1. 1/31 Is Judaism boring? Tamás Biró ACLC, University of Amsterdam Groningen Centre for Religion & Cognition

2. 2/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 E. Thomas Lawson & Robert N. McCauley Lawson & McCauley, 1990.: Rethinking Religion, Connecting Cognition and Culture – Foundations of the Cognitive Science of Religion – Model of rituals, based on Chomskyan syntax McCauley & Lawson, 2002: Bringing Ritual to Mind, Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms – Which predicts better the arousal connected to rituals? Ritual form (L&McC, 1990) or frequency (Whitehouse, 1995)?

3. 3/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 The fate of a scientific theory/model model first observations prediction new observations background “philosophy” Details, concrete examples

4. 4/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 “A model without an example is like a car without an engine: it might look great, but it won’t take you anywhere.”

5. 5/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Overview Introduction to / own reading of / elaboration on Lawson&McCauley’s model of ritual form L&McC: Implementation to religious rituals Implementation to Judaism Corroborate or refute the McC&L theory? NB: This talk aims at contributing to a CSR theory, and not to the study of Judaism.

6. 6/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Linguistics: syntax–semantics interface Johnbrokethe window. The hammerbrokethe window. The windowwas brokenby John. The windowwas brokenby the hammer. The windowbroke.

7. 7/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Linguistics: syntax–semantics interface subjectverbobjectby-phrase Johnbrokethe window. The hammerbrokethe window. The windowwas brokenby John. The windowwas brokenby the hammer. The windowbroke.

8. 8/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Further linguistic observations John broke the window. Mary broke the window. John and Mary broke the window. * John and the hammer broke the window. John broke the window using the hammer. * The hammer broke the window using John. John = agent ↔ hammer = instrument.

9. 9/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Linguistics: syntax–semantics interface subjectverbobjectby-phrase Johnbrokethe window. The hammerbrokethe window The windowwas brokenby John. The windowwas brokenby the hammer. The windowbroke.

10. 10/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Thematic roles (Theta-roles) Semantic arguments of the action: – Agent: (“logical subject”) – Patient: (“logical direct object”) – Instrument Further semantic roles: – Recipient: (“logical indirect/dative object” ; L&McC p125 ) – Location, time – Experiencer – Etc.

11. 11/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Frequent confusion: ontological categories – thematic roles human (incl. CIA) agent natural forceagentive categories agentive roles natural force animal patient plantrecipient location artefact natural object instrument

12. 12/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Thematic roles for action representation So far: linguistic arguments to introduce them (arguments from specific languages and from cross-linguistic comparison). My hypothesis: Linguistic observations reflect a deeper cognitive phenomenon: the mental representation of actions and states-of-affair in the world. Need to be demonstrated even beyond religion.

13. 13/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Axioms of Human Cognition 1 Axiom AHC 1: (1a) (Object Agency Filter) Agentive roles can be filled only by (some!) agentive categories. (1a’) Only agentive categories can bring about changes in the world. (1b) (Agent Overdetection) Agentive roles are preferably filled by ontological agents (humans and CIAs, but not by natural forces).

14. 14/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Axioms of Human Cognition 2 The hammer broke the window. The window was broken by the hammer. John broke the window using the hammer. Axiom AHC 2: (2a) Agentive categories being able to perform action X can enable other categories to act as instrument, or as secondary agents in performing action X. (2b) Otherwise, non-agentive categories cannot act as instruments.

15. 15/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Halfway summary Action representation system: 1. Agent – action (+ patient, instrument, time, location, recipient…) John broke the window in the house with a hammer. The wind broke the window yesterday. 2. Instrument – action (+ patient, instrument…) + prior enabling action The hammer [moved by John] broke the window.

16. 16/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Lawson & McCauley on religious rituals – Religious ritual if and only if at least one slot is filled by a counterintuitive agent (CIA)… CIA in agent-role: The gods declare you a married man. CIA in recipient-role: We offer the sacrifice to the gods. – …or an agent/instrument enabled by a CIA. The priest [ordained by gods] declare you a married man..

17. 17/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Lawson & McCauley on religious rituals – The shortest chain of enabling counts (Principle of Superhuman Immediacy). – “Special agent rituals” vs. others (Principle of Superhuman Agency) : CIA connected to agent vs. other thematic roles (via the shortest chain of enabling rituals) – Balanced ritual systems need both. – Tedium effect if no special agent rituals.

18. 18/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Application to post-Temple Judaism Special agent rituals in Judaism? – Circumcision? – Bar mitzvah? – Wedding? Special patient rituals? – Ritual bath? Torah scroll, mezuzah? (burning chametz, lighting Shabbat candles, havdalah…) What about most commandments? – Positive vs. negative commandments

19. 19/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Circumcision Widespread belief: Agent makes Patient a Jew by circumcision. BUT: J. women, not circumcised Jews: also Jews Gen. 17: who circumcised Abraham? Patient is minor: obligation on father or on beit din Patient is major: obligation on himself A Jewish man not circumcised may circumcise.

20. 20/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Circumcision Gen. 17,13: …êúéá ãéìé ìåîé ìåîä Targum Johanan ben Uziel ad Gen. 17,13: The one who is circumcised should circumcise… Bab. Talmud, Avoda Zara 27a Maimonides, Hilchot Milla 2,1: Everybody is allowed to circumcise. Even the uncircumcised, the slave, the woman and the minor may circumcise, if there is no man present. But the gentile may not circumcise; yet, if he did so, one does not need to circumcise again.

21. 21/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Circumcision Not a special agent ritual The person performing the ritual neither is a CIA nor does he need to have undergone any enabling ritual connecting him to a CIA. Nor a special patient ritual The person undergoing the ritual … Nor a special instrument ritual The instrument used during the ritual …

22. 22/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Wedding Contract, not sanctity No need for a rabbi Has the rabbi undergone any enabling ritual (“ordination”)? Action of the groom Witnesses

23. 23/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Burial No need for rabbi, any Jew can (must) perform it, supposing he knows how to do it.

24. 24/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Pidyon ha-ben The redeeming of the first born Need for a cohen: – Is the cohen a CIA? Certainly not. – Has the cohen undergone any enabling ritual? Certainly not.

25. 25/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Conversion The beit din (rabbinic court) as special agent? What enabling ritual has the court undergone? Court of ignorant Jews?

26. 26/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Conversion “Immersion is not a cleansing process, but one whereby states are changed through a Divine purification process. Therefore, once a convert emerges from the waters of the mikvah, he ‘is … a Jew in every way’ (Yevamot 47b).” (Rabbi Yoel Schwartz: Jewish Conversion, 1994, p. 55)

27. 27/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Mikvah – ritual bath No enabling ritual for the mikvah Must meet certain criteria: quantity, source of water, etc.

28. 28/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Mezuzah, Torah scrolls Are these “special agents”? In folk religiosity, handled as if they were: – Dancing with / clothing the Torah scrolls – The mezuzah “protecting” the place But, are there enabling rituals? – The way of writing them – Fixing the mezuzah on the doorpost Who would be the special agent in these rituals?

29. 29/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Conclusion: is Judaism boring? Jewish ritual actions do not involve a CIA in any of their thematic roles. What they involve is – A person who is halakhically Jewish – Meeting conditions that have been specified by CIA McC&L: No rituals at all in Judaism? Missing the target! A too simple, trivial model: Initial enabling ritual is conversion or being born Jewish Improve the L&McC model!

30. 30/31 Tamás BIRÓ SBL Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007 Summary An overview of Lawson & McCauley 1990 from a different perspective: – Thematic roles as elements of action representation system. – Axioms of cognition Implementing L & McC 1990 to Judaism: serious need to improve the model! What about other religions?

31. 31/31 Thank you for your attention! Tamás Biró http://www.birot.hu Download this presentation from the Archive for Religion & Cognition: http://www.csr-arc.com