For more information about religion and science issues go to www.metanexus.net
Summary of Dr. d'Aquili's talk and paper
"The Neuropsychology of Religion or Why God Won't Go Away"
Written by Asaf Cohen and Jana Fox
Jana begins:
In his paper, Dr. d'Aquili suggests an explanation for why religion has
not diminished or ceased to exist altogether, as some might expect in this
age of modern science. He begins by addressing the question of universality
of all religions as a possible contributing factor to their persistence,
despite their many differences.
The first attempt at defining religion was made in the late 18th century
by Friedrich Schleiemacher, who emphasized the intuitive, emotional or visceral
as opposed to focusing on cognitive content or dogmatic formulations. Later,
religion was viewed more in the context of culture, as a transform of society.
Psychologists such as Freud or Skinner have explained religion in terms
of intrapsychic dynamics or hopes and expectations. However, the latest
approaches to analyzing religion have concerned themselves with aspects
of religion outside of sociological and psychological factors. The focus
hs been on such ideas as an awareness of what is "sacred and holy,"
a sense of awe, and feelings of fear and fascination for the divine.
d'Aquili suggests two classes of neuropsychological mechanisms for the universal
existence of religions and behaviors. These mechanisms involve brain structures
which he refers to as causal and holistic operators - an operator being
a network of nerve tissue in the brain which performs a specific function.
Specifically, the causal operator is the anterior convexity of the frontal
lobe, the inferior parietal lobe, and their reciprocal interconnectedness.
The causal operator, he states, generates an "initial terminus"
for any given perceived reality in the absence of actual sense data. That
is, this area of the brain explains reality for us when our senses cannot.
Gods, spirits, etc. are then automatically generated by our brains. Even
if we cognitively reject the idea of their existence, we still experience
them in our dreams and fantasies, ie, our subconscious. This is a universal
human trait - of believers and non-believers alike.
A result of the actions of this causal operator is the construction of myths
and power sources to explain our existence and orient ourselves within the
universe. This allows us to deal with the world in ways we know how. d'Aquili
proposes that this aspect of religion is a means of controlling our environment
psychologically so that we can control it externally and ultimately survive
in it. He makes the point that religion must constitute the attribution
of causality to a personalized power source.
d'Aquili's explanation makes some sense to me, in that religion is a universal
human trait addressing that which is not readily explainable. He does not
claim, however, that the existence of a brain center which "creates"
our God for us, precludes the actual existence of a divine being. I don't
know that the two could both be present simultaneously - an actual God and
our brain-generated God. Does that mean that those who claim to speak with
God through their prayers are actually responding to themselves on a subconscious
level? How can we/they know when (and if) they are communicating with the
real divine? Perhaps if there is a God, He constructed our brains in such
a way so that we could communicate with Him or experience His presence.
Then he left how we used this ability up to us. (ie - whether we chose to
cognitively accept his existence). I find d'Aquili's proposal compelling,
but I also think it is possible that the causal operator could be the source
of our imaginations. Whether he would view the imagination as distinct from
religiosity (is that a word?), I do not know.
Asaf will fill you all in on the rest of d'Aquili's lecture:
>>Part 3: Religion as Self Transcendence >
>Dr. d'Aquilli now turns his attention to the mystical experiences of
state and mind. Since mystical experiences are inherent cross culturally,
d'Aquilli presents an underlying neuronal mechanism for mystical experiences.
>
>Without going into detail, d'Aquilli presents the experience by the
interactions of the two subsets of the autonomic nervous system, the parasympathetic
and sympathetic nervous systems. The sympathetic system is responsible for
"fight or flight" behavior. Energetically speaking, it is ergotropic
because it is energy expending. The parasympathetic system regulates homeostasis
and is trophotropic in energy regards because it conserves energy.
>Basically, when one system reaches full capacity, the "holistic
operator", in the parieto-occipital system in the brain, is activated.
The holistic operator stimulates the other system so that there is a time
when both systems are operating at once at full capacity. When this occurs
a mystical experience is felt.
>The mystical experiences vary in effect. The different experiences are
different unitary states. The most powerful experience is the Absolute Unitary
Being. During this state, "there is nothing but a timeless and perfect
sense of meaning and wholeness." One feels at one with the universe
and loses the fear of death.
>Thus transcendence of the self through mystical states is actually hard-wired
into the brain, and for religion to disappear, an evolutionary change which
would make humanity unrecognizable must take place.
>Part 4: Religion and Reality-- the Truth Claim
>One should not be distraught by the supposition that God is presented
in terms of brain function since after all, all our being and processes
are synthesized in the brain.
>d'Aquilli makes an analogy between baseline reality, what we perceive
as daily reality and the Absolute Unitary Being reality, the most powerful
unitary state.This is to answer the question of which is the real reality.
>d'Aquilli makes the comparison between the two realities based. Four
points of comparison were are made. First, Baseline reality offers a good
sense of reality, while AUB, Absolute Unitary Being, offers an extremely
strong sense of reality that is in fact said to be more real than baseline
reality. Second, baseline reality is enduring for long periods only to be
broken up by short periods of sleep. AUB on the other hand is short compared
to baseline reality. Third, all elements of baseline reality disappear when
the senses fail, while AUB is persistent even when the state has ended.
Finally, baseline reality must continually be supported by other people,
while AUB does not need such strong support from others.
>In conclusion, neither reality is better than the other. The brain is
hardwired for both realities. Either reality is translated and transformed
in the brain/mind, but we need to recognize both.
>Some Thoughts:
>I found d'Aquilli's paper to be exteremely interesting. However, i found
it hard to realte to since I have never experienced an Absolute Unitary
State. Since dreams are my only window to other states of reality, I could
attempt to extrapolate to an AUB, but not having expereinced it, hurts my
conceptualization of the paper as a factual piece other than another piece
of philosophy.
>I also found it hard to beleive that such a complex being such as god
can be traced to a specific part of the brain. I, with d'aquilli, believe
that god lies in our minds, but I think that rather than being present
in only one part, God is in the unexplainable mind that links such things
as memory, proprioception, persoanlity, and cognitions together.
---Asaf