Deus ex machina galore!

My impressions of “The Lost Symbol”

Dan Brown is no William Gibson. He's obviously writing a movie treatment - you can see the shot setups, the key dialogue bits, etc. His language is pedestrian and utilitarian, and strains when it attempts to be dramatic or deep.

Thematically, the book is a kind of cross between “What the Bleep” and “The DaVinci code.” It launches from the kinky field of “noetics,” a pseudo-science that attempts to give verification to the power of the human mind to alter the physical world. It drapes itself in the mantle of human progress, when all the world will be united in benevolence because of the universal power for good that each person can possess. This is, of course, pure BS, though as a former believer I can attest to the attraction of this hypothesis. Brown is playing to the significant segment of the population that disappointingly believes in mystical dimensions. He also pimps the Masons.

The book starts up slowly but eventually gets interesting as the plot action unfolds. Chases, encounters with the villain and various CIA characters, and some historical info provide a modicum of interest, though there is not much that’s surprising in any of this. We know that Robert Langdon, as the central and continuing character of Brown’s previous and certainly future books, will not really die, even though he is encased in a box that fills with water, which he eventually involuntarily inhales (i.e. he drowns). The explanation for his survival depends on the doctrines of noetics, i.e. he doesn’t really die since his soul can exit and enter his body at will. Kinda.

There are puzzles everywhere, but they are ultimately simplistic and subservient to moving the “spiritual” plot along. They are also predictable, if you’re interested in that sort of thing. For example, it’s not hard to guess that the final chapter will be #133 (although an “epilogue” will cue the triumphant big orchestral strains of a glorious new world a-dawning). Even the villain’s true identity is easily guessed - or at least comes as no surprise when it’s revealed. There’s plenty of deus ex machina action.

Brown’s motive for writing this book is also obvious - he has to provide another treatment for a movie that will make much more money than a mere book. My advice is to skip this potboiler and wait for that movie and the more interesting talents of Mr. Hanks and the producers.

God on the brain

Sam Harris worked on a study using fMRI that sought to compare the brain's behavior when it considered two kinds of topics: god and "tables and chairs." In other words, intangible vs. tangible objects. What the study found is that belief in god was functionally the same as NOT believing in god. Both were identified as "facts" by the person being studied. However, either experience was not considered by the brain as being as solid as the "facts" of physical objets. A different part of the brain is engaged when considering "tables and chairs" and the like. The conclusion is that there is room for some degree of doubt about abstract things. So a believer may reserve just a teeny bit of doubt about the existence of god, and the atheist may have a slight suspicion that god exists.

I have been trying to get in touch with the authors of this study to ask a question that pertains to my experience: what is going on when someone turns into an atheist after having been a believer? And vice-versa. What happens when a "fact" becomes seen as an error - and vice-versa. Maybe I'll find a way to ask.

I still feel the religious "twitch" even though I now am so convinced that theology is the study of fantasy, not of anything real. I suppose one doesn't unlearn twitches that were 60+ years in the making. According to Gladwell, I have way more than 100000 hours of repetition of religious concepts, beliefs and practices. And it is the one "skill" I wish I didn't have. I wonder what I might be now if I had put in even half that time into musical study. Maybe just another burnt out junkie. But maybe not.