Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief

"This book was an easily summarized quick read.

1. Research on Tibetan meditators and Nuns using HMPAO-SPECT nuclear imaging shows that blood flow to the "Orientation Association Area" (OAA) of the brain decreases during peak meditation states. This brain area, just in front of and on top of the "Primary Vision Area" computes our orientation with the space surrounding us. The hypothesis is that, during meditation, the normal data pathway to this area is partially blocked, leading to "Deafferentation of the Orientation Area". (My thought - DOA?). This hypothesis leads to the speculation that feelings of "infinite space, infinite connectivity, communion directly with God, etc. common in intense religious experience and the states achieved by meditation arise directly from starving the OAA of data.

2. The rare experience of "Absolute Unitary Being" (AUB) - essentially complete suppression of data to the OAA, is really, really powerful - but cannot be described in words -- it has to be experienced. This state leads, in a healthy way, to an understanding that all religions share a common, higher reality, and other nice things.

3. On the other hand, partial suppression of data to the OAA can lead to an understanding that one's particular understanding of God is the only valid one, leading to tribalism, war, and other bad things.

4. The feelings extant during intense enjoyment of music, or the rituals of Catholic Communion, or repeating Rosary bead Hail Marys, offer hints at the AUB without requiring the intense effort of deep meditation.

5. While the effects of mind altering drugs or brain injury or mental illness sometimes resemble that of deep meditation, meditation itself and the minds that practice meditation are essentially healthy. Furthermore, people who experience these spiritual connections, weak or strong, report happier lives than those who do not.

4. The authors say in their 2002 epilogue, "We hope our work will provide a new way to explore the connection between science and the religious urge - the driving spiritual force behind all religions - in ways that not only shed new light on the origins of human spirituality, but also give us greater scientific insights into the mysterious workings of the human brain."

I enjoyed the book but feel the experimental evidence does not fully support the hypothesis.
"
~ Written on 2008-08-01

"These authors share with us the latest neurological research findings on "the not so dramatic changes" that occur in the brain when it undergoes controlled acts of meditation: This is done by tracking the blood flow with a radioactive tracer as a CAT-Scan takes cross-sectional snapshots of a subject engaged in the actual process of meditation.

According to these authors, what the pictures show is that compared to a "statistical baseline," the frontal lobe in the subject is more active at the same time that the parietal lobe is blood-deprived. The effect on the mind of this combined increased flow in the frontal lobe and deprived flow in the parietal lobe, according to these authors, is a lost in ones sense of "self" and a perception of becoming more of "one" with the world. In short, one loses his ego orientation and his general sense of self.

The authors point out that this sense of "lost of ego" occurs also for people who go through spiritually induced trances and rituals, and other mythical religious-like experiences, including self-transcending drug induced experiences, or operations where the brain is damaged. But they are careful not to draw too fine a point about a possible direct correlation between a blood-deprived parietal lobe and over-activity in the frontal lobe, and self-transcending feelings of "oneness." According to Dr. Andrew Newberg, (on the McCloughlin Show) we get the same experience by watching a sunset, listening to Mozart, or even in temple lobe seizures caused by epilepsy or other diseases. His main point here was that the quality of the respective experiences, are all very different and are by no means easily "mapped" one-to-one into corresponding brain functions or to brain architecture, directly.

On the issue of whether belief in God fits in the same class of delusions as the "oneness" phenomenon, these authors finesse the issue in an academically trivial way: Basically saying that since all human experiences whether "direct sense data," or "reprocessed thoughts as creative ideas" (that is conceptions rather than perceptions), they are all processed in the same way: as reconstructions within the conscious mind. Thus "God experiences" are in themselves indistinguishable from any other data, including sense data. Thus due to this inherent ambiguity, we cannot tell whether belief in God is real or not? QED.

While this academically neat trick of trivializing this most important of issues may satisfy the authors need to "straddle" this sensitive fence, it does nothing for a book entitled "Why God Won't Go Away?" [If we can't trust a Neurologist (or is it Neuro-theologist?) to tell us the truth about the relationship between brain structure and conscious brain processing - that is: to tell us that God is a "mental construct" and little more -- then who can we trust?]

This trivialized position is of course difficult to square with the author's section on mysticism, where what we know about the proto-religious habits of early man, turns out to be exactly what the Freudian psychologists have always told us: that man's religious yearnings are mostly a reaction to fear, environmental threats, general lack of control over the chaos in the world, and most of all, a reaction to his fear of death: That is, that religion is very definitely a stress induced collective delusion that has been "colonized," through socialization.

The grand purpose of the book was precisely to try to answer these very questions, and the closely related, or corollary ones, such as: Are there biological roots to religious experiences? If so, what does this say about the nature of the spiritual urge? Can this experience be produced externally? That is, is the God experience exteriorly stimulated? Even if we can induce these experiences does it then follow that all of these experience are the same? For instance are theology, ideology, diseases, split-brain research, and mind-manipulation which all produce it, are also all the same (and here we mean the same in kind, not quality)?

These are the questions the research cannot yet seem to answer. Yet, the authors still make a fairly weak case that these conclusions are not inconsistent with things like belief in God, benefiting from prayer, etc.

Where the authors are more like scientists and less like Rabbis is in their analysis of the brain scans. What they say here is that when we look at the brain via a Cat-Scan, we generally see "large-scale global effects," but that what we really need to be able to see are "the small-scale more detailed effects" and their changes under "case analysis" if we are to better understand what is really going on inside the mind.

On this feeling of being a part of the larger world; the authors comes full circle: that this "oneness of being" is an ineffable God-like kind of experience that may or may not have a biological meaning. In sum, the book does a good job of describing the mechanics of brain biology, and summarizing recent research, but a poor job of answering its own questions: making the connection between brain architecture, brain mechanics and "other-worldly" or God-like experiences. On this very issue, which is so central to answering all of the questions posed above and at the beginning of the book, the author repeatedly "punts."

His "functional descriptors" are little more than names he himself has "coined" for his own self-described "brain constructs," that are spatially located loosely as identifiable brain functions. They seem to have little more than correlational relationships to actual biological structures, per se.

This mode of analysis is quite different from even what Julian Jaynes does in his book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Break-down of the Bicameral Mind" (which I note in passing is not even cited in this book: Shame on these authors!). What Jaynes shows in a very convincing non-medical way, is that consciousness itself may well have been developed as a mere by-product of brain architecture. Similarly, Peter Burger deals with these issues in a much more professional way in his "The Sacred Canopy," and in his "A Rumor of Angels." Berger, of course does not appear in the list of citations either. And although William James' "Varieties of Religious Experiences" is cited, the book of his that is most relevant to this research, "The Will to Believe," also goes unreferenced. I hesitate to even mention Shumaker's "The Corruption of Reality," which is a tour de force in this very area, but also does not appear in the list of references.

Frankly, although I am not religious, I was expecting a lot more and thus was very disappointed in this book. It seemed bent on hewing the politically correct religious line, the deference it pays to religious orthodoxy is almost fawning, which is not exactly what we expect of our scientifically-trained medical professionals.

Two stars"
~ Written on 2008-03-11

"This book explores the relationship between the brain's functioning and religion and myth. The authors note that (page 8): "Gradually, we shaped a hypothesis that suggests that spiritual experience, at its very root, is intimately interwoven with human biology. That biology, in some way, compels the spiritual urge." In short (page 9), "We will examine the biological drive that compels us to make myths, and the neurological machinery that gives these myths shape and power."

In the study of evolution, one key question is: What is the survival value of a particular behavior? What is its advantage in natural selection? How does it enhance survival odds of individuals? This book, as others, suspects that the ability to hold religious values and myths, in fact, enhances survival value of individuals and even groups. The authors note (page 138): "Their religion would serve to strengthen bonds between individuals and to encourage more peaceful and productive interaction in the community at large. Stronger social groups, of course, would mean better lives for clan members, which might ultimately result in higher rates of survival as well."

The authors, including some well-respected researchers in brain structure and function, use standard neurophysiological technology to assess the brain's functioning with respect to religious behaviors. They report studies that suggest that certain brain areas are involved in religious-related behaviors.

The book also notes that the authors do not want to set up biology versus religion dichotomy. They observe that the fact that the brain is built to accept religious values and beliefs does not mean that religious beliefs are wrong. Simply, they assert that there is machinery in place for people to be predisposed toward accepting a belief in God, or some other deity/entity.

This is an intriguing book. Readers may respond very negatively or positively, based on their beliefs. But the argument in the book makes on think about important issues in humans' lives. If for no other reason, that makes this worthwhile reading.
"
~ Written on 2007-09-22

"_Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief_ by Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene d'Aquili, M.D., Ph.D., and Vince Rause is a fascinating look into the brain science which seeks to provide an understanding of mystical experience (i.e. the experience of God). While many of the publications of scientific writers are openly hostile to religion, this book takes a different approach to the subject and attempts to shed light on religion through science without demeaning it. As scientists, the authors of this book find it necessary to maintain a position of neutrality on the existence of God; however, they do note that religious experience may be hardwired into our brains. How this religious experience is subsequently interpreted then depends on the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the individual undergoing the experience (according to the authors, at least). Furthermore, the mere fact that religious belief may be hardwired into our brains says nothing about the existence of God. The religious believer need only argue that God constructed our brains so as to allow us to experience Him; while, the atheist may propose an evolutionary explanation for the origins of such experience. Thus, the question of the existence of God, really remains a question for metaphysics and not science (despite recent popularized scientific forays into the question of God's existence). Furthermore, as the authors point out, to understand the processes at work in our brain it is necessary to understand the relationship between our brains and our minds. This raises the age old philosophical conundrum of the "mind/body problem". One solution to this problem is that advocated by physicalists who reject the mental and maintain that the mind is exactly the brain. However, the authors of this book propose another solution to this problem that differs from both materialism (or really "physicalism") and dualism (cf. Cartesian dualism which separates mind from brain). They contend that "'mind' and `brain' are two views of the same reality - mind is how the brain experiences its own functioning, and brain provides the structure of mind." This solution is proposed as a working understanding of both "mind" and "brain" and as the appropriate understanding of the relationship between the two.

The authors begin this book by discussing an experiment conducted on a meditating Buddhist. When the individual in the experiment reaches the peak moment of his mediation, he pulls a string which will allow the researchers to view the bloodflow in his brain (using a SPECT camera) after the injection of a radioactive substance into his arm. Experiments such as this have shown a lack of activation of what the researchers have termed an orientation association area (OAA), which is theorized to be responsible for orienting the individual in physical space. However, in order to perform this orientation, the OAA must first draw a sharp distinction between self/not-self. What the researchers have found though, is that during the peak moments of meditative experience, the mediators appear to have reduced activity in this region, suggesting that the boundaries between "self" and "other" are blurred. This precisely corresponds to the language used by mediators and mystics from time immemorial. After completing this discussion of the experiment, the authors take us on a tour of the brain's machinery (which is responsible for producing our perceptual experiences). The authors also outline various autonomic states and spiritual experience, the emotional brain (the limbic system), and how the mind understands the world (cognitive functions). Following this, the authors provide an evolutionary understanding of the origin of myth-making, showing its universality and its roots in even the most primitive of human ancestors. (It should be noted that the use of the term "myth" as understood by the authors does not imply that it is a "falsehood" or "fabrication". Rather, the authors use "myth" in the original Greek sense of "mythos" (translated as "word") or "musteion" which means to "close the eyes or the mouth", rooting our understanding of the term "myth" in "an experience of darkness and silence".) The authors reference in particular the works of Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung and his protégé Joseph Campbell, and their theories regarding the universality of archetypes and the role of such archetypes in the formation of myths. The authors also discuss the role of ritual, showing its apparent evolutionary origins, as well as the role of ritual in inducing mystical states. The authors contend that the repetitive actions involved in ritual are likely to induce mystical states as well as strong emotions. The authors also relate ritual to the process of myth-making. The authors next discuss mysticism proper, arguing that mysticism (an often abused term) is not to be understood in terms of psychosis or mental imbalance. Indeed, the authors contend that spontaneous mystical experiences are common in the general population (perhaps as high as 35%), and that mystics differ from psychotics in that their experiences do not often lead to grandiosity and anxiety but rather to a sense of humility and well-being. The authors show how such experiences relate to neurobiology (and their research on meditators). Following this, the authors turn their attention to the origins of religion. Here, the authors show that religion is not being cast aside (as many 19th and early 20th century atheists contended that it would be), and they contend that the reason for this is because of spontaneous mystical experiences which lead the religious to seek God. The authors contend that the religious experience of the Absolute is felt to be something "realer than real" by those who experience it. Furthermore, the authors propose an interesting theory as to the origins of fanaticism (claiming that fundamentalists and fanatics may often experience the "Absolute" in such a manner that leads them to believe they have attained absolute truth and thus reject all other conflicting viewpoints). The book is perhaps weakest however when it contends that all religious experience is fundamentally the same and that all religions arise from this same experience. This seems reductionistic and overly-simplistic. While there is certainly much good done in the vast majority of the world's positive religions, there is little reason to assume that they all are rooted in the same experience. The authors end this book with a discussion of the coming role of "neurotheology" in helping mankind to make sense of his religious experience.


As a product of scientific research, this book is very interesting, in that it attempts to use the methods of science to shed light on religious experience. It is sure to offend many of those who rigorously maintain either that religion is false or that science can say nothing about religious experience. Nevertheless, it is important to note where science reaches its limits. It is at these limits where metaphysics takes over and science can no longer tell us anything more about the nature of the ultimate Reality.
"
~ Written on 2006-11-25

"This book is an excellent engagement of several critical and interesting issues on the nature of spiritual experience and accompanying belief systems. As scientists with apparently little earlier background in religion and spirituality, the authors do a good job in getting to the bottom of what inspires religious beliefs--ultimately, in their view, a profound "spiritual" experience had by mystics, shamans, and others from diverse cultures all over the globe. They explain the neurology of how this likely works, in understandable lay terms. Along with this is a studied attempt to set it all in an evolutionary context. Yet this does not lead them to eliminate the possibility of actual spiritual reality behind the biology and its evolution. This is a very helpful approach, as opposed to the absolutism and reductionism of a decreasing number, but still the strong majority of scientists.

As a serious, long-time student of religion, I found their attitude toward religious beliefs respectful and their analysis careful. Still, their approach is primarily scientific, and makes a contribution to our knowledge of the important biological processes assisting the development of religious beliefs. Their approach is not simplistic, and was I intrigued to see that at least Dr. Newberg (his co-author, Dr. D'Aquili, died prior to the book's completion) seemed to personally be opened, by his research, toward acceptance of spiritual experiences as perhaps genuine windows into a larger-than-material reality. Yet, he is careful to indicate where he is speculating versus where he is reporting solid science.

People who want only science, only hard data, or struggle intellectually with the increasingly common science-theology interface that this book indulges, will find reason to object. But this book makes a contribution to that body of literature, which continues to grow. These works, of which "Why God Won't Go Away" is a prime example, enlighten our understanding of what makes good sense and is pro-social and healthy in spirituality versus what is dysfunctional.

I greatly appreciated the final chapter, which has been and will be debated and objected to by some. In it, the authors make the solid point that science itself involves "a type of mythology, a collection of explanatory stories that resolve the mysteries of existence and help us cope with the challenges of life" (p. 170). Another way of saying what I think they mean is that everyone, including scientists, are "religious" in the broadest sense of the word.

The kind of work represented in this book helps foster clearer and deeper dialog between two realms which are often too rigidly set against one another. The authors caution against taking literally the "foundational assumptions" of either religion or science. "But if we understand the metaphorical nature of their insights, then their incompatibilities are reconciled, and each becomes more powerfully and transcendently real" (p. 171)."
~ Written on 2006-08-04