The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God

The thesis here is that spiritual and religious experience is essentially something the brain *does*, not something that comes from 'God'/'external being'. The author argues that spirituality and religious impulses have emerged in the evolving brain by default amongst evolving social organisms- in this particular book relatively recently in hominid evolution. Key processes include the growing hominid awareness of death, which, when coupled with an innate anxiety function necessary for survival, ultimately led to spirituality, religious and mystical experience.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).

I've read other books on this subject which can be either too dry or too caustic, but this one hits the mark, although I'm not sure I totally agree with Alper that neurological wiring towards religiosity negates the reality of the supernatural or divine. I'm an atheist, so I"d like to agree with him wholeheartedly, but you could also say, as I believe Chomsky said, that humans are hardwired for language in a way animals are not, yet this doesn't negate the fact that language, while culturally constructed, is a real phenomena and we are wired to receive it and acquire it quickly. I'm probably getting in over my head with my analogy, but I think it's worth considering. We humans create music, a cultural construction that is not found in the animal world, yet the phenomenon itself --- the sounds-- are a concrete reality. In fact, some deists might insist that because we are 'wired for God', so to speak, that in itself is proof of God. I wouldn't go that far; we can also be 'wired' for hallucinations and mental illness too. An interesting read and a worthwhile contemplation on a timeless subject; what makes Alper sympathetic is that he arrived to his conclusions as a result of a spiritual search, not a biased knee-jerk stance against religion, which I find a bit off-putting from folks like Hitchens (Mr. Caustic himself). And Richard Dawkins' book, "The Blind Watchmaker" is a bit abstract for me; the statistical probability discussions of evolution just went right over my simpleton head. If you are looking for a layman's take on this debate, this one is it.

Although I truly enjoyed the content of this literature, it appears that the author may be engaging in similar practices of those on the spiritual side, “What I’m saying is correct, because of my ability to substantiate findings, based upon the scientific method…and everybody else is wrong!” When no matter what the method, there’s much more to learn as a human species, than we’ve already have discovered. Saying human’s have proof of a Spiritual Being or God, is similar to, “Hamlet or Juliet saying they know Shakespeare.”

Good one although, not that good as I expected it to be. Guy who is telling this story and doing his personal research and study is himself suffered from that GOD part of brain symptom, including his bad trips on LSD, after which his psyche deteriorated and dissociated. Which in turn lead him to thinking that his soul, psyche is not constant given by GOD, thus leading his mind to restore his mind by science and detailed study of facts about universe while still questioning nature and origin of GOD, this time from scientific point of view. Books is very well composed and is recommended for beginner level of reader, especially for those who suffer from the same syndrome as author and who is still quacking but is willing to have good therapy of this book scientific explanation of the universe.

Great book!

Excellent appraisal of the adaptive quality that belief in a divine being had for ancient humankind. So evolution developed a part of the human brain that made it possible for us to live with more psychological security. The question is do we still need to believe in what is basically a projection of our own being. We are as gods so we better start taking responsibility for our own actions and not just say it is "God's will".Very well researched, I commend Matthew Alper for this work. He also wrote a very honest memoir that was published much later.

Curiosity will keep you at this one and if you want more check out VS Ramachandran who is by far one of the leading authorities in this field of research.

Bought for a ffriend as they requested so not sure how i can comment on contents but he hasnt complained