Yi-Fu Tuan - Dear Colleague

February 8 , 2005

Dear Colleague,

Ever since I had a bad fall last June, I have been taking vicodin, a slightly addictive drug to relieve pain. What it does for me is rather surprising. I not only feel a mild state of well-being, which is to be expected, but I also feel a moral improvement, by which I mean that I am more appreciative of God's creation, beginning with Lake Monona and extending to the people I meet from day to day. The feeling lasts about a half-hour. What would be the effect of a much stronger drug--say, cocaine? I won't know, but I am told that the sensation is as delightful and overwhelming as a totally satisfying orgasm. The downside is that it has no moral pay-off. Orgasm doesn't make one appreciate nature or fellow humans more, and neither does cocaine. A reason is that both completely overpower the intellect, and the intellect is needed in emotions, such as appreciation and gratitude, that are directed outward.

That a chemical can make me into a better person doesn't bother me. In fact, I am cheered by the thought that we are so constituted--thanks to evolution, God, or both--that even a very slight adjustment in our biochemical state can open us to the grand vistas of truth, beauty, and goodness. It doesn't work that way with granite, African violet, or the chimpanzee. It works only in humans, and that makes us special (an unworthy, elitist thought, but let it pass). As distinct from a chemical like vicodin, what about religion? Don't we think of religion as providing moral values and guidance? We do. And religion does perform that function, but, like a chemical drug, it does so ambivalently. Certain universalist religions and religious teachings do indeed open our eyes to a moral heaven--Buddhism, for example, and, say, the Sermon on the Mount in Christianity. They provide us with a mere glimpse, it is true; then the curtains are drawn and we are back to the petty morals and moral ambiguities of the earth. But we are so constituted--thanks to evolution, God, or both--that even a glimpse provides a lure toward which we (that is, humankind as a whole) strive. All that is morally sound in the world today--human rights, social justice, and so on--are the halting baby steps we have made in the light of that lure. On the other hand, religion--if not Buddhism, then certainly Christianity--has also been a powerful drug that severely clouds our moral vision, making us into good haters of all those who do not conform to our notion of family values, which, by the way, are closer to those of heathens--Chinese and ancient Roman--than to those of Jesus or Paul.

A cup of coffee makes me a better thinker. I don't mind being helped by caffeine. But, of course, some chemicals are deadly to thinking. Likewise religion, which also has a two-pronged effect. Historians of science say that Christianity, with its high regard for material things and lawfulness in creation, has helped science. Certainly, it hasn't prevented the geniuses of the seventeenth century and Isaac Newton (all Christians) from making extraordinary scientific discoveries. On the other hand, religion can be deadly to science: Buddhism, because it directs attention away from the material world, and Christianity, because it is susceptible to Biblical literalism. We are so constituted as to be only a little lower, both morally and intellectually, than the angels. Yet, for some inexplicable reason (unless one accepts the theory of the Fall or chemical imbalance), multitudes of people opt for bigotry and stupidity. I myself so opt when the beauty of the world isn't complemented by a daily intake of caffeine and vicodin.

Best wishes,

Yi-Fu