In an earlier post I was telling you about the argumentative warning bells that Why God Won’t Go Away set off.

When you come across a passage that unsettles your faith in an author’s veracity or capacity to think past his or her personal biases, one can do two basic things. One can put the book down or one can keep reading, however warily.

I chose the second option because I wanted to get to their information on the neurological position with respect to myth making in humans. Then I hit another of those icky-think places. There were a number but here’s one.

The authors are talking about the Neanderthal people and the finds that have been made where some Neanderthal dead appear to have been buried with grave goods and positioned in such a way as to suggest symbolic thought.

Evidence of Neanderthal mortuary rituals has been discovered at Paleolithic grave sites scattered across Europe and Asia, and while anthropologists know very little about the specifics of Neanderthal myth, these early humans had clearly devised a system of belief that assured them that in some sense, death could be survived.

Jeez Lousie, it so does not.  Let’s take this apart just a bit. There is evidence from a number of Neanderthal burials (and other sites) that suggest symbolic thought as well as suggests some intent behind burial that we would describe as ritualistic. But what is true is that we know nothing really of the specifics. In fact, without the assumption that their symbolic system is basically the same as ours, we cannot say anything about what the apparent ritual means. I mean if I make a small pile of stones and a Taliban man makes a similar pile, you think we necessarily did it for the same reason? And the Taliban dude and I are of the same species and same era. Fuck man, what a dumb-shit, patently false set of assumptions and “logical” connections.

It turns out that this book is an extension of The Transmitter to God: The Limbic System, the Soul, and Spirituality by Rhawn Joseph. Here is what a customer had to say about this book.

Joseph’s book contains abundant promise and abundant disappointment. Its bookends–the start and finish–provide provide reasonable interpretations of data from neurological and fossil research. The center, unfortunately, merely affords a bully pulpit for the author’s unsubstantiated rants about religious literature, especially the Koran and the Bible. This juxtaposition of authority and speculation is paralleled by displays of scholarly writing (e.g., citing sources for stated views) at the outset and junior high writing (e.g., missing citations and bizarre interpretations of religious writ) in the middle. Joseph is to be commended for his imagination, but misrepresents his book as a scholarly contribution.

A huh. Yep. Yessiree. You could say the same thing about Why God Won’t Go Away.

Anyway, based on the slim evidence of possible Neanderthal ritual burials and the massive assumption of their cognitive and cultural similarity to us, the authors of Why God say:

The Neanderthals, it seems, had also come to believe that their world was not chaotic, but was instead governed by powerful orderly forces that they could come to know. They believed they could appeal to these forces through proper practices and, to some extent, control them. We know this because Neanderthal shrines have been found in high mountain caves where bear skulls had been ritualistically stacked in pyramids and small crude altars still show the charred evidence of animal sacrifices carried out as long ago as two hundred thousand years.

Can you believe they think of themselves as scientists at all? I know fantasy writers with less vivid imaginations.

Finally, the evidence they cite to support these two paragraphs? Joseph’s The Transmitter to God. That’s like Glen Beck citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to prove his impartial stance with regard to Judaism.

So the book goes back to the library unfinished. This is why I pre-read most books before I buy them. I’ll just have to try and find a better source for the information I want.

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.