The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality & God [Paperback]

Suppose everything Alper says is correct. The mind is hard-wired for religious belief because that enhances survival and successful reproduction. The next question is: WHY should we seek to become free of that hard-wiring? Here, ethical issues intervene. If one takes the view of Spinoza and other rationalist and empiricist philosophers that happiness consists of living in accordance with one's nature, and if religion is a very basic part of that nature, then doing without religion is an insult to one's inherent capacities, akin to permanent celibacy or a vow of poverty.

I recognize that Alper is operating from a fairly high moral concept when he urges us to avoid religion because of the atrocities and irrationalities that have accompanied it in its corporate form throughout history. We must recognize his call to reject ALL religious belief, however, as a call to cut off our right hand (or in this case our right temporal lobe) to keep from "sinning." Such drastic measures are called for ONLY if we can be certain that the God-concept has no basis in reality, a showing he does not even attempt.

The issue of God's actual existence requires a specialized inquiry beyond the scope of Alper's book. Assuming we are agnostic on this question, why not take the plunge and find a workable conception of imminence or transcendence that satisfies the promptings of our right temporal lobe? Psychologists since William James have recognized the value of belief as an organizing principle for life.

Throughout history people have discovered that it is possible to find a God belief without the irrationalities of doctrinal religion. Thus, "transcendence" calls on me to improve my life, to solve tough problems, to embrace great causes. "Imminence" rejoices with me in the beauty of what already exists. It may be only a useful illusion, but many people need to see these qualities as mediated to them by a personal being. Whether or not they are, one finds that these qualities are present, both within and in the world beyond the self.

Thus, "God" may be pure abstraction, the useful parts of nature mediated to me through the right-hand side of my brain. Then again, he could exist as a real being; who knows? To ask whether "God" is supernatural or whether I can prove "His" existence is to miss the point. Even if he is nothing but a figment of my right temporal lobe, why should I lobotomize myself by anaesthesizing that very useful part of my brain?

The author ties together his own spiritual journey with ideas strung together from the likes of Jung, Kant, Plato, Freud, Darwin and E.Wilson, but unfortunately, in my view, leaves out many ideas concerning group conflict-something with which 'groupish' primates are very much affected. One trouble with emphasising 'awareness of death' in the evolution of religious impulses, is just how relevant the 'fear of death' is to say, teenagers-and yet teenagers can have a quite developed 'spiritual impulse'. (eg The average age of 'religious conversion' quoted in the book is 15.2 years, from a study of 15,000). The association of prayer with healing is discussed, (ie essentially placebo, but also stress reduction), 'near death experiences' (neurochemistry evolved to reduce anxiety), 'speaking in tongues' (glossolalia-not explained here, but possibly, in my view, an infant/childhood mechanism overlapping into adulthood-like crying tears), and others such as guilt, morality, etc are discussed in the light of evolutionary theory as applied to human behaviour.

One major point I think the author misses though, is that like consciouness itself, 'spirituality' is likely a holisitic and/or emergant brain function, there may in many cases therefore be no specific 'part' as such. Another problem I had is that he vastly under-rates 'thinking' in other biological organisms. For example, in describing pantheistic mysticism "one feels that totality of the world is the greatest power and one can see themselves as part of that totality. During this experience a person has a sense that he is part of all that is around him" (p111). Why couldn't this be a kind of territorial instinct?-it could therefore be in other animals. In describing monastic mysticism-"a person experiences a surrendering of personal identity to a singular or central point of consciousness" (p110)-again why can't this be present amongst other social, hirearcheal organisms? Also, theistic mysticism-"seeng or feeling the presence of a personification or a named force which intones a higher power" (p110). There is no discussion of the possiblility of any of these experiences having biological origins more ancient than recent hominid evolution. There may be a difference between the ability to be 'spiritual', and to ability to formulate abstract concepts. (How does a bat really 'think'?). His argument against spirituality in other animals is wholly the lack of religious rites (p84), but 'religious rites' do not necessarily constitute spirituality-as anyone disillusioned with conventional religion will happily tell you (He alludes to this on p149). Another example of his gross under-rating of thinking in other animals is on p117, where chimps are given foot-noted recognition that they can see themselves in the mirror only because they have "evolutionary proximity to our species".

The association of schizophrenia and (some) religious belief is also not mentioned, although the association is obvious and has been pointed out by others (eg Jaynes). In his discussion on 'religious conversion', for example, he suggests "when the ego is so riddled with anxiety that it ruptures, natural selection has installed our species with a physiologically based "religious spare"of "cognitive transformation", which often leads to "rapturous contentment". The cost of carrying this spare (in the gene pool) is "the small price of personal identity". However, there may also be more adaptive 'cost' than this-such a descriptive transformation is surprisingly similar to those who suffer schizophrenic breakdown through stress-there may *possibly* be a relationship, which is important. It is also possible that schizophrenia itself has biological precursors in other organisms-dissociating/splitting under stress may be adaptive.

These points aside, his journey from religious skepticism to scientific explanation is tinged with individual strength and understanding, (notwithstanding what I would call his human arrogance). I liked his distinction between 'spirituality' and 'religion' (p149)-this is not widely recognised. I also think his points about different kinds of spirituality/mysticism are good- it seems our words for 'religion'/spirituality are woefully inadequate-which of course reflects our lack of understanding of the functioning of our own brains.

Sociobiological in outlook-p156 quotes E.Wilson-"scientists and humanists should consider together the possiblity that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the philosophers and biologized." I happen to agree, but with much caution-frameworks which have stood socially for thousands of years need to be challenged/complimented very carefully, with verifiable science and open discussion.

The book is a strong attempt to understand human nature. Very good, very controversial, with gaps and weaknesses likely to be strengthened in future years through ongoing brain research. Other books recommended in this general genre of 'sociobiology' are "Consilience" (broader philosophy of science, religion, sociobiology), and "Why God won't Go away" (neurological basis of spirituality).

The larger picture he draws is flawed and easily dismissed through the updating of very old arguments. For example, we experience light because we are hard wired to do so. This hardwiring is the result of an evolutionary process. However, this does not mean light does not exist.

An iteresting begining, but the author needs to give theology a little more respect and a much closer study. If he does so I suspect he will find lush grounds to think and write about.