I got a copy of Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science & The Biology of Belief from the library. It’s a book written for the general public and so is easy to understand (terminology at a minimum). That’s all good. However…

Before I get to that the book is published by Ballantine Books which is part of Random House. It’s a for-profit business, so some of what comes next may be at their request. The book is targeted to the US market and I suspect the publishers may have wanted material in the text reassuring American religious persons that just because neurology can explain the god experience, this doesn’t mean that god doesn’t exist. Whether the American public actually requires such overtly silly reassurances, is a question I cannot answer.

The problem started when I hit paragraph three on page 9.

A skeptic might suggest that a biological origin to all spiritual longings and experiences, including the universal human yearning to connect with something divine, could be explained as a delusion caused by the chemical misfirings of a bundle of nerve cells.

Ahuh – clang, clang, clang. “Misfirings”? Oh ho, I thought. Read that word choice along with “a skeptic” and the suggestion is that this is a silly thing to believe.

Then the next paragraph:

But the SPECT scans suggested another possibility. The orientation area was working unusually but not improperly, and we believe that we were seeing colorful evidence on the SPECT’s computer screen of the brain’s capacity to make spiritual experience real. After years of scientific study, and careful consideration of our results, Gene and I further believe that we saw evidence of a neurological process that has evolved to allow us humans to transcend material existence and acknowledge and connect with a deeper, more spiritual part of ourselves perceived of as an absolute, universal reality that connects us to all that is.

So either the brain is misfiring or humans can “transcend material existence”?

I nearly gacked. It’s also when I went to the cataloging information in the front of the book and realized that the book was published by a popular press, not necessarily dedicated to decent argument. Either/or arguments should always make you sit up and ask “what the fuck are they trying to shove down my throat.”

“…the brain’s capacity to make spiritual experience real…” What does “real” mean in this context? What if I say, “the brain’s capacity to make dream experiences real”. What if I say, “the brain’s capacity to make sensory experiences real”. Does “real” mean the same thing in both sentences? Are they really saying that there is no difference between the experience of a kicked shin and a dream?

“…after years of scientific study, and careful consideration…” This is the bit that made me feel like gacking. I really hate it when people use scientifically based authority to support something that is essentially narrative. It’s a bit like saying science proves that science isn’t real. If you need science to be “just another narrative” then why use science as the source of legitimacy?

“…evolved to allow us humans to transcend material existence…” Using “evolve” in this sentence does the same thing as “after years of scientific study” in that it suggests a physical basis in reality and that there are evidential reasons for believing in the rest of the sentence. (There aren’t.) They tack on “allow us humans to transcend material existence”. Allow!  Allow! Who, exactly is doing the allowing here? Talk about salting the mind. Transcend! Jeez dude. Why don’t you assume what you want to prove.

Breathe, Mary. Just breathe.

The book proceeds by presenting data and interspersing this relevant information with silly analysis. Chapter two, for example, gives you lots of good, simply put, information on the “brain machinery” that enables the various types of awareness and perceptual experiences of which we are capable. Good stuff. Then chapter three (Brain architecture: how the brain makes mind) goes into the various states (hyperarousal and hyperquiescence and the limbic system) – again – good stuff.

But to start chapter three the authors blast argumentative shit out of the book’s universe into ours. It’s horrifying in the extreme.

The idea that our experience of reality—all our experiences, for that matter—are only “secondhand” depictions of what may or may not be objectively real, raises some profound questions about the most basic truths of human existence and the neurological nature of spiritual experience. For example, our experiment with Tibetan meditators and Franciscan nuns showed that the events they considered spiritual were, in fact, associated with observable neurological activity. In a reductionist sense, this could support the argument that religious experience is only imagined neurologically, that God is physically “all in your mind.” But a full understanding of the way in which the brain and mind assemble and experience reality suggests a very different view.

Imagine, for instance, that you are the subject of a brain imaging study. As part of this study, your have been asked to eat a generous slice of homemade apple pie. As you enjoy the pie, the brain scans capture images of the neurological activity in the various processing areas of the brain where input from your senses is being turned into the specific neural perceptions that add up to the experience of eating the pie…In a literal sense, the experience of eating the pie is all in your mind, but that doesn’t mean the pie is not real, or that it is not delicious.

I had an experience of Cthulhu a few nights ago. He was wearing pajamas with small black kittens printed on the fabric. Of course I was dreaming, but, nevertheless, neurologically I had the experience of sitting with Cthulhu clothed in kitten PJs. In a literal sense, the experience of sitting with Cthulhu was all in my mind, but that doesn’t mean Cthulhu is not real. Really?

Then there’s the end of the first paragraph – But a full understanding – that’s cheeky given the book is written for a general audience. The authors are claiming the right of might based on their authority as scientists who are capable of understanding and providing themselves a bat to batter anyone who disagrees. They can just say, “well if you understood the way the brain works…” Cheeky, and a sign of a poor grounding in evidence. I  mean why would anyone who had decent evidence resort to such patently manipulative tactics?

Here’s the deal. The book has lots of good basic information in it but the authors’ argument for the existence of god sucks. This “analysis” left me wondering if they were “asked” to include bits to allay the fears of the god-fearing American public or if they just stop thinking once they are outside the realm of actual data. I’d love to know.