Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Michael Gerson :: Townhall.com Columnist
God and Your Brain
by Michael Gerson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


WASHINGTON -- Religion has often unintentionally enabled scientific skepticism. The faithful will issue a challenge to science: Ha, you can't explain the development of life, or the moral sense, or the nearly universal persistence of religion. To which the materialist responds: Can too. It is all biology and chemistry, thus disproving your God hypothesis.

To this musty debate, Andrew Newberg, perhaps America's leading expert on the neurological basis of religion, brings a fresh perspective. His new book, "How God Changes Your Brain," co-authored with Mark Robert Waldman, summarizes several years of groundbreaking research on the biological basis of religious experience. And it offers plenty to challenge skeptics and believers alike.

Based on brain imaging studies of Franciscan nuns and Buddhist practitioners, Sikhs and Sufis -- along with everyday people new to meditation -- Newberg asserts that traditional spiritual practices such as prayer and breath control can alter the neural connections of the brain, leading to "long-lasting states of unity, peacefulness and love." He assures the mystically challenged (such as myself) that these neural networks begin to develop quickly -- a matter of weeks in meditation, not decades on a Tibetan mountaintop. And though meditation does not require a belief in God, strong religious belief amplifies its effect on the brain and enhances "social awareness and empathy while subduing destructive feelings and emotions."

Newberg argues that religious belief is often personally and socially advantageous, allowing men and women to "imagine a better future." And he does not contend, as philosophically lazy scientists sometimes do, that a biological propensity toward belief automatically disproves the existence of an object of such belief. "Neuroscience cannot tell you if God does or doesn't exist," Newberg states with appropriate humility. Neurobiology helps explain religion; it does not explain it away.

But Newberg's research offers warnings for the religious as well. Contemplating a loving God strengthens portions of our brain -- particularly the frontal lobes and the anterior cingulate -- where empathy and reason reside. Contemplating a wrathful God empowers the limbic system, which is "filled with aggression and fear." It is a sobering concept: The God we choose to love changes us into his image, whether he exists or not.

For Newberg, this is not a simple critique of religious fundamentalism -- a phenomenon varied in its beliefs and motivations. It is a criticism of any institution that allies ideology or faith with anger and selfishness. "The enemy is not religion," writes Newberg, "the enemy is anger, hostility, intolerance, separatism, extreme idealism, and prejudicial fear -- be it secular, religious, or political."

Newberg employs a vivid image: two packs of neurological wolves, he says, are found in every brain. One pack is old and powerful, oriented toward survival and anger. The other is comprised of pups -- the newer parts of the brain, more creative and compassionate -- "but they are also neurologically vulnerable and slow when compared to the activity in the emotional parts of the brain." So all human beings are left with a question: Which pack do we feed?

"How God Changes Your Brain" has many revelations -- and a few limitations. In a practical, how-to tone, it predicts "an epiphany that can improve the inner quality of your life. For most Americans, that is what spirituality is about." But if this is what spirituality is all about, it isn't about very much. Mature faith sometimes involves self-sacrifice, not self-actualization; anguish, not comfort. If the primary goal of religion is escape or contentment, there are other, even more practical methods to consider. "I didn't go to religion to make me happy," said C.S. Lewis, "I always knew a bottle of port would do that." The same could be said of psychedelic drugs, which can mimic spiritual ecstasy.

Every religious discussion eventually comes down to the question of truth. Can we escape from the wheel of becoming, or hear God's voice in a wandering prophet, or meet a man once dead? Without such beliefs, religion is mere meditation. Newberg's research shows an amplified influence of religious practices on those who "truly believe." But Newberg himself has difficulty sharing such belief. His research on the varieties of religious experience -- and his scientific understanding that the brain is drawn naturally toward artificial certainties -- leave him skeptical about the capacity of the human mind to accurately perceive "universal or ultimate truth."

Yet, he told me, "To this day, I am still seeking and searching." And that is the most honest kind of science.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Gerson writes a twice-weekly column for The Post on issues that include politics, global health, development, religion and foreign policy. Michael Gerson is the author of the book "Heroic Conservatism" and a contributor to Newsweek magazine.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Michael Gerson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Gerson=sad
This article is pitiful. First, it is materialistic and reductionist, equating the soul with the physical organ, the brain. Secondly, religion is a relationship with another Person, God, not whatever Gerson/Newberg impotently describe it as. Thirdly, "social awareness and empathy while subduing destructive feelings and emotions" are admirable, but they are only the horizontal consequence of religion, which is primarily a vertical relationship with the Creator. Fourthly, "Newberg argues that religious belief is often personally and socially advantageous,..."; this is called utiliarianism, not religion.

Finally, Gerson cites the caricaturized "wrathful God..." The Judaeo-Christian God is not inherently "wrathful;" He gives us free will, which sometimes explodes back on us in a wrathful way.

Questionable premises
Dubious premises by Newberg, Gerson and posters alike. Generally, Buddhists and Taoists don't believe in a personal God or a divine being. They neither worship, pray to, or praise a divine being. Many other religions (Hinduism) are pantheistic.

Also, does Newberg attempt to compare the changes he claims to see to what results from similar non-religious activities like painting, reading, fishing, etc.? Does he have evidence that meditation by Buddhists and Taoists don't result in the same changes as meditation by believers in a god? Everyone here seems to be assuming way too much before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Tacitus X
Questionable premises. Now that has got to be the understatement of the year. The premises of religion have been questioned by millions for millenia. The physical manifestations of metaphysics is a fascinating subject. The article and column bring new facts to light. Interpretation is up to the reader. Any fact is useful. Everything is magic until it is understood. My brain works only on finite and definable amounts of time, space and matter. It gets hinky when dealing with infinite anything, or dividing by zero. But like the fellow trying to interpret the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave, i believe there is Something out there.

My religion
not only 'imagines' a better future, it unabashedly promises it. The empty tomb is all the evidence I need!


interesting study
It isn't clear why the part of this that is supposed to have lessons for the materialist are actually supposed to have lessons for the materialist. There are problems with materialism, but everything above sounds like a description of a physical process whereby excercising a part of the brain strengthens that part of the brain. In fact the effect seems somewhat removed from concern with the particular content of that exercise. That hardly seems an argument for the value of some particular theology.

This is an argument that it is good to be spiritual, in the sense of good for you. That may be true, but is irrelevant to any arguments about whether there is any truth to spirituality. Gerson sees this to a degree, but other parts of the argument seem to miss it.

Reality Bytes
As someone who has studied psychology extensively I can appreciate Newburg's research and what it entails. Anybody who has ever done research knows the power of belief. And belief has real affects on the human brain. These effects weren't measurable until the past few decades and they really do put spirituality into perspective. In the context of this study there is nothing divine or spiritual about it. It still stems from a person's belief. It does nothing to prove or disprove any god or supernatural forces. So people who say the radical nature of conversion is evidence for god are officially out of luck.

Fascinating
When I was in high school, some 40 years ago, we used to debate all sorts of religious issues far into the night. We were Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals and Atheists. It was good healthy discussion and spurred us to learn more about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and other religions. (I think someone actually became a B'Hai.)

It seemed obvious then, and now, that millions of people are true believers, even though they believe in dramatically different things! The operating principle across all those theologies was not the God or the rules or the afterlife: the operating principle in religion is the very fact of believing!

THis research supports what I learned decades ago. What one believes in does nto matter: what changes your life is the fact that you believe.






John, et al
"THis research supports what I learned decades ago. What one believes in does nto matter: what changes your life is the fact that you believe."


This research supports no such thing. If it did, then the conclusion itself would not matter one bit; the only thing that would matter would be that one 'believes' that it matters.

I can't believe how painfully crippled we are in our present atmosphere of clip-board-carrying, white-coated priests being the only arbiters of truth. We seem to be unable to believe the simplest things unless there is a study conducted to 'prove' it with a graph. That is, until the next study comes out and reverses the previous conclusions.

Here is the simple thing to believe or not about God and Jesus Christ: If Jesus rose from the dead then belief in him is not a one way conversation. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then belief in him is a dead end. Period.

A study on what parts of my brain light up when I pray is about as enlightening as a study on which parts of my body light up when I love-- and concluding it makes no difference whether there's anyone there or not!?

I recommend another angle...
I agree with the general gist of the other commentators. From Gerson's review, the Newburg/Waldman book seems little more than a New Age spin on the traditional materialistic world view. If you want this perspective, Steven Pinker is the high priest of materialist brain "science."

Try Beauregard & O'Leary's The Spiritual Brain for a more balanced examination.

Most interesting....
.... of all is the hint of further evolution of man in that the older parts of the brain are aggressive and survival/fear based, whereas the newer parts are where empathy and reason reside. Fascinating.

Brain Identity


Mr. Gerson: Thank you for your interesting article and I look forward to reading Newberg and Waldman’s new book.

But what if we have all been misled by language invented by our predecessors and the simple truth turns out to be that we are not “human beings” or “persons” but rather human brains that are intimately connected to all the organs and other parts of the particular human body in which we reside? What if the word “person” and the “personal pronouns” we commonly use such as “I”, “me”, “we”, “you”, etc. are only linguistic inventions of human brains that for one reason or another were unable to identify themselves correctly as actually being human brains?
It can be shown that a human brain has the ability to create and use spoken and written language through the use of certain areas of cerebral cortex located usually its left hemisphere. Strokes or other damage in these areas cause impairment or loss of a human brain’s ability to produce and understand spoken and written language. Precisely which linguistic abilities are impaired or lost in any given instance and to what degree depends upon the exact location and extent of the brain damage.
We know that every human brain and body has been built by a new combination of parental DNA that resulted from the union of a particular egg and a particular sperm in a newly formed single cell; and over about a nine month period the information stored in the DNA inside that first cell caused it to divide and grow into trillions of cells of various types, all of which were organized into what we simply lump together into the two words “newborn baby”.

Brain Identity (Cont.)
We also know that having been built by DNA, each brain and body – beginning even during the building process and continuing ever after - has been continually modified by an enormous amount of environmental variables and experience up to and including the present moment.
Suppose for the sake of argument that my assumption is correct and I actually am a human brain that is continuous with a spinal cord and connected by nerves to all the organs and other parts of the body in which I reside. If that is true, does that automatically mean that it is impossible for anything else to exist – something we human brains might choose to call a “Supreme Being”, or a “Supernatural Force”, or perhaps “God” – that is not made of atoms and molecules like we are and is orders of magnitude more powerful? Of course not! How does knowing what you are and how you came into existence inform you about what else may or may not exist?
But if I am not a “human being” or a “person” that “owns” a brain and a body, but rather am a particular human brain that is intimately connected to and living within a human body, the brain inside my skull is not “my brain”, it is “me”.

Why religion?
Is it that humans can contemplate their death and do not want death to be the end? So different groups have sought ways to deal with that by constructing a system of beliefs that offers hope for an after life. Can it be that those groups who believed in something outside themselves-or their family or clan-survived better than groups who did not have such beliefs?
Just because we cannot now prove how the universe came about and just because we cannot prove how the inorganic (not alive) became organic (alive) does not mean that we cannot know how we evolved from early beginnings into our present forms.
I have read read that people who go to church are healthier, happier and live longer-and have more children-than do non-church goers.
But Protestant church goers have just as many divorces or maybe even more than others-or so I have read. so all is not well with church goers.
Donald W. Bales

The crux of the matter
A believer has everything to win. When he gets to the 'other side,' if he indeed has the proof that his faith has been justified all along, he has gained everything. If he instead finds nothingness, as atheists claim, he has lost nothing.
An atheist by contrast, if he gets to the other side and finds that there indeed is 'something' he will by then have lost everything.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.