Summary: This essay discusses the unique combination imbedded in the Christ figure, as being both the abstract all-viewing God as well as an anthropomorphized deity. By understanding the role of uncertainty in the anthropomorphizing tendency, it is speculated that the dual-nature of Jesus enables the “hijacking” of the mentalizing system, by using the same social learning processes of human-to-human interaction.
For most of history, religion was, and for many still is, the primary institution where social learning takes place. This, of course, is of no surprise, as both believers and non-believers will agree that a religion’s objective is, almost by definition, shaping people’s behavior as to be in line with said religion’s values and rules of conduct. Yet what may not seem as obvious is the way in which people learn and understand religion, in contrast to other knowledge schemes, such as that of scientific fields of inquiry. This is because in many scientific disciplines (though not in all), the standard expected is of distant objectivity: when learning about the French revolution or the structure of the cell – involving one-self is often a hindrance rather than a benefit. Even when subjectivity itself is the object of research, it is often studied in objective terminology, not allowing room for the researcher’s experience to play any role whatsoever.
The religious institution seems to offer a completely different method of learning, as it aims to teach more than mere historical or factual knowledge. It is rather that religion aims to instill social-cognitive codes of behavior, drawing on the believer’s inner-subjective experience. Christianity’s popularity as the biggest of the world religions makes it a suitable case-study for the understanding of the human mind’s inner-workings.
For many, the figure of Christ is both figuratively and literally “God incarnate” – an anthropomorphized version of the abstract old-testament God instilled in one person who has suffered for “our sins” and did so voluntarily “out of love and compassion”. Far more than the old-testament personified characteristics of God, the new-testament God is as human as it gets: Breathing, walking, speaking, loving and suffering like everyone else, albeit in a more perfect way.
According to social-psychological research, anthropomorphizing seems to result from a sense of loneliness, uncertainty and the motivation to attain mastery of one’s environment (Waytz et al. 2010). Epley et al. (2008) demonstrated that people high in “desire for control” ranked an unpredictable dog’s behavior as “more human” than a predictable dog. This seems to suggest that we anthropomorphize that which we are unable to predict. Because perhaps, despite our complexities, humans are more predictable than other unfamiliar phenomena, thus attributing human characteristics to objects and animals may help in lessening anxiety and increasing a “sense” of predictive certainty (we won’t delve into its actual accuracy). This may have resulted from our socialized development and the extent our evolutionary past was dependent on social bonding and mating (Miller, G. 2011). Meaning that those lacking the skills to predict others’ behavior were cut-off from the gene pool. In line with gene-culture coevolution theory, religion and culture, like the anthropomorphizing tendency that shaped them, seem to serve as the conceptual frameworks for making social predictions (Peterson, 2002) in an uncertain environment.
I theorize that God’s more “limited-human-form” as the Christ figure serves as an accessible and poignant model for identification and social learning. Yet by his connection to the trinity, Christ transcends his humanity as God who is eternally present, attentive and judgmental of our behavior, intentions, and thoughts. I believe the complementary (though contradictory) co-existence of these two sets of beliefs function within the framework of our “mentalizing system”. In other words, the “theory of mind” allowing us to understand others’ mental states.
According to Charpentier and O’Doherty (2020), there are 3 main methods of observational learning used in making social predictions, allowing us to adjust our behavior accordingly: “Vicarious reward learning”, “action imitation” and “emulation”. “Vicarious reward learning” occurs by remembering others’ actions and their outcomes. Repeating successful actions and avoiding hurtful outcomes. “Action imitation” is used by copying the most frequent action taken by another agent, since, presumably, he underwent the process of positively reinforcing worthwhile actions whilst negatively reinforcing harmful ones. “Emulation” is the most complex and demanding method (and least understood) where we infer another agent’s goals, mental states, and intentions by combining evidence and information about the agent’s goals and decisions of the past. Importantly, all 3 methods overlap with the mentalizing system (namely: vmPFC, TPJ, pSTS, and dmPFC).
Furthermore, their research discusses a specific model of learning in the mentalizing model, called “influence”. According to it, not only does one represent another’s past actions, but he also tracks how his own behavior and actions may affect the other’s strategy in the future. That is to say, you know that just like you, others may attempt to predict your actions by understanding your intentions.
These social learning methods may be key to understanding the dynamic potency of the Christian system’s teaching. Since Christ is held as the perfect human model of morality, it is no surprise that upon learning about his deeds, people are compelled to use “action imitation” (sacrificing oneself, spreading the “good news”, etc.). Moreover, when attempting to act according to God’s will, the most imminent question is: “what does he wish me to do?”. This inference about God’s intentions may be for many the biggest question there is. Similar to the process of “emulation”, the aim is inferring the other’s (or in this case, God’s) inner-world. Thirdly, the “influence” model, fits neatly into the Christian world-view where God has access to one’s mental psyche. Accordingly, every prediction on the physical and social world governed by God always has to take into account the fact that he knows what one feels and thinks in every single moment.
In summary, not only does the mentalizing system play an important role in Christian belief (via anthropomorphism), but it’s speculated that specific models of social learning facilitate and establish Christian codes of value and behavior. Though a field in its infancy, with more research needed, the connection between Christian doctrine to findings in social-cognitive research may prove illuminating.
Originally published on The Rocky Road Post.