This is your brain on God / Steve Hamilton (Baltimore, MD)

Did you know that there are professionals across the country who are studying the brain science of spiritual experience?  They have taken the name "neurotheologians" - those who research in the burgeoning field of spiritual experience and the brain - and they claim that prayer can sculpt your brain.  Seriously, they claim prayer physically re-shapes your brain, and in-turn how your perceive reality.  One such "neurotheologian", Dr. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania and teaching professor of the course The Biology of Spirituality, has found that those who meditate and pray more have increased brain activity in the frontal lobe - where concentration and focus are centered according to brain scientists - while at the same time decreased activity in the parietal lobe - which is where we get our sense of orientation in time and space according to brain science.  Therefore he posits this either aids or explains our experience of prayer, and those who claim to lose track of time and space during meditative prayer.  In fact, Dr. Newberg has written a book: How God Changes Your Brain, in which he talks about the following:

• 

  Not only do prayer and spiritual practice reduce stress and anxiety, but just twelve minutes of meditation per day may slow down the aging process.

• Fundamentalism, in and of itself, is benign and can be personally beneficial, but the anger and prejudice generated by extreme beliefs can permanently damage your brain.

• Intense prayer and meditation permanently change numerous structures and functions in the brain - altering your values and the way you perceive reality.

Interesting, eh?  But here is the kicker: while these brain scientists/neurotheologians have focused most of their studies on those who pray and/or meditate for several hours every day (like monks and nuns), their research is now turning to more prayer-challenged people (like me!).  In fact, Neuroscientist Richard Davidson, of the University of Wisconsin, claims that most anyone can sculpt their brain with some experience and training and something they call neuroplasticity (brain/cortical organization, especially for the sensory systems, is often described in terms of mapping, thus, with training and experience we can re-map our brain...quick question: in faith community circles, is this what we call spiritual formation?).  "You can sculpt your brain just as you'd sculpt your muscles if you went to the gym," he says. "Our brains are continuously being sculpted, whether you like it or not, wittingly or unwittingly." 

In one recent-but-unpublished study many people - who were regular people and not monks and nuns - were very successful in cultivating a spiritual mind-set.  According to Dr. Davidson, there were detectable changes in the subjects' brains within two weeks. Two weeks! Another similar study, where employees at a high-tech firm meditated a few minutes a day over a few weeks, produced more dramatic results.  "Just two months' practice among rank amateurs led to a systematic change in both the brain as well as the immune system in more positive directions," Davidson claims that the subjects developed more antibodies to a flu virus than did their colleagues who did not meditate.

So, I have been reflecting on all this and asking myself:  what are the implications for Stage 4 Faith in terms of neurotheology, prayer and neuroplasticity?  Can spiritual formation and spiritual exercises like "listening prayer"  'form' a pathway to Stage 4 Faith?  Can anger and prejudice really damage your brain permanently?  Is Stage 4 Faith somehow just more neuro-connectors and synapses due to some witting or unwitting sculpting going on in our brains?  Is Stage 4 Faith the brain connecting with God and changing my perception of reality?  Who is doing the sculpting, me or God?  What are the implications for faith and science in this overlapping phenomenon of "neurotheology"?

Comments

[Brent]

Great post, Steve! This is actually more up my alley as we deal with this general issue in Linguistics as well. It's an example of the old mind/body problem that has been around forever, but is getting a ressurgence from new technology these days. The questions are, how does the material brain give rise to the immaterial mind? And then how can an immaterial mind affect the material brain in turn? The answer to both is that we have no idea whatsoever.

My own discipline is perhaps the best place this is illustrated. Through studying language, we have learned that human language, abstractly, has a highly mathematical, elegant underlying structure that is universal (you find evidence for it in every human language). Yet the brain itself is a messy, bloody, inefficient system of neurons. How are the two possibly connected? We just don't know. I'm a theoretical linguist and I work in a department with two brilliant neuro-/psycho-linguists. Yet we have virtually nothing to say to each other about how language works. It's like we're in totally different disciplines.

All of this is a real challenge to the reductionist naturalist view of life, espoused by those like Richard Dawkins et al. But of course, it is also a real challenge for others to figure out what's going on here. It may be, some have speculated, that this is one of those areas where science meets its limits and we'll never be able to answer these questions. It may be (as many suspect), that issues having to do with quantum indeterminacy are involved.

As far as what it means for faith, I think it leads us to realize that the conscious decisions we make in our minds have physical consequences for our brains that can as a result have consequences for our minds. Our minds are not totally free from our physical brains as we often pretend they are. There is a counter-feeding relationship between the mind and the brain such that what one chooses with the mind becomes concrete in the brain and then difficult to change. If I choose to steal something, e.g., I set up neural pathways in my brain that will make that choice easier to make next time and (eventually) harder not to make. The same is true for something positive like prayer. Our choices have consequences for our ability to make future choices. Discipline is never just spiritual, but has a physical component as well.

Sorry such a long post. Talking about 'emergent' phenomena obviously gets me excited :)

[Brent]

Sorry, one more note. I wanted to point out that these studies do not show that BELIEF in God changes the brain. Rather, they show that spiritual disciplines like prayer change the brain. Perhaps therein lies the greatest consequence for Stage4 faith?

[steven hamilton]

really fascinating...i gotta hang out with you man!! i love this stuff (and linguistic theory as well)

in terms of relating the sides of your department, does insight or lessons from chaos theory help to build bridges between the elegance and randomness on both sides?

[steven hamilton]

one more thought you brought up that i want to make explicit:

perhaps this is just the antidote for the infection of gnosticism still lingering in our minds and bodies. we have to see that we have an embodied spirituality; this is one of the primary baselines that this kind of research can add to our faith journey and perspective(at least for what it can do..again note it does not prove faith scientifically, but has some interesting bits to throw into the mix)

[Brent]

No. I don't think anyone has thought about whether chaos theory has anything to add to linguistics. It does come up sometimes in general discussion about the mind/body problem as people talk about something called 'active information.' This has always seemed to me to be just a label for the fact that mental processes can effect physical ones, but I don't know enough about chaos theory to evaluate what I've read. John Polkinghorne often talks about some combination of quantum indeterminacy, chaos theory, and active information as a way in which God may be involved in the sort of day-to-day activities of creation, but again I don't know enough to know if this is a serious claim or just rhetoric.

[Brent]

It comes up a lot in the science~theology discussion about the reality of the soul. I think it would be accurate to say that nearly all theologians in this area do not believe in a soul that can survive outside without the body. This goes along with the near-consensus in Biblical scholarship that says that Hebrew thought also did not have the idea of a disembodied soul. This leads to the idea that when we die, we just die...until the resurrection.

I'm personally not convinced that this is a necessary position to hold (and there are certainly some Biblical passages that suggest the autonomy of the soul was a part of Hebrew thought), but it is a coherent one. I think you are right that this kind of research may radically change how we think about the soul, spirit, and body eventually. This kind of research is so new, though, I think it could be a while.

Next time I'm in Baltimore for a conference or something, I'll be sure to drop you a line!

[brian]

First, I feel compelled to try to close this italics thing. Don't know if that worked.

Ok. I think you're right, Brent, about the ancient Israelites not having an idea of an "abstract" soul, though this can get really confusing and categories get all jumbled around here (e.g., if ancient Israelites thought people lived some sort of shadowy-yet-real existence after death, as many biblical passages from different time periods clearly attest, then what is it that is "living"?). Clearly, though, references to a resurrection and so on appear increasingly in very late texts (like Dan. 12, 2nd cen. BCE) and Isa. 24-27 (maybe also very late?), as well as all over the place in the NT, which suggests that the idea grew through time and was not present from the earlier periods in its later form. Other texts, however, simply suggest there is no meaningful life after death, period (see, e.g., Isa. 38:18; Ps. 6:5, 88:6,11-13, 115:17; Job 14:12 and Eccl. 3:18-22, 9:4-6,10).

Of course, regardless of what the Israelites, or Greeks, or anyone thought, there may be no such thing as a "soul"--or there might have always been souls, but in the olden days they just didn't know about it. In terms of a "biblical" theology, it may be that we are "supposed" to see the diversity in Scripture itself and conclude that there is no final answer to the question (evasion!) or that our views are meant to change based on what we learn, etc. (perhaps better).

[Otto]

Another interesting area to look at as far as the reality of the soul is in the theory of the "holographic mind" and "holographic universe". The idea is that our the universe is basically analogous to a hologram, projected from a higher dimension. So anything we're perceive with our senses, we're not necessarily perceiving reality but we're interacting with other parts of the hologram.

There's evidence that a lot of brain functions work basically the way holograms work (you might be familiar in fourier transforms).

Makes me think of The Matrix :D

[Brian Odom]

I don't have anything new to add yet, but I just wanted to comment that I found a couple thoughts here fascinating in a that-might-have-been-obvious-but-the-thought-never-occurred-to-me sort of way.

1. On gnosticism, good point Steve. Gnostic ideas, emphasizing among other things, a sharp distinction between body and spirit, were rejected by early Christians as a misrepresentation of the gospel. After that early chapter in establishing Christian orthodoxy, it's funny that revelations from scientists about spirit-brain connections can still feel uncomfortable.

2. On the eternal soul, that's a fascinating proposal for consistency, Brent. No soul apart from the body. It explains the lack of Hebrew thoughts on an eternal soul. AND it points out an essential connection between two elements Jesus' teachings--(1) a new *physical* creation including *bodily* resurrection and (2) an eternal soul.

[Himangsu Sekhar Pal]

ON GOD AND TIMELESSNESS

Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it from eminent philosophers. Richard M. Gale has said that if time is unreal, then 1) there are no temporal facts, 2) nothing is past, present or future and 3) nothing is earlier or later than anything else (Book: The philosophy of time, 1962). Bertrand Russell has also said something similar to that. But he went so far as to say that science, prudence, hope effort, morality-everything becomes meaningless if we accept the view that time is unreal (Mysticism, Book: religion and science, 1961).
But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum. Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “What is your purpose here? Are you trying to popularize mystical world-view amongst us? If not, then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? When his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, Einstein wrote in a letter to his widow that “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Another scientist Paul Davies has also written in one of his books that time does not pass and that there is no such thing as past, present and future (Other Worlds, 1980). Is this very recent statement made by a scientist that “time does not pass” anything different from the much earlier statement made by the mystics that “time is unreal”?
Now some scientists are trying to establish that mystics did not get their sense of spacelessness, timelessness through their meeting with a real divine being. Rather they got this sense from their own brain. But these scientists have forgotten one thing. They have forgotten that scientists are only concerned with the actual world, not with what some fools and idiots might have uttered while they were in deep trance. So if they at all explain as to how something can be timeless, then they will do so not because the parietal lobe of these mystics’ brain was almost completely shut down when they received their sense of timelessness, but because, and only because, there was, or, there was and still is, a timeless state in this universe.
God is said to be spaceless, timeless. If someone now says that God does not exist, then the sentence “God is said to be spaceless, timeless” (S) can have three different meanings. S can mean:
a) Nothing was/is spaceless, timeless in this universe (A),
b) Not God, but someone else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (B),
c) Not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (C).
It can be shown that if it is true that God does not exist, and if S is also true, then S can only mean C, but neither A nor B. If S means A, then the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” become two meaningless words, because by these two words we cannot indicate anyone or anything, simply because in this universe never there was, is, and will be, anyone or anything that could be properly called spaceless, timeless. Now the very big question is: how can some scientists find meaning and significance in a word like “timeless” that has got no meaning and significance in the real world? If nothing was timeless in the past, then time was not unreal in the past. If nothing is timeless at present, then time is not unreal at present. If nothing will be timeless in future, then time will not be unreal in future. If in this universe time was never unreal, if it is not now, and if it will never be, then why was it necessary for them to show as to how time could be unreal? If nothing was/is/will be timeless, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anything can be timeless. If no one in this universe is immortal, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anyone can be immortal. Simply, these are none of their business. So, what compelling reason was there behind their action here? If we cannot find any such compelling reason here, then we will be forced to conclude that scientists are involved in some useless activities here that have got no correspondence whatsoever with the actual world, and thus we lose complete faith in science. Therefore we cannot accept A as the proper meaning of S, as this will reduce some activities of the scientists to simply useless activities.
Now can we accept B as the proper meaning of S? No, we cannot. Because there is no real difference in meaning between this sentence and S. Here one supernatural being has been merely replaced by another supernatural being. So, if S is true, then it can only mean that not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless. Now, what is this “something else” (SE)? Is it still in the universe? Or, was it in the past? Here there are two possibilities:
a) In the past there was something in this universe that was spaceless, timeless,
b) That spaceless, timeless thing (STT) is still there.
We know that the second possibility will not be acceptable to atheists and scientists. So we will proceed with the first one. If STT was in the past, then was it in the very recent past? Or, was it in the universe billions and billions of years ago? Was only a tiny portion of the universe in spaceless, timeless condition? Or, was the whole universe in that condition? Modern science tells us that before the big bang that took place 13.7 billion years ago there was neither space, nor time. Space and time came into being along with the big bang only. So we can say that before the big bang this universe was in a spaceless, timeless state. So it may be that this is the STT. Is this STT then that SE of which mystics spoke when they said that God is spaceless, timeless? But this STT cannot be SE for several reasons. Because it was there 13.7 billion years ago. And man has appeared on earth only 2 to 3 million years ago. And mystical literatures are at the most 2500 years old, if not even less than that. So, if we now say that STT is SE, then we will have to admit that mystics have somehow come to know that almost 13.7 billion years ago this universe was in a spaceless, timeless condition, which is unbelievable. Therefore we cannot accept that STT is SE. The only other alternative is that this SE was not in the external world at all. As scientist Victor J. Stenger has said, so we can also say that this SE was in mystics’ head only. But if SE was in mystics’ head only, then why was it not kept buried there? Why was it necessary for the scientists to drag it in the outside world, and then to show as to how a state of timelessness could be reached? If mystics’ sense of timelessness was in no way connected with the external world, then how will one justify scientists’ action here? Did these scientists think that the inside portion of the mystics’ head is the real world? And so, when these mystics got their sense of timelessness from their head only and not from any other external source, then that should only be construed as a state of timelessness in the real world? And therefore, as scientists they were obliged to show as to how that state could be reached?
We can conclude this essay with the following observations: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then SE cannot be in the external world. Because in that case mystics’ sense of spacelessness, timelessness will have a correspondence with some external fact, and therefore it will no longer remain a hallucination. But if SE is in mystics’ head only, then that will also create a severe problem. Because in that case we are admitting that the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists. That is why when mystics get their sense of timelessness from their brain, that sense is treated by these scientists as a state of timelessness in the real world, and accordingly they proceed to explain as to how that state can be reached. And we end up this essay with this absurd statement: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists.