professional feel, there's so much you can learn and enjoy, even if it's not your occupation. By paying attention online, what's going on Hubble Space Telescope images are all freely available online, you can go to the website nasa.gov/hubble. And learn about it are also the galleries at Hubble site.org. And see any of these amazing images I've been talking about. The other telescopes that are large and space are on the ground also have magnificent websites with images. So you can learn a lot just by paying attention online. And I hope everybody also encourages young people to go into science fields or to realize that science is relevant to all walks of life, not just if you're thinking about becoming professional involved in space, but if you're thinking about just about anything, science is relevant to what you do. Science is relevant to our food to communications, to our health, to our exploration of oceans, and mountains, even on this planet, so I hope everybody takes a sense of time to just look around the natural world right around you. be appreciative of the wildlife and the trees and the natural world in a pretty Science as a way of studying that natural world but but keep a sense of wonder and awe. That's how I would encourage everyone to walk away from a program like this.
 
Zack Jackson 1:00:11
Well, thank you so much for that. Yeah. And
 
Ian Binns 1:00:13
I'll give a great ending.
 
Zack Jackson 1:00:14
I'll give a plug for we did an episode on on astrobiology back in January that you all should check out if you haven't had a chance to read Adams book. What is it living with tiny aliens? The image of God and the Anthropocene? Right, am I getting that subtitle? Right? He's not here. He's one of our CO hosts. He's not with us today to plug his own book. But thank you so much for the the wonder the all the inspirations hope. There's a lot to get excited about. Yeah, thank you.
 
Jennifer Wiseman 1:00:45
My pleasure. I'm glad you're interested in and I'm sure there'll be many more conversations to come have

Special Omicron Variant Update with Dr Daniel Janies

Episode 95
As much of the US is caught in the grips of yet another wave of COVID-19 infections from the Delta variant, a new, sinister sounding mutation has been making news. The Omicron Variant. What is it? Why is it noteworthy? How is it different from Delta? The answers may surprise you. Frequent guest and expert on the evolution and spread of pathogens, Dr Daniel Janies answers your questions about this new variant as we discuss unknown viral lineages, where this all is going, and what role white tailed deer may have in the future of this pandemic. 
 
Dr Daniel Janies is an American scientist who has made significant contributions in the field of evolutionary biology and on the development of tools for the study of evolution and spread of pathogens. He is The Carol Grotnes Belk Distinguished Professor of Bioinformatics and Genomics at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He is involved with research for the United States Department of Defense, and has advised multiple instances of the government on methods for disease surveillance.
Colby T Ford, Denis Jacob Machado, Daniel A JaniesPredictions of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529) Spike Protein Receptor-Binding Domain Structure and Neutralizing Antibody Interactions
 
Jacob Machado, D., White, R., Kofsky, J., & Janies, D. (2021). Fundamentals of genomic epidemiology, lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and new directions. Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology, 1(1), E60. doi:10.1017/ash.2021.222
 
 
-------------------------
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
 
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
 
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors. 
 
 
Ian Binns 00:06
So, today we are welcoming back up a frequent guest, our resident expert, all things COVID. He is the University North Carolina or is that UNC Charlotte with me, and he's the Carolina greatness, Belk Distinguished Professor of bioinformatics and genomics. And we are really excited to welcome back to the show, Dr. Daniel Janis. So thank you for joining us again, Dan, we're excited to have you as we are continuing to navigate all of this changing world of COVID. Yeah, thanks for having me. You know, we reached out to you right away of just, Hey, there's this new variant out there. And so we wanted to kind of pick your brain a little bit of what is the Omicron variant? I know, there's been other variants that have emerged, some that emerged that there was nothing about it and others like delta, but what is it about this one that raised concerns that you know, who classified it as something special, I can't remember their categorization but something a variant of concern? So what does that was that mean? Can you what can you tell us?
 
Dan Janies 01:06
What's interesting about Omicron is it contains 60 mutations with respect to Wuhan virus that emerged late 2019, in Delta contains 46. And what was interesting about Alpha through delta is that you could see them in in a lineage and, you know, nested set of mutations, building, and each one was, you know, incrementally more efficient than the other. What's different about Omicron is, we don't know where it came from. And it's not really in those lineages. And of those 60 mutations. 37 of them are in the spike protein, which is the protein that the virus uses to interact with human cells. So there's a lot of open questions with respect to those, especially those 37 mutations in the spike protein.
 
Ian Binns 02:04
So like, what, what kinds of questions I mean, what is it that when you saw this and your team and other teams around the world, I mean, what what kinds of things just popped in your head right away of what what you needed to study or questions you want to answer?
 
Dan Janies 02:17
The main thing is like, what did those mutations do to the conformation of the virus with respect to the antibodies that your body produces, after vaccination and or after infection, and in our early computational predictions, we predict that the antibodies produced by vaccination will be much less efficient in their ability to neutralize Omicron. need
 
Ian Binns 02:51
exactly what we want to hear.
 
Dan Janies 02:52
We've already seen this, you know, with with Delta, hence the, you know, the breakthrough in factions. And we, it's so it's, it's, it's more of the same, I mean, we expect more breakthrough infection. We don't know that much about transmissibility yet. What's interesting about Omicron is one of the key mutations that allowed delta to be so much more transmissible in outcompete previous variants is also in our con, but it's in a little bit different. It's in the same position, but a little bit different amino acid change. So the remains to be seen what that means, early data very early data out of South Africa, where this has been going on since mid November shows that Omicron is starting to outcompete Delta, but it's so early that epidemiological data will take some time to know to come in and numbers.
 
Zack Jackson 03:52
Is there any indication yet of how virulent it is? how dangerous it is?
 
Dan Janies 03:59
That the South African doctors are saying it's in the vaccinated, you know, they are seeing breakthrough infections, but they're mild cases, just like, you know, Delta, you know, sort of summer cold, so to speak, and hospitalizations, that data even lags, you know, even more, but hopple hospitalizations are not yet up for the unvaccinated. It couldn't be much more severe. We just, we just don't know.
 
Zack Jackson 04:24
Do you see that as the the eventual trajectory of COVID in general, is it going to go the way of becoming more transmissible but less deadly, so it just kind of settles in our population? Some
 
Dan Janies 04:36
people think that's the case. It's hard to predict how many more variants there are, since this one was not incremental, so to speak on the others in terms of its evolution, there might be a lot more space, you know, available for code to vary in that the problem is is that we have the tools now you know, least in the in the developed world. Anybody who wants to vaccination can, or two or three can get one. And B, we're not accepting it. So that leaves a pocket of people that delta, or Omicron, in this case, can use to infect and replicate itself and produce new variants. So that's a situation we really found ourselves in.
 
Ian Binns 05:20
If I, if I may, I'm just curious. I was something I heard the other day on, on someone else was speaking about this. And so I'm curious. The first SARS that was detected, you know, it spread but not wildly around the world like this. Right. And I know we talked in our original episode, we had you on the distinctions here between SARS cov. One SARS, cov. Two. But one of the things I think that the person said, and I can I can't remember the name right now, but what he said was, is that when a virus is more deadly, what that may be one reason why it doesn't spread so much is because orphan acts very quickly and kills a host quickly that doesn't have the opportunity to spread, like one that is not as deadly. Does that make sense?
 
Dan Janies 06:09
Yeah, yeah. So you're talking about SARS. cov. Oh, some people say SARS cov. One to distinguish it from SARS cov. Two, which we're experiencing now, there was only about 800 cases. And you know, it was much more deadly, but spread less efficiently leaving SARS cov. Two, and that's one of the things one of the Harbinger's of Delta's that it is out competing other viruses, because when it infects you, it's replicating itself so much faster, and it's getting out faster. And it's not causing symptoms as it's getting out of people as people are shedding it. And so people are even walking around more than spreading it more often. It's making so many more copies of it than its predecessors to.
 
Ian Binns 06:55
Okay, and so that's, that's what makes this one, just SARS, cov. Two in general, from the very beginning, there's one of the reasons why it spreads so quickly is because we don't know we have it in that, right. I mean, if we go back to
 
Dan Janies 07:08
ever ever more with very nervous. I mean, that's that was good. And
 
Ian Binns 07:11
now that's even more
 
Dan Janies 07:12
that was how Delta became so successful is was spreading, what SARS cov, two was spreading naysmith eyston, dramatically, Delta ramped it up.
 
Ian Binns 07:24
So another question we have for you, is, you know, if if Omicron does indeed show to be a model, milder variant of the virus, you know, with less risk, someone was curious, or, you know, we reached out to listeners, and what they were curious about is that, if that is the case, does it make sense for it to spread throughout the world largely unchecked, like just, this is kind of the whole some, you know, as you said, that there are is a pocket of the population, especially in the US, and the developed in the the world where we have easy access to vaccines, where people do not want to get it for whatever reason, the vaccination. And so is it someone have said, Oh, we should just let it go unchecked? And so I'm just curious, is there
 
Dan Janies 08:08
Yeah, that was tried in Sweden early on. And conditions are somewhat different there. They have a lot of people who live in their own house by themselves and things like that. But it was a regretted decision, because it was terrible for the for the elderly, you know, you can have most of the population get a cold, but the people that are vulnerable elderly, the immunocompromised people with other underlying conditions, your you're subjecting them to, you know, to a deadly disease in their case. So that was so those of
 
Ian Binns 08:44
us who can get vaccinated, it's good to do that. So that we slow the potential risk to others who are unable to get vaccinated. That's the whole point of vaccines in anyway. Right, is there are those who are unable to get vaccinated for whatever reason you're medically in any kind of vaccine. And so they rely on those of us who can't get vaccinated to do it so that they can.
 
Dan Janies 09:04
Yeah, I think it's an interesting choice in medicine, and that you're not only protecting yourself, but you're protecting those around you. And that, that's probably why No, the arguments hard to swallow for a lot of people.
 
Ian Binns 09:18
Right, right. Yeah.
 
Zack Jackson 09:20
I mean, if, if it came naturally, to care about your neighbor, then every religion in the world wouldn't have to make it their number one rule. It was just, they would just do it. But it turns out, it's really hard to convince people to think about other people's well being. Yeah, so it seems like we are, it seems like we're getting more variants like like we're just, we just work it up through Delta. I know out here, they're they're still talking about this delta wave. We've just hit the highest number in our in our county in the delta wave. And now we're talking about another variant. Is there an accelerating impact in this? And is that going to mean? Are we going to see more more quickly? Or is this going to make it harder to end this waking nightmare?
 
Dan Janies 10:15
We just don't know. And the big surprise of Aamir Khan was, it is so different looking. Most of its mutations are not shared by delta. And so, nor any other Coronavirus such that it really made us wonder several things about where it came from. And it's such a surprise, I can't answer your question. You know, maybe a month ago, I would have said something, you know, about the pace of variance. But this really throws a monkey wrench and all that.
 
Zack Jackson 10:55
Can you can you talk a little bit more about about that. Like how do we get something that is so far out in left field that doesn't that like a long lost cousin that we didn't get? So
 
Dan Janies 11:06
there is somebody SARS cov two, okay, so it's not short on the virus. There are several speculations. And I'll just preface this by saying there's, there's no data for any of these that I've seen, I'd like to see some data, but much like alpha, which was first called the UK variant. The speculation there was that immune compromised person had been affected with SARS cov two, and the infection sustained itself in their body and was not fought against by their body. And therefore SARS cov to cut can vary within the person. I heard the metaphor the other day, that situations like an evolutionary gym, where in which stars go v2 can try out, get stronger and try out new tricks. So and then it emerged from this hypothetical person. And then there was not much speculation after that for for alpha, and we saw the other variants becoming just, you know, incrementally better alpha, beta, gamma, delta. The interesting thing about Omicron is that it is not connected to any of these lineages evolutionarily deep, you know, very deep in the early emergence of SARS, cov do we can tell it SARS, cov, two and there that brought up other speculations that SARS cov to from people went into an animal animal population, use them as this, you know, metaphorical evolutionary gym and then reemerged into people. And this is not far fetched SARS, cov, two in the Netherlands, for example. And then Denmark, infected from humans, firing minx using the fair trade, and came back out into infect people. We know in the American Midwest, the stars, Kobe to somehow in whitetail deer. They're not farm, they're wild. But they're friendly, and then accustomed to people, especially in the American suburbs. So that is, still remains to be seen any connections there any evolutionary connections, and the third, which I think is more of a, you could say it's a third problem, or kind of an overarching problem, which there's some debate in the surveillance community is that we thought we were doing a great job, you know, sequencing the heck out of SARS, cov. Two cases, but maybe we're just not doing a very good job. And this thing was under the radar. It was first identified in Botswana in a aids lab, but then identified in mass in South Africa. But then, once people had the sequence to Qian and the Netherlands, they found a bunch of cases and travelers returning to Northern Europe, from South Africa. But then they went back into their on yet to be sequence samples. And they found they had early November, mid November cases. So as we go back, we might find more about this. And we just wrote a paper should be out soon, where we'll review that. There are many cases in many countries in the world where even though we're doing a tremendous job and sequencing cases, you can do a back of the envelope calculation that shows we're not doing enough to catch every variant. And so I think this latter scenario of just under surveying, it would be just a Herculean task to survey everything, but under surveying is going to produce these things and that could account For the animal reemergence case and can account for the, the immunocompromised case. So under surveying is a, I think a blanket explanation.
 
Zack Jackson 15:10
Yeah, I've heard that that was white tailed deer have it in such large numbers in the places for their testing, it was like 75%, or something I read, and that it doesn't, it doesn't kill them. And so it's like, it's like a little, a little playground for them. And if it comes back, and I when I saw that article pop up, that was the first time in the past few years, I felt legitimately hopeless, was on well, it doesn't matter how much we vaccinate if the white tailed deer population, which is all over my garden is is going to be carriers, then what hope do we have?
 
Ian Binns 15:49
Do you want to address that question, Dan? Or do we just I mean,
 
Zack Jackson 15:54
if there's no hope to be had,
 
Dan Janies 15:58
it's speculation when it was discovered in whitetail deer, and nobody was talking about Omicron. So I don't know if there's a real connection there. There's a there's a danger there always.
 
Ian Binns 16:08
So someone you know, another question that emerged for us was, you know, how does SARS cov to compare to other viruses in terms of how fast it mutates? And I'm sorry, I was looking off. So if this is related to what Zack already asked me, Is there a there's not a set speed or just happen?
 
Dan Janies 16:24
Yeah, it's it's, it's relatively slow. And the odd thing is SARS didn't SARS. cov two didn't really mutate until mid 2020. I thought sequencing would be quite boring. And then one mutation occurred. And people who pointed that out got quite famous. Because that mutation became fixed. And on subsequent SARS cov. Two cases, in then, we started to realize that mutations were building up. And this whole concept of variants really took off late 2020, early 2021. And then we realized, especially in the UK, that the variants were more efficient in their replication, and thus their transmission. And then it got really interesting to start sequencing variants, but it wasn't a fast process by any means us about comparing to influenza, which is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but influenza does not only in its own right, evolve faster, but it's a different genome structure. SARS, cov. Two is just one very long genome. Whereas influenza has eight chromosome like segments to its genome. So those segments, when a person or an animal's co infected with two different lineages, they can reassort it's called, or its kin to shuffling a deck of cards and dealing out different poker hands. So it has not only the mutational avenue to change, but the reassortment Avenue and the we don't see that in SARS, cov. Two now, even though it's theoretically possible could recombine with, but it's not as able to be as it's not segmented, like informed roles.
 
Ian Binns 18:08
So with the mRNA technology that we have, with at least two of the vaccines that are approved in the US, at least, what can be done with those that technology, the mRNA vaccines to be able to handle this variant or future variants, especially ones that could potentially be much worse?
 
Dan Janies 18:28
Yeah. Well, the mRNA vaccines are, they can be just, you know, in essence reprinted and the main makers would like to argue that they can just reprint it and reformulate it and have it ready. I think Maderna said by March. So matter of months, the regulators probably want to some in would be wise to do you know, clinical trials before it's used. So, you know, it's really the vaccine productions, you know, almost immediate, but, you know, I think there's going to be a regulatory period as well, they did start to make reformulations of the mRNA vaccines for alpha and delta. But it turned out the vaccines that they that we had, you know, were already approved, or EUA, at least mergency youth authorization. were effective enough. And so the question is, where do you take on a whole new regulatory pathway versus you have something that's still really good? I mean, we're going to talk about going down in efficiency, I think, and in vaccine efficient efficacy, and for me in terms of Omicron and delta, but they're still wildly good. I mean, a flu vaccine some years is only 30% or 50% effective and, you know, nobody, nobody writes home about that. And so if we go from 96%, effective to 75%, effective for SARS, cov, two vaccines, even those directives against wild type Wuhan virus when applied to Delta, or Omicron, we're still, you know, in the black, so to speak, we're still doing pretty good, you know?
 
Ian Binns 20:09
Right. But they would have to if if something happened, and you know, a variant emerged, and, you know, the current vaccines we have, are not working very well, we need to make something needs to change. Obviously, they would need to go back through that clinical trials process.
 
Dan Janies 20:28
Again, right, just I believe so I believe they should. Yeah. Okay. I mean, there might be regulatory regimes around the world where they don't but
 
Ian Binns 20:35
okay. But it's still significantly faster than what anything we've had prior to these mRNA vaccines, like the process is still faster because of the technology that's available to us now,
 
Zack Jackson 20:46
is that at all possible to anticipate future mutations and create future proofed vaccines?
 
Dan Janies 20:54
Yeah, I've been thinking about that a lot. I think we're doing great as it is, but I think we could look at the number of possibilities for making a stable, you know, Spike protein and calculate those structures. And, and sort of anticipate the function of them, I think the latter part is the foreign part is easy, we can calculate out our structures, the understanding what they mean is a little harder than the understanding what they mean, you know, biochemically is a little harder, and then the understanding what they mean, epidemiologically is even harder. So, you know, we see this 30% reduction of 36 upwards of 36% reduction of efficiency against current antibodies by Omicron. But we don't know what that means yet, you know, in the real world, so. So, I mean, we could we could make computers run really hard, but it'd be hard to hard to translate that to the real world. That's a great idea, though. I think it's something we should strive for.
 
Zack Jackson 21:54
Now. I mean, that seems like it would be easier if the viruses were progressing incrementally, like you said, but with something like Omicron, that pops up out of the blue.
 
Dan Janies 22:04
Yeah, yeah. There are many ways to skin the cat when there might be a very large number of many ways to make an efficient to make an efficient SARS cov. To that, and we have not until Omicron thought that way. Now, we're, you know, when thinking that way for the last two weeks,
 
Zack Jackson 22:20
how do you? How are there multiple ways to skin cats? Isn't it
 
Ian Binns 22:26
wondering where that was? Come? Yeah, pull it off.
 
Dan Janies 22:30
I like the idea here.
 
Zack Jackson 22:34
Kendra's not here to defend cat giant,
 
Dan Janies 22:38
often the metaphor of a landscape is used. And so you have a hilly, imagine a landscape with many hills and the hills are optimal viruses, right. And it's, it's sometimes thought it's hard to go from one hill to another, you can kind of like go up the hill a little bit, you can go alpha, up to delta up the hill. And then when you're on the top, you're kind of stuck in one evolutionary space. But you got Omar Khan on this other hill over here. And so it's hard to imagine being less efficient to get more efficient. But what happens, I think, is that there's a set of contingencies, certain mutations happen that allow others to happen, and therefore evolutionary evolutionarily SARS, cov, two starts climbing a new Hill, so to speak. And there may be many hills of deficiency out there of evolutionary peaks. Okay,
 
Ian Binns 23:30
can we go back to the white that the deer situation? I mean, when we when you learn that emerged, or that it was detected in the deer population? What does that mean? Like for the human population and stuff? I mean, we talked about not really going away. So since it's not, doesn't appear to be deadly to that population. But is it easy for it to jump back to us from them? Or do we know?
 
Dan Janies 23:54
We don't know. And it's largely dismissed. I mean, the whole notion of zoonosis I think, in general is very important. We don't like to think of reverse zoonosis because we're clean and animals are dirty, but we're just another kind of animal, right? So we just see, we sometimes give bacteria and viruses to animals, and they're not being treated, but by and large, right, so the virus can live amongst them and evolve with them. And yeah, this is true influenza fun, fundamentally comes from birds. We know all these coronaviruses are many, you know, many of them, clinically important ones we're familiar with come from bats. And that's the idea of a reservoir that the virus is in the wild and ever so often infects people and then we pay attention to it.
 
Zack Jackson 24:40
That that will always stick with me from our first episode that you said the reason why these seem to come from bats, this goes back to have such great immune systems and nothing kills them. And they fly around viruses bounce around. Yeah, and fly around. What have you been thinking about in terms of this? This virus What's interesting to you?
 
Dan Janies 25:01
I really would like to know where it comes from. I mean, and I really think it's probably under sequencing and how much I'm wondering how much money and effort we're going to spend to deeply survey viruses. I'm not against it, but and we, you know, we can do it. It's just a matter of political Well, yeah, I'm wondering where the political will is gonna take us and a lot of these things, you know, the President's already said, we're not doing lockdowns. I thought that was the state's decision now. But I think this might be Yeah, might be a point where we're going to just decide to live with the pandemic. Unfortunately,
 
Zack Jackson 25:38
it does seem that way. It does seem like I looked at cases the other day was like, wow, this is nearly the highest single day that we've ever had. And it looks like it did three years ago when I walk into Target. Yeah. And see, I was just talking with a member of my church who is forget her official title, I'm sorry, Amanda. But she's a big wig in the emergency department of the local hospital and asked her how things are going. And she said, it's, it's heartbreaking, Nick, they're, they've lost like 60% of their staff, and the outside world is acting as if nothing is happening inside. And so all these health care professionals are like, they're completely burnt out. And they've lost their faith in humanity. And they're just, they're done. And it seems like Alright, so this is the new normal, we're just going to normalize dying. And
 
Dan Janies 26:37
yeah, so we can't, we can't live with very Chris, we, you know, we can't make doctors and nurses very fast. That's a lot of training. And it takes the right kind of person. And so maybe that's the response to this, we're just going to live with it. Because we know, we have to have doctors, nurses, and everybody who makes hospitals wrong. So imagine all the ancillary effects. People are not getting their cancer screens not getting their teeth fixed or not getting their surgeries, if the hospitals full well, healthcare effects are going to be tremendous. We have a study here on campus of the adherence to prep treatment for HIV. And we've seen that gone down in in the COVID period as well.
 
Ian Binns 27:29
I remember when delta started taking off, you know, we used to live in Louisiana, and there was a hospital system down there in Baton Rouge that talked about that the chief medical officer actually said that because the numbers were so out of control there, that they talked about, that we something along the lines of that they were no longer an efficient system or something along those lines. Because their numbers, they were so overwhelmed. That it they were trying to make it clear to people who are unwilling to get vaccinated prior to the emergence of delta, that the even things his car accidents and stuff like that, that they would not be able to be seen, because they were just that overwhelmed. And trying to send the message home to those who were adamantly opposed to vaccinations that the only reason why this is happening because you're not getting vaccinated. Right. And so that's what they were trying to bring home.
 
Dan Janies 28:25
Yeah, pre COVID. There was already a crisis in rural America, small hospitals were closing in, in, in towns that were not being near big cities. Right. So don't, don't get drawn to me don't get hurt in the country, that's for sure.
 
Ian Binns 28:42
Yeah. Which was this I remember when that happened with the when delta emerged, and it really took off, and I was here. And then I just kept looking at, you know, my wife and just kind of saying that this is the US like, you don't think of stuff like that. That's not supposed to happen the United States of America, right. And but as you just said, pretty COVID rural hospitals were shutting down and medical care and stuff. But everyone always talks about, you know, we're the greatest and we have all the best medical care and blah, blah, blah, but then we're turning people away, like doctors, which I'm aware that that's not the case. But you know, it just was it was tough to hear, again, to be reminded of the fact that this is not over.
 
Zack Jackson 29:24
Wealthy people and propagandists say that we have the best health care system in the world. But right. I think most folks would disagree with that. Yeah.
 
Ian Binns 29:34
But it's just an interesting perspective being shared. And to hear again, you know, chief medical officer saying, we don't have the ability to care for you right now. Yeah, it was very eye opening.
 
Zack Jackson 29:46
So if you want to give your give your local healthcare provider, a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa, whatever they celebrate by getting vaccinated. Yeah.
 
Ian Binns 29:59
When I remember Dan You and I were part of a panel. And it's still funny to think of this. I think it was like February of 2020. Near the end of February and as before things really took off. Yeah. So we know lock downs were in place yet and compared to now very few cases were in the US that we knew of at the time. And we kind of talked about in that panel about, you know, and, and people were asking about, you know, if this gets out of control here in the US, what about lockdowns, all that kind of stuff? We just kind of kept talking about the acceptable level of loss. Like, you know, and then I remember you pulled up a slide talking about the number of flu deaths every year. Yeah. That we were having time. And so we just, that was considered an acceptable level of loss by society, not, you know, into an individual person, obviously. But it sounds like that may be where some are trying to go. Like, you see some just saying, I'm done. I'm not, ma'am. This is over for me.
 
Dan Janies 30:56
Yeah, I don't think it by design. And I don't think those that's why I showed those slides. And, you know, I don't think people really consider fluid deadly disease, but it is if you're, if the wrong underlying conditions, you know, so now we've got another one that, you know, before we especially before we had the tools, there is some right side, we do have tools now for we've had, you know, influenza vaccines and antivirals now we're getting to the stage where we have, you know, better vaccines than we did for influenza for, you know, for SARS, cov. Two, and there are some new antivirals. I think that will probably be some bright side and the gloomy picture we've been painting that even unvaccinated people can take a regime of these antivirals and less than their illness. Okay, I'm sorry, infection.
 
Zack Jackson 31:49
Yeah. So thank you so much.
 
Ian Binns 31:53
Yeah. Thanks. Is there anything else you want to share with us? Based on what you guys you and your teams have been studying the past couple weeks? Um,
 
Dan Janies 32:01
yeah, I'll send you the I'll send you the paper. One is we we, we predicted the, you know, even though we surveillance looks Herculean right. Now that it's not, we wrote that. And, you know, we predicted time will tell the clinic, but we predict now that vaccines will be less efficient against Aamir Khan than the previous version. So we'll see.
 
Ian Binns 32:28
Okay. And we can link to that in the show notes. Yeah, be great. All right. Well, thanks, Dan. I appreciate you.
 
Dan Janies 32:35
Thanks. Thanks for talking again.

Mental Health Part 5 (Traumatic Brain Injury)

Episode 93
In part 5 of our mental health miniseries, we're talking about what makes us who we are. If our brain is the center of our personalities and identities, what happens when our brains get broken? Rachael tells us the curious story of Phineas Gage as well as her own experience with traumatic brain injury. Along the way, we will talk about split brains, manipulative microbiomes, and hungry ghosts. 
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
 
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
 
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.
 
 
Zack Jackson  00:05
You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion. This week our hosts are
 
Ian Binns  00:14
Ian Binns Associate Professor of elementary science education at UNC Charlotte, in my favorite brain character is crying from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
 
Zack Jackson  00:27
Zack Jackson UCC pastor in Reading Pennsylvania and my favorite cartoon brain character is the brain from Arthur
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  00:36
Kendra Holt-Moore, assistant professor of religion at Bethany College in Lindsborg Kansas. And my favorite brain is the brain in those comics, I think they're like from PhD comics or something, but it's like a brain and a heart that are always talking. And the hearts like, I'm gonna go catch a butterfly and the brains like no, we need to work.
 
Rachael Jackson  01:06
Rachael Jackson, Rabbi at Agoudas, Israel, congregation Hendersonville, North Carolina, and my favorite cartoon brain, brain from pink in the brain, especially their line. What are we going to do tonight? The same thing we do every night Pinky try to take over the world. I use that when anyone in my family asks, What are we going to do? Because it turns out, they never actually take over the world. And this is for all y'all that watch this TV show in the 1990s kids WV in
 
Zack Jackson  01:44
the late 1900s.
 
Rachael Jackson  01:48
So if you have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure you can find it somewhere. But I haven't looked yet. So pinky in the brain is awesome, because they're going to take over the world. But they never end up taking over the world. Because, well, the laboratory mice. So why are we asking this question? Why did we want to talk about our favorite brain characters. And that's because today I want to start us by talking about our actual brains. As much as we might enjoy the comics are cartoons of brains and the way that we anthropomorphize and frankly, anthropomorphize them, they are just a part of our bodies, like every other part of our bodies, except not at all, like every other part of our bodies, because they can troll the rest of our bodies. And we might have this inclination to think that our brains have, again, like the rest of our bodies, oh, well, if something happens to it, you know, me, you put it in a cast, right, you break out, you break a bone, you set it, you get a scrape, or cut, you sew it up. But what happens when your brain matter gets damaged, it also can bruise, it also can shrink and get cuts, it also has the ability to suffer physical damage. And one of the biggest things that happens when that when the brain itself is damaged, is that our personalities can change. Our emotions can change, which is why I really love what Kendra brought in as her example, that it's the heart and the brain, these comics, that for so long in our American culture, the emotions are kept in the heart. And the rational thought is kept in the brain. But we really know that that's not at all true. The heart has no emotions, the heart pumps blood and receives blood and recycles blood like it's that's all it does. Not that that's an all like
 
Zack Jackson  04:11
if there's any hearts out there, listen kind of sorry.
 
Rachael Jackson  04:15
I apologize if I hurt your feelings heart. But hearts don't have feelings. Right? Our feelings are all in our brains. Our personalities are all in our brains. And we forget that. And I want to bring in one of the most famous medical stories, people that they really started to understand this. So this was 19th century or so mid 19th century, and prior to this point, they had no idea where our personalities really came from and how they were formed. There's a whole lot of well, the shape of your skull dictates How Your personality is? Well, that's weird. Case. In case that needs to be said. I mean, it's almost it's almost as backwards as The Little Mermaid cartoon, right? The show or the movie, excuse me, The Little Mermaid. And the seagull goes up to the prince. And they say, Is he alive? And what does he do? The Seagull puts the ear to the man's foot. Oh, yeah, he's right. It's like, what that's really, that's not how your body works. And we know that and we can laugh at that. Because that's how absurd it is. Well, a couple 100 years ago, they didn't know how our personalities worked at all. So by saying, Well, it's the shape of your head that dictates your personality. Okay? Why not? We have these ideas that maybe again, prior to this, and to this day, maybe it's when you were born, that dictates your personality, right? We all it for a lot of people. It's it's mostly used as a funny thing, and less deeply integrated into who they are like, what's your sign? Right? Well, I'm a Pisces, oh, well, if you're a Pisces, and these planets were rising, that means your personality is xy and z. And for some, there's a lot of truth in that. And for others, it's just a way of connecting and be like, Oh, that's when my birthday is to how fun that we still don't know exactly how our personality works unless you're in that field. So going back to the mid 19th century, there is a person who's named is Phineas Gage Pei, or, excuse me, pah is how you start his name, Phineas Gage. And he is, well, the typical youth of the 19th century blue collar worker. And he's working hard, working hard. And he finally says, I'm going to get a good job. And he gets a good job building the railroad. right way back when when we needed railroads to move us from one side to another part of the country. And so here he is a strapping man because frankly, in order to you know, lay railroad ties and put this stuff in, you have to be physically fit. And people around him, his friends and letters and stuff, his own notes, said, you know, had some fun, kind, reverence, upstanding, you know, still rapidly Strapping Young Lad. And so he gets promoted through the railroad. And now he's the manager, and he's, you know, like 2324 years old, and he's the manager of this railroad. And what they did back then is you don't just lay the railroad ties and, and hammer them in, you actually have to make space for the railroad, right, the ground has to be flat, the ground has to be ready. And if you're going over a mountain pass, or or a molehill or something, like you have to actually make the ground ready. And the way they did that is with explosives. So what they do is they basically dig a hole, and they put some gunpowder or TNT or something like that inside the hole, you know, a couple of meter or so down. And they pack it in. And they use a tamping iron to tap it in, right, basically, and this thing is usually four inches in diameter, and about a meter or three feet long, right? This is this is a big thing. This is not a small, small stick. So as the manager Phineas Gage is tamping this stuff in and because he was so well liked, he's talking his other people. His mouth is open, and it precisely at that moment with his mouth open, it goes off it this explosive explodes, and it's such a forceful explosion. And his mouth is open that the tamping iron goes through his mouth exits his skull and lands several dozen feet away Thank you, Zach. Yes,
 
Ian Binns  09:41
that's yeah, so I'm sorry. I just I know you're talking sorry. You're good. Yeah, that was the part that I kept trying to figure out so it did exit his called they did not have to take it out.
 
09:52
No, no, it exit it like okay, it was
 
Ian Binns  09:56
Did it get stuck in there and then yeah, okay.
 
Rachael Jackson  09:59
No, no which is great. Yeah, but it didn't get stuck in there. Yeah, and so we're gonna, of course, put pictures and Wikipedia pages and medical journals, we're gonna put stuff like that in our show notes. Tangential aside, parenthetical aside, if I can remember to send them to Zach, so hopefully there'll be there. Anyway, so it exits his skull, and pupa. And he's still alive, and he's still breathing. And he's still walking. And people are like, Oh, my God, what do we do? Literally, this guy's head, like, his skull blew off?
 
Zack Jackson  10:40
What do we do?
 
Rachael Jackson  10:42
And so they take him to to his doctor, right? This is your just, it's just your run of the mill PCP. I don't know about you guys. But I don't think my PCP could handle this. So he goes to his PCP and the guy goes, okay, okay. Let's keep him alive. So we keep them alive. And they recognize, well, there is no skull fragment, so they can't capture the bone, they can't put the bone back, and his brain starts to swell. And it bleeds and so that's their number one, that's their number one focus is to stop the bleeding. Right? Because if you just bleed to death, well, there's nothing else to do. So if you're really interested in the medical part of this, again, I'll link I'll link the journal article that talks about it. So on and on, he recovers it takes about six weeks for like for him to recover to the point where he can be awake, right? So this is a long recovery in being awake. Right? It's it's very much a traumatic injury. But it happened in his brain. And he wakes up, and he really starts physically getting better, right? His his blood supply has returned back to normal. He's able to sit and eat and converse. And what people notice is that he's mean, and he's vulgar. And he says irreverent things all the time. And they have no idea what happened. So Phineas Gage, changed. And the doctor noticed this, too. And one of the lines from the doctor's report says, He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at time and the grossest profanity, which was not his previous custom, manifesting but little deference for his fellows. This doesn't sound like the same person. And so they're really trying to figure out what happens. And so Phineas Gage to end his story that is, Phineas Gage lives for another decade, decade and a half. And at one point, he goes to Chile as a long haul, or long distance stagecoach. And the long distance stagecoach, according to their job description required the driver to be reliable, resourceful, and possess great endurance. And above all, they had to have the kind of personality that enabled them to get on well with their passengers. Fascinating, also, not a job Island. No 19th century drive in the hills long distance of Chile. Hmm. So this was a job that he took. And then he started to feel ill and he went back to live with his mom who was at that point living in San Francisco, and he started to have major seizures. And he died before he was about 40. So sort of ends his life. His life story that is, but I bring this bring this stage coach piece, because that doesn't quite match what his doctor wrote that he was irreverent and spewing profanities. And remember, this is at a time in our American puritanical society that was like, oh, no, we can't say profanities. That's only for the bad people. We've changed our culture since then.
 
Zack Jackson  14:23
Yeah. That least Whoa. This is Kellyanne.
 
Ian Binns  14:31
You can bleep that out. Right? Don't Don't take it out, believe it, because I think it's perfect timing. Sounds good. Thank you.
 
Rachael Jackson  14:40
So here we have a person who has changed. And the best understanding at that point was that his brain injury caused him to be a different person. And we now recognize that our medical science that that is completely true. that our personalities reside in the mush that is contained in our skulls. And if something happens to that mush, it's very soft material, if something happens to it, it can affect who we are. And that can be quite disturbing. And like as not even for a person going through it, but can you imagine, I can just say to you, right, I can say to Kendra, Kendra, you don't, you're not who you think you are. And that at any moment, if I cut off a slide of your slice of your brain, you're going to be a different person. And that kind of shakes our foundation of one of the things that we believe in our life to be in to be permanent, right, so much of our life is filled with impermanence, that we think well, at least who I am, unless I willingly change it unless I have the control to change who I am. And that control is part of my personality. Then it then I am who I am. And, and it goes, this is showing that it's not. And that can be disconcerting, especially when there are so very many medical diseases and challenges that affect the brain throughout life. One of the most common ones that we see in our society is dementia. Not just Alzheimer's, but dementia as a whole category of different of different illnesses that affect the brain. And I highly suggest if there's anyone in your family, if there's anyone that you work with, if these are patients that you care for, if you somehow engage with anyone that is in the population of those who have dementia, there's this book called the gems and the gems and dementia, a guidebook for care partners. And what it does is it walks a person through stages of dementia, and rest six stages of dementia. And it helps them recognize helps us recognize what a person might be going through, I'm not going to read you all six of them. But the titles are sapphire, diamond, emerald, Amber, Ruby, and ending with pearl. And what happens is in each of these different places, so let me let me read one of these to you. And this is the diamond, this is the second stage. And it sort of says cognitive characteristics. A person gets rigid, but does the best and does best with established routines and rituals can really do well at times, they can shine. And so it seems planned or on purpose. They can be hurtful or say mean things without seeming to notice or care. They talk and worry a lot about cost money and expenses. Different people will see them differently. Like we do diamonds and different facets, they can't seem to get it at times or won't let it go. Some family members are not sure if it's dementia versus just being mean stubborn, and forgetful. Dementia is really a brain disease. It's something that physically affects the physical mush of the brain. Now, I'm not a neuroscientist, I'm not a neuro surgeon. I'm not, I don't even play one on TV. So I cannot explain what's happening in those. But I trust those that do know what they're talking about. So I'm going to pause here and see if there's questions or reactions to the story and what I've just shared and then I'll move us into a slightly different direction.
 
Ian Binns  19:23
So I've always found that, you know, prior to you sharing the link for that story, Phineas Gage you know, I've read it somewhere else before and was just so fascinated by it for multiple reasons. Obviously, the fact that he survived for so light, right? I mean, it's like, holy, sorry, there we go again. Good things not 1850s Right. So but uh, the other thing too is, you know, how much that accident advanced doctors at the time advanced their own understandings of the brain and led to like the development of different types of medical fields and scientific fields because of that accident. Okay, I just find that so fascinating. And, yeah, again, it's just it's, it's just insane to me that he survived that, and then what they're able to do with it?
 
Rachael Jackson  20:22
No, thank you for that. I mean, and I love that you said that it that they learned from that this story. It happened in the 19th century is still in modern day textbooks and modern day classes. So my dad went to medical school starting in what year was that? 1998. And he learned a Phineas Gage in medical school. Right. I mean, there's, there's a reason that this person is so well known because of how he changed the understanding of what our brains are and what our personalities are. I hope I didn't cut you off there. Yeah.
 
Ian Binns  21:02
No, not at all. It's again, it's just, it's really interesting. You know, that again, he survived what, how at advanced the medical community in the medical field. And then yesterday, when in preparing for today's recording, looking at some of the notes and things like that, that were written by the doctors, you know, that we have those those notes in their description of what was going on in the brain. You know, what they were able to witness of, like, some of these descriptions, or was it of like, you know, parts of brain matter coming out of the top of his head and stuff. I'm sitting there like, oh, my gosh, like Jess, who? That was, I was cringing while Reading it. It just like that just now I see why not doctor? medical doctor. Dr. Binns? That's right, that's right. Yeah,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  22:02
the thing that this story of Phineas Gage, and just the conversation about, like brain injury and personality, it reminds me of something that I learned, I think I learned about this when I was maybe at the end of my master's degree, or like, early PhD student and I went to some conference, but I, it was like, a conversation about the microbiome. And it was one of the first times or maybe the first time that I had heard someone talk about how there are neurons in our stomachs. And so it just is always really interesting, when, like, we talk about, like this topic of, it's really like a question about, you know, Who Who are we and, you know, how much do we are we sort of prone to just like, the impermanence of whatever happens to our bodies changes our experience of the world, but we like, have this idea of self, that, at least in like, a lot of cultures is, you know, in the brain, and for other people, it's maybe more in the heart, but there's also the gut, or like that, that, you know, we talk about, like our gut telling us what to do, or, you know, the, that feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when something is, you know, happening that you are unsure about, like, it's just, it's this other part of our physical experience that, you know, is also an option for how we like identify, like, the core of our self. And that's really interesting. And also just interesting to, like, bring in, I think, the, like medical, there's, I mean, I'm not a biologist, but I love like listening to and talking about the microbiome and that, like, just our relationship to our bodies, is not just a relationship to a body, its relationship to like, these, like millions of teeny tiny little things like micro organisms that help make up our body. And it's, you know, there's a plurality built into ourselves that we're not always like, aware of, but like, what does that mean in terms of selfhood, and personhood and personality and the way that we relate to people and love people and, you know, show respect and all these other like bigger questions about personhood, and they just become more interesting questions when you consider, like, the complexity of like the body itself, whether we're talking about the brain or, you know, those neurons in our guts, our gut brain, it's all just really cool. You know,
 
Zack Jackson  24:57
that's why it's so hard to give up junk food. is when you have eaten a lot of junk food you have selectively bred in microbiome that that thrives off of that junk food. And that mic, those little microbes, then release chemicals into your blood, which tells your brain to get more of that junk food. And so your microbiome wants a certain kind of food, which you have selectively bred by your choices, and then your cravings, that you think this is my favorite food, because I love it. But it's really your favorite food, because all of the microorganisms that live in your belly love it, and you're just its host. And it's, it's telling you, they're telling you what you think that you actually like, but it's really just them.
 
Rachael Jackson  25:42
But you're the ones that did selectively put them there, maybe they're the brains, you have the ability to change, or maybe they were always there. Right. And so maybe some people don't have
 
Zack Jackson  25:52
much of your microbiome, from their mother, during the birthing process, when you are a blank slate, and those microbes can get in there and set up shop. And then yeah, you can you can take swabs of people, and you can tell who their mother is by the specific fingerprint of the microbiome we got. Yeah, it's crazy to think that we are, in many ways, like a mech suit for a whole host of, of microbes, more so than we are an independent person that just so happens to have a bunch of microbes that eat our food. Now, we are a universe in and of ourselves. I like that.
 
Rachael Jackson  26:34
We tend to be so narcissistic into thinking that we are who we are. And we have complete control over this body that we inhabit. When the reality is far more complex than that. Right? Like you were just saying, right? How much control do we have over these things in our gut, especially when they're really imprinted? Like fingerprints, right? When they're imprinted in such a way that we can identify family lineage, right, which you have very little control over who your parents are. In fact, you have zero control over who your parents are. But we but we have this, this deep need to know that. And one of the hard parts is if we have that need for ourselves, do we not also have this need for other people in our lives? When we meet with a person, we go, Oh, I really like this person, we can be friends. And then you become friends. And then that person changes. Are you still friends with them? Does it matter how or why they changed if it was by choice or by happenstance? So I want to share a slightly personal story with us. In I'm actually forgetting what year this was. It must have been 2008. to that. Yeah, I think it was 2008 Is that the election was 2008. And Obama took office in January of oh nine. So this happened Christmas Day. 2008. So I'm 27. I'm 27 years old. And I just go up on a ski hill. I've skied before, but it's not a hobby, right? It's just something like, Oh, I've done it once or twice. I know, you know, I know that. If you want to slow down, you make a wedge. And if you want to speed up, you put your feet together and you know, go side to side. Cute little things like that. I wasn't being ridiculous. I was just staying on the green slopes. I was I was with my best friend at the time, who later became my husband. And I go on my second green run and I'm with his mom, and all the guys are off doing like black diamonds and something like Oh my God, I don't even know how people can do that. And my second run, it's Christmas time, and I fall. And I don't just like oops, hee hee hee. I fell on my tokus wasn't that funny? I'm a little embarrassed. i fall i garage sale, I fall down the mountain and the everything's on the yard, right? That sort of concept of the garage sale, like everything in my pockets. Like everything is off. Now, I knew I was going to do a green. So I didn't wear a helmet. Was that smart? I don't know. Maybe? I don't know. They didn't. This was again 2008. This was up in Colorado. They didn't necessarily offer how much to people that are just having this cute little fun time on a green slope. I don't know what to tell the person you just really have to ask a person that knows how to ski from now on like it's my suggestion that you wear a helmet because why not? You wear a helmet when you ride a bike and you go just As fast on skis as you do a bike, so that's my suggestion. I was not wearing one and I didn't even occur to me that I should have been wearing when one of my skis did not pop off like they are supposed to. And it just like twisted my leg as it was, as I was literally falling down the mountain. And so it stayed on and I had this massively strained and sprained ankle, so I couldn't walk. But as I'm falling, and I, I have this very distinct moment, where here a crack, like an actual crack, and then I, I'm laying there, and it's a beautiful day, so I'm laying in the snow looking at this blue sky, bright light. And, and I run my tongue around my teeth, because I thought the crack was my teeth breaking. And I was really scared that I was like, Oh, my God, teeth are so expensive, kid you not. That's what my thought was. Yeah, I was like, I broke my teeth and teeth are expensive. didn't occur to me, that I broke my brain didn't occur to me that I broke my neck did not occur to me. And then I was stupid. Because I was not thinking, like, I literally wasn't thinking and I was stupid. And I said, Sure, I can go on another run. And I somehow work through the pain of my ankle, went down the mountain, got back up on the chairlift started down again. And then I went, I'm getting dizzy, I think I need to lay down. And I just lay down in the snow. And my eyes were doing this weird thing. And it's like I couldn't see and they were just going so fast. This is a stress story. Imagine living it
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  31:58
gone, don't worry. Yeah, that's what's helping you live.
 
Ian Binns  32:04
So I live
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  32:06
spoiler alert, I
 
Rachael Jackson  32:06
don't die. And then then they call the rescue, right? They call the rescue the ski squad or whatever they're called. Because I still am in the middle of the mountain and I have to get down. And they take me to like a little cab out and they have a heart or something. And they brace my neck and they put me on a stretcher, so they can take me down. And I'm only told this I don't remember this. At this point, I have completely lost the ability of consciousness. I am a conscious, but I don't actually know that I'm conscious at this point. And so these guys are strapping me into the board. And I asked one of them for a kiss. Is everything okay? I was like, Well, you could you could kiss me. Like, okay, oh, glad to know that I said that. I've never been that forward in my life. So interesting that I would have chosen that ailment. Yeah. And then I'm taken down the ski, I'm taken down the ski hill, and they do a quick X ray and they go, Yeah, you're broken, like we can't fix you. And so they have to send me to a large hospital, which is about an hour away. And so they take me to the large hospital. And they see that I've broken part of my CFR and I have a severe concussion and they keep me in the hospital for about a week. And then I go home, and I can't walk because of my leg, my ankle. And I can't turn my head because of my my neck issue. And far more distressing, was I can't think I couldn't think. And one of the exercises that I was told to do that an occupational therapist or I was someone like that I had so many different therapists, physical, occupational and speech. And I can't remember exactly who told me this. But my task was to make a grilled cheese sandwich. Mind you, I am 27 almost 28 years old. I am a chemist. I know I've lived alone like a grilled cheese sandwich. Are you kidding me? Turns out, I couldn't. I couldn't make a grilled cheese sandwich. I didn't know the order to put Oh right. You got to butter the bread. And you have to put the butter side down and you have to get out the right pan and then you put the cheese on and you have to flip it and I didn't know how to make a grilled cheese sandwich. And I sat my pantry and cried. There was one time when I didn't have a walk in pantry. I just had like a large like it was a bifold door that then had three shelves on either side so you could walk I guess it's a walk But like you couldn't turn around, really. And I walked in, and I couldn't find my way out.
 
35:06
I didn't know how to get out of my battery that literally, like, that made no sense.
 
Rachael Jackson  35:13
And I lost the ability to really understand math, I lost the ability to know how to play the piano. I learned Hebrew the year before, couldn't recognize a single letter after this. And to this day, language is still extremely hard for me. Now, people that know me now would have no idea that I had this. People that knew me then would go, Wow, you're really different. I have high I have extremely heightened anxiety that I never had before. Like ever. I was not an anxious person, I was a stubborn, I was shy, I was lots of other things. But I wasn't anxious. And now I have, I have quite a diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder. And so this, this Phineas Gage story really resonates with me. And I think one of the things that we as people who are with others, and this for me is where I bring in the religious piece to so many of us have religious communities, that when we're in them, we may not know why a person has changed. And it's our obligation. And I mean that word intentionally, to care for them. We don't have to be their best friends, we don't have to, to be there those ways. And if someone is abusing you, verbally abusing you, you don't have to stay in that situation. Right? Because people can get very mean, I definitely had a mean streak. While my brain was trying to figure itself out. One of my therapists called it, I had to defrag my brain. And I love that like computers. So I just defrag my brain. And then I got much better and so took about a year before before I became who I am now, but who I am now is different than who I was. So I just want to add that to our to our story. And I'm not a unique case, and I am 100% Lucky. Right? It is a it's a scary situation. And frankly, I still went to rabbinical school after that fact. So I my traumatic brain injury had a had a happy ending. Very much so. But not everyone's does. And so I think if we share our compassion and recognize this idea of myths, LM Elohim that we're all made in the image of God. And I don't believe in a God that is static. I believe in a God that is dynamic. So too, are we dynamic. So questions, reactions, etc.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  38:14
I think my reaction is just a fish. Again, agape facial expression. And glad that you're with us, Rachel, that's crazy, too.
 
Zack Jackson  38:31
It reminds me of the split brain surgeries. Have you heard of these? Yes, yeah, we don't do these anymore. And so there's, there's only a small amount of research done into it. We're basically for a period of time. Some doctors were treating people with recurring seizures that were just really bad. They were treating them by severing through the corpus callosum, which is the connecting point between the two hemispheres of the brain. And it seemed to really work. Now that's, that's significant brain damage, is what that is, but it stopped the seizures and increased the quality of life. And then what they found the some of the people who had this done, started to act very strangely, in that the two halves of their bodies were not acting together anymore. Yeah. And so there were stories of like, a guy would reach into his into his closet to pick something out and his other hand would pick something else out. There was one, one guy where like, one hand was, would like hit him, while the other one had to like restrain it. There was, I think, my favorite case and this is so they're starting to see that the it seemed almost like for some people. There were two different personalities in their brain now that we're at work. Before they were working together, now they were working separately trying to control the body at the same time. But the left hemisphere of the brain is where most of your language centers are localized. And so the right hemisphere of your brain is effectively mute, and is unable to speak, but is able to have different thoughts. And but it can't speak anymore. And so there was one person who they refer to as P S. And they were able to using scrabble tiles, and moving them around with each different hand, and like blocking, putting something in between their eyes so that they can't see what the other hand is doing. And only one eye can see one and one can see the other real, confusing, convoluted thing. They asked this person who are you, and both hands spelled out, Paul. And then they asked him, What is your desired occupation and the left hand, which, which would be controlled by the right part of the brain, the more artistic impulsive side or whatever, spelled out racecar driver. And the other hand, which was controlled by the more rational one spelled out draughtsmen, which is a much more down to earth sort of occupation, right. And it was like, there were two different ambitions, two different brains, there was one that was more rational and down to earth, and there was one that was more impulsive and excited, and their ability to communicate with each other was severed, but in some ways, it gave the right brain some more freedom to interact, because now it wasn't, it could communicate now, without being overpowered by the left side of the brain. And, again, we don't do this anymore. So we only have this like, select number of patients. But it seems like maybe we are not the unified to being that we imagine ourselves to be. That even within our own brain, there is a multitude of consciousnesses that are in concert that are that are, you know, creating a sort of Mosaic personality. But that are not the same. And I think about, about in, like Rome, in Romans, the book of Romans, Paul says, I always I seem to always do what I don't want to do, and the things that I want to do, for some reason I can't do. And I am always at war with myself. And I think we can all kind of relate to this feeling of like, I have these higher ideals. And for some reason, I cannot do them. And I always seem to revert down to this other thing that I don't want to do. And like how would that conversation about our personality, our spirituality, our higher ideals or morality change, if we imagined ourselves not as, like one person being, you know, impacted from without, as much as it is multiple persons, within ourselves a multitude of people who are working in concert together to make what we feel is the best decision for our collective selves. If we start to see ourselves as a universe instead of as an individual, like, what, what kind of a difference would that make for how much grace we're willing to give ourselves or complexity we're willing to offer to others?
 
Rachael Jackson  43:28
That's beautiful. I just finished Reading. So I'm sort of listening to what you're saying there, Zach. I just finished Reading a book called When Breath Becomes Air Are any of you familiar with Yes? So it's Paul calling our colony the colony Yeah, certainly colony, the colony, k a la a nit Hi, When Breath Becomes Air. It is a hard read. It came out just about six years ago, January of 16. A by an autobiography of a neuro surgeon who develops metastatic lung cancer, I'm not spoiling anything. He tells you that in the first chapter one of his lines that has stuck with me the whole book is like if you if you highlight in your books, and you're like oh, I just want to highlight really powerful and important passages your highlighting this whole book was he was doing a brain surgery on a person that's awake, right and that's necessary so that you know what's happening. Is that amazing that we have all these surgeries, right? We have all of these surgeries are like put me deep asleep. And these ones, they want to make sure you're awake, because they're going into your brain and they'll change and one time he's telling the story where he He's doing something, he puts some sort of thin electrode in. And the person says, I'm sad. I'm so sad. And then Paul takes it out politics electrode out, and the person goes, Oh, that's better. And so he does it again, because this is right around the area of a tumor or something like he needs to be in this area for reason. He wasn't just being like, Hey, what's this do to be in this area,
 
Ian Binns  45:28
we should be interested. Right, just like poking it with a stick, and
 
Rachael Jackson  45:33
he goes, and then the patient again goes, everything is just so sad. And then he pulls back a millimeter, a millimeter, I sick. I'm no longer sad, right? That's how fragile and that's, that's where we give people so much grace, a millimeter, right? Tiny little percentage, no room for air. So if you get jostled, perhaps that millimeter got shaken up. And that's why you're really sad today. And the world feels like it's really sad today. That we have this ability to give people grace. And I think that's one of the best things that we can give them, compassion or humbleness, right, that we can not even understand where they're coming from, but just understand that, that they're going through something, whatever it might be, and then we can be there for them. I don't have a I don't have a nice little bow.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  46:38
That story that that book though is like, it is amazing. I around the room Reading it crying by myself. Basically,
 
Rachael Jackson  46:50
I just bought it. Yeah, if you need a cry, like almost as a cry if you need to think about death. And think about what is your purpose in life? What is the value of living and what is not to be scared about death? I'm it's just, it's an incredible book. Absolutely incredible. And then his wife wrote sort of an afterword a couple of chapters to sort of sum up like from her perspective and to finish it because he wasn't able to finish it because he died. Again, not a spoiler.
 
Ian Binns  47:23
Yeah. Well, like the book cover said that like when I was boiling Okay.
 
Rachael Jackson  47:35
Unlike my story, he doesn't he does not live.
 
Zack Jackson  47:40
We are remarkably fragile creatures.
 
Rachael Jackson  47:43
remark. Yep. So we've talked a lot about life and where that can take us and the fragility of it. So I think that that's wonderful and a good a good place to pause our conversation and if anyone has stories that they want to share with us, please feel free to do so. But I think we are at the moment where we can have our down the wormhole minute and today or this week is Kendra
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  48:20
so I haven't decided what I want the theme music to be for the segment yet, but I might workshop a couple ideas. Right now. I want it to be something like Welcome to the segment on residents of hell. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, like some electric guitar.
 
Zack Jackson  48:44
It will be so much better if instead of electric guitar you just did it with your mouth
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  48:57
yeah, that's, that's kind of where I am right now. But I also want to figure out a way to blend the drone earner and earner of electric guitar with like, needy, needy like ukulele sounds. I just think those things together can really express you know, the sentiment of hell. So Well, we'll see. Yeah, so welcome to the first segment of residence, pal. I just wanted to do that again. And so today, the first Resident of hell that we're going to talk about are the hungry ghosts. And if you've never heard of the hungry ghosts, hungry ghosts, come out of the Buddhist tradition, and are particularly popular in Chinese Buddhism and are present in a few other East Asian countries where Buddhism is popular, but I think Chinese Buddhism is kind Have the main Buddhist tradition that people kind of associate with hungry ghosts and to kind of paint a picture of what a hungry ghost looks like. Because they have a very distinct presentation, they are these beings with large distended bellies, that they're always hungry. Hence, you know, it's kind of implied in the name. But they have distended bellies that are, you know, always ravenous with hunger, but they have, like long, very skinny, skinny throats. And whenever hungry, goes, try to eat food, the food, basically like turns to fire in their mouths and in their throat. So it's very painful, to try to eat food to, you know, satisfy the hunger in their large, empty stomachs. And their throats are also so skinny and small that like they can't really eat that much. And so it's they, the Hungry Ghosts, like the image of a hungry ghost is kind of like this embodiment of desire and greed. And there are a lot of different ways that you might become a hungry ghost. So that's the other thing to kind of point out is that hungry ghosts is like a possible reincarnation for, for a human, depending on your karma. So in Buddhism, there's another image that I can try to kind of paint for you, that's the Buddhist wheel of life. And there are upper realms that are more the heavenly realms, and there are lower realms, more the hellish realms, there is a distinct hell realm. And hungry ghosts actually have their own realm and they're on the visual of the Buddhist wheel of life, hungry ghosts are adjacent to the hell realm. So they're one of the lower realms and like, you don't want to be reincarnated into the Hungry Ghost Realm. But you might be reincarnated as a hungry ghost if you lived a life that was just full of greed and desire and over attachment to worldly things. Because, you know, if you're unfamiliar with Buddhism, then it's worth mentioning that in Buddhism, attachment is like a big no, no, like, you want to try to live a life in which you are not attached to, to worldly things, and you recognize that everything changes and it is marked by impermanence. And when you become attached to anything that leads to suffering. And so you're trying to kind of alleviate suffering by these practices of non attachment. So hungry ghosts are kind of a like if you become a hungry ghost, then you didn't do a very good job of being unattached. And every year during the ghost Festival, which happens in the seventh month of the lunar calendar this year, it happened like mid August, people the the lower realm the hellish realms kind of open up and hungry ghosts can roam, roam the earth here with humans and people are able to feed the hungry ghosts during the ghost festival to kind of alleviate their suffering. And so people will burn money and food like paper money and paper, food and paper kind of like luxury items to you know, appease the suffering of these beings as they wander the earth on a during the time of the ghost festival. So that is the Hungry Ghost
 
53:59
when I'm just hungry
 
Zack Jackson  54:05
I can relate. Hungry Hungry Ghosts
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  54:08
are done or not. You have just listened to the first residents of hill. Thanks for joining me didi.

Mental Health Part 4 (Schizophrenia)

Episode 93
In part 4 of our mental health miniseries, we talk about psychosis in general and schizophrenia in particular. Why does Hollywood continually misrepresent schizophrenia, and what does it actually mean to experience a psychotic break? Is it always a bad thing to hear voices or see visions? Did many of our hallowed religious heroes live with schizophrenia? If so, does that change how we should think about their words? Let's talk about it! 
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.
 
 
Zack Jackson  00:00
Hey there, Zack here. Just a heads up. In this episode we're going to be talking about psychosis, schizophrenia, hallucinations, and how we've encountered them in the media, in our religious traditions and in our own lives. As Kendra says in this episode, being a human is weird and complicated, and I want to acknowledge upfront that even though we are trying our best to be sensitive to all experiences of humanity, we will likely fall short. So if you'd like to head over to the down the wormhole conversations Facebook group, we'd love to hear about how you have experienced schizophrenia psychotic breaks hallucinations, or have interacted with those who have. Are there people in our scriptures who can help us to see these disorders in a new light? Let's talk about it. Well, let's talk about it in about an hour or so. You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion. This week our hosts are Zack Jackson UCC pastor in Redding, Pennsylvania, and if my life were a movie, I would hire Paul rent to play me.
 
Ian Binns  01:08
Ian Binns Associate Professor of elementary science education at UNC Charlotte. And if anyone could play me, I'd probably pick Ed Helms,
 
Rachael Jackson  01:18
Rachael Jackson, Rabbi at Agoudas, Israel congregation Hendersonville, North Carolina and if I have someone play me in a movie, I'm gonna ask Sir Patrick Stewart, because he's just the best.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  01:33
Kendra Holt-Moore, assistant professor of religion at Bethany college and Lindsborg Kansas, and if I had to get someone to play me in a movie, it would be Kathryn Hahn. I'm trying to remember who that is. She plays Jen Barkley in parks and rec She most recently what I saw her she's a witch Agatha. Oh, yeah, Vision Agassi's it was
 
Zack Jackson  02:01
also a young a young Laura Dern. I think what would be great as Kendra
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  02:07
Oh, yeah, people have said that to me, too. Yes. Young, large earner like Lauren's daughter something.
 
Adam Pryor  02:14
Prior, I work at Bethany College in Lindsborg Kansas. If someone were to play me in a movie. I think it would be Statler of Statler and Waldorf.
 
Zack Jackson  02:25
Having a muppet play You bet.
 
Rachael Jackson  02:29
That's perfect. Actually.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  02:36
Oh, sorry. I don't really know who the specific Muppets are. I know who the Muppets are, but I don't know
 
Adam Pryor  02:43
that there is one
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  02:46
who heckles besides like Miss Peggy? Yeah, no.
 
Adam Pryor  02:49
Guys who hackles
 
Zack Jackson  02:51
Statler and Waldorf. Yeah,
 
Ian Binns  02:53
yeah, I can see that. I could definitely see that. Yeah, that's totally you, Adam.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  03:00
Yeah, so today, we're continuing in our series on mental health and we are talking about psychosis today. Pardon? So, we're talking about psychosis, but we're actually talking like more specifically about schizophrenia. And, and so, psychosis, like more generally speaking, is there a lot of different ways for someone to experience a psychotic break, have a an episode of psychosis, and that can look a lot of different ways. But it it like the main, the primary characteristic of psychosis is like a major break from reality. And so it is, you know, understandably, very disturbing, and very destabilizing of the individual who experiences psychosis and psychosis. Different disorders of psychosis are are often like, not very well miss. Not very well understood. And, and so that makes them both kind of, like frustrating and also intriguing to clinicians and like to the popular imagination, there's just like something about, you know, psychotic disorders that are, you know, the way that they get represented in, in film, and in TV. They are usually portrayed to be, you know, a little a little scary, like, not scary from the inside of like the person who has experienced a psychotic break because obviously, that's frightening, but also frightening to people on the outside watching what's happening. because it's hard to understand or like, connect with someone who has a break from reality and in how do you how do you care for a person or include a person who is just seemingly in like a totally different dimension of time and space in a lot of ways, then then what you are experiencing in your more like grounded reality. So that's generally like, what psychosis is. But to talk more specifically about schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is, again, like we, we understand more about it, like we're learning more and more. But it's, there's still a lot that we don't know. For example, we don't, we don't really understand, like, what causes schizophrenia. And we can make some observations about schizophrenia. Such as, like, if you have someone in your family with schizophrenia, like if you have a parent who has schizophrenia, you have a higher risk for developing it. But that's not necessarily indicative of it. Like it's not, it's not a fact that you will have schizophrenia at some point in time. And we, we know, you know, we've observed that schizophrenia tends to happen, roughly equally, between women and men. We, you know, we know that like, kind of stereotypes of schizophrenics are that they're dangerous and violent. But, you know, we have observed that that's actually not true. Short, like, anyone can can be violent or aggressive. But that is not, that's not a general or fair characteristic of schizophrenic people. And schizophrenia, there's also different types. So like, I guess I should, you know, maybe say, like, what exactly this is, because, you know, we have, again, I think people probably have associations of, of what it is from, like media representations, but it's a brain disorder, again, not entirely sure, like what's going on in the brain, but a brain disorder that can create a lot of really disturbing symptoms, such as hallucinations, which can be visual hallucinations, or auditory, like sound hallucinations. And it can make people delusional. And so you know, believing in something very adamantly, that is just not true. So, you know, some delusions might might look something like, like, someone who's delusional might think that they are like a savior of some kind, and they have to, like, save the world. And they might think that, like, the FBI is sending the messages that are about information that only they would know, because they are destined to, like, save the universe. Like, really, you know, some of these delusions can be very grand, delusional thinking. And other symptoms could be like trouble just thinking concentrating or communicating. There are a lot of, you know, especially people who work with schizophrenics, in a clinical capacity will tell stories about, you know, speaking to someone who's schizophrenic who has symptoms that disturb communication, they might just like string a bunch of words together, but those words don't actually make any sense whatsoever. Like, there's not a comprehensible sentence there. But something is happening in in the in the brain, like the communication pathways where whatever that person may or may not want to say, it just doesn't come out. And likewise, someone who's schizophrenic, who is listening to another person talk, they may hear different words than the words that are actually coming out of that person's mouth. And so that's another again, just like disturbance, that is a break with reality that they don't have control over and is it's it just makes it very difficult to navigate, like what should otherwise be pretty mundane, normal experiences for people. Other Other symptoms are just like a General, General flat effect, or, you know, a lack of expression, a sluggishness that just, you know, is is pretty severe. And so there are like, there, as you can see, there's like this constellation of symptoms that can appear. And, you know, usually people will have like more than one of these symptoms. But the ones that are especially disturbing are typically the ones that are the hallucination or delusional thinking type of symptoms, and hallucinations, you know, whether they're visual or auditory. Those are hard, obviously, because it's, it's, it's difficult to distinguish what is real and what is not real. And so those are, especially, you know, a lot of researchers are intrigued, by the way that people who are schizophrenic sort of interpret their hallucinations. And it's just kind of this really distinct, like qualitatively different kind of symptom then the like, flat effect, which is still troubling and disturbing in its own way. But so there's just something to note there about like, these, this constellation of symptoms that schizophrenics Can, can experience collectively, like, why this is disturbing. Like, it's clear why that's disturbing the break from reality. But what we're talking about mostly today are hallucinations. And, and, you know, maybe some delusions too, but especially auditory hallucinations in the sound of hearing voices. And so to say something just about, like hearing voices, that can, that can happen in a couple of ways. So, for example, you may hear a voice, maybe one person is saying something, but in like your schizophrenic mindset, you may hear that voice sounds like it's coming from multiple people, like there's kind of a lesion of something talking at you, but maybe you're having a conversation with one person. I mentioned already that, you know, another example is hearing words that are not actually coming out of the person's mouth, and they're saying something totally different. Another, another way of hearing voices is just noises in the environment that kind of morph into what sound like voices. And so that can lead to a lot of experiences of whispering and, you know, kind of chatter in the distance that can't quite make out what the voices are. But it sounds like voices. And so I there's, you know, an example of like a car sort of washing by down the street in the sound of the car wishing by that kind of like car wash transforms into a what sounds like a voice. So voices, wherever, whatever stimuli in the environment, or like in that person's head, that's creating the voice. You know, it may or may not be clear, like, there are ways that schizophrenic people learn to manage those symptoms. And, you know, I think my understanding is that some people can identify like, certain things as being real or not real, but sometimes it's hard, especially, I would imagine, if you were like just discovering that you are schizophrenic. It, there's no, there's no complete cure for schizophrenia, you can manage symptoms with anti psychotic medication, but it's, it's, it's disturbing. So this is, this is this kind of brain disorder is, again, it, there's something that's just, it's so severe, and it's transformation of a person's everyday experience that a lot of researchers and people have this interest in this the intersection between something like schizophrenia, and a person's, like, experiences of religion and spirituality. And that's not always relevant for like particular people. But, but it is something that comes up and there is there are a lot of, you know, social scientists, especially like psychologist anthropologists, and, you know, other other clinicians who are like asking these kinds of questions about like, what, what this intersection could be, and, and to say, Oh, one more thing, also that, like schizophrenia sometimes is mistaken for like multiple personality disorder, which is also known, I think, maybe more accurate accurately now as dissociative dissociative identity disorder. So, you know, those They're also like, their own kind of like disturbing, you know, experience of the world break from reality. But that's their distinct from schizophrenia, what we're talking about. So what is the intersection between something like schizophrenia, psychosis with religious or spiritual experiences? So, there? For one, there's a lot of people who asked this really interesting question about the history of shamanism, and people in in various cultures. Just just just code, like what we would call diseases or disorders, it's important to realize that, you know, that the the way that people experience not just schizophrenia, but a number of different conditions, there, there's a cultural element in the way we like code, others and our own experiences with these disorders and diseases and schizophrenia is no different. So, in in, in Western countries, like in the United States, in particular, it is a lot more common for people to experience schizophrenia in themselves as like madness, their people are much more willing and immediate in their response to say, like, this is bad, these voices that I'm hearing, if they have auditory hallucinations, they are disturbing me, they are frightening me, they are torturing me. And there's a generally speaking, a negative experience with auditory hallucinations. And, and people also typically, you know, just the, the way that we talk about something like schizophrenia, people are more likely to use the term schizophrenia as like a category like a word that describes this collection of symptoms that we see as disordered. And they're, you know, the solution is antis, psychotic medications are like being put in a mental mental institution, and, you know, various other clinical ways of managing something like schizophrenia. And so, people in the US, when, when researchers have like interviewed people, with schizophrenia, there's this language around it, that's much there's just much more negative experiences with voices. And, and, and what people find in other countries and other like cultural settings, is, it's not that people don't ever talk about schizophrenia, or that they don't ever feel afraid of their hallucinations. But, um, there's something pretty distinct about the contexts of other other cultures from the US context in which there's more flexibility in how other cultures sort of manage something like schizophrenia. And so there's an example of a group of researchers who kind of compared three different groups of schizophrenics in, in the US, in India and in Ghana. And what they found was, the US kind of fit that characteristic of people describing a negative relationship with their hallucinations. But when they looked at the, the samples in Ghana, and in India, they found that people were much more likely to describe the voices they were hearing as providing guidance. And sometimes people would say, you know, some like in India, there were a couple of people who had hallucinations of like, a particular Hindu God, or, you know, maybe have like a family member or like a famous person they'd read about in a magazine, like different manifestations of visual and auditory hallucinations, that they instead of, you know, it may be more frightening at first, but over time, they started to almost rely on them, like these voices actually helped me understand and remind me what I should do to be a good person. And in other instances, you know, they're, like, in the, in the India in Ghana samples in particular, people might feel like a kinship with those voices, that maybe there's like family members appearing in those hallucinations that are, again giving guidance and providing a sense of I mean, I don't know if like comfort is the right word here, but there was less fear and Like revulsion at those voices, and there was a place kind of created in the mind of these people. And so, you know, they, they realize that what they're experiencing was unusual compared to others, but there was still a coating of those experiences as something that was either instructive or, or supernatural. Definitely a relationship between voices, and supernatural deities or, or demons, that's not uncommon. And you know, that, again, it's not that people in the US, like, would never code their experiences as supernatural or demonic are from God in some way. But this was, the seemed to be a little more acceptable and common in, in the samples from India and Ghana. And, and so this is just an interesting, like, comparison, and I think is relevant to this broader question that other researchers are looking into, like, is shamanism is there a connection between shamanism and something like psychotic conditions like schizophrenia, where you learn how to manage voices and, and symptoms that you're experiencing that are different from everyone else, and instead of being in a mental institution, you are now sort of elevated into a, into this particular role in a society where you can still interact and function in a community by sharing what you have that no one else has. And it's a way there's, you know, it's a, it's, it's a way of thinking about something like schizophrenia, that's, that kind of normalizes it, or like, maybe not normalizes it, but it provides a place. So that's a person doesn't need to necessarily be like, isolated or feel like they are like, totally insane. And it's just really different and interesting that this is like, this is the interesting link between something like schizophrenia, these like psychotic disorders, and, you know, religious or spiritual interpretations of those disorders to be sort of functional for a community. And so that's, that's the, that's what I, you know, just when, when introduced here, so, like, how does that how does that land for any of any of y'all, and what do you? What other thoughts do you have? Like, what do you have any experience? Do you know, anyone with schizophrenia? Like, what do you what do you think?
 
Rachael Jackson  22:58
Yeah, so thank you for
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  23:00
sorry, no,
 
Rachael Jackson  23:03
you're good. You're good. Oh, good. Thank you for giving us this perspective. And I really like the interdisciplinary overview. I obviously am in the culture of America. So those that I know that have schizophrenia have definitely experienced it in that aggressive and fear based place. And it was lovely to read about these places in India, I was really fond of the one from India, where they were saying that this is really, I interpreted it as protective, and guiding, very almost nurturing and parental, which is very different than people that I that I know, with schizophrenia here, that it's very fear based. And it's, it's daunting, it's not just the break from reality, that's scary, which I think would be across cultures. But it's the how they're experiencing the the auditory. I'm not gonna say just voices, but the auditory sounds right. Well, that's redundant. What they are experiencing from sound is scary. And we don't we tend to our society tends to, to shun that to shun the differences. Our society tends to think that if you if you have this break, you're broken. And that was something that that has really stuck with me and trying to figure out how to encourage people to to acknowledge that they're not broken, um, has been something that we as a as a society and culture can fix, I think, even if the disease itself you know, we can't
 
Zack Jackson  25:01
So, my my first experience with this, even with schizophrenia at all, came from the movie, beautiful mind about the mathematician John Nash, played by Russell Crowe, who has a roommate that he lives with that assumes that everyone knows this roommate for years until he discovers that this is not a real person. And he's in his mind, and there's this whole world, and then they discovers he's got all these conspiracy theories. And it's, it becomes this sort of thriller. And that is how I imagined schizophrenia to be that there are people out there who just imagine that there are people with them at all times, and how terrifying that was. And they kind of, there was a, I think there's a scene in there where he does hurt someone. And it's kind of like, this guy is a danger. But I more, just lived for years terrified that this was actually happening to me. And that the people that I knew, like, I would be like, is this person real? Or am I imagining them? Am I having a psychotic break? Or is this person real? Can you see this person, and it made me really paranoid. And now that I'm, I'm a bit older, and I realized that that's not actually how it works. And that's just how it works in Hollywood. And that it's more like, a lot of these voices are internal. And people kind of understand that. I, I've seen it everywhere. In in my religious world, we tend to attract people who hear voices. And I get that all the time. Now. It's like, I heard a voice from God saying this. And it's usually something about how this person is uniquely qualified to save something or do something really important or dramatic. And then that is left up to me to decide if that is the voice of God or the voice of a psychosis or both, or neither. And I feel woefully unqualified to do that. And for the most part,
 
Rachael Jackson  27:14
I would second I would second that you are woefully unqualified.
 
Zack Jackson  27:19
Thanks, Rachel.
 
Rachael Jackson  27:20
You're welcome. You're welcome. I think I think clergy are often the first people to to recognize that there could be something amiss, and that's our job. And then to pass it along to the people that can go Oh, no, you're just having a faith experience? Or, oh, wow, you're really having a psychotic break. Right? And that we're the first persons to acknowledge that, yes, you can hear these voices. And sometimes it's a natural faith thing. And sometimes it's a natural brain disorder thing. But just just just just reaffirming that you are willfully unqualified as am I, as our most clergy. Sorry. No offense. Yeah.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  28:05
I think that's a good point, though, about an in Yeah, it makes sense that clergy are in many cases, like the the first people to encounter people in which it's hard to tell what's happening, because there's some there's the shared language of people who are experiencing hallucinations, whether they're like, specifically schizophrenic or, or something else, saying, like, God said this to me, and how to distinguish that from other people who, you know, it might be unclear if they have something going on in terms of a brain disorder, but that's also just like common parlance to talk about, like, Faith experiences, or, you know, like, there's, there's a whole book actually one of the researchers who have participated in interviews with schizophrenic people. She also wrote a book about evangelical faith and the language of like, talking to God. And so that, you know, just like the recognition that there's shared language there, and you know, typically, I think it's, it's straightforward to tell when, like, what the difference is, but not always. And I think that Rachel and Decker, you know, right, that it's clergy who have to kind of make that first call sometimes.
 
Zack Jackson  29:35
Well, so here's an example. There's an elder at the church, who one day showed up to a worship service, stark naked, and ran around the parking lot, yelling about how this church had become corrupt, and how the pastor was in in league with the devil and was and with that Elder board was siphoning money. And we used to run around every day, every Sunday morning, when people showed up would show up naked streak through the parking lot and yell about how this church was going to hell did it for three years. Okay, so that didn't actually happen. But it happened in Isaiah chapter 20. And when Isaiah does it in Isaiah chapter 20, it's like wow, with this prophetic image, that God told him to remove thy sackcloth, and thy shoes and to even expose the buttocks for under three years to shame the Egyptians, as he went through the towns, prophesying to the people. And that sounds holy and righteous. But if somebody did that now, we'd be like, This man has a psychotic break, and he needs to be hospitalized. And should we have hospitalized? Isaiah? Yes. Yeah.
 
Rachael Jackson  30:58
Yes, no, I am. I'm being totally serious. I mean, I think that the hospitalization of people that have mental disorders or challenges, we need to fix that system. But the concept that Isaiah probably had some sort of mental illness, absolutely, I think our the Hebrew Bible at least I can't really speak to the Christian bible as thoroughly, really examples of the human conditions. And Isaiah is one of those that examples, schizophrenia. I just like when we talked about depression, and we can see it and anxiety like, I believe that the Hebrew Bible absolutely gives us reference to most of the brain diseases that we are uncomfortable with to this day. So yes, I think he should have been, but somehow positively. So then,
 
Zack Jackson  31:57
is Isaiah hearing the voice of God, or the voice of Isaiah? And if by hospitalizing him and treating his condition? Are we then stopping prophecy?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  32:13
asking those tough questions,
 
Zack Jackson  32:15
that's what we're here for.
 
Rachael Jackson  32:16
Right? I think it's who's listening? Right? I think that if a person like Isaiah, minus the modesty issues, because let's remember that they had a very different understanding of being closed or not closed than we do in our semi Puritan American culture. You know, barring that piece, if someone's listening, and it makes sense, then yeah, that that person can still be a prophet. And whether or not that is the voice of God that Isaiah is hearing, in actuality, or the presumption of Isaiah that it is the voice of God, who Isaiah is speaking to his hearing as a as a prophet. And they're the ones that are listening or not listening. And I think we can absolutely have people that are prophetic nowadays. And it's really the difference of, you know, where is it God? Or is it an understanding of God? And does that even matter? So, yeah, I, I think, yes. It's that we have gone deaf, to people that are trying to show us show us things about our society that we don't want to.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  33:31
I was gonna echo something similar that you said, Rachel was like, the question of a god or as an internal voice, that, yeah, like, does that matter? For one, the person who is hearing the voice, but also does that matter for people who are listening to the person, and for some people, that will matter, and for some people that won't. And so I think, with like, the authority of the or the origin of the voice, may affect the like, interpretation of the importance of what is being said. And that just kind of, kind of depends what's happening. I think, as to whether it's, you know, whether one, it depends on the context, in the content of what is being said as to whether I, for example, would think that person needs to be institutionalized. Or, you know, if I would maybe be likely to call them something like a prophet or a guide of in like a cultural moment. I think they're, it's just like the kinds of voices people hear or claim to hear are so varied. think there are absolutely some voices that I do not want to listen to and that I do not want you to have to listen to You know? So it's like, are you telling me to like, go jump off a bridge? Or are you telling me that like, society is corrupt? Because those are both examples of things that people can hear when they're hearing voices and claiming that it's coming from God or, you know, the devil or whatever. But, you know, it's, it has the interpretation of what to do with that information is contingent upon the community, cultural norms, a bunch of things. And so it makes it very tricky to kind of, I think, generalized about like, how to respond to those voices from the outside. And also like recognizing, I watched a, an interview one time with a person who's schizophrenic, and the interviewer was asking her questions, and started asking her questions about, like, the hallucinations, and she had visual hallucinations. And so the interviewer started to say, like, do you see the hallucinations right now? And where are they in the room? And she said, I'm actually not going to answer those questions, because I don't like to tell people where the hallucinations are in the room. Because when real people start interacting with my hallucinations, it makes it difficult for me to tell what is real and not real. Found. And so I thought that was really, really interesting to just like from, from that, like, another perspective of how to deal with what is happening.
 
Ian Binns  36:42
Yeah, so, you know, to echo what Zack said, the beginning, one of my first experiences with schizophrenia was the movie, A Beautiful Mind. And, you know, I'd loved that movie. And I, as we were kindred, as you're talking, I'd looked it up and was, I did not realize that when the movie came out that it was actually celebrated by some in the mental health community that had a somewhat accurate portrayal of schizophrenia, not that they didn't take liberties, but that it actually did somewhat of a decent job. But I also remember when that movie came out, it was a time when I was struggling with medication for my depression. And when I saw that movie, and saw that the, you know, John Nash, according to the movie, was able to overcome some of his, you know, issues with schizophrenia, by sheer will, that I remember thinking to myself, Well, if that's possible, why couldn't I and so I remember actually having those conversations with my counselor at the time, and she was saying that, even though the movie did a somewhat decent job, that there was a lot of pushback on that part of the film. And that's what the thing I read too, was that that's not accurate at all. Like it, that's not how it works. And so, so that was one thing. But the other thing too, when we're talking about voices, it just kept making me think about, like, who is it that determines that whatever voice someone's listening to is, right or wrong, right? Like, do you know what I mean? Like, how is it that that's determined that okay, this, this person clearly has a mental health disease, they need to be hospitalized versus not? So because if you know, there are a lot of people who say that I, that they speak to God. Right, but they're not coming back. Right, but then also to if they say that they believe this, that God is speaking to them. Is that an example of schizophrenia or not?
 
Rachael Jackson  38:50
So, if I may jump in here. I'm one of the I'm going to give a quick anecdote. There's a person that I knew that was taking a psychological test. And part of the psychological test was on a on a form, like on an actual piece of paper, this was before before computers, so on an actual piece of paper. And this person was smart enough to fool the test, and gave all of the answers to indicate that this person had a psychotic schizophrenia. And then the people that were evaluating this test, looked at it and went, Well, it's true. You showed us this, your paper is pristine. There were no erasers there were no, it didn't get torn up. The paper itself was perfectly fine. So this person was able to trick the system. But the challenge is it's not just a checkbox. So when we're talking about people that have hallucinations visual or auditory? I see things I can imagine something or someone sitting right here in my office, I can see them in my mind's eye right here. Right, I can vision. Am I hallucinating that am I hearing that one of the things that I think is challenging that we forget, his people that have not had this break in reality is in conversation with a person that is either currently going through or has had or is off medication, or whatever the situation might be. The flow of conversation is not the way that we understand it. So when I read Isaiah, or I read some of these other people that go, Hmm, there's something amiss here, they're still understandable of people that I have interacted with which at this point, you know, given that I'm a small town clergy, you know, I were numbering a couple of dozen people that I've I've interacted with that have this particular diagnosis, you cannot follow their thoughts. It is a thought here a thought there it is all over the board. And they think that they are making perfect sense. And that's the break, where there's a major disconnect, not just in the delusions of grandeur, like I, one of the articles that will link in, in today's show notes, has this idea of John hood, I believe his last name was who's who's talking about this, and then he thinks that he's a shaman. And he then he thinks that he's going to that he's married to two African princesses, and he's going to go live with them. And it's one sentence to another sentence. And the listener has no ability to follow these trains of thought. And we forget that. So A Beautiful Mind doesn't necessarily example that the other movie the soloist about I think his name was Nathaniel Ayers, a white ers, that has a little bit better understanding of the challenges of from the the person who is who's has this illness, about them what they really go through. So I just want to add that, but yes, we hear God and if someone says, oh, you know, God talked to me, but God made perfect sense to the listener. And they're saying, here's what God told me to do. And how was, you know, have a great day. And I hope you have, and it's cohesive. I think these are clues. So
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  42:43
I just want to follow up on what Rachel said also, that just real quick that, like hallucinations, it that like having a hallucination is not an automatic indicator that like you're schizophrenic, that some of the other like conditions in which you might have hallucinations, or things like Parkinson's disease, which I didn't realize, like hallucinations were part of that until recently, brain tumors, you know, sometimes like Alzheimer's, like there are different, like epilepsy stuff, stuff, stuff happens in the brain. And so there's other other like, you know, we talked in the beginning about the constellation of symptoms. And so that's just like, something to keep in mind too.
 
Adam Pryor  43:26
But I was gonna say, it seems like that idea of an integrated epistemic frame is really important, right? So like, if the pieces are integrated into a singular or cohesive worldview, then you have one sort of set of things. It's this moment where they no longer can be held together, but they have to be attended to simultaneously that that's this, like this break that occurs. So I can talk to God, but if it but if it integrates with the way in which that I experienced the world, you know, totally good.
 
Zack Jackson  44:16
So then religion offers that sort of scaffolding for these sorts of experiences, then on break pretty regularly. I'm thinking of like Joan of Arc, if she were in a different sort of situation. Would her her visions her voices have said different things if she were in South India instead of in France? Or is God speaking directly to Joan of Arc? And we are trying to diagnose the work of the Holy Spirit and trying to medicate away modern day prophecy and the presence of a living and terrifying and powerful God.
 
Adam Pryor  44:59
Like that Academy at all.
 
Zack Jackson  45:01
I know you don't you don't love dichotomies at all.
 
Adam Pryor  45:07
It feels like if I asked this feels like a full trichotomy,
 
Zack Jackson  45:10
this is. So this is the the tension that goes on inside of my head. Because I was, in my developmental years, I was told that, that a lot of these anti psychotic medications are there to suppress actual experiences with the supernatural, because there are some people in the world who are more sensitive to the presence of the supernatural, both good and evil. And the anti psychotics then suppress those natural abilities. Think like the first half of Captain Marvel, right? That that kind of limiting factor because we can't handle the spiritual world and the modern, modern world, because we have to be able to explain it, and domesticate it, and understand it in order to, for it to exist. And so that I still have that in there. And and now I think I'm thinking more about like, positive mental health, and how would you like to live? And we're understanding more about how the brain works. And we don't quite understand how this works. And I want to just have space open for that as a possibility. But I don't quite know what to do with it.
 
Adam Pryor  46:30
Don't don't want that space open. Oh, but
 
Zack Jackson  46:33
Adam, so many of our religious traditions are based on Revelation are based on divine revelations, in stories and in histories that have been passed down to us. If those divine revelations happened today, we would label them as psychotic breaks. I mean, if you just started talking to a bush, don't you think that we would say you're having a psychotic break?
 
Adam Pryor  46:57
No, they'd say, I'm walking around campus, but
 
Ian Binns  46:59
like, fight moment
 
Adam Pryor  47:03
point out, right. It's not actually the scientific side of this that bothers me. Right? It's actually the theological side where I want to go that bad theology, it is a bad understanding of the supernatural.
 
Zack Jackson  47:16
Okay, hit me with it.
 
Ian Binns  47:18
So yeah, you got to unravel that one.
 
Adam Pryor  47:20
I would argue that all revelation is contextual, insofar as it is a mode of communication. So it is, of course, going to change depending on where and when and how that revelation occurs, because the supernatural isn't something separate from the natural, as if it is in other realm that has its own structure of things from which it originates. It is something layered over the natural, you know, what super natural actually means on top of the natural. So it's just a deficient theological understanding as far as I'm concerned.
 
Zack Jackson  48:00
So there's,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  48:02
it's I think that like Adams talking about a naturalist interpretation of Revelation, and Zach is talking about a supernatural right, but in
 
Adam Pryor  48:10
his supernatural, this version is bad. It's a bad understanding of supernatural.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  48:15
Oh, I mean, I, I'm with Adam here, but just to like, describe what the different.
 
Zack Jackson  48:22
So there's two different types of revelation that we often talk about natural revelation, special revelation, natural revelation being the things that you can deduce on your own from the laws of the universe, in your experience of being a human on this planet. special revelation are those times that God speaks to a person and tells them a specific thing, right? Like, go set my set my people free, like that's, that's a special revelation. Jesus coming and and saying, Hey, God told me this thing. And I want you to know it. That's special revelation. And I'm talking about the special revelation, not the natural. Yeah, I'm still
 
Adam Pryor  49:03
on board. But special education is still contextually located. Absolutely, period. So it's gonna change no matter where it is that it's spoken to. It's only if you treat special revelation as though the supernatural othering world from which it comes, is so overwhelming, that it completely mutes the expectation of the receptive hearer, in such a way that that context no longer matters, that it creates a break with the actual place in which it is received and I want to go, that's not communication anymore. That's not even revelation anymore. Right, insofar as revealing is supposed to be a form of communicating. So, to my mind, like there's no sort of like articulation from a theological tradition that can defend that notion of special revelation on its own terms.
 
Zack Jackson  49:59
So, Paul, On his donkey horse, I don't remember his going to go do some some good old fashioned persecuting, and gets a blinding light falls off his horse, or donkey or whatever it was, and sees a vision of Jesus standing before him that says,
 
Adam Pryor  50:16
Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? That's what Paul told us. Right? But actually, that's his failure that all he saw was a blinding light. There's no God, and he's not actually an apostle. So shouldn't we just throw stuff out? I mean,
 
Zack Jackson  50:32
should we ever go in there today, Adam? I'm just talking about Paul, in Paul's words, Paul, in Paul's words,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  50:39
great episode, I'm so glad that you had
 
Zack Jackson  50:41
a vision, he had a light, he saw light, he fell off his his quadruped head and hit his head. And then he couldn't see for a while until he was healed by this guy, this fella. And then he could see again, and he had this special revelation that feels a lot like he had a seizure. It fits a lot of the categories of that. And so when you explain it like that, like naturally, then you might just say, Wow, he had this break, he had this, this seizure, he maybe had some epileptic stroke. And he then attributed it to, I must have been doing something wrong when it happened, because God was punishing me. And then after the fact, put in his theology, and that's what's happening.
 
Adam Pryor  51:30
Kinder, you raising your hand?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  51:33
Yes. I just wanted to jump in and say, Zack, you you've said a couple times, like, what I think like referring to the, what Adam called the dichotomy here between like, is a revelation or psychotic break. I don't think that calling like, I don't think that rejecting revelation leads immediately to describing something like the examples that you're giving as psychotic breaks, I think, like another way of, of naming that without going straight to like, psychotic mental disorder, would be to say, like, I think the way I would describe that, coming from, like, a more like social science II type framework would, would be to say, there's selective attention. Like, whenever you experience different kinds of, like auditory visual stimuli, especially in cases where there's like a religious or spiritual experience going on, there's selective attention happening where people, you know, the selective attention you give to light to sound to images, it affects the way that you code and remember those experiences, which sometimes are things like, you know, prophetic visions, or, like, whatever it is, it's not. And I think that this is, like, I think this is getting at some of like, what your concern is, is that it like, and I understand the concern also being about like reductionism, I think of, of like, spiritual and religious experiences. But I think that selective attention to our just daily experiences is just something that everyone does. But especially in, you know, these cases where it's like, extraordinary circumstances or experiences of certain kinds of stimuli. Our like, we each have selective attention that is informed by cultural, you know, biases and cognitive biases, you know, the way that we understand kinship, family, friends, spirits, minds, all of those, you know, cultural pieces affect the way that we attend to our experiences and, and that's not necessarily good or bad. It's just a fact of like being human and so that that's like a third option I want to throw in there as like, maybe revelation, maybe psychotic break, maybe selective attention, and all of those things, all three of those options can have meaning. And so I think, yeah, like, meaning is not mutually exclusive to any of these. Yeah,
 
Zack Jackson  54:35
yeah. In the, in the fear of reductionism, I think is where the, my soul wants to push back. Because if I am going to accept that an angel appeared to marry and told her something very specific, but then immediately dismiss that an angel showed up to John Smith in my congregation because of all he says a lot of training things that I need to second either second guess how I'm treating him today? Or how I am Reading my own religious tradition? And I think I need to be honest with that. I can't have it both ways.
 
Adam Pryor  55:13
Yeah, this this is where I think reductionism becomes a boogeyman, though. Like, it doesn't have to do the things that in some theological and religious circles people say it will do.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  55:27
I mean, that's what I'm, I'm on board with that I like, reductionism is is the name of the Boogeyman. But the boogeyman is not really looking man
 
Adam Pryor  55:38
is just a nation sack.
 
Zack Jackson  55:40
Oh, man, you academics trying to trying to dismantle the argument instead of instead of coming straight at it?
 
Ian Binns  55:52
I'm just enjoying listening. So no, I really wish I had popcorn in this conversation.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  55:59
No, but like reductionism. It is, I think, the primary concern that people have when when we talk about this, like religion and science intersection, and people who don't, who aren't coming at these conversations out of an academic context, like, like, it makes sense to me why that's a concern. But I like Adam, I I don't think that that. I think that the fear that people have about reductionism, my experience of that was only like an initial fear. And then, like, over time, a realization for me that, like, I just, I still Yes, I've like changed over time, in some significant ways. But I still think that there's a lot of meaning in experiences. And just because we like understand the way that the brain works, or, you know, like, the way the body works, I don't think that that means we can't also have this like layer of experience in human life, that is profound. And not just meaningful, but also really profound and spiritual. And, you know, all the other ways that we talk about those kinds of experiences. It's just also true that it probably like the way that I interpret that situation, that experience is going to be different than, you know, the way someone else interprets it in their own framework. But I'm comfortable with that. And I realized that that just inherently will make some people uncomfortable, the difference in our like, understanding of, I guess, like the ontological nature of those experiences. So yeah, I don't know.
 
Zack Jackson  57:50
Yeah, I think there's a, I'm there with you. I'm there with you, intellectually, I either I don't disagree with anything, I'll say that. I think my where I'm coming from as a kind of practical place in which I am on the regular in contact with people who have visions, and who have experiences and who are asking me to help interpret the Word of God that has come to them in a vision or in a moment of rapture, or in this data, the other. And I think, Paul says that we should discern every spirit that comes. And, you know, it's not so easy to tell if this is the spirit of light or of darkness. But that every vision, whether it comes from while you're Reading some textbook, or having some ecstatic moment of otherness, and experience, that all of those visions need to be tested against what your community holds as true, and what is good for human flourishing. And so I'm, I feel the fear of people, when, when I suggest I'm having this experience, actually right now, not like in this moment, I'm not having an experience. I'm, I'm with somebody now, who is having some a lot of these kinds of experiences. And she is extremely frustrated at every other pastor that she's talked to, because they all say, Wow, it sounds like you're having some mental distress. Have you seen a therapist? Are you on your medication, instead of meeting her in that space in that common parlance of like, Yeah, okay. I might personally think that she is having a psychotic break, but I need to communicate with her in this realm of of the spirits, as both as a common language so that we can actually get somewhere productive and also as a way of kind of intellectual honesty that I don't entirely understand the workings of the supernatural and the natural and ease I don't understand how magnets work. So I don't I don't know, maybe you are experiencing something that I'm I don't know. So I try to stay intellectually, spiritually humble in those situations. I mean, I do understand intellectually how magnets work, but I don't know how they work. Kendra, do you have any final thoughts first, as we wrap up?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  1:00:26
Well, I just wanted to say in the sharing of intellectual honesty, I, I just I want to say that, like, my academic explanation of like, someone saying, God told them to do whatever it is, like I can talk about, like, selective attention and all of that. But if I'm talking about like, oh, energy healing, yeah, that I sure, um, oh, no selective attention. That's just that's just real. I like it. That's not to say that. Like, it's a different category of experience. Of course, like, you know, that. I don't even know that some people would feel comfortable, like comparing those two things. But just to say that it's not. People are complicated and have different kinds of experiences that they understand in different ways. And it's not that people who I don't I don't think it's fair to say that people who, who use academic jargon and and do maybe, like lean on, like reductionistic ways of thinking, which I actually I do not group, me and Adam into that category. Maybe y'all group us into that category. But I think that those people always have something that they don't talk about that's like personal and that is, it is like the bottom level foundation of like, their what, what is real for them? And it's just also like a SEP, like a separation issue of like, the academic and the personal when you're in like different settings. And I imagine that feels really different when you're like a clergy person. So yeah, people are weird, you know, people are weird. That's my final word.
 
Rachael Jackson  1:02:17
People are weird. People are weird. That's today's title. Oh, but Adam, Adam has
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  1:02:23
a big,
 
Zack Jackson  1:02:24
yeah, tagline
 
Adam Pryor  1:02:26
got a bit. I'm super excited about it, share it with,
 
Zack Jackson  1:02:29
you have a jingle.
 
Adam Pryor  1:02:30
We're working on that. So until then, I've decided to title my bit under the apple tree. In deference to the apocryphal phrase from one of the persons of my tradition, Martin Luther, who was said to have said, Even if I knew that tomorrow, the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. I mean, in all likelihood, he didn't actually say this, the earliest you can trace it back as about 1944. It's by a phrase from the Confessing Church, trying to ensure that it continued to do things in resistance to Nazi dictatorship. But you know, it feels better when it comes from the person who's ostensibly the founder of your tradition. And this gets interpreted a lot of ways. But generally, what you know, the sentiment was, was that even if things look like they're going to go terribly, if the world might end, you move one step at a time, so I thought, what better way to end podcasts than to rehearse the ways the world might end? So for today,
 
Ian Binns  1:03:32
tapping into your superpower.
 
Adam Pryor  1:03:38
I decided, well, it's one let's be clear, there are a whole lot of people writing about the ways this would occur. So I had a lot to choose from, but I decided I would go with supervolcanoes today. And the idea is that, you know, because we don't actually live on a nice, stable planet. In fact, we live on, like, rafts of rock floating over molten lava all of the time. At various points in the history of the planet. Those ruptures occur such that molten rock flows all over the surface of the planet, and four of the largest last 11 extinction events are all tied to when volcanoes erupt at the same time. Usually, it eliminates somewhere between 95 and 98% of species on the planet. Wow, on average, that happens every you know, 17 to 30,000 years, and it's been over 36,000 years since the last one. So we're overdue. overdue. So that should be occurring anytime now. And essentially what will happen is there will be so much carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere that it'll create a runaway greenhouse effect. And you can expect that all Plants will die, including plankton in the waters. And that spells real trouble for the rest of us. So, if you see volcanoes going off in chain sequences around the world, plant your apple tree,
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  1:05:19
don't bother running.
 
Zack Jackson  1:05:21
Don't bother planting an apple tree
 
Adam Pryor  1:05:22
know, the apple tree anyway, it's gonna die. It doesn't matter. You keep doing the thing, plant the apple tree,
 
Zack Jackson  1:05:30
throw the starfish back in the water. That's right,
 
Adam Pryor  1:05:33
it won't make a difference.
 
Ian Binns  1:05:37
So just carry on the way you're, you're going back.
 
Zack Jackson  1:05:40
Who cares about recycling your wind? Where are the super volcanoes?
 
Adam Pryor  1:05:43
So this is the interesting thing. They're actually like chained together, right? You can find these various volcanoes at major junction points between tectonic plates. There are 19 tectonic tectonic plates that we sort of move around on. So they shift a little bit, right. But we're familiar with these areas like so like the ring of fire in the Pacific, Pacific chains of islands. And if you want like an example of like where this has occurred, and history, India, like the entire subcontinent of Asia is just one large lava flow in terms of how it was produced, so that's the scale and size of which we're talking. All of these volcanoes erupting simultaneously. But yes, Yellowstone is a potential one. Although people don't think that that's actually there's some debated scientific evidence over whether or not it would be overdue for erupting so date. Yeah,
 
Rachael Jackson  1:06:42
I don't like when Adam goes.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore  1:06:47
The earth is weird. People are weird. Everything is
 
Zack Jackson  1:06:52
awesome. And at the end of the day, the horseshoe crab and the Nautilus will keep going.
 
Adam Pryor  1:06:58
I'm just saying like, I feel like Kendra and I can really lean into the jingle bit here. It's gonna be gonna be good.
 
Rachael Jackson  1:07:06
Yeah. Stay tuned for that.
 
Ian Binns  1:07:10
Yeah.

Mental Health Part 3 (Autism Spectrum Disorder)

Episode 92
When is non-neurotypical behavior something to be 'cured', and when is it something to be celebrated? Is ASD a problem to be solved, or is society itself simply too inflexible to respond to that which does not easily conform? Have our religious institutions provided outlets for neurodiversity or are they a part of the problem? Let's talk about it! 
 
Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast
More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/
produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis 
 
Transcript 
This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.
 
Adam Pryor 00:05
My name is Adam Pryor, I work at Bethany college. My favorite Halloween decoration is a giant, hairy spider that my wife got pretty early on when we were married. And it's motion censored so that when someone walks up to the door it goes. But oh, no, it's gonna do that. And it also shakes and it terrifies small children. Because it's like the size of the small child
 
Ian Binns 00:47
and is in the bay?
 
Adam Pryor 00:50
Yeah. Yeah, we we usually put it in a big web. And then it makes the whole web vibrate too. And it's made toddlers cry at our door, which I think is the goal of Halloween.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 01:07
So, Kendra Holt-Moore, assistant professor of religion at Bethany college and Lindsborg Kansas, and my favorite Halloween decoration is probably anything skeleton, but especially those skeletons to like sit in the rocking chairs on the front porch and just kind of like look out over the street watching people walk by they may or may not have motion sensors in them, but they still have life in them.
 
Ian Binns 01:38
Ian Binns social professor of elementary science education at UNC Charlotte. My favorite Halloween decoration and we don't really decorate in our house, but I love walking through the neighborhood and just just seeing which house goes the most crazy, right? And how impressive it is almost like you know from home improvement that show when they would always go bonkers. It's like the TV shows always do the best Halloween things I love to see of houses come up with something like that. So it just varies every year on what my favorite would be. Which is not really answering the question. But as I said, I'm a little tired today, Punchy.
 
Adam Pryor 02:22
And I couldn't break the rule of
 
Ian Binns 02:25
Alright, right, Adam? So. Okay, so to segue into,
 
Adam Pryor 02:30
there's no, there's no good segue. So as we've been like, as we've been talking about religion, mental health and issues of mental wellness. And, in particular, sort of focusing on different aspects of that the area that I was most interested in, when we started talking about taking this up were areas of mental health, mental wellness, where we, we really look at ways in which the world gets sees seen differently. And so the one that comes to mind for me, always sort of right out of the gate is thinking about the autism Asperger's spectrum. And a big part of that was in the summers, my wife wisely requires me to read some things that are not theology, especially when I was doing my PhD because I was a little mana maniacal. And so occasionally, she would go to the library and just bring something back and be like, just read this and stop for a while.
 
Ian Binns 03:45
And she still does that, right? Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Because
 
Adam Pryor 03:51
there's yeah, there's a there's a rule of how many workbooks I am allowed to take on vacation. Good. Um,
 
Ian Binns 04:00
yeah, Kendra, listen. Yeah, it
 
Adam Pryor 04:03
continues to get smaller and more irritating. But that's a difference. So So anyway, this this, this one year we were we were there. And she was like, You should read this book. I just finished it looks really, really good. And it was The Curious Incident of the Dog and the nighttime by Mark Haddon, which has now become a play as well, but I kind of encountered encountered it as the book. And the idea is that it's it's a mystery novel about the death of a dog, unsurprisingly. But the the central narrator is Christopher, who is a 15 year old boy. And Christopher, you learn as the book goes on, is sort of dealing with a nonspecific version of Asperger's. There's autism spectrum. And the author is just deeply clever about the ways of revealing these different experiences of the world that he has. Right. So the like, I remember sitting and being both, like irritated and sort of in awe of when the chapters suddenly skipped. So there was 123. And then it went to five, and there was no four. And I was like, bamboozled. And I kept flipping through the book and trying to figure out what's going on. And all of the chapters are prime numbers. Right. So there's the little, little details, right, that are intentionally put into the book to sort of create this, this sort of effect. What struck me about this as that may be a little different than some of the other disorders we've spoken about, but in some ways that are resonant as well. Autism Asperger's spectrum has a, I would argue, a generally more positive place in public discourse. Then some other mental health issues that we've that we've discussed. But also, there's this sort of interesting overlap with how it is that we raise up or minimize the voices of folks who have these experiences. Part of what struck me the very first time I was Reading this book, as being so important was that it did two things that I think are really impactful and important for thinking about in terms of religion, and mental health. One was that it humanized. The experience of living with Asperger's autism, in a way that as you were Reading the book, the book wasn't about someone with Asperger's, it was about Christopher Wright. And I thought that was really important and effective to remember, right. The second piece that I thought was really, really, really interesting out of that, was that it I found it at least sort of strangely affecting my teaching. And the ways in which I thought about engaging other students in the classroom. And this is the part that I don't, you know, that totally worked out. But one of the pieces that I thought was really interesting, and that is really important for me, as I started thinking about religion and mental health is that we, we make intentional choices about how, how to lift up, or how to cast to the side, non normative experiences. And religion, science, and I would argue, higher education, have a lot of roles in the ways we choose to or don't choose to do that. And so I found this book really meaningful, amusing to me, because it forced me to look at the ways in which I was treating non neurotypical students in ways that treated them as a disease vector in the classroom, not a human being. So, what's attracted me to sort of like thinking about autism, why I wanted to sort of pick this particular topic is that I think there have been so many really interesting accountings of trying to help people understand what experiencing the world, from this perspective is, like, in a way, this may be a little different than other mental health pieces, right? So like, yeah, I read The Curious Incident of the Dog of the night, but there are things like the good doctor, there have been blogs from Autism Speaks, that really, really work on helping people understand the variety of ways that this this experience occurs. And also, which I think is interesting, whether or not it should be cured. And what that even means is really really difficult when you talk about this topic. So I'm a little sad that that can rage on here cuz I wanted to like really poke at like, boy, but that's different in a religious community setting than it is where I am. But I'm curious. Just to sort of like start with like, what has been your experiences with Working with folks who would, quote unquote, be non neurotypical?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 10:09
Yeah, I could say, just, you know, what I was thinking of when you were talking are not necessarily the people that I know personally who were not neurotypical, but like people I know, people I know who I'm close to who are close to people with autism. And listening to the way that they have spoken about autism, like in my presence over the last, I don't know, five or so years, and how that has just been really interesting and eye opening. For me, and some of the ways that you're talking about Adam, of just like, you know, asking these bigger questions about what autistic people, like how autistic people see the world and how that, like there are aspects of that, like way of being in the world that it doesn't quite make sense for us to, like, pathologize, in the ways that we have, and, and so, you know, I don't, I don't know that I am aware of anyone that I'm close to who has autism. But yeah, it's just, it has been really enlightening, I guess, to hear people talk about the ways in which autistic people have like, sometimes a very hyper logical way of seeing the world and how that could, you know, be like, useful in different like problem solving settings that is just like a different kind of, like mental proclivity that like not everyone has even, even if you're just talking about like neurotypical people. And so, you know, they're, like, the neuro diversity of people. There are there, there are other like forms of neurodiversity that we just have decided, she's like, not categorize for whatever reason. And so, autism is something that we've like noticed as a pattern and have categorized it as autism. But if you think about what it means to be neurotypical, and this, like much broader sense, and like what neurodiversity is, in this broader sense, then it just makes sense. Like, it's just intuitive to, to think that like, Okay, we talked about people being like, right brained or left brained, and it would be probably odd for a lot of us to be like, Oh, the right brained people are, you know, they have a disease or something. And we, you know, it's like not, not to diminish the, like, difficult aspects of someone living with autism, because there's, like, you know, definitely, it's just true that, like, the system's not really built to accommodate them. And so that leads to a lot of problems for them, and in the classroom, and at work and in relationships. And so there's definitely, like, that's definitely there. But it's just interesting to think about how, like, maybe, maybe we could have systems in education and at work that actually did accommodate neurodiversity. You know, autism being an example of that. And, you know, maybe we could have systems that accommodate these people, and how would that how would that make the world different? How would that how would that change, like our social structures if we were including people who see the world really differently as people that were like in charge or had power in various ways to, to make us who we are? And and so that, I just think is like an endlessly fascinating question, especially listening to people. You know, try to like answer that question when they are living in like very close proximity to people who are very neurotic, neuro diverse and in different ways.
 
Adam Pryor 14:36
No, so, what I was like what I was thinking about, Kendra, it's, it's that question of pathologizing. That I think is really, really interesting, right? And how we choose to how we choose to pathologize and what the consequence of pathologizing various mental health orders or disorders is is I think, really, really interesting. And, at least so far as we've been talking about this, right, when we've talked about depression, when we talked about anxiety, the way in which those get pathologized feels a little different than something like autism Asperger's spectrum.
 
Ian Binns 15:18
Can you unpack that? What makes it feel different?
 
Adam Pryor 15:22
So well, and that's like part of what I can't, I can't quite put my finger on it. Because but he like each week, we've been talking about it, I'm going like this is there. There's something here that's not quite the same, right? So like, there's an element with like, Ian, when both you and Zack have talked about anxiety and depression, right? There's a social stigma that this is inherently unacceptable, right? And there's sort of this element of like, I'll put it crassly like, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and you'll be fine. Get over it, get over it, right. Whereas with like autism, Asperger's spectrum disorder, there's a little bit less of the like, get over it. Element. Right. But also, right, there's this like, very clear element that like, people would be comfortable with me talking about someone with Asperger autism spectrum as non neurotypical. And I don't know if somebody would be comfortable with me saying like, Oh, you suffer from depression, you're not neurotypical. Right? Like, there's even this like disjuncture, in the language of how it gets pathologized. That I think is really is really fascinating. And makes me wonder, are the the ways that we talk about those, the ways that we talked about the impact of religion and science on that intersection with these mental health issues? Does that just look really different? In terms of how to how to move forward?
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 16:59
Yeah, I think that's a really interesting question. And I like do you think out on that, because I also have that sense of, like, there's something different here. But as you're asking the question, I'm wondering, like, is it in part wrapped up with the fact that things like depression and anxiety, they're more centralized in like, the emotional aspect of a person's being, whereas something like autism or, you know, various other conditions are more, I'm not sure how to say it, but like, mental is not quite the right word. But like, they're, they're more integrated into, like, every aspect of a person's being. And it's not necessarily just about like, an emotional like, disorder, disordered experience. But it's like the way that you think the way that you feel the way that you take social cues the way that you you know, like, other behaviors that are not necessarily emotional, you know, at their core, but things like depression and anxiety, I see those as much more emotional in nature. And and I think this like, piece of how, like religious, I mean, not even just like religious people and traditions would maybe talk about them is that it maybe feels more acceptable to be like, Oh, someone with depression and anxiety like this is, this is not actually like a part of who you are, we, we, you know, can like help you, we can pray for you, we can, you know, get you counseling, do all these things to help restore you to like your person, whereas, I think not that people wouldn't also say that about other things like autism or other other conditions, but I think the approach in general would, would feel a little different. It's like, oh, this is who you are. So let's just accept you and love you and try to find a way to integrate you into our community in a way that is like loving and compassionate is like the kind of language difference that I would anticipate.
 
Ian Binns 19:23
Well, I also wonder to the idea that when we think about anxiety and depression, it at least the the thought is from from some people is that like, so for me, where I want to talk about me, I have not had to deal with anxiety my entire life. It has not always been part of my life. Right? I still also deal with depression and that has not been part of my my entire existence. Whereas someone who either his, you know, either has Asperger's or autism that, you know, the and you know, to my special friends out there may want to beat me up later, I'm sorry for lack of a better understanding of the language to use and everything but you know, that it's almost like, well, it's something you're born with, or that's just part of who you are from the very beginning or, or something along those lines. Right. And so that there's a distinction there that people may view it as I'm not saying that's accurate. But I'm just wondering if that's part of the thing of as you as we were talking about, you know, toughen up when it comes to anxiety or depression is the mentality that some have, whereas with Asperger's, or autism or something like that, it's, you don't approach it that way. Right? Because it's part of your identity of who you are.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 20:51
Yeah, that was those basically what I was saying it, but I also want to add that, like, I, I think that there, it would be, this is something I think that Zach, especially would have something to say. But I think people who have like, severe chronic depression, and have like, had it since their early life would maybe resist the idea that like that's not inherently like part of who they are. That's, that's not the way that I tend to think about it or have, like, tended to talk about it. But I wonder if that's the case for someone like that, and with anxiety too, but I think like what I've tended to experience and notice in most of the people that I know, who deal with those things is that even in chronic cases, they're like, their highs and lows. And, you know, it's, it's yeah, it's just usually spoken about in these different ways.
 
Ian Binns 22:02
Yeah. And just as a caveat, or a disclaimer, to anyone listening, please understand that, you know, I personally have been on some form of an antidepressant most of my life. So I do not, you know, my perspective minute ago is not something I necessarily hold to. I just wanted to say that that, you know, that is not how I view, anxiety or depression, you know, and we have had conversations before about when it comes to like, antidepressant medication and stuff like that, is that when I'm on that, does that is that the real me? Right, we've had those types of conversations in the past and how I am adamant that yes, that is the real me. Because that's the me that I want to be with. Right? So anyway,
 
Adam Pryor 22:48
I think there's this like, question of identity that is wrapped up in all of the versions of like, how we've talked about the intersection of religion and science with mental health that I think is really important and interesting. And so like, you know, coming back to The Curious Incident of the Dog in the night, right? Like, despite my wife's best efforts, immediately after that, like I was deeply, deeply curious about, like disability studies and disability theology. And like, I just spent a lot of time immediately diving into this. So doesn't work. But
 
Ian Binns 23:26
then what was the name of the book? Again,
 
Adam Pryor 23:27
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the NightTime.
 
Ian Binns 23:31
Okay, thanks.
 
Adam Pryor 23:33
So, in what strikes me about that, and, and to me, the resources that religious traditions have been producing in disability theology over the past 25, or 30 years in particular, are so important, are just so important for it, for helping folks start to tease out how it is that we, we talk about this intersection of identity, and disability and pathology in ways that can be really effective, but also really challenging, right? Like, to my mind, the fact that we're having this conversation, and it's really hard to figure out like, Well, where do I categorize this? Like, you know, as human beings, we like nice, neat boxes that we can put these things into, right. And I think one of the really important things that disability studies has done and disability theology in particular has done has said, hey, look, those narratives that we've had in our traditions about healing and wellness, and in provement, and salvation, even can have really detrimental effects on the way that we think about and pathologize those who don't fit into the norm both in terms of physical health, but also mental health. in ways that can be either really helpful or really destructive. So, like, early on, Kendra, you mentioned this, like, it made me think of like doing like a thought experiment, right? Like, what? What would it start to look like if your social structures around you were designed for and put in place to facilitate engagement with folks who are non neurotypical? Right. Like, and I guess this is sort of like a, this is both, uh, something I think about a lot. Now that I do, I don't know, administrative II things. But also, like, I think a lot about in terms of like religious communities, right. Like, what are the things that we do that accidentally exclude people? Even though that's not what we mean to do? Oh, I
 
Ian Binns 25:54
think that happens all the time. Yeah, I mean, I think so. The reflective process is what makes it challenging, because you have to really be willing to look at yourself to see how do you do that? Which I think takes a level of vulnerability. Because you're, at least to yourself admitting that, oh, I put people in boxes, by others, I other people, right.
 
Adam Pryor 26:25
And, um, I guess there's like, part of me, that starts to wonder then, like, what's the role of religious communities in facilitating changes in that regard? Like, what are the steps that we would want? None of us are, you know, clergy, but I look at it sort of to go, you know, maybe into our own context to like, what are the things that we would look at around us and go like, that would really need to change?
 
Ian Binns 26:53
Well, so. So for me, and this will actually tie into the book I want to talk about, at the end of the show, is, over the past year, and especially throughout the pandemic, you know, I've really struggled with how people, you know, aspects of society have approached the pandemic, with lack of empathy for others. Right, and like, what I perceive as a lack of caring, and it has led, especially me with it coinciding with such a toxic political timeframe in our country, for me to have very judgmental views of others, not necessarily other people that I disagree with politically, like someone who identifies as Republican versus Democrat, that's, that's not it, it's more of the extremes. Right. And so, I have found that I'm in a place where I struggle with that a lot. And so I've purposely been selecting different books and different resources to read as a way to get back to the point where, while I may disagree completely with someone and what it is they believe and stand for that I can still see them as a person. Right, not less than not inherently evil, or something like that, that I you know, but I'm aware of that, as I said, you have to be aware of those things happening.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 28:47
Yeah, I mean, I guess, when I think about like a religious context, again, not a clergy person, but it you know, if we're talking about, like autistic people in particular, I did attend a church. This was when I was in undergrad at church. And there was, there was a young man who started coming really regularly to the college ministry stuff. Who was on the autism spectrum. And I think that, you know, kind of reflecting on that experience, and just what it felt like on a Sunday morning to, you know, to speak with him and to like, watch them interact with other people. I think that like using the autism spectrum, as an example, the greeting time in the morning, in like religious spaces, and again, you could apply this to other organizations in which there's like this kind of loose social time of interaction where people are expected to greet each other or, you know, in like a conference context to like network with each other? Like, what is that? What does that look like? And how do you be accommodating or like welcoming to someone who might like, say something unexpected too. And if you're like, expecting a neurotypical person to be in those interactions, you might respond differently or be like, feel something like off putting or, you know, I don't know, feel awkward in a way that, like, shuts down this possibility for relationship. And I, I think I noticed, in general, like years ago, attending this church, that people, I think, for the most part really leaned into it, it was like, Oh, good morning, let's talk about the 20 pages of like, song lyrics that you wrote last night, and, like, let's like, do a deep dive. And that was just like this kind of particular interaction that you would have with this person. And, you know, maybe the next person you spoke to is just a brief handshake and like, a good morning. But it's just, I don't even know, like, how to speak about that in terms of like a system change. But it's just, I think, kind of a letting go of like expectations of what someone should, like offer you or like, bring to you. And I don't think that's always very easy to do. And it's also like, kind of exhausting to do that, if you are in a space where you're talking to, like, hundreds of people. So, you know, like, it's, I think it's a hard question to figure out what that would mean, to make a shift or like a transformation on a structural level. So I don't know, like, that's what I think of, when I'm thinking of like, the religious context, just like that particular example. But then I think in the academic context, like in my teaching, which, you know, there's like, a lot of things about being like a, in my first year as a professor that I, like, I'm learning a lot about, like my own pedagogy, and what's working and not working. And one of the things that I always feel very sensitive to, because of my own experience, as an undergrad and graduate student, are just people who are like, a little bit either, like a little bit are definitely diagnosed, or somewhere in between, really struggle with like, a DD ADHD type symptoms. And I think, like, that's, that's, it just changes the way like, you have students who are going to, like, read every single word of the page, and always do the Reading, like three weeks early, and, like, come to class and like, know exactly what they want to say. And then there are people who are just like, perpetual, like strategic skimmers, and our, you know, like, they have questions, but they kind of come in the moment, and it's not, it's kind of hard to, like, prepare how to, like engage in the classroom. And then, you know, they're like students who are just like, disengaged, they don't care. There's like, you know, a lot of things going on, or maybe they're just lazy. Like, there's a, there's a bunch of different student experiences. But I, I feel that, like, I have always sort of struggled with the, like, I don't have a diagnosis of ADHD, but I have struggled enough with like symptoms of that, that I have been tested, and have like, tried different, like medication and stuff for it. It's also the case that like, women are, in general, like less likely to have a diagnosis for that kind of thing. But it's been an inflamed part of my experience as a student during my PhD work, especially. And so I just feel like when I'm in the classroom, I try to figure out a way to, like, reward the students who are doing all the things like clearly excellent students, and then reward the students who are really trying, but they just like, there's just something about the process of like being a student, that's really difficult, but they're putting in the effort and they're showing up and they're trying to participate and so to like, do things in class that are engaging and that allow you to enter into the conversation, even if you didn't read and like remember every single person's name and every date and like, you know, all the like super specific details that some students that feels natural to them. And, and so I don't know, like I feel like that's the example that comes to mind because it's like in this, I think conversation of like neurodiversity, but you know, a different kind than what we've been talking about, but just figuring out how to like, have something for everyone to the extent that they feel that they belong either in the conversation, or in the religious community, or whatever it is. And that's really not easy to do. But I think it's worth it. If the goal is community, if the goal is inclusion, if those are really central goals to your organization, or religious tradition or whatever, then you have to do those things. And you have to figure out, I think, like how to reasonably pursue those goals. Always. So yeah, I don't know, those are, those are things that come to mind.
 
Adam Pryor 36:07
Yeah, I mean, I, to me, it's interesting that the, like, the the two things that that stand out to me, or like the conversation can kind of broaden or narrow, right, because there are certain elements that I think overlap. Anytime you're trying to figure out how to discuss engaging neurodiversity, right, even if it's different types of neurodiversity, but also, right, there's this element of being really aware that the that the specific dimensions of that neurodiversity matter for what any, like whatever practical steps you would take. Lest I don't answer my own question. Yeah.
 
Ian Binns 36:54
I mean, you've ever done that? No,
 
Adam Pryor 36:57
it's not like I it's not like I make a habit of doing that. So I, the the piece that has come to mind for me, the more that I've thought about this, and I think just by sheer happenstance, I have ended up almost every semester that I have been teaching, like on a regular basis, I have had a small, not a majority, by any stretch of the imagination, but a small cadre of students who are not neurotypical. In fact, this may be the, like, the first semester where I don't. And it felt kind of weird. But I think one of the things that I've noticed about myself in those contexts is trying to ask over and over what are the expectations that I have of this situation, that privileged people like me? That if you are just a little bit more like me, you do better here? And how is it that I, what then is my responsibility to try and create a situation where I minimize that as much as possible? So the two instances that have come to mind for me are like, and I noticed, I just try really hard not to do any more. But in religious communities where I've been a participant, and I know there are folks, in this case, generally around Asperger's, Autism Spectrum Disorder, that are non neurotypical. The question that keeps coming up for me is, why do we preach every week? That seems really silly. And not a great way of interacting with those folks as part of the community. And I don't know, at least for me, having a week off from somebody giving a sermon feels like a good idea. Because that that's not my jam. And in a similar way, right, like when I think about, like, my time in the classroom, I think about in real instances, right? Like, where are the places that my my expectations about? Well, you would just do a little bit better if you could read the text more like me, or if you could sit still long enough, Ian, to actually just engage the way that I want you to engage. Right? Like I I find myself doing that. And like, for me, the step that comes out of this is to say like how do I how do I prevent myself from asshole mansplaining?
 
Ian Binns 39:58
Yeah, before We can do that. Yeah, I just wanna say I don't mind. I still love you, buddy. It's okay even though you call me out, you know, and everyone can hear it. It's okay.
 
Adam Pryor 40:16
Yeah, it's good. People don't see that he just wanders around while we're doing this.
 
Ian Binns 40:21
Yeah. I'm still listening, though. But if I get hungry, I got a.
 
Adam Pryor 40:25
Just I know. Yeah, I think I think wireless headphones were designed just for you.
 
Ian Binns 40:32
This is probably true. Yeah. If the wired ones I had word noise canceling, I think I would probably pay attention a whole lot better to life. Right. So, yeah, anyway.
 
Adam Pryor 40:46
No, but so these are the things that like I think about when I when I when I think about this piece, and it in terms of the religion and science conversation, I think the question that comes to mind are like, one, how do religious traditions decide whether or not they're responsible to folks in their communities? Who are not neurotypical? Like? What does it really mean to take responsibility for that? So that's one side. And then the other is, which we didn't talk a lot about today. But that's okay. Because there are always ways to talk about this, like, how much does science give us an out? I kind of wonder if science is giving us a Get Out of Jail Free card, right? Insofar as it lets us pathologize things. Right, like, I can only call out even if I pathologize the behavior that he's doing in a certain way, which science lets me do a lot better than I could previously. And in like that tension is something that like, as we talk about, like other elements of mental health, and religion and science, like I'm really interested in, in trying to tease that out. In large part, because I don't think it's really hard to do. And it's not something that's like intuitive to us, like, I can't rely on my common sense to find a way out of that. And also, like, they're not my stories, I am like a remarkably weirdly neurotypical, white cisgendered reader of tax who the system was designed for, like, if anybody should be able to be successful on it, it would be, you know, the guy given all of the privileges that the system was designed to foster and develop. So how it is and what then My responsibility is, as I hear narratives that don't fit that neurotypical neurotypical schema is, is, I think, really, really important. Because it can't, it can't just be the job of folks who aren't neurotypical to advocate for themselves.
 
Kendra Holt-Moore 43:12
Right. And that question is such a, you know, like, to what extent is science give us an out? It's, it's just so hard because that that feels like a question that is like, this universal question. When in fact, like, there's so much about the context in which you're in, that I think changes the way that you might pathologize this behavior in one setting, but in another, maybe not so much. And that, you know, like, I think that's why there's, there's something really valuable about you know, the, the like, quizzes, I mean, some of them are not that good, but like quizzes or just like databases that try to connect people to different vocational goals based on personality characteristics is one thing but you know, like tendencies towards certain behaviors. And I don't know like I sort of see that as this like soft way of trying to address this issue of like where you fit like if you're someone who is high energy and easily distracted and you like love to talk to people. Maybe you shouldn't be like doing super mundane tasks and a dark office in the corner never having to speak to a human for like 16 hours of your you know, day. Like things like that that are really simple. And I think kind of taken for granted sometimes is this like, fun little self reflective task, but I actually think there's like maybe Maybe it's things like that, that are just resources available for people and to get people to self reflect in a more serious way about what your own strengths and weaknesses are and to not pathologize something that is a weakness and to not like, overvalue something that is like labeled a strength. But just to understand that, like, these are your strengths and weaknesses in this role. And to just I don't know, like, change the way that we value different behaviors and skills. Because there are so many different ways to apply those behaviors and skills in different like vocational organizational, like family, social contexts. And so I think, to some extent, like that will never be this simple question, it will entirely depend on how much time we're willing to invest in helping people develop self reflective skills to put themselves or like, you know, attempt to put themselves in situations that benefit their own, like proclivities, intellectually, and emotionally and physically and all of those, all of those things. So it's like, yeah, it's, it's a lot of work and people like that, it's, it's so easy to not want to do that work, because you have to kind of give attention to like, every person, and you can't rely on these generalizations. But like, it's just the nature of being human. And using language, we do generalize, we do other people, because it's convenient. And that sometimes is like, easy, unnecessary to do in certain situations. So it's like this constant tension of, you know, meeting the needs of the particular versus the, you know, General.
 
Ian Binns 46:57
Well, that can be exhausting. Right? to I mean, it's, it takes a lot of effort, but then can be tiring, when you're trying to put forth that effort. For others, right, especially if you if you go all in, and you're always trying to be that way. Yeah, it can be tiring, and some people, you know, and there are times where I've just been, you fall back on the generalizations of type of different people just because it's easier. But then you realize, too, that if they're if it's a particular topic of something that you're focusing on as a way to instill some sort of change in people's behaviors, including your own, then you realize you need to take that step back momentarily, but then get get back to, to the work to the hard work. So you know, so it goes away from that whole notion of other people who are different?
 
Adam Pryor 47:54
Well, we should probably move on to the ending part of the episode. Do that, edit that into? No, I don't want to say anything. Why would I want to say something, I don't want to make it easy for him. I want him I want him to really struggle with how it is that he's gonna try and wrap that up. Not here to defend himself. I'm not gonna give him anything easy. By which by which to do that. In good fashion, you probably should just leave this as my closing remarks so that everybody knows that it was my fault I've done as much cheery, happy as I could do today. And so I need some suffering to come out of this episode and that are really
 
Ian Binns 48:50
proud. Well, yes, I am proud of you, buddy. Are you gonna go throw up after this?
 
Adam Pryor 48:54
Probably. It's probably going to be like rainbows and sparkles.
 
Ian Binns 49:03
That's how you got to end it and back back and be part of the title, rainbows. So okay, so for my little tidbit, at the end, my little thing I want to focus on, and I'll try it once or twice just to see how it works is I want to do a kind of talk about and reflect on a book that I either am currently Reading or have recently finished Reading. And yeah, so the book that I chose today actually, is called hold it up for the two of you but you belong. A call for connection by seven is a lossy, she is her description down here on the bottom. I love this nerdy black immigrant, Tomboy Buddhist weirdo. She describes herself but I learned of seven philosophy from 10% happier she's one of she's actually the most popular coach on 10% happier. And I've one of the many meditations in the beginning that I really liked that she did. But it was actually one of her, she's very much in to social justice work, and has a fascinating background. And one of the things that I, one of the meditations I do at 10%, happier that made me shift away from other meditation resources was one that she did about racism. And it was a very, a 20 minute guided meditation, that was a very deep dive into racism, and and trying to, you had to be willing to deal with your own level of vulnerability. Because it was not a deep dive necessarily into societal racism, or where it comes from, but looking within and reflecting on yourself. And so it was raw. And it was incredible, because I just loved how she approached it. And then I learned of the book that she was working on this book book called you belong. And instead of kind of start taking with different notes last night, that I had written throughout the book, but I just want to kind of give the general idea of what her whole argument is. And what she's trying to point out, is that she talks about in here, when she says you belong, is recognizing what the whole point of belongingness. And so she says early on belongingness truth, and it is the fundamental nature of reality right here now, whether we feel it or not. And so what she's trying to argue throughout this entire texts, is that belonging is everywhere, it is natural, that happens, everything is connected. And she very nicely kind of throughout, the entire text does a very good job of talking about how more things like ancient ways of knowing ancient wisdom. That, you know, the more scientifically minded individuals would say, is not real solely based on either, you know, something from different religious perspectives, or indigenous perspectives, and how modern science is starting to show, you know, the notion of connection, that everything is connected. And we've known that for a while now based on science, but that how that's been an argument or a part of the belief that people would call it based system within different as I said, you know, religious traditions or cultural traditions that have been going on for centuries, if not millennia, about this connection to everything. And that now science has shown it that that makes that real, right. And so how we kind of limit ourselves with our ways of knowing. And so throughout this, one of the things I really love about it, that she kind of really helps us understand. And this is one of the quotes, I love that she talks about. That she says. So I'll just read this, when you don't like the joke, you belong. When you're the only one of your race, disability or sexuality, you belong. When you're terrified to speak in public you belong, when you feel hurt, or when you hurt, have hurt someone else you belong. When you're down to your last dollars, and the rent is due you belong. When you feel overwhelmed by the horrors of human beings you belong. When you have a debilitating illness, you belong. When everyone else is getting married, you belong. When you don't know what you're doing with your life, you belong. When the world feels like it's falling apart, you belong, when you feel like you don't belong, you belong. And then she helps us kind of delve through helping us see how it is we belong. And so I just wanted to point out a couple other things and then I'll stop rambling, but she nicely sets sets us up sets up the reader as pointing out, you know, the importance of grounding yourself, especially when it comes to like things like meditation, knowing yourself loving yourself. So this is stuff that Adam you would totally love. Right? And there's a whole chapter about self love.
 
Adam Pryor 54:15
I can go I feel I can feel ready to engage this text.
 
Ian Binns 54:20
You should because it's something that will contrary Yes, this is Oh, I'm going to tell Rachel This is the book that she should recommend to you for the summer. Oh
 
Adam Pryor 54:29
my god, you
 
Ian Binns 54:31
Yes, I'm gonna I'm gonna fact I'll even buy it. Right. I'll buy it and connect yourself as another one. And then finally learning to be yourself. And so some of the things that really helped me along through this and it took me a very long time to read it because I just kept getting really interested in everything that was she was talking about is that she really does a nice job of helping us see the ways that we are connected. And as I said, one of the things that I'm starting Dealing with personally, is two people that I who, so individuals who identify, maybe they don't claim themselves as white supremacists, but their arguments indicate that they more long, you know, Lie with that mindset of white supremacy, that they are still a person, right, we may disagree completely on that perspective of things, but that they still do matter, they still are a person, we are still connected in some way. And learning that, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them, it just is recognizing that they are still a human, you know, and that they still do matter in some way. There's a great time where she talks about putting yourself in an ad in this kind of talks about what you said, if you do not have, if only you could do things the way I do things, you know, then this right, and then he joked about with me walking around and moving all the time. And seeing things and how that's something that I do a lot too. But what she did, she didn't talk about her own personal story without of learning on this journey of hers that she went through learning that we are, we are all connected in some way. And we all belong, is that she there was during the time of George W. Bush presidency, and how she completely disagreed with everything that he stood for. But that she started thinking, and she would always put herself in the I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion on these things. That doesn't make any sense, right. And we always do that. And I would argue I do that a lot now, especially with with the last presidency, and then you know, the situation on January 6, and all those things of how do you not see these things like it doesn't make any sense to me. That one thing it's important for us to understand is that we did not grow up in that person's life, that even if you know, we like to say that I like to think that if I were in that mindset that I wouldn't do those things. But that's not truly possible, because we don't have that person's life experiences. And so part of her process was recognizing that, while she may have disagreed completely, with what Georgia decisions made by George Bush, that they were still connected, and that she'll never truly be in that in his shoes, because she was not raised the same way. Right. And so trying to better herself and better understand where people come from. And so the last thing I know, I'm all over the place, and I apologize as usual. But one of the things I really like about this, because she kind of goes through, as I said, this whole notion of learning to look past or to recognize the role of your inner critic, and what the inner critic does for you, but not letting the inner critic takeover, the comparing mind of comparing ourselves to different aspects of society. And the dangers with that is that she says near the end, if you want a different world, we must imagine it, to imagine it, we must become intimate with our deepest wishes, we cannot imagine without a desire for creation, without longing for something different. We cannot connect our deepest desire without simply being we cannot long if we cannot, if we can't feel what it is we long for. And then she goes into meditation, I'm not gonna make you guys do that. But anyway, but what it did for me was is and it's still a work in progress is still trying to recognize that the role my inner critic place, as I talked about, in the last episode, the role that my anxiety plays. And and recognize instead of, because when I start going down that spiral with my anxiety, you know, one of the first things I'll happen is I'll fight the feeling of anxiety. And so then I'm now fighting two things. And so it's trying to remind myself that, while I don't like that feeling, I get during a very anxious moment that there is a reason it's happening. And so to, you know, treat it as, as I said, Last on our persona of saying, I know you're there, you're there to take care of me, but I'm in charge, right. So welcome to the party, but I'm in charge. And so that's that was really nice for me in this book. And so something I definitely recommend, again, it's called you belong by seven is a lossy. And it's just a beautiful book about learning about who you are and where you come from. So
 
Adam Pryor 59:26
that's all it was. It was so nice. I felt like it would go very well
 
Ian Binns 59:31
with one that Adam was leading to end with that. And as I said, Rachel prior, I will shout out to you that I will make sure that I get a copy of this book to you sometime before next summer. So that you can have it ready to go when you recommend a new book for Adam. And then he can give us his his view of it
 
Adam Pryor 59:54
might be a fun point counterpoint version of what to do at the end of episodes. You could read a book and I could read one and We'll see what we both find.
 
Ian Binns 1:00:01
Yeah. And then I'll have seven is the lossy they're ready to roll and she can come in. Just take us
 
Adam Pryor 1:00:10
straight through
 
1:00:11
yeah