Neurotheology: Challenges and Opportunities

Review article Neurotheology: challenges and opportunities Pierre-Yves Brandta,Fabrice Clémentb,Russell Re Manningc a University of Lausanne, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Lausanne, Switzerland b University of Neuchâtel, Faculty of Humanities, Neuchâtel, Switzerland c University of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity,Cambridge, UK Funding /conflict of interest: No funding. No conflict of interest. Summary are. In order of emergence, these synthetic or subdisciplines include neuropsychology, neurophysiology and neurophi- During the last decades of the twentieth century scholars have proposed losophy, to which list has recently been added “neurotheol- “neurotheology” as a new subdiscipline of the neurosciences. This article ogy”. The present article will concern itself with this emer- presents a review and discussion of different interpretations placed on neu- gent discipline, presenting first a review of the different in- rotheology, and attempts to estimate the extent to which neuroscience is a terpretations placed on it, followed by a discussion of these challenge and/or an opportunity for theology and (for the study of) religion. interpretations from the viewpoints of philosophy and the- On the neuroscientific side, neurotheology can be split into a reductionist ology, cognitive science and the psychology of religion and and a religionist neuroscience of religion. On the theological side, it can be religious studies. split into apologetic and integrative approaches. The appraisal of these different interpretations and of the relevance of neuroscience for the study of religion is conducted from three points of view: philosophy and theology, cog- Neuroscience: achallenge and/or opportunity nitive science, psychology of religion and sciences of religions. for religion and theology Key words: neurotheology; neurosciences; scientific study of religion; philosophy of religion; cognitive sciences; psychology of religion The rise of neuroscience is both a significant challenge and an exciting opportunity for religion and theology. On the one hand, neuroscientific research into the nature and func- tioning of the brain seems to threaten traditional religious Introduction and theological assumptions, especially concerning the soul and religious experience. Conversely, advances in neuro- Fuelled by the “convergence of three previously unre- science seem to offer previously unparalleled resources for lated areas of scientific endeavour” – experimental psychol- the study of religious beliefs and activities, as well as provid- ogy, comparativeneuropsychology, and brain-imaging tech- ing both scientific support for theological claims or creative niques – neuroscience has been amongst the most rapidly resources for their development. The ambiguity of neuro- growing areas of scientific enquiry in the late twentieth and science for religion and theology is reflected in the variety of early twenty-first centuries [1–2]. This emphasis on the re- ways in which “neurotheology”, or the application of neu- cent rapidexpansion of neuroscience is not of course to deny roscience to religion and theology, has developed. The pub- its significant “prehistory” [3–4]. But the rapid development lication in 1984 of an article on neurotheology by a theolo- of brain imaging rendered possible the observation of brain gian-turned student of neuroscience, James Ashbrook, con- activity in a way unthinkable until then. The consequences tributed to rendering the term more popular [6]. The claims of this expansion have been spelt out by its practitioners, of that article were further developed in a book-length treat- most famouslybyFrancis Crick,whose “astonishing hypoth- ment [7]. Whilst the term has become widely used, it has esis” is framed explicitly as a direct challenge to the legiti- not been universally accepted; there is no agreed standard macy of non-neuroscientific accounts of the human person: definition, beyond the affirmation that it is concerned with “The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘you’ – your joys and the potential to be derived from bringing neuroscientific re- your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of search into contact with religious and theological questions. personal identity and free will – are in fact no more than the Indeed, even Ashbrook seems uncomfortable with the term: behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associ- his first use of the word is immediately followed by the dis- ated molecules” [5]. Today, neuroscience seems unescapable claimer “for want of a simpler label”. Central to the com- if we wish to understand the nature and significance of the plexity of the label is the distinction between two types of human person. It is neuroscience that tells us who we really enterprise, both of which are frequently presented as neurotheology. Firstly, neurotheology can be understood as the Correspondence: neuroscientific study of religious phenomena (beliefs, be- Dr. Pierre-Yves Brandt haviour and practices) – neurotheology as a form of neu- University of Lausanne roscience. Secondly, however, neurotheology can be un- Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies derstood as neurologically informed theological reflection Anthropole CH-1015 Lausanne – neurotheology as a form of theology. Within both of these [email protected] main types further distinctions can be drawn. SCHWEIZER ARCHIV FÜR NEUROLOGIE UND PSYCHIATRIE 2010;161(8):305–9 www.sanp.ch | www.asnp.ch 305 Review article Reductionist or religionist approaches blocks neural flow in the parietal lobe and consists of unitary sensations with loss of the differentiation between self and The neuroscientific study of religion can be split into reduc- non-self. Despite their opposite view to Persinger concerning tionist and religionist schools [8]. Reductive neuroscience of the neurological specificity of religious experiences, New- religion aims to disprove thereality or importance of religion berg and d’Aquili, like him, are determined to replace theol- and to replace it with non-mysterious neurological functions ogywith the new scientifically real understanding of religion (or malfunctions). Typical of the reductionist form of neuro- achieved through neuroscience. Theology is unscientific and science of religion is the work of Michael Persinger [9–10]. hence must be replaced by the new discipline of neurotheol- For Persinger, “God” is simply the name given to a supposed ogy, considered as neuroscience of religion. Religion is to be external cause of sensations and sentiments that are, strictly saved at the cost of theology. speaking, no more than neurological accidents. The domain of “the religious” is, accordingly, characterised as one that is Apologetic or integrative theological approaches generated or projected by the brain in order to account for a set of mental activities for which the causes are unclear to While some scholars understand neurotheology as a subdis- the conscious brain. Persinger’s experiments locate “every- cipline of neurosciences, others identify it with a theologi- one’s religious/mystical experience” in a residuum of a par- cal interpretation of the data provided by them. This second ticular biological activity, namely an epileptiform seizure type of neurotheology can also be further subdivided into with foci in the temporal lobes, particularly the amygdala the “apologetic” and the “integrative”. For the apologetic ap- and hippocampus. These microseizures involve both posi- proach, the evidence of neuroscience is used to confirm or tive emotions such as peacefulness and meaningfulness, but justify theological claims. The work of James B. Ashbrook, also negative emotions like anxiety and fear. Chemical con- and in particular the book he published with Carol Rausch sequences of stress, such as hypoglycaemia, fatigue, hypoxia Albright in 1997, exemplifies this approach, which can be (lack of oxygen) or anxiety, can trigger such accidents. Pers- read as an apologetic “natural theology of the brain” [13]. inger maintains that these experiences were critical for the Ashbrook and Albright’s central claim is that the structures survival of the human species. Faced with the terror of per- and distinctive features of the human brain are descriptive sonal extinction provoked by an imminent danger, our an- not only of the human mind, but also of our knowledge of cestors simultaneously had a God experience. During this God. The study of the human brain (the most complex or- experience, their fear disappeared and they were ready to gan of them all) teaches us that it is “suited to receiving and die. The central thrust of this approach is clearly to explain processing relevant information in other realms of knowl- religion by revealing its neurological underpinnings. Pers- edge”. It follows that it is also “suited to perceiving some real inger aims to demonstrate that all religious beliefs in a tran- attributes of the Ground of Being that undergirds our imme- scendent Other are illusory. In that perspective, theology diatereality”. In other words, the human brain is able to per- has no future. ceive God’s attributes. By contrast, religionist neuroscience of religion is con- The second theological interpretation of neurotheology cerned with manifesting the underlying neural bases of re- can be characterised as the integrative approach. According ligious phenomena – by showing that there is a “genuine” to this approach neuroscience is to be integrated into its ten- neural occurrence that accompanies such phenomena. This

Load more