CENTRE FOR
NEUROSCIENTIFIC STUDIES
Title:
"Neurotheology": A semantic trap set by pseudo-science for the unwary
scientist
Author:
Milind N. Ovalekar
Principal Investigator
Centre for Neuroscientific Studies, Vasai
There is no scientific rationale for the nouveau term "Neurotheology". Researchers working
on topics relating to religion must stick to the conventional Behavioural and Social
Neurosciences categories.
INTRODUCTION
"Neurotheology" is a term that has recently entered the public domain in a prominent manner,
particularly since its detailed coverage by the mass media, co-inciding with the publication
of some mass-market paperbacks on that topic. While this term ostensibly relates to
traditional peer-reviewed research into the interaction between the "spiritual" and the
human brain, its real purpose seems to be more in the nature of commercial exploitation than
any actual intent to make a worthwhile contribution to the advancement of science.
Now, one does hate to interfere in the sound business practices of professionals from the
book publishing industry, especially given the gross decrement in their sales since the
burgeoning of the internet and the satellite media. On the other hand, there exists an
equally insistent reason to draw the line at some point, given the stakes involved in
propagating real science.
Much of what I say in this article is based upon our institution's experience in researching
the neural basis of spirituality over the past decade. It has been a severely humbling,
even if entirely illuminating experience, and others will do well to heed the pitfalls that
we discovered in this process. Not for a moment do I wish to deny the various book authors
touting the merits of "neurotheology" their place in the sun. My only humble request of
them is that in doing so, they ought to be more careful about according priority to the
protestations of the empirical method, that claim precedence over the material prospects of
instant access to their hallowed "fifteen seconds of fame" slot.
It has been recently observed that researchers working on topics exploring the neural basis
of spiritual phenomena, especially using fMRI, seem to leap at the first opportunity onto
the boat of "neurotheology", because of the good press it has received, without bothering to
grasp the implications of their move. One must remember, "Neurotheology" as a term was first coined in a philosophical,
quasi- scientific or pseudo-scientific context.
It is all too fine to declare that "neurotheology" studies the "neurological and
evolutionary bases for subjective experiences such as spirituality", but the critical
question to ask is, "is there any need for such a new discipline?" Or, is there anything
lacking in the present disciplines covering this subject that the new fangled category of
"neurotheology" is de rigeur?
One must remember that behavioural neuroscience is well-equipped, together with social
neuroscience, to study either the individual or the group phenomena associated with
spirituality. The danger in using "neurotheology" is that the "neuro" element is often
conveniently elided, and "theology" is all that remains to rule the roost, with unforeseen
complications. Let us examine further how that takes place.
SCIENCE & RELIGION
Recently there has been a plethora of pop science articles, especially in the mainstream
media, regarding "Neurotheology", co-inciding with the initial burst of researches using the
newly developed technology of fMRI. To be sure, there is little to dispute about either the
validity of using fMRI as an investigative tool, or about the design of those nifty
experiments. The problem arises once the discussion starts, because this is where sound
science and the "neuro" ends, and "theology" rears its well, not ugly but certainly
unwelcome, head. The whole exercise then degenerates into what is akin to opening a
Pandora's Box of unwarranted philosophical intrusions into the hallowed grounds of science.
The dangers when prowling around the environs of religion are the mine-fields of dogma and
well-developed philosophies; wherein, even a single point of scientific validation is
instantly hijacked into a full-fledged validation of some esoteric philosophy or system of
faith. Thus, there is the all-pervalent stench of quasi-science sticking to all your
efforts. In this context, exploring the neural basis of spirituality is more akin to wading
through muck in a malaria-infested peat-bog, than any romantic exploration of the unknown
that the researcher fondly imagines at the outset.
WHAT IS THE VESTED INTEREST BEHIND "NEUROTHEOLOGY"?
When dealing with any matters pertaining to religion, the reason why most science was
reluctant to even come close to a barge pole that seemed proximate to religion, is the
perhaps justified fear of a hidden agenda motivating the proponents of religion undertaking
the scientific exercise. A nefarious instance of this is the issues of creationism and
intelligent design that afflict the biological sciences in the USA.
But, even when such motivation doesn't exist overtly, there is no denying the "good press"
that any establishment of religion so loves, especially when it comes to validation from
science. While theologians will produce theories that philosophise about their distance
from science, yet, there is nothing like a pat on the back from science to get those ancient
juices really flowing. In fact, it wouldn't be entirely amiss to state that the real
driving factor for any establishment of religion that co-operates rather too willingly in
such research endeavours is its deep desire to bask in the gentle glow of adulation brought
on by the injection of the vitamin of scientific validation.
When dealing with religion, science has to steer between the Charybdis and Scylla of either
on the one hand condemning religion, which is nothing new [and a blanket condemnation might
actually prove unscientific]; or, on the other hand, providing some comfort to religious
theories, which, given the history of their convoluted relationship, is quite a disquieting
matter for the scientific establishment. To compound this woe, there is the other tendency
on the part of establishments of religion to use small validations as beachheads into the
realm of scientific validation, and to extrapolate these finite observations into an
infinite verification of the tenets of their faith.
Thus, while science would wish to crawl one tiny step at a time, like a snail, intent upon
exploring its environs, using the empirical method as the only reference point; for
religion, science is merely a stepping stone, and the empirical method a launch pad for
soaring, like an eagle from a high cliff into the sky, into the greater glory of
self-righteousness that accompanies the wholesale justification of entire philosophies, just
on account of a few good words from science.
An integral part of this problem seems to be the discomforting relationship shared by
spirituality with science. As part of the theological establishment that, when faced with a
diametrically opposed worldview, did everything in its power to fight it and to suppress it,
when possible with every bent and skewed tool in its material possession, spirituality has,
by association, been granted an unenviable heritage of conflict with science. The further
developments after this conflict, with spirituality retreating in a shell, shirking all
contact with science, and cosying up with metaphysical constructs of philosophy to side-step
the yawning gaps in reality that science exposed did no good either.
The result is an intermediate mass that is more a mess of temporary constructs than any real
empirical formulation. Perhaps, there is a Freudian tinge to the "theology" in
Neurotheology, a hint of resignation to the fact that intercourse with metaphysics and
philosophy, all anathema to science, is inevitable somewhere down this road. This, in
short, essentially forms the substance of "Neurotheology".
As an exemplary demonstration of the Art of Illusion, "Neurotheology" can well be imagined
in a classic dead heat race with that magical convenience of pre-Einsteinian physics, the
notion of "luminiferous
aether". This "aether" device was an useful means for understanding the propagation of
light through empty space within the ambit of the prevalent views on the nature of light in
those times. Yet, further study in the following decades exposed its mythical nature, and
irrelevance to physics.
We are in a similar situation today. The black box is just opening up and revealing its
secrets, and on each occasion we try to decipher the new bits of information that prop up
with some hypothesis that we believe is utilitarian in explaining the truth as we know it.
Unfortunately, in taking recourse to "neurotheology", at the expense of the conventional
categories, we face the peril that what we conceptualise isn't the whole truth, and is all
to likely to lead us into some black hole of theorising like "luminiferous aether".
No doubt, in time we will have the real solution just as physics received its epiphany.
But, to try "neurotheology" as a stop-gap measure till that occurs, is to merely delay the
dawning of that new theory.
There's a tale about the legendary Hollywood director, Alfred Hitchcock. Seems he and a
couple others were in a train to Scotland. Noting some weird contraption in the fellow
traveller's luggage, he asked him about it. "That's a McGuffin, its used to catch lions." Came
the reply. "But, there are no lions in Scotland," he protested. "Well, then," came the
unruffled answer, "it isn't a McGuffin either."
Seems our fellow-travellers in the Neurosciences domain are indulging in some McGuffin stuff
of their own. Only, its termed "Neurotheology", and it is used to study topics like
"meditation", "levitation", "out of body experience" and the like using Neurotheology as a
pliable tool. Objection! For, there's no foundational basis in the Neurosciences for stuff
like that within the strait-jacket of theology wherein "Neurotheology" wants to confine
them. Is the [theo-]scientist with the hidden religious agenda ruffled by this? Not one
bit! Well then, he says, there's no need for too much science in "Neurotheology" either,
once the root issue of single entry validation of some religious concept is solved. Its
plain and simple.
But, where does that leave the honest scientific worker?! Though "Neurotheology" purports
to be an union of religion and science, this analogy exposes the cross-purposes that
function beneath the surface. While the scientist would like to advance science bit by bit
in exploring these facets of religion/ spirituality, religion is only looking for a
beach-head into science. Once that is obtained, there is the wholesale extrapolation and
the invasion of philosophical arguments, metaphysics, and what have you into the domain of
sound science.
Perhaps it is not just a co-incidence that the topics relating to "neurotheology" are the
ones in which nothing much is known to science, and everything is ver well-known to
philosophy. Consciousness, for one. Now, I do not claim that the philosophical
speculations on this subject are entirely pointless. Yet, there are so many of them. And,
in the end, it will be scientifically accurate to state that while one of them can plausibly
expand its wings and claim consonance with the scientific hypothesis in the end, the others
will bite the dust as empty speculations. Yet, "Neurotheology" will have all of them, even
the scientifically wrong ones, on a pedestal. So, where does that leave science if it
desires to be the handmaiden of "Neurotheology"?!
Its a bit like the Arab in the tent feeling for the Camel out in the desert chill. The
honest scientist is the Arab, who, through his single entry research displaying some
validity in a minute aspect of religion/ theology feels for the establishment of religion
that is the camel. Only, with the all aspect extrapolation from a single point, and
wholesale validation, religion acts like the camel, and shoves the poor Arab out of the tent
of sound science.
SOLUTION
In saying all this, I don't mean to dishearten you or to suggest that you stay away from
religion located research. Not one bit, since its a fertile ground for much further study,
and we now have precision tools for our investigation. After all, though spirituality may
purportedly deal with the ethereal, its motivations, effects, and consequences are entirely
located in the material domain, hence eminently subjectable to empirical scrutiny.
Indeed, it is all too evident that given the real-world effects of religious practices,
especially those that involve the human brain, there is a material facet to spirituality
that is amenable to reductionist deconstruction. Correspondingly, with the advent of
non-invasive techniques like the fMRI, the brain no longer poses as a mysterious black box
that is resistant to scrutiny. Thus, we have a twin-pronged opportunity available for the
first time in science since civilisation began, for a rational analysis of spirituality.
On the one hand, there is an awareness in science about the parameters of the spiritual, and
at the same time there are tools available to science for assessing the functioning of those
parameters in the real world; in a duplicable context. It would be a pity to have such a
grand opportunity, and then to fritter it all away by cosying up to philosophical constructs
hand-in-glove with metaphysical constructs, that have a hidden agenda of their own which may
actually be detrimental to science.
Therefore, there is an insistent need to maintain a solidly, impeccably high index of
suspicion; especially when one is interacting with establishments of religion. Caveat
emptor, let the researcher beware when stepping into the arena of religion. It is like a
mine-field that could consume him and his work. Or, like a crocodile gulp him down to
invigorate itself. The only way to maintain this probity is by sticking to the straight and
the narrow, to the hitherto well-defined subject categories of classification, and to firmly
resist any and all temptations of linkages with scientifically imperfect hypotheses based
upon philosophies, especially when the latter promote an all-aspect worldview and an utopian
vision.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, let us reaffirm that "Neurotheology" as a nouveau scientific term is
absolutely bereft of rationale. Researchers wishing to study such arcane phenomena would do
well to restrict their foundational bases to the time-tried concepts and categories of
conventional behavioural and social neuroscience, before venturing into the quicksand of
newly minted hypotheses that are sadly more in tune with commercial vigour than scientific
rigour. Else, they stand exposed to the peril of having their solid empirical research
hijacked by ancient dogmas often motivated by a reactionary agenda.
Copyright, (c) 12 March 2006, Milind Ovalekar, CNS.
All Rights Reserved.