I wrote About Iain McGilchrist - Part 1 and covered Understanding the McGilchrist Worldview by David McIlroy. Perspectiva has since posted Cross with the hemispheres? - A Christian Challenge to Iain McGilchrist which includes a second article by McIlroy. There is a long introduction written by Jonathan Rowson.
Rowson writes,
The essay below is a relatively rare high quality challenge to Iain’s ideas, and it comes from a Christian perspective… If the subject matter has immediate appeal, please jump straight to the main essay after the photograph of David below, but if you are interested in why an essay offering a Christian critique of Iain McGilchrist’s work is of particular interest to Perspectiva at the moment, please read on.
I did not jump straight to the article because I was very interested in what Rowson had to say.
I share David’s Theological disquisition here with a degree of trepidation because it is so resolutely Christian. As CEO of Perspectiva, I feel the need to say that the views expressed in the extended essay below are those of the author - David McIlroy - and not Perspectiva. Since that disclaimer begs the question, however, this seems as good a moment as any to say that Perspectiva is not a Christian organisation, but nor is it an a-Christian or anti-Christian organisation either.
And I very much like the kind of organization that Perspectiva is and the attitude of Jonathan Rowson towards Christians who are worthy of respect.
…the general level of theological understanding today is shallow. In other words, many people who are culturally Christian feel allergic to what they think of as religious Christianity, with little sense of its contested history or philosophical richness and what it could mean for them, including its wide range of beliefs and practices all over the world.
Yes, indeed. My agreement is based on my own experience, having been a practicing Christian for twenty-five years. I was not a Biblical scholar but I was also not a shallow Christian.
…part of what motivates me in remaining ‘Christian curious’ is the need to get beyond reflex allergies that are at best uninformed, and at worst a kind of laziness or cowardice. Lots of people today are saying something like: “I wish I could be Christian, but…” and I want to explore both the wish and the refrain.
And I retain some curiosity towards Christianity and its current impact on the world, some of which I expressed in my article on Substack, And Now Joe Rogan! I too sense that something has changed. And discussing this subject does not make me uncomfortable.
…there seems to be a newfound intellectual openness to the possibility of God, a newfound social acceptability of exploring that possibility, a recognition that we are beyond lame straw-man sky-God arguments, an awareness that we are all more or less perplexed, and a hunger for a shared exploration into our relationship to reality as such.
Rowson quotes from a recent article by Jules Evans, an article I read.
You also have to credit the influence of neuro-philosopher Iain McGilchrist. I personally think McGilchrist’s ideas are pseudo-science - as in, they’re a grand theory of neuro-history which is unfalsifiable and very little actual use in terms of explanations or suggested actions - but they’re very appealing to some people looking for an intellectually respectable escape from rigid materialism.
I personally do not think McGilchrist’s ideas are pseudo-science. However, I want to avoid the science/pseudoscience culture war and I frame the matter differently. Like Rowson, suffice for me is that McGilchrist has created a Grand New Narrative that is not contrary to established science.
…the charge of pseudo-science feels comically misplaced, and it’s hard for me to believe anyone could make that claim after reading Iain’s books. Iain could only be accused of not explaining anything useful in the sense that a carefully argued grand theory does not primarily seek to explain any thing, but to provide a sounder basis for explaining everything.
I would liken the new narrative by McGilchrist to something like the theory of evolution, a very good lens for viewing many other things.
To put it analytically, Iain’s work is about necessary rather than sufficient conditions for world renewal. The ‘point’ of the hemispheric hypothesis (and The McGilchist Manoeuvre) is to disclose the intellectual basis for a necessary (and now urgent) shift in perception through science, reason, intution and imagination. That shift arises from realising - making real in our lives - the profound difference between the world as it presences itself through a kind of unconcealing (Alethia) of truth, beauty and goodness, and the world as it is relentlessly, automatically and increasingly wilfully re-presented for instrumental reasons. The task demand embedded in that realisation is not so much to know but to acknowledge the nature, meaning and purpose of life through direct perception, to consolidate that insight in how we live, and from there, to attempt together to organise society for the greater good. That’s ‘the work’ as I see Iain disclose it, but it’s clearly a version of a case others have made too, and it’s a task not for Iain, but for all of us.
Yes, we all have urgent work to do.
Iain seems quite at ease with his Taoist sensibility alongside his love of Christian mythos, without feeling the need to be a card-carrying or practising Christian. That position seems sound to me. However, given the number of public figures converting to Christianity in recent years, and Iain’s considerable and growing intellectual influence, I can see why Christians would want to nudge him a little closer towards them. That can and perhaps should be resisted, but doing that well means contending with the case outlined below.
So before going back to my work to do, I will contend with A Christian Challenge to Iain McGilchrist. However, I will first share a bit from my own personal journey. At midlife, I lost my Christian faith and exited a benign Christian cult. For several years, I desperately struggled to find a healthy version of Christianity, but I was unsuccessful.
I found a book entitled Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers and I read it very carefully. This book was not shallow. However, I was unconvinced and became agnostic, a stance that I am still comfortable with to this day.
More about my deep Christian experience is captured in my report on the book What the Hell?! An Unexpected Story of Amazing Grace… written by my friend Henk Wilms.
Now on to David McIlroy.
In this article, I want to interrogate McGilchrist’s thinking in the light of two perspectives with which he interacts: classical theism and Christian teaching regarding the person of Jesus Christ.
My first comment is that for those who think Christianity is shallow, read David Bentley Hart. My second comment is that because of my background I can understand what McIlroy says, and I find it to be interesting. But my current thinking very much aligns with McGilchrist.
Is God omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent?
Embedded in this question is what is often called The Problem of Evil. If God is all powerful and totally good, why is there so much suffering? At midlife, I found a leading Christian philosopher on the subject, Alvin Plantiga, and read his book. I tried as hard as I could to understand and accept the Christian solution to the problem, but I failed. Later, I found the solution offered by David Bentley Hart and Henk Wilms, which is beautiful, a narrative with a happy outcome for everyone.
A Jesus-shaped Hole
I am familiar with the Christian view that we all have a hole in our heart that only Jesus can fill. Again, I read and understood what McIlroy wrote but remain unconvinced. As I am currently living the best years of my life, the idea that I have a hole in my heart does not resonate with me at all.
Conclusion
McGilchrist has journeyed very far into the heart of reality in his philosophical vision, but there are yet greater things to be discovered… I think there is warrant to strengthen and revise McGilchrist’s apophatic speculations in the light of the Incarnation, the Revelation of God in Christ, the Atonement, and the Fulfilment of Creation.
My conclusion is very different. I think there is warrant to strengthen McGilchrist’s grand narrative by adding Final Wave Feminism. And perhaps contributing to that project is my work to do.