You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
For most of its history the philosophy of religion treated religious experience as a matter of testimony and inference: a person reports an encounter with God, and the question is whether such reports are prima facie evidence for what they claim (Swinburne's principle of credulity) or whether they can be explained away as delusion, suggestion or wish (the projection theories of Feuerbach and Freud). Neuroscience changes the terms of the argument by going inside the experiencing subject. Brain-imaging and neural stimulation now let us watch, and in some cases provoke, the very states in which mystical and spiritual experiences occur. This raises a sharp evaluative question that runs through the whole lesson: if a religious experience has an identifiable neural correlate — if it can be located in the temporal lobes, dimmed by damage to the parietal lobe, or even switched on with a magnetic coil — does this explain it away as nothing but brain activity, or does it merely describe the mechanism through which a genuine encounter with God is mediated? The temptation to conclude "it's just the brain" is strong; but, as we shall see, that move commits a recognisable fallacy unless much more is argued. The lesson surveys the key research — Persinger's "God helmet," Newberg's brain-imaging of contemplatives, and Ramachandran's work on temporal-lobe epilepsy — and then the philosophical responses, culminating in a careful distinction between a causal mechanism and a veridical perception.
Neurotheology (the neuroscience of religion, or "spiritual neuroscience") is the scientific study of the neural correlates of religious and spiritual experience. It uses brain imaging, neurological case studies and experimental stimulation to ask what happens in the brain during prayer, meditation, mystical absorption and conversion.
Key term: Neurotheology — the scientific study of the neurological basis of religious and spiritual experiences, investigating which brain regions are active during prayer, meditation and mystical states and whether such experiences can be characterised in neurological terms.
The label was popularised by Andrew Newberg and the late Eugene d'Aquili in Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (2001). It is important to see what neurotheology, as a science, can and cannot do. It can establish correlations between reported experiences and patterns of brain activity. It cannot, by itself, settle the philosophical question of whether those experiences are veridical (genuine encounters with a transcendent reality) or illusory, for that question concerns the interpretation of the data, not the data themselves. Newberg himself is careful on exactly this point — which is why his conclusions are far more cautious than the popular headline "scientists locate God in the brain" suggests.
Key term: Neural correlate — a pattern of brain activity consistently associated with a particular mental state or experience; the existence of a neural correlate does not by itself determine whether the associated experience is veridical or illusory.
Michael Persinger (1945–2018), a neuroscientist at Laurentian University in Canada, designed the device popularly called the "God helmet" (formally the Koren helmet): a modified helmet fitted with solenoids that deliver weak, complex magnetic fields over the temporal lobes. Persinger reported that around 80% of his subjects experienced a "sensed presence" — a vivid feeling that some other being or entity was in the room — and that a minority described the experience in spiritual, mystical or divine terms. He interpreted this as evidence that "religious" experiences are essentially temporal-lobe events: transient micro-seizure-like activity in the temporal lobes, which the subject then interprets through whatever cultural framework lies to hand (God, an angel, a ghost, a deceased relative, an alien).
| Claim | Detail |
|---|---|
| Temporal-lobe locus | The "sensed presence" and religious feeling are tied to activity in the temporal lobes, particularly the right hemisphere |
| Induction by stimulation | Weak transcranial magnetic fields can, Persinger claimed, induce the sensed presence in ordinary subjects |
| Cultural interpretation | The raw experience is contentless; the interpretation (God, spirit, alien) is supplied by the subject's culture and expectations |
| Reductive implication | Persinger took this to show that religious experiences are products of brain activity, not evidence of a transcendent reality |
Andrew Newberg (b. 1966) and Eugene d'Aquili used SPECT (Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography) imaging to scan the brains of Tibetan Buddhist monks in deep meditation and Franciscan nuns in centring prayer, capturing activity at the peak of their contemplative states. They found a consistent and striking pattern.
| Brain region | Change during peak meditation/prayer | Proposed significance |
|---|---|---|
| Frontal lobes (prefrontal cortex) | Increased activity | The focused, sustained attention of contemplative practice |
| Parietal lobes — the superior parietal lobule, which d'Aquili and Newberg called the "orientation association area" | Decreased activity | This region builds the sense of the body's boundaries in space; deafferentation (cutting off its normal input) may dissolve the felt boundary between self and world, producing the mystic's sense of unity — of merging with God, the cosmos, or absolute being |
| Limbic system | Increased activity | The intense affect — joy, peace, awe — reported in such states |
The decreased parietal activity is the heart of Newberg's account: if the brain region that normally tells you where "you" end and the world begins goes quiet, the result may be exactly the experience of boundless oneness that the mystical literature describes as unio mystica.
Crucially, Newberg refuses the reductive conclusion. The discovery of a neural correlate, he insists, does not tell us whether the experience is generated by the brain alone or received through it. He has put the point in print: "There is no way to determine whether the neurological changes associated with spiritual experience mean that the brain is causing those experiences or is picking up on a deeper reality." If God exists and designed the human brain, then it would be entirely expected that there should be neural machinery through which humans apprehend the divine — finding the machinery no more refutes the apprehension than finding the optic nerve refutes the existence of light. It is worth underlining how decisive this concession is, coming as it does from the founder of the discipline and the author of its most robust data. The popular slogan that neurotheology "explains religion away" is not the verdict of the science but a philosophical gloss imposed on it from outside — and one that the leading scientist involved expressly declines to endorse. The science gives us a mechanism; what that mechanism means is a question the science hands back to philosophy.
A third strand of evidence comes from temporal-lobe epilepsy (TLE). It has long been observed clinically that some TLE patients report intense religious experiences — visions, a flooding sense of divine presence, cosmic significance, even sudden conversion. V. S. Ramachandran (b. 1951), the neuroscientist, studied such patients (reported in Phantoms in the Brain, 1998) and proposed that seizure activity in the temporal lobes may selectively heighten the emotional salience of stimuli, so that everything comes to seem charged with deep significance — the patient feels that the universe itself is addressing them. Ramachandran cautiously raised the possibility of a specialised neural substrate for religious feeling, sometimes loosely dubbed a "God module," while being careful not to over-claim.
The clinical association has prompted the much bolder, and far more speculative, suggestion that major religious figures — St Paul on the Damascus road, Teresa of Ávila, Muhammad, Joan of Arc, Dostoevsky (who certainly had epilepsy and described ecstatic auras) — were "really" temporal-lobe epileptics. This retrospective diagnosis should be treated with great caution: it is unfalsifiable (the patients are centuries dead), it explains that an experience occurred without showing what it meant, and it ignores the enormous differences between a disordered seizure and a sustained, coherent, morally fruitful spiritual life.
Norman Geschwind (1926–1984) described a cluster of inter-ictal personality traits in some TLE patients — hyper-religiosity (preoccupation with cosmic and religious questions), hypergraphia (a compulsion to write, often on religious themes), altered sexuality, and heightened emotional intensity. Whatever its clinical status, the philosophical question Geschwind syndrome raises is the recurring one: if a recognised neurological condition can produce religious preoccupation, does that discredit religious experience as such? The answer is not obvious, and answering it requires the conceptual distinctions developed below.
Before drawing the philosophical morals, it is worth pausing to weigh exactly how strong each body of evidence is, because the popular reception of neurotheology routinely overstates it. The three strands differ markedly in their evidential force.
| Strand | What it genuinely establishes | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Persinger (induced "sensed presence") | At best, that weak temporal-lobe stimulation might generate a vague feeling of presence in suggestible subjects | That genuine religious experience is caused by such stimulation — the headline result failed Granqvist's double-blind replication and may be placebo |
| Newberg (imaging contemplatives) | A robust, replicated correlation: frontal increase, parietal decrease, in deep prayer/meditation, plausibly underpinning the sense of unity | That the brain generates rather than mediates the experience — Newberg himself explicitly refuses this inference |
| Ramachandran / TLE | That seizure activity can be accompanied by intense religiosity in some patients | That ordinary (non-epileptic) religious experience is a form of seizure, or that historical mystics were epileptic (unfalsifiable) |
Two cautions follow. First, the evidence is uneven: the most reductively-suggestive strand (Persinger) is the weakest and least replicated, while the most robust strand (Newberg) is the one whose own author declines the reductive reading. The rhetorical impression that "science has found God in the brain" is therefore built largely on the shakiest part of the data. Second, there is a crucial distinction, easily blurred, between describing a phenomenon and explaining it. To map the neural activity that accompanies a mystical state is to describe its physical substrate; it is a further and unargued step to claim one has explained the state in the sense of explaining it away — of showing it has no object beyond the brain. Compare: a complete physiological description of the brain-states accompanying a mathematician's grasp of a proof leaves entirely open whether the proof is valid; the description does not touch the question of the mathematician's contact with a truth beyond their skull. The same gap, the theist argues, separates the neural description of prayer from any verdict on whether prayer reaches God.
It is also worth registering that not all religious experience is of the dramatic, mystical, "altered-state" kind these studies target. Much of the religious life is the quiet, cumulative sense of providence, gratitude, moral demand and presence-in-the-ordinary that Newberg's peak-state scans do not capture and Persinger's helmet does not mimic. Even if the neuroscience of ecstatic states were far more advanced than it is, it would address only one corner of the phenomenon it is taken to have explained. This is a point in the spirit of William Alston's insistence that the bread-and-butter of religious experience is a perception-like awareness of God in the midst of life, not the rare rapture — and it is precisely such ordinary, mediated awareness that the perceptual analogy below is designed to defend.
Everything in this lesson turns on one distinction. To find the neural correlate or even the neural cause of an experience is to describe the mechanism by which it occurs. It is a further, and quite separate, claim that the experience is therefore non-veridical — that it does not put the subject in touch with any reality beyond the brain. Sliding from the first to the second is a recognised error.
Key term: The genetic fallacy — the mistake of inferring that a belief or experience is false (or unjustified) merely from facts about its origin or the mechanism that produces it; how a belief is caused is logically distinct from whether it is true.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.