Product Description

Why have we humans always longed to connect with something larger than ourselves? Even today in our technologically advanced age, more than seventy percent of Americans claim to believe in God. Why, in short, won’t God go away? In this groundbreaking new book, researchers Andrew Newberg and Eugene d’Aquili offer an explanation that is at once profoundly simple and scientifically precise: The religious impulse is rooted in the biology of the brain.

In Why God Won’t Go Away, Newberg and d’Aquili document their pioneering explorations in the field of neurotheology, an emerging discipline dedicated to understanding the complex relationship between spirituality and the brain. Blending cutting-edge science with illuminating insights into the nature of consciousness and spirituality, they bridge faith and reason, mysticism and empirical data. The neurological basis of how the brain identifies the “real” is nothing short of miraculous. This fascinating, eye-opening book dares to explore both the miracle and the biology of our enduring relationship with God.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #50465 in Books
• Published on: 2002-03-26
• Released on: 2002-03-26
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 240 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780345440341
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Amazon.com Review
Over the centuries, theories have abounded as to why human beings have a seemingly irrational attraction to God and religious experiences. In Why God Won't Go Away authors Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquili, M.D., and Vince Rause offer a startlingly simple, yet scientifically plausible opinion: humans seek God because our brains are biologically programmed to do so.

Researchers Newberg and D'Aquili used high-tech imaging devices to peer into the brains of meditating Buddhists and Franciscan nuns. As the data and brain photographs flowed in, the researchers began to find solid evidence that the mystical experiences of the subjects "were not the result of some fabrication, or simple wishful thinking, but were associated instead with a series of observable neurological events," explains Newberg. "In other words, mystical experience is biologically, observably, and scientifically real.... Gradually, we shaped a hypothesis that suggests that spiritual experience, at its very root, is intimately interwoven with human biology." Lay readers should be warned that although the topic is fascinating, the writing is geared toward scientific documentation that defends the authors' hypothesis. For a more palatable discussion, seek out Deepak Chopra's How to Know God, in which he also explores this fascinating evidence of spiritual hard-wiring. --Gail Hudson

From Publishers Weekly
The collaborative efforts of science writer Rause, radiologist Newberg and psychiatrist d'Aquili (Newberg's late colleague at the University of Pennsylvania) result in a murky and overspiritualized remix of what should be a compelling scientific investigation into the neurology of mystical experience. The book's best material is its summary of Newberg and d'Aquili's research using advanced imaging technologies to study brain activity during "peak" meditative states, which not only suggests a characteristic radiological profile but also uncovers some specific correlations between brain function and subjective religious experience. For example, in subjects who reported a feeling of infinite perspective and self-transcendence during meditation, the researchers identified decreased activity in the brain's "object association areas" where perceptions of the boundary between self and other are normally processed. The authors conclude that these experiences are the result of normal, healthy neurophysiology, not to be dismissed as pathological or random events a point that believers and practitioners will doubtless appreciate. But the broader questions these results suggest questions about the origins and significance of human religious behavior lead the researchers quite out of their depth into a speculative rehash of Joseph Campbell, comparative religion and sociobiology. This culminates in a confused and confusing discussion of what it means to accept that religious experience is "neurologically real" or that spirituality "does us good."

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
This fascinating and thought-provoking book by two neurologists and a veteran journalist reflects the two physicians' long-term interests in the role of religious experience in the mind and its location in the brain. Their studies were most often done with the aid of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), a process in which the subject need not be in a machine while it is working. SPECT allows all involved to work in an informal atmosphere, which has undoubtedly made the results obtained more closely reflect both religious and neurological reality. Early on, the authors assert that "biology, in some way, compels the spiritual urge." They know the literature of their field and of religious experience, as well as the history of the mind and brain. They write lucidly, analogize effectively and often strikingly, and delightfully combine science and human interest. Their arguments are cogent, and their observations and questions should keep readers seriously involved. William Beatty
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Customer Reviews

Clear and solid in some areas, very weak in others
Thsi book does a good job expounding the authors' theory of the neural mechanisms behind transcendent experience, and its relationship to religious belief. They start out explicitly relying on the traditional objective realist position, and show how interaction of certain brain areas can lead us to lose our sense of boundaries in time and space. Thus the authors theorize that ineffable mystical experience arises from inhibition of a brain region that is critical for maintaining our sense of boundaries in time and space. The description is not very technical, but it is clear and should make sense to general readers without any background in neurology. The authors use their own simple terms for brain areas and functions rather than using the more obscure jargon of neuroscience. The excplanations work well up to a point.

There is another, weaker aspect to this book, which is the philosophical musings of the authors. Somewhere in the middle of the book, they decide that there are only two positions to be taken, objective realism and subjectivism. They make the reasonable point (though without supporting it in the book) that current neuroscience research reveals human perception to be constructed to a great degree, rather than directly providing a literal reflection of nature. This particular point is made in more detail by others, such as by Gerald Edelman in "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire," also suitable for general readers, and by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their writings, as well as Walter Freeman in "How Brains Make Up Their Minds."

Having made the point that objective realism is not an accurate way to think about how experience arises from the brain, and assuming that the only think left is subjectivism, he is forced to concede that "neurological reality" as he calls it, hs to reflect ontological reality.

That is, he jumps to the conclusion that since mystical experience reflects something _really happening_ in the brain, that there must be a 'reality' being perceived by mystics. This may be true in some sense, but it is very confused and confusing thinking.

For one thing, the authors claim that hallucinations are distinguishable from mystical experience in that mystical experience seems much more real. Yet hypnosis research not cited by the authors reveals that under some conditions hallucinations are as real as perceptions, and rely on the same brain areas, and that our bodies respond to them as if they were perceptions. In other words, the authors seem to get even the neurology wrong when they discuss what they call the "existential operator" that assigns a sense of reality to experience. Contrary to the claims of the authors, the brain can indeed produce a perfectly solid sense of reality, right down to the brain regions used for sensory perception, from products of imagination, through suggestion. This weakens their conclusion that "mystical experience is more real than hallucination" considerably, though of course it does not completely negate it.

Secondly, the authors don't recognize that there are options besides metaphysical dualism and objective realism. The fact that we perceive mystical union as if it were as real as sensory experience doesn't mean it has ontological reality. There are also very credible alternate views such as pragmatism (Walter Freeman, in "How Brains Make up their Minds,"), embodied realism (Lakoff and Johnson in "Philosophy in the Flesh"), and "relational consciousness" (John Taylor in "The Race for Consciousness").

These alternate views all allow for meaning to be constructed in the mind, such as through meaningful action on the environment, without making it either a delusion or an objective reality in itself. Thus, mystical experience can be meaningful and we can have theories, about its signficance as an evolutionary adapatation for example, without making mystical experience ontologically equivalent to a table or a chair, or resorting to a dualism of "objective realities."

The authors simply don't make the case they claim to make that mystical experience is 'objectively real' because it is 'neurologically real.' However, they do an excellent job of describing their evidence for the neural mechansisms in very clear and simple terms for general readers.

God in the Brain's Machine?
Science cannot determine that gods of any type exist, nor can it determine that no gods exist. However, there may be scientific reasons why the belief in gods remains strong. In the surprisingly titled _Why God Won't Go Away_ Ballantine Books) by Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquilli, M.D., and Vince Rause, we get a fascinating scientific answer to the title question, and a review of the current scientific understanding of the roots of belief. The authors have done research by means of brain scans on those who are having mystical or religious experiences. The brain scans show that something is going on among the neurons that doesn't happen at other times. Most of the scans described in the authors' research show an increase in activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area just behind the top of the head. They call this for operational purposes the "orientation association area (OAA)," because the OAA orients a person in physical space. "To perform this crucial function, it must first generate a clear, consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. In simple terms, it must draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else; to sort out the you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe." When this area is damaged by trauma or stroke, patients have difficulty maneuvering in physical space; when it is extra active, it seems to be a source of an inexplicable feeling of connection to all creation. A meditator describes the ineffable state in terms that are typical: "There's a sense of timelessness and infinity. It feels like I am part of everyone and everything in existence."

The authors explain that the gene-driven wiring of the brain to encourage religious beliefs exists because it has been evolutionarily good for us. Stimulating the OAA or the autonomic nervous system can produce calm and a sense of well-being which may be not only pleasant but physically beneficial. Beliefs driven by neurology could reinforce themselves by building myths, encouraging ritual, uniting societies and providing social support from fellow believers. They can check worry about eventual annihilation. They can provide a feeling of control.

Those of a religious bent will find matter to argue with inside these pages, even though the authors are very careful not to argue for or against the existence of deities, only that "the neurological aspects of spiritual experience support the sense of the realness of God." Some may also find disconcerting the idea that ecstasy of religious mysticism may have its roots in the structures that bring on orgasm. Others will find the practical answer to the title's question just too pragmatic and pat, but given the extraordinary research as it now stands, it is the best that science can do as it begins to look into religious feeling: "What we know beyond question is that the mind is essentially a machine designed to solve the riddles of existence, and as long as our brains are wired as they are, God will not go away." This book is a wonderful introduction into this fascinating research.

So Is It a Brain Thing or a Real Thing?
I must admit that I'm very torn as to how to review this book. On the one hand, I thoroughly enjoyed the first 80% of it. It was new information for me, it was insightful, it was affirming, and I was devouring it. Then I came to this transition point, where the authors make the leap from neuroscience to philosophy, and suddenly my notes in the margins kept getting more and more critical. So here's what I think I'll say about it...

First, I enjoyed enormously the discussion on the biological brain functioning, and the conclusions that they derive in the first few chapters. The best way to summarize that particular discussion is as follows. Your brain is designed to keep you alive. As it developed particularly unique and complex abilities, most notably the ability for causal analysis, it discovered that there is one thing that the brain cannot do with regard to our surival...it cannot ultimately prevent our death. Since the limbic system creates an "anxiety response" to physical threats, the brain must create a response to quiet the anxiety produced by this existential discovery. If it is a normal stimulus, the brain knows how to tell the self to flee or fight. But with the ultimate death, there is no such possible response. So the brain invents answers, including God, life after death, etc. to quell the anxiety, and the neurology of the brain creates such powerful physiological response that we "feel" we have come to "true" conclusions.

I liked that part. But then they make some major leaps and begin to describe a concept that they call "Absolute Unitary Being," about which I never did get a clear idea of what they mean. On the one hand, it sounds like they are simply describing a "ground-state" of reality, from which all our neurological perceptions arise. I'm okay with that. But then they go further and posit the notion that this Absolute Unitary Being is a higher plane of reality, more real than ordinary reality, and may be identified as "God." For me, things just ground to a halt, both because I philosophically disagree (which is okay), and because I felt like they never did establish a firm linkage between the science and the philosophy. Maybe I'm too dense to get it, but it just seemed to fall apart at that point.

That said, I still think this is a book well worth reading. It's short, so it won't take you long to get some good stuff out of it. And maybe you'll get more out of their leaps into philosophy than I did.