[.ca] The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the ... (ISBN 140015538X)

"Intelligent design" invades cognitive science:
This is a leading contender for "The Worst Book I've Ever Read". It certainly ranks high in the poorest study of cognitive science on the market. The authors want to erect an edifice proclaiming something "spiritual" in how the mind works. Unfortunately, their building material is obtained from the shattered reputations of those they dislike. The text is clearly dominated by "religious journalist" O'Leary, since the "science" here is minimal. A great deal of seething hostility is present, something a true scientist, which one hopes Beauregard is, would tend to avoid. O'Leary is a heavy contributer to "Christianity.ca", while Beauregard cites but four papers of his in the bibilography, one of which is encapsulated in the text. They begin constructing their edifice in the opening chapter, "Toward A Spiritual Neuroscience", but the structure is based on straw. The straw man is "materialism", a vague term not well clarified by the authors. Their basis is a long-dismissed concept, Cartesian dualism" which postulated that the brain and "mind" are separate. Years of cognitive studies have demonstrated the falsity of that idea, but they resurrect it as if a fresh case can be found for it. Those who have demonstrated the fallacy of dualism, such as Daniel C. Dennett - who is frequently listed as a "materialist philosopher" - , along with Susan Blackmore, Pascal Boyer, zoologist Richard Dawkins \osic\c and others are pilloried for failing to find "spiritual" elements in the makeup of the brain. Beauregard and O'Leary castigate these investigators for failing to look at "evidence". This is a bit like saying all the brain-mapping studies undertaken over the past generation are meaningless. To these authors, that is precisely the case. They assert that the research is guided by a "monist" philosophy. Only things made of "material" are measured to arrive at conclusions. They examine the work of several researchers, most of whom have concluded that the human mind's acceptance of supernatural forces is some kind of adaptive trait. Beauregard then launches a counterattack, first by separating the mind and the brain, then claiming that the mind "acts on the brain" through "mystical experiences. They give the game away by citing Alister Hardy's assertion that there is a "key role for prayer and Christian mysticism". It is, ultimately, the "Christian" version of "spiritual neuroscience" that counts. Their one "proof" offered is a study Beauregard undertook with Carmelite nuns in Montreal. Apart from the fact the cloistered life is only a step removed from normal experience than that of a "pillar saint" or desert hermit, they find these ladies meaningful subjects of study. Beauregard sees the lives of these nuns as suffused with Religious, Spiritual and Mystical Experiences \oRSME\c, a term he applies to anything a person might regard as "beyond themselves". Given the regimen of the cloister, this is hardly surprising. After listing citations by the various nuns, Beauregard and his associate engaged in a brain-mapping exercise of their own. Using "Hood's Mysticism Scale" they argue that the brain exhibits activity in several areas during "mystical experiences", not only the temporal lobes \oPersinger's area of research\c. By this study, Beauregard dismisses the notion of a "god spot" in the brain, postulated by Geschwind, and to a lesser extent, Dean Hamer. Instead from this, they conclude the entire human brain is "wired" to communicate with the supernatural. Wired up by that same supernatural? All this is patently false, of course. The brain-mapping studies have been carried out on a range of subjects under varying environments. One factor these studies have shown is that the brain is a more dynamic organ than previously supposed. While many studies, especially that of Michael Persinger, a countryman who they particularly desparage, it's clear that spiritual experiences come from within the brain, not outside. It's regrettably clear why the publishers issued this travesty of science. It fits well with the spate of "anti-Darwin" books issued in North American recently. The "faithful", of which O'Leary is a clear proponent, and Beauregard presumably so, cannot abide the notion that human beings are a product of natural selection. The human brain is the last bastion they can mount against the idea that Homo sapiens is but one among several remaining primate species. How long it will take for that fact to permeate down to the level of the authors of this book is unclear, but the prospect is depressing. \ostephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada\c

New reviews:
I truly was bowled over by the book, which had my eyes watering at points. For more than a century materialists have been trying to talk us out of our minds. No such thing, they say. It's just a brain, just electrified jelly, no more free than billiard balls bouncing around a pool table. Our overwhelming internal senses of self and freedom are pathetic illusions, meaningless byproducts of mechanical processes in a pointless universe. In The Spiritual Brain/ neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and science writer Denyse O'Leary push back hard. First they debunk the most widely touted urban legends of impoverished materialism -- the "God gene", "God spot", "God helmet". Then they soberly examine the latest data from neuroscience, ranging from brain scans of prayerful nuns to the powerful placebo effect of sugar pills. If approached without materialist prejudice, they write, the results point insistently to the reality of a spiritual mind that survives physical death. For my money, the most compelling demonstration of the reality of the psyche is the simple, elegant, entertaining, dryly humorous writing of /The Spiritual Brain/ itself. In it we are privileged to meet a pair of unfettered minds actively at work to shape our world. I strongly recommend this book to anyone with a mind of his own. - biochemist Mike Behe, author of Edge of Evolution I've just finished reading The Spiritual Brain (I was sent an advance copy). It's superb, and is a milestone in what I think is going to be a 'long twilight struggle' against materialist neuroscience. - neurosurgeon Mike Egnor In principle, the natural sciences are agnostic. Dealing only in physical data, they can prove neither that God (a being deemed entirely spiritual) exists nor that he does not. But if science is in essence agnostic, scientists themselves often are not. Many books purport that science supports atheism (e.g., Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell). Others, such as this one, believe that science supports theism. With the assistance of journalist O'Leary (Faith@Science: Why Science Needs Faith in the Twenty-First Century), Canadian neuroscientist Beauregard here argues that his own work with Carmelite nuns and various other scientific studies show that merely physical explanations for religious experience are insufficient. He should end the discussion there: answer unknown. But he argues further that mystical experience shows spiritual beings must exist, and that the existence of God is probable. This conclusion is beyond science. Beauregard argues well in clear, readable prose, avoiding highly technical language. Whether his argument is convincing is up to the reader. Recommended for academic libraries and for public libraries with strong religion collections. Library Journal review The Spiritual Brain is a wonderful and important book that provides new insights into our experience of religion and God. It offers a unique perspective to the ongoing dialogue between science and religion. This book is a necessary read for both the scientist and the religious person. -Andrew Newberg, M.D. Associate Professor of Radiology and Director of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania. Co-author of Why We Believe What We Believe. Is spiritual experience an illusion caused by a misfiring brain, as many scientists believe, or is it something more? In The Spiritual Brain neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and journalist Denyse O'Leary persuasively argue that it is indeed something more. This means the mainstream neurosciences may have overlooked something of profound importance about who and what we are. If you have a mind, you will find The Spiritual Brain a refreshing antidote to the strange arguments offered by some scientists who insist that their minds, and yours, are meaningless illusions. - Dean Radin, PhD, Senior Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences and author of The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds The Spiritual Brain is a very important book. It clearly explains non-materialist neuroscience in simple terms appropriate for the lay reader, while building on and extending work that Sharon Begley and I began in The Mind and The Brain, and work that Mario and I collaborated on in academic publications. Of utmost importance is the fact that The Spiritual Brain clearly shows that non-materialist neuroscience is not simply a controversial view held by some neuroscientists. It is a coherent and theoretically very well-grounded perspective that can play a critical role in developing more effective treatments for many medical and psychological disorders. Further, it creates natural links between physical and spiritual health by stressing the need for the active participation of people in their own treatment planning and implementation. The Spiritual Brain greatly contributes to the on-going paradigm shift that is revolutionizing our understanding of the relationship of the spirit, the mind, and the brain in the 21st Century. Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD Research Psychiatrist, UCLA Author of Brain Lock and The Mind and The Brain

Review by Dr. Pim van Lommel, Division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands:
The Spiritual Brain is a wonderful and important book. I hope it will be successful, because it deserves to be read throughout the world.

Neuroscience meets...God!!:
XXXXX "As we have seen throughout this book, materialist \omaterialism is a philosophy that holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter\c neuroscientists and philosophers hold that mind, consciousness, and self are by-products of the brain's electrical and chemical processes, and that RSMEs \oreligious, spiritual, and/or mystical experiences\c are `nothing but' brain states or delusions created by neural activity. Accordingly these scientists and philosophers believe that there is no spiritual source for RSMEs, that is, they think that the human brain creates these experiences and, in doing so, creates God...this book has been a refutation of their views from a number of angles...I think \oor CONCLUDE\c that the evidence supports the view that individuals that have RSMEs do in fact contact an objectively real 'force' that exists outside themselves." The above comes from this book authored by "non-materialist" neuroscientist Mario Beauregard (the main author) and Christian journalist Denyse O'Leary. Also, the above quotation basically sums up the entire book. (Neuroscience is the field devoted to the scientific study of the nervous system.) For those who have read the above quotation carefully, this book is really about mind. Historically, mind has been viewed in two ways: (1) mind has been viewed as a metaphysical entity separate and apart from the mechanistic systems of the brain (the part of the central nervous system encased within the skull). (2) it has been viewed as a biological metaphor representing the manifestation of the, still not understood, neurophysiologic processes of the brain. The structure of this book (as can be deduced from the above quotation) views the mind as given in (1) above but with a religious twist. This view is favoured by vigorously refuting the materialistic or biologic view given in (2) above. Unfortunately, errors abound in this book. Here are a few of my favourites: (1) The "standard assumption" in current neuroscience is that "there really is no YOU in you at all, that consciousness, soul, spirit, and free will are merely illusions bolstered by folklore." This is untrue. (2) The brain is a "quantum system." There is no evidence of this. (3) We are told that the Hippocratic Oath contains the phrase "First, do no harm." It does not. (4) This is my absolute favourite: "The average neuron \oor nerve cell\c, consisting of about 100,000 molecules...The brain is home to about 100 billion \oneurons\c and thus about \o1 followed by 15 zeros\c molecules. Each neuron gets about 10,000 or so \osynaptic\c connections from other cells in the brain." There's something wrong here. Take sentences one and three. If you divide (100,000) molecules by (10,000) connections, you get (10) molecules making up each synaptic connection!! That's impossible!!! There's no way you could make up an adequate connection with such a small amount of material. Take sentences one and two. Multiplying (100,000) molecules by the brain's (100 billion) neurons gives (1 followed by 16 zeros) molecules in the brain not (1 followed by 15 zeros) molecules. The author's are in error by a factor of 10!! As you can see, the authors' numbers are suspect and they can't get the basic math in their own estimate right!!!! This book is rife with anecdotal stories and inferential conclusions. There is actual minimal science and neuroscience presented. There are also endless quotations from others, and some of these quotations appear to be taken out of context so as to bolster the authors' argument. After a while, these became a tedious chore to read. There is also a mistake in a key quotation by Albert Einstein: The book has the quotation as: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical." The last word should be "mysterious." This is an important distinction because "mystical" as used in this book implies "God power." Einstein did not believe in God. Even though there is a glossary, many terms that are important to understand the main narrative do not appear in it. The CONCLUSION of the book given in the quotation that begins this review can be restated as follows: the brain is a receiver for supernatural forces. The "evidence" for this seems to be that since science can't explain certain process of the brain adequately enough to satisfy the authors, then God is responsible for them. This is called "God in the Gaps." Finally, the biggest problem I found concerns the book's subtitle: "A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul." The world "soul" is not defined in the book's glossary or in its main narrative. I've read this book thoroughly and am unclear as to what the "neuroscientist's case" for the soul's existence exactly is. In conclusion, this is a strange book where neuroscience unconvincingly meets God. (first published 2007; acknowledgements; introduction; 10 chapters; main narrative 295 pages; notes; glossary; bibliography; index) < > XXXXX

The Spiritual Brain: A Reader's Review:
In pointing out the flaws in materialists' explanations of RSME's, religeous beliefs,free will & NDE's, Beauregard makes some valid arguments, however the out of hand dismissal of "promissory materialists" smacks of pure prejudice. Specifically, he has misinterpreted NDE's as coming from "clinically dead" brains when they are, in fact,not dead. He also uses the default mode of many theists and spiritualists which is: "If you cannot scietifically explain x or y, my non scientific explanation must be correct". As far as physis vs psyche, he leaves the debate pretty much where it started: unresolved.