RELIGION IN THE CONTEXT OF NEUROTHEOLOGY
When my first neurotheological research studies came out, much was made of the ability to image the brain of a person performing a religious practice. Our studies of Buddhists in meditation and Franciscan nuns at prayer suggested that something specific and significant is occurring in the brain when people engage their religious side. One of the first criticisms, though, was that religion is much more than just saying prayers or meditating and encompassed various ideas, theologies, rituals, myths, and specific practices and experiences. Thus, it was argued that neurotheology was not really studying religion per se.1
Of course, the notion that religion is much more complex than meditation or prayer is quite accurate. The problem is that it is much easier to use a brain scanner to study meditation than to study religion. Meditation has a defined starting point, a specified process, and a clear end point. Religion, religiousness, or religiosity, however you wish to consider it, is longer lasting and more subtle and is, therefore, much more problematic to grab hold of using science. But it is also very important when doing any kind of neurotheological research to have some clarity about what it is that we are looking at. Thus, defining religion is essential for neurotheological experiments and scholarship, but unfortunately, such definition is frequently left out or done in such a roundabout way that it is not useful. For example, in Pascal Boyer’s important book Religion Explained, it is interesting that Boyer goes right into a discussion of the origin of religion without considering an actual definition. In fact, he focuses on the diversity of religion, an important point, and suggests that it is difficult to “explain a phenomenon (religion) that is so variable in terms of something (the brain) that is the same everywhere.”2 That religion is variable may be part of the definition, but we must be careful connecting religion to the brain without knowing what religion is. Whether the brain is the same everywhere is a separate issue. On one hand, we all have a brain with the same basic structures and functions. On the other hand, each person’s brain, because of the trillions of neuronal connections, is unique. Boyer then considers the origin of religion, which appears to be a kind of definition in the sense that religion might provide explanations about the world or might be a cognitive illusion. In some sense these are definitions, but this approach raises important questions regarding how definitions of religion are derived.
Scientific approaches to understanding religion frequently predefine what religion is, even as they go about defining religion. The problem with this is that any predetermined definitions of religion will naturally bias the results of a given research study. So if we want to test religious beliefs using brain scans, and then define religion as “a belief in a man who lives in the clouds,” then we will focus our study of brain activity only while a person is accessing a very specific type of religious belief. Since many people believe in God as a much more abstract concept, conclusions from such a hypothetical study would relegate many religious traditions and religious people to a very narrow definition of religion. The results might be valid for that narrowly defined group but will be useless in terms of understanding the religious beliefs of billions of other people. While accuracy of definition is important, since definitions can vary substantially, it is more important simply to be clear about defining religion up front so that other scholars can understand what a particular person, paper, or study is talking about. Of course, this need for clear definition is applicable to all academic or scientific endeavors.
In trying to define religion, there are many different approaches, disciplines, and perspectives that one can take. To some extent, this is true of all definitions that are part of neurotheology, including terms such as God, religion, spirituality, morality, mind, and consciousness. Each of these can be defined from a variety of perspectives that will dramatically shape the definition. For example, religion may be defined differently depending on whether one is a neuroscientist, physician, anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, philosopher, or theologian. A neuroscientist might define religion as a manifestation of brain processes; a psychologist might define religion as a psychological human need; and a philosopher might define religion as an ontological system based on a divine presence in the universe. Neurotheology, in its attempt to be multidisciplinary, would theoretically want to use as many disciplines as possible in trying to arrive at a definition that is as usable and consistent across traditions and perspectives as possible. However, attempts at universal definitions can sometimes miss important elements of specific traditions. Thus, great care must be taken to develop and use definitions of religion effectively. One additional note regarding definitions in general is whether it might be helpful to perform a survey study of the general population regarding their definitions. We might be quite surprised to find that a group of theologians defines religion quite differently from a church or synagogue congregation.
Religion itself also has a variety of components essential to its makeup. The components of religion can include experiences, practices, behaviors, beliefs, doctrines, rituals, and sacred texts. As an aside, one can understand why it may be difficult to isolate a particular brain region associated with religion because of the diversity and richness of religion and its various components. For example, different brain regions are likely involved in people who consider religion as a highly emotional experience compared with others who define it as a more cognitive phenomenon.
An important point for neurotheology with respect to the definition of religion, in fact with regard to all definitions, is whether the definition can be operationalized in a way that is useful to neurotheology. For example, a definition of religion stating that “religion is a set of ideas created by God” would be very difficult to use in a scholarly or scientific context. Since there are no brain scan technologies or other measuring devices that can measure God or God’s creations, such a definition would be almost useless from a neurotheological perspective. However, a definition that relates religion to various human characteristics, such as emotions and behaviors, is something that neurotheology can grab hold of. Again, though, it is important not to predefine religion in such a way that its operationalization creates a scenario in which the end result of a study is simply a tautology of proving the original definition.
SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO DEFINING RELIGION
About twenty years, ago I had the good fortune to participate in a consensus conference called “Scientific Research on Spirituality and Health,”3 which brought together approximately eighty scientists from around the United States with the explicit goal of trying to better understand the relationship between spirituality and health. The eighty scientists were grouped into four categories: neuroscience, physical health, mental health, and addictions. The overall length of the conference was supposed to be about nine days, during which time we were charged with reviewing the current medical literature to determine the state of the science in each category and then make recommendations as to future possibilities for research in those areas. During the first day, though, we realized one major flaw in the design of the conference: No one had explicitly defined what religion and spirituality actually were. How could we attempt to further our understanding of the relationship between religion or spirituality and health without agreeing on what these terms meant? Subsequently, we spent the next six days debating the definition of religion—far more time than we originally anticipated. But this was absolutely necessary for the entire project to be of value to the scientific and medical community.
The result was that we established definitions for spirituality and religion or religiousness based on sets of criteria. The criteria for spirituality included (1) the feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for the sacred; (2) the “search” for the sacred, which referred to attempts to identify, articulate, maintain, or transform; and (3) the “sacred,” which referred to a divine being, ultimate reality, or ultimate truth, as perceived by the individual. The criteria for religion or religiousness included (1) the criteria defined for spirituality; and/or (2) a search for nonsacred goals, such as identity, belonging, meaning, health, and wellness, in the context of the spiritual criteria; and (3) the use of means and methods for the search that receive general validation and support from within an identifiable group of people.4
While one can debate the value of these particular definitions, they did achieve success in certain ways. The definitions clearly operationalized religion and spirituality in a way that could be studied scientifically. Religion and spirituality were defined as searches for ways in which the human person could engage a particular sacred belief, and beliefs could consist of both spiritual and nonspiritual goals. Spiritual goals included trying to connect to God, trying to connect to the universe, and understanding some greater meaning about life in general. Nonspiritual goals included attaining a sense of belonging, attaining a sense of community, and incorporating various lifestyle behaviors such as a specific diet or set of daily activities.
These definitions can be applied to specific groups. For example, many Jewish people keep kosher laws that dictate specific foods they can eat and the ways in which they can eat them. Jews are also supposed to observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday night until sundown Saturday evening as a way of adhering to the commandments set forth by God as described in the Torah. Some Christians are supposed to eat certain foods at different times of the month or the year; for example, avoiding meat during Lent. Some also to partake in communion by sipping wine and eating a wafer so as to receive the blood and body of Christ. Muslims are supposed to pray five times a day and modify their eating habits during the month of Ramadan.
Each religious tradition has specific behavioral and sometimes dietary regulations that compose essential aspects of the religion. To follow that religion then means to follow some, or all, of these basic practices. As time has gone on, different facets of religious traditions have altered the particular behaviors that are acceptable or not. For example, many reform Jewish people do not follow the kosher or Sabbath laws. Does this make such individuals nonreligious, less religious, or still religious but in a different way? Similar questions can be asked of any religious tradition. The critical question is, how many of the religious doctrines and practices does one have to follow in order to be considered part of a religion or to be considered religious?
DEFINITIONS FROM OTHER SCHOLARS
Of course, a group of scientists is not necessarily the most appropriate group to be called on to define religiousness or spirituality. A number of well-known scholars in the past several hundred years, from various fields, have also offered definitions and approaches toward understanding religion. William James defined religion as “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider divine.”5 Such a definition is not dissimilar to that of the scientists at the conference I attended. James described religiousness as feelings and experiences that can be measured scientifically. James also considered there to be a relationship between the individual and what the individual considered to be sacred or divine. Thus, from a neurotheological perspective, this is a good starting point.
As mentioned earlier, Friedrich Schleiermacher described the essential element of religion as the experience of a transcendent feeling of the divine and a feeling of “absolute dependence.”6 Again there is a focus on a “feeling,” but in this case, it is a feeling of dependence on the divine. The notion of a transcendent feeling is important, as many people refer to transcendence, the ability to extend beyond oneself, as a fundamental aspect of spirituality and religion. The concept of self-transcendence is a measurable construct using questionnaires such as the psychiatrist and geneticist Claude Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory. Self-transcendence refers to an individual’s “identification with everything conceived as essential and consequential parts of a unified whole.”7 Self-transcendence has also been used in other scientific studies of religiousness, including the work of the behavioral geneticist Dean Hamer who has evaluated the relationship between certain genes and feelings of self-transcendence.8
Rudolf Otto defined religion in terms of “the Holy” (Das Heilige) as a “mysterium tremendum.”9 For Otto, a tremendous mystery, combining fear and fascination, lies at the heart of the transcendent experience. While this concept keeps the notion of religion in the realm of experience, the sense of mystery is probably more difficult to measure scientifically.
The famous psychologist Carl Jung defined religion as:
a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.10
This reference to an attitude of the mind that relates to “powers” provides another approach that might be evaluated from a neurotheological perspective. Questionnaires can be constructed to establish subjective attitudes, and the notion of a power can be queried as well.
From an anthropological and sociological perspective, Émile Durkheim defined religion as a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, which are set apart and forbidden. This includes sets of beliefs and practices that unite a single moral community of those who adhere to them.11 This communal element is important in redefining religion on a group, rather than individual, level. Of course, there are still the beliefs and practices of individuals that can be observed or measured. In fact, a frequent question I receive is whether there are studies that have distinguished brain functions associated with group versus individual effects of religion. At this point, there are no data on this. However, there are well-known areas of the brain that help with social interactions and behaviors that could be involved in group religious activities. Perhaps if the social areas of the brain are activated, we could distinguish how religion affects the brain on a group level.
The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as “(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”12 For both Durkheim and Geertz, religion was a human construct specifically related to the establishment of cohesive social groups. Data can thus be obtained to determine the extent to which religions help groups form and maintain their integrity. This definition supports several evolutionary views of religion as an adaptive process that creates successful groups, which leads to enhanced survival.
Scholars have elaborated concepts of religion based on various evolutionary and neurobiological perspectives. The primary point is that religion must have some adaptive purpose. Traditionally, it has been thought that religions might contribute to the social cohesion of groups of people or help people control their environment more effectively. More recently, scholars such as Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer have argued that religion has developed as an offshoot of various cognitive modules in the brain or is a costly signaling mechanism that allows people to know who is in the group and who is not.13 Atran and his colleague Ara Norenzayan have suggested that religions include beliefs in supernatural agents, a costly commitment to these agents in terms of time or resources, the use of beliefs in supernatural agents to lower existential anxieties such as death anxiety, and participation in communal rituals that support the religious beliefs.14 From a definition perspective, perhaps the most important point here is that for these scholars, religion is a natural phenomenon with a clear biological origin. We will consider these possibilities in more detail in chapter 6.
Paul Tillich, one of the most important theologians of the twentieth century, has had a substantial impact on neurotheological scholarship. Tillich begins his Systematic Theology by defining religion as pertaining to “ultimate concerns.”15 He believes that religion relates to the most important issues that humans face and helps address them. On one hand, this definition may be too vague to be operationalized. However, it is possible to explore the concepts that people hold to be most important. For example, in a number of workshops, my colleague Mark Waldman and I have used a practice we refer to as the “innermost values” practice. In this practice, you start by sitting at a table with a paper and pen. You spend a few minutes breathing slowly and entering a state of deep relaxation. You then ask yourself, “What is my innermost value?” You write down whatever thought, or thoughts, come to mind. It is helpful to do this over several consecutive days, as the answers can vary. As a practice, this can be very beneficial for reducing stress and developing a deeper sense of meaning and purpose, but we can also analyze the answers in terms of their content and the words used. For example, we might expect that success is a different type of innermost value than trust. We used this technique in an informal evaluation of a mindfulness-based program in which we observed people’s innermost values to shift from more materialistic ones—success, financial security—to less materialistic ones—family, happiness, peace. A similar design could be conceived of to explore which topics of ultimate concern people incorporate into their religious beliefs.
NARROW AND BROAD DEFINITIONS
When it comes to religions themselves, what types of beliefs are required to make up an actual religion? Does the religion require a belief in some type of God or deity? Certainly, all the monotheistic traditions do believe in a singular God. In Hinduism, there are many gods, or at least many expressions or manifestations of God. On the other hand, Buddhists do not typically believe in God as a being, but rather focus on the Buddha or Buddha nature of the world, toward which humans should strive.
In reconsidering what religion is, if one defines religion as requiring a belief in God, we would immediately define the world’s more than one billion Buddhists as nonreligious. Depending on the perspective or goal of a particular line of argument or research study, stating that Buddhists are not religious might be appropriate, but such a categorization might also miss important elements that define Buddhism at least as a spiritual, if not religious, tradition.
A definition of religion could conceivably be broadened to incorporate a variety of ideas that may be considered sacred but not necessarily related to God. One of my favorite examples related to an overly broad definition comes from one of my best friends growing up who considered his religion to be the Philadelphia Eagles football team. On first analysis, this may sound like an absurd way to define one’s religion. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the religion of the Philadelphia Eagles may actually be quite similar to other types of religious systems. After all, members of this religion gather every Sunday to sing songs, drink some alcohol, come together in support of one ultimate cause. There are various smells, drinks, and rituals that are part of the practice of this tradition. And in many ways, the ultimate experience is similar to more traditional religions in that a large group of people come together to feel a deep sense of connectedness with each other. For more traditionally religious people, the religion of the Philadelphia Eagles may seem somewhat silly and far less meaningful. However, that many football fans support their teams with a “religious fervor” speaks to the great similarity between these two groups. To what extent, then, should we include in a definition of religion beliefs that are not typically categorized as components of religion?
Many cult practices involve large groups of people performing specific rituals, eating specific foods, and following specific doctrines, often leading to very bizarre or even destructive behaviors. Certainly history is replete with cult groups that have committed mass suicide as they followed what appear to be quite bizarre beliefs. So what are we to make of cults? Should cults be considered religions or aberrations?
Atheists might point out that some of the “bizarre” beliefs of cults are not substantially different from the beliefs of the major religious traditions. They might ask, “Is the belief in a spaceship following a comet that much different from a belief in a man floating in the clouds?” What might a neurotheological study look like with regard to differentiating beliefs? Perhaps we could compare the extent to which beliefs can be proven or disproven scientifically. A spaceship following a comet could theoretically be observed by astronomers, whereas the existence of a universal spirit or God is considerably less easy to evaluate. Perhaps beliefs can be evaluated on how adaptive and positive they are for a person. Religious individuals who feel comforted and supported by God might be considered to hold more normal beliefs than those of cult followers. But such an approach might be highly problematic given the difficulty establishing what is good or adaptive.
In his book Breaking the Spell, the philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett suggests the following definition: Religion refers to the “social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.”16 This categorizes religions a bit more specifically by calling them social systems, much as Geertz and Durkheim have done. Some scholars have argued that religions can be considered on both group and individual levels, although most acknowledge that it is a group of individuals that codifies a religion. Dennett also specifies that religion involves not only a belief in a supernatural agent, but in one whose approval is sought by the participants.
Narrow definitions can unnecessarily or inappropriately exclude large populations of people. For example, many religious people might argue that they don’t specifically seek approval from God, but rather try to act in a way that would be consistent with God’s dictums. In fact, some would argue that simply striving for approval lacks genuineness, much like in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, where Calvin ponders whether Santa Claus will bring him presents for doing one good thing despite being a “bad” kid overall.
And what about someone who believes in the existence of God but considers God to be distant and uninvolved? A large survey of religious beliefs in America cited the notion of a distant God as one of four types of God beliefs that people hold.17 It would be difficult to get God’s approval if God remains distant. So, Dennett’s definition seems to be limited to a group of specific monotheistic approaches to religion and to pigeonhole religions right from the start. This is something that neurotheology suggests we be careful to avoid.
In the end, it would seem that defining religion is a highly subjective and individual matter. I have frequently done the following exercise with students, lay audiences, and even theologians. Ask yourself what your own definitions of religion and spirituality are. Take a piece of paper and write “religion/religiousness” at the top left and “spirituality” at the top right. Then write down the various elements you consider a part of each. See if you can arrive at a consistent definition for these terms. Consider where different groups and belief systems might fit within your taxonomy. It is no easy task, but it is important to have a starting point from which future scholarship can proceed.
THE ELEMENTS OF RELIGION
In addition to specific definitions of religion, another approach to describing religion is to consider the various elements related to, or incorporated into, religion. These elements can be considered as part of religion or religious beliefs, but they can also be considered individually. Neurotheology can also be used to help operationalize these elements and consider how they might be related to brain processes. Thus, each of the different elements of religion is a potential focus of study for neurotheology.
The following elements of religion have been used by different scholars, although there certainly may be a number of others:18
1. Religious Belief
Religious beliefs are the ideas or concepts held by an individual or incorporated into a particular tradition. The actual beliefs of a given religion are crucial for defining that particular religion. An interesting issue may be how closely individual beliefs align with doctrinal beliefs. For example, Judaism espouses the importance of following the Sabbath day, but many Jews do not follow this dictum. A study of this phenomenon might shed light on how important specific beliefs are to people and how far from the original sacred texts individual beliefs have moved. The dynamic aspect of beliefs over time and within individuals can be considered from a neurotheological perspective. The question can be raised as to whether certain beliefs are more likely to be “successful” or “adaptive” than others because of how they are capable of drawing on the human brain’s functions. A study of the slow evolution of beliefs over time might also yield an understanding of how the brain intersects with those beliefs. We recently approached the question of how beliefs are held by people by developing the Belief Acceptance Scale, which consists of questions designed to elicit an understanding of how open a person is about other people’s beliefs. We have also turned to surveys that ask people to provide narrative descriptions of their religious beliefs and experiences. The subjective data provided through these tools is essential for understanding the neurophysiological processes associated with people’s beliefs. By understanding the cognitive and emotional elements of beliefs, we can gain greater insights into the brain regions that underlie them.
2. Religious Affiliation
Studies of religion most commonly use affiliation as a way of identifying a person’s beliefs.19 But affiliation itself is not always a useful concept since it is used by people primarily as an identifier, not necessarily relating to a person’s actual beliefs. A person may identify with a particular religion because he was raised in that religion but no longer follow it in any way. An excellent example of this issue arose during my medical residency. A young woman suffering from gastrointestinal bleeding stated on intake that she was a Jehovah’s Witness and thus a follower of a religion that does not allow people to receive blood products as part of medical care. When I went in to discuss her situation, I indicated that her blood loss was becoming dangerous and that in such cases, we would normally arrange for a blood transfusion. But since she was a Jehovah’s Witness, I explained that we would look to other approaches to help her. She stopped me right there and explained that while she called herself a Jehovah’s Witness in honor of her mother, if she needed blood, she wanted blood! Thus, we cannot assume that because someone identifies with a particular religion that she is fully adherent to its edicts. Sometimes people become affiliated with a different religion as a result of marriage. A person may either claim that new religion as their own or convert to it. In circumstances of conversion, the new adherent sometimes follows the religion more closely than people raised in that religion. Thus, it is important to understand not only what people mean when they state the religion they are affiliated with, but also how they understand that affiliation.
3. Organizational Religiosity
This concept relates to participation in the formal, highly organized parts of religions. Rituals, services, ceremonies, holidays, retreats, and missions all fall under this term. Some people become highly involved in their local religious community and participate in many of its organizational components. Some religious systems have stricter codes and more a formal organization than others. An important issue from a neurotheological perspective is how the different structural properties of religions affect the brain differently. For example, church ceremonies such as partaking in mass include formal elements that can each affect the brain. Prayers, songs, group dynamics, and the act of communion, with its reference to incorporating the blood and body of Christ, all affect the brain and subsequently alter a person’s beliefs and behaviors. It is also interesting to note differences in religious traditions such as the Catholic orthodoxy stating that communion represents the “literal” blood and body of Christ, whereas many Protestant denominations recognize this ritual as symbolic. Again, understanding how the brain considers literal versus metaphorical concepts may help us understand the response to different organizational elements of religion. Further, many of the organizational elements of religion have a strong social component, and it is well established that the brain has specific regions dedicated to social interactions. These social interactions are important for human survival and are deeply embedded in the workings of the brain. By taking advantage of these social processes, the organizational aspect of religion can fulfill an important need of the brain. There are also many circumstances in which the organizational aspect of religion can have a negative impact on individuals or other groups. There are many examples of people feeling shunned or ostracized when changing their religious beliefs, and evidence has shown how religious beliefs can be adaptive or maladaptive depending on the social milieu. A country that supports religious beliefs enables people holding those beliefs to be more adaptive, whereas adverse outcomes are the result in a country that opposes the specific religious beliefs of a group of people.20
4. Nonorganizational Religiosity
Many individuals consider themselves religious but do not take part in the more formal organizational apparatus of a given religion. In fact, some people specifically reject the organizational elements of religion in order to feel more connected with their beliefs. This can take the form of private or family ceremonies or other activities that involve members of the same religion without necessarily requiring the larger group. Of course, some people also take advantage of both the organizational and nonorganizational elements of religion. An important question may be how people view their own religiousness depending on whether they are more extrinsically or intrinsically motivated. This question formed the basis of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation measures of the Religious Orientation Scale.21 This scale recognizes that people express religiousness in different ways. Extrapolating from this, neurotheology would suggest attention be paid to the differences between the organizational and nonorganizational elements of religion and how they intersect with the human brain both generally (i.e., for the group) as well as specifically for a given individual.
5. Subjective Religiosity
This construct refers to the internal religious experiences of an individual and may be more closely related to the spiritual, rather than strictly religious, elements of religion (which we will consider in the next chapter). The subjective experiences that people have can vary widely both within and across traditions. From a neurotheological perspective, subjective experiences provide essential information. Without knowing what is experienced by any individual, it is impossible to understand how brain processes are involved in these experiences. For example, a brain scan study that shows changes in the limbic system (the emotional areas of the brain) during a spiritual experience means nothing unless we can evaluate the emotional content of that experience. If we find that one person felt joy while another felt fear, we might interpret the limbic activity of each person differently. Obtaining adequate subjective data is likely to be crucial for most neurotheological studies; otherwise, there is nothing to anchor the more objective, scientific data.
6. Religious Commitment and Motivation
What motivates people to be religious is also an interesting issue to be considered from a neurotheological perspective. One reason that commitment and motivation are important is that they are psychological concepts that can be operationalized and hence tied into brain function. Motivation and reward are concepts for which there is a growing scientific database,22 and applying these concepts to religion and spirituality is useful for neurotheology. The source of people’s motivation is also important since people can be motivated to follow religion for a number of reasons, including guilt, anger, fear, love, and personal experience, among others. It might be interesting to determine which motivating causes are more compelling than others and which have been used by some religions and not others. In this way, evaluating religious motivation can be used to tie neurobiology to the psychological causes of religious beliefs and practices. Such an analysis can also tie neurobiology into theology by determining which doctrines rely on which motivations.
7. Religious Well-Being
Religious well-being is an important topic within the neurotheology rubric since it can help link neurobiological and physiological processes associated with religion to physical and mental health.23 Since health has more clearly defined measures, both physiologically and subjectively, this connection can help relate how religious practices and beliefs contribute to or diminish a person’s well-being. People can be religious and have excellent health or poor health. Conversely, atheists can be very healthy or very unhealthy. Further, people can hold beliefs about religion that are either beneficial or detrimental to their physical and mental health. Many religious traditions espouse love and compassion for each other, which can lead to more positive emotions associated with specific brain changes involved with those emotions. Religions that teach tolerance and charity also can encourage people to perform beneficial services for society. And these activities have been shown to benefit the physical and mental well-being of both the giver and receiver.24 On the other hand, negative thoughts and actions can be encouraged by a religion, such as committing violence against individuals from other religions. And sometimes, the negativity can be more individualized, such as in the case of a person with cancer who thinks God is punishing him or her for immoral behaviors in the past. People can also have highly positive personal experiences, such as near-death experiences that change a person’s life for the better. Sometimes these powerful positive experiences differ so substantially from the doctrines of a person’s religion that she experiences a great internal struggle trying to incorporate the experience back into the prevailing belief system. In addition, people sometimes feel ridiculed or shunned by fellow congregants or the clergy, which can lead to social isolation and negative emotions. Determining whether religion contributes to or diminishes health and well-being is therefore an important target of neurotheological research.
8. Religious Coping
Coping is related to the notion of religious well-being as it is something that can contribute to that well-being. Religious coping is often cited by individuals as crucial for their ability to deal with issues and crises throughout life.25 In the health care setting, patients turn particularly to religion as a source of coping with serious health issues such as heart disease or cancer. People frequently seek out clergy or pastoral care counselors for advice and direction regarding health issues, either for themselves for help dealing with a diagnosis such as cancer or for help dealing with family members who are sick or dying. And almost every nurse and doctor has been asked at one time or another to pray with a patient or patient’s family. Through religious coping, individuals can put their suffering in perspective and can deal with that suffering in a more adaptive manner. The mechanisms, both psychological and neurological, by which religious coping might help have received little research attention, however. One might wonder how a religious tradition or particular concept of God might help people manage the negative emotions of fear and anxiety more effectively. How much of coping is a cognitive process and how much an emotional one? Neurotheology might help answer such questions.
9. Religious Knowledge
Religious knowledge provides believers with apparent insights into many aspects of the world, including ideas about interpersonal relationships, occupations to pursue, political parties to follow, and moral concepts to adhere to. For the most ardent believers, religious scriptures can provide “complete” information regarding the physical and metaphysical world. For these people, religion thus provides explanations regarding how the physical world was created and how it functions. Religions also explain our role within that world in terms of beliefs to hold and behaviors to practice. Certainly, religions provide guidance regarding how humans are supposed to relate to God. Religions can also provide information on how humans are to interact with one another. For example, some religious beliefs encourage antagonistic behavior to anyone who does not follow that religion. Other religious perspectives encourage compassion and empathy toward others, including those outside the tradition. Religion can also provide a system of ethics that can help a person determine how to be a good or bad person. This can include various ideas regarding moral issues such as abortion, end-of-life decisions, health care decisions, sexuality, drugs and crime, among others. Each of these concepts can be considered with respect to the brain regions involved in abstract thought, knowledge, memory, and morals. It might be quite interesting to determine if different brain areas are involved in the moral processes derived from a religious tradition versus those derived from other sources such as secular philosophy.
10. Religious Consequences
Associated with the moral knowledge derived from religion is the concept of religious consequences. Religion typically provides an array of consequences associated with various types of thoughts and behaviors. In this way, religion tells us what will happens to us when we do good or bad things. A well-known consequence in Christian belief is that sinners will go to Hell. Neurotheology might explore how religious consequences affect the brain in terms of emotions such as embarrassment or guilt. These negative emotions have been suggested as helping establish the human conscience.26 Many religions also include a notion of a final judgment day for all of humanity. How such concepts affect a person’s behaviors, beliefs, and ultimately brain function, could be a fascinating focus for future neurotheological research.
While this list of religious dimensions and components is not necessarily exhaustive, it does provide an interesting look at the thoughts, feelings, experiences, and behaviors associated with religion that can be addressed from a neurotheological perspective. Each element could be the focus of a number of different types of studies. Neuroimaging studies could explore how different brain processes interact with each component. Phenomenological studies could evaluate the subjective aspects—emotions, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors—associated with each religious element. And the relationship between these different elements and human health and well-being could be explored.
FAITH DEVELOPMENT
One other approach to understanding what religion is from a neurotheological perspective is to consider how ideas about religion changes over a person’s life span. After all, the question, “What is religion?” could elicit very different answers from children versus their grandparents. Clearly, as we go through life, our beliefs about religion and spirituality change. The beliefs in God and religion that we hold when we are four years old will be substantially different when we are fourteen years old and again when we are forty years old. And these beliefs can affect daily life choices such as what job to take or who to marry, or encourage people to develop desirable qualities such as generosity or compassion.
Religious or spiritual development could be an entire subfield within neurotheology and may be related to both psychological and neurophysiological development. While several scholars, such as James Fowler and James Gollnick, have delineated different stages associated with spiritual or faith development, adding the extra dimension of brain development could produce a rich and complex understanding of this process.
As an example, let’s explore James Fowler’s concept of faith development27 as a model that can be used by neurotheology to better understand how the brain and religion are associated with each other. Fowler’s stages of faith are based to some degree on the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg’s notion of moral development. Fowler elaborated six different stages of faith beginning at birth and extending into old age. The first stage of faith development, which he refers to as a “pre-stage,” he called “undifferentiated faith.” This stage has no formal religious belief and no specific ideas about God. This stage corresponds to a stage of brain development in which there is minimal brain activity. The regions of the cortex including the temporal, parietal, and frontal lobes, which mediate most higher-order mental processes, are not “online” yet. Thus, it is not surprising that there would be no differentiated ideas about religion or God in this stage. Fowler notes that this stage is still important since the early upbringing of an infant establishes the biological basis for future development. Data from animal studies show that young animals raised in supportive and stimulating environments develop many more neuronal connections than those raised in restricted or negative environments. Extrapolating to human infants, it might be interesting to see whether those raised in loving, supportive, stimulating environments ultimately develop religious beliefs that are more positive than those raised in abusive families. Similarly, infants exposed to drugs or alcohol might express long-term differences in their religious and spiritual beliefs from those of infants not exposed to drugs or alcohol. This is certainly something that could be studied from a neurotheological perspective. Based on brain development, this initial stage might last until about two years of age, at which time the cortical regions begin to develop and language, along with other abstract thought processes, appears.
While this initial “pre-stage” might be regarded as lacking in high-level religious thought, it is interesting to note that the simplicity of the infant mind is actually a goal for some of the mystical traditions. The notion that our high-level thought processes distract us from our truer self suggests that we strive to return to a time when the mind was at its beginning. For example, the ancient Taoist text, the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu, contains the following passages28:
Chapter 10:
Can you keep the spirit and embrace the One without departing from them?
Can you concentrate your vital force (ch’i) and achieve the highest degree of weakness like an infant?
Chapter 55:
He who possesses virtue in abundance
May be compared to an infant.
Whether neurotheology might offer some perspective on the value of the infant-like brain and how that would be defined both subjectively and physiologically remains to be seen. But it could be a very interesting investigational path.
Fowler refers to the first stage of faith development as the “intuitive-projective” stage, which he describes as occurring between the ages of two and six years of age. During this stage a child incorporates parental and societal concepts of God but primarily through fantasy, stories, and dramatic representations. There is a great deal of imagination associated with this stage and few restrictions from rational thought processes. This age range is associated with a progressive increase in brain metabolism; in fact, to levels far greater than in the adult brain.29 This heightened brain metabolism is associated with an “overconnectedness” of neurons—the neurons on average have many more connections to other neurons than in the adult brain. Since so many connections exist between areas of the brain that are not normally connected, all sorts of strange ideas and thoughts can form. These extensive connections might lead to the kinds of bizarre and creative ideas children have about God, death, or religion, as illustrated by the following quotes from the website Iusedtobelieve.com, where people post recollections of childhood beliefs:
I used to believe that a “soul” was an object [that] looked like a white rose without the stem. It was soft, flexible, and probably made of plastic. I may have gotten that idea from seeing a picture of a white rose in a book that had the word soul in it.
I thought heaven was some kind of trailer park in the desert near Las Vegas that people moved to when they got old.
My mother told me, “Nobody really knows [what God looks like]. He is a giant being.” I didn’t know what the word being meant because I was so young, so I thought she had said he was a giant bean[,] so for a few years of my early childhood I would picture God as an enormous white lima bean.
One might wonder which areas of the brain elicit such beliefs and how they may be similar to or different from more standard religious beliefs.
The next of Fowler’s stages of faith development is the “mythic-literal” stage, which occurs during the school-age years (approximately 6 to 10 years of age). It is during this time that mythic stories and their literal interpretation form a child’s predominant set of beliefs. Interestingly, this stage appears to coincide with a plateau phase in brain metabolism as the brain begins to stabilize and establish longer-term connections associated with beliefs.30 There is a very active cutting back, or pruning, of brain connections31 as a child learns what is right and wrong about their beliefs from authoritative figures such as parents or clergy. In addition, the major brain areas are not sufficiently online to allow for much exploration or challenging of beliefs or for addressing the complexity of beliefs.
More complex beliefs arise during adolescence and early adulthood, a stage Fowler refers to as the “synthetic-conventional” stage. Neurophysiologically, this corresponds to a time in which the overall metabolism in the brain begins to decrease but the higher cortical areas become more mature. This allows a person to synthesize old information with new ideas learned from friends and teachers that encourage new types of thinking. This is a complex stage owing to a variety of internal and external factors. Internally, a person in this stage is affected by the large swings in hormones associated with puberty and the increasingly complex neuronal interactions between the limbic system and the cortex. Brain studies of people in this stage, and particularly during the transition from the mythic-literal stage to this more complex stage, might show how the developing brain supports changes in beliefs patterns.
In the fourth of Fowler’s stages, referred to as the “individuative-reflective” stage, a person essentially comes into his or her own. Brain development brings the cortical areas fully online as a person establishes the beliefs that will last most of his or her life. The “ego self” becomes fully established, and little change occurs in a person’s beliefs and personality once this happens. Interestingly, the brain also does not change much during this period of life. Limited new connections form, and there is limited pruning (at least, the forming and pruning of connections appear to be in balance). In this stage, the cognitive processes of the brain are operating at full capacity. These processes help people interpret all types of external experiences and internal ideas so that they can be incorporated into a well-defined identity with an associated set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes.
Fowler’s fifth stage, “conjunctive faith,” generally occurs at midlife. During this stage, a person considers other belief systems as he or she struggles to find greater meaning and value in life. Over time, a person may modify, alter, or expand his or her belief system. From a brain perspective, this stage is associated with a decrease in overall metabolic activity and a progressive loss of cognitive processes.32 Thus, as neuronal connections are lost, it is possible that an individual may sense that potential answers are slipping away and unlikely to be found on his or her current path—often part of the proverbial midlife crisis. A person may no longer have the cognitive or emotional strength to continue to struggle to know and understand. The result can be a “giving up” of certain beliefs and holding on more tightly to beliefs that help the person deal with old age. On the other hand, the brain itself still has cognitive flexibility to develop new ideas and beliefs. The question is how the balance of new ideas contrasts with the prevailing beliefs a person holds.
The final of Fowler’s stages of faith development is “universalizing faith,” in which there is a sense of connectedness or unity between the self and something greater than the self, which may be God, universal consciousness, or ultimate reality. As we will describe later, this type of experience is frequently associated with spiritual practices such as meditation or prayer. Interestingly, the overall decrease in brain activity characteristic of this stage, particularly in areas that support the sense of self, might contribute to a loss of one’s sense of self, and it may be this loss that is experienced as a feeling of connectedness or unity. A person might feel highly connected to his or her religion, or he or she may feel an even greater sense of interconnectedness of all things and all beliefs.
Fowler points out that not everyone experiences each of these stages. In fact, people can get “stuck” in almost any of these phases, which can lead to pathological forms of beliefs. In addition, there are many models of religious and spiritual development that can be considered. However, the development of the brain is relatively consistent among all people. Thus, we might expect similar types of stages to be experienced across people from different cultures or traditions. Neurotheology might be able to contribute greatly to our understanding of human brain development, particularly as it relates to religious and spiritual development.
Future studies could explore the development of the human brain throughout the life span as it relates to the development of specific religious and spiritual beliefs. That children may conceive of God in a very literal or anthropomorphic way may have more to do with their stage of cognitive development than with the specific teachings they hear. In addition, the ability of young children to make unusual connections between objects could potentially lead to what appear to be bizarre religious concepts such as God inhabiting a little girl’s doll. As the more abstract areas of the brain develop and integrate with the rest of the brain’s functions, we would anticipate that notions of God would likewise become more abstract and complex.
This is nicely demonstrated through studies that ask people of different ages to draw a picture of their visual representation of God. Children tend to draw God as a person or anthropomorphic figure with a much higher propensity than adults. In adulthood, only about 20 percent of people actually visualize God in an anthropomorphic way.33 This also raises the question of whether those who continue to perceive God in an anthropomorphic way have a less-developed brain or simply have incorporated that humanistic perspective of God into their more abstract understanding of God. Longitudinal studies that follow a person’s beliefs over time may help clarify how the brain evolves in its thinking about many topics, and also in its concept of God.
OTHER DIMENSIONS OF RELIGION
There are many other dimensions of religion and religiousness that also bear directly on the field of neurotheology. As my own study of various religious and spiritual practices continued to advance, it became abundantly clear that we needed to have more detailed information about religious and spiritual practices and experiences. In order to assess the various dimensions of religiousness and spirituality, my colleagues and I decided to create an online survey to ask a whole battery of questions about what people believe, what they practice, and what they experience. In and of itself, the design of this survey demonstrated some of the capabilities and limitations of neurotheological research. In designing the survey, our primary goal was to better understand what the everyday person might experience religiously or spiritually. Important information that needed to be collected had to do with each person’s demographics, including gender, age, and socioeconomic status. This helped us determine whether there were distinctions across demographic categories. It was also essential for us to understand the religious and spiritual background of each person.
In addition to the standard demographic questions, we realized it would also be important to include questions from a variety of standardized questionnaires designed to assess various aspects of a person’s spirituality. Of the many questionnaires available, we included questions from those that targeted religiosity, commitments, participation, psychological implications, and ancillary components such as fear of death.34 Overall, we hoped that the information gained through the use of a combination of an extensive array of demographic questions and a number of standardized questionnaires would allow us to gain a fairly thorough understanding of who each of these people were and how their demographic characteristics might be related to their religious and spiritual beliefs. We will touch on the results of this survey throughout this book.
In the context of different dimensions of religion, one of the interesting pieces of data from our survey pertained to how people’s religious traditions or beliefs could change throughout life. Our survey documented that approximately 30 percent of people go through a significant change in their religious belief system.35 Most people who changed in our cohort went from a particular religion to atheism or agnosticism. About 5 percent of people went from being agnostic or atheist to a specific religion. And there are another 10 percent who changed from one religion to another. Further studies are needed to better understand the nature of this shift, its external and internal causative agents, and the impact on a given person’s life. From a neurotheological perspective it is also essential to understand the psychology of such a shift and ultimately the brain processes underlying such a change. The question arises as to whether brain imaging would be able to detect an actual change in the brain’s function associated with a change in a person’s belief system. Or is it simply a matter of replacing the content of one religion with the content of another?
Religions are also associated with an enormous number of behavioral practices. Some practices pertain to everyday life such as diet or daily prayer. Others relate to weekly practices such as going to mass or Shabbat services. And then there are yearly behaviors such as those pertaining to holidays that help support the overall doctrines of a religious tradition. Finally, there are lifecycle behaviors that relate to important moments in a person’s life such as a baptism, bar or bat mitzvah, wedding, or death.
While much is known about the practice of these behaviors as specified in a given religious tradition, little is known about the impact of these behaviors with respect to the brain. Of course, the brain itself is what helps to enact these behaviors by enabling people to make the appropriate ritualistic movements, repeat the specific prayers or stories, or interact socially with other members of their group. The brain also is a recipient with respect to these behaviors. By perceiving fellow congregants performing the same behaviors and rituals, various brain processes are driven to further strengthen a particular belief system. Even simple studies looking at brain functions during specific types of physical movements (e.g., davening in Judaism or crossing oneself in Catholicism) might lend some support for understanding the relationship between the brain and religious behaviors.
Different behaviors may have an impact on the brain in different ways. For example, fasting is a common practice among different traditions, and one could explore the change in brain function associated with the fasting state. It should be noted that intense spiritual experiences are frequently associated with extreme body states such as prolonged fasting or sleep deprivation. Neurotheology might explore to what extent a practice such as fasting has an impact on the brain, both in terms of general function and the function of specific neurotransmitter systems. Further, this is part of a larger reciprocal process in which a behavior expressed outwardly eventually has an internal effect on the physiology of the brain or body.
In the end, while neurotheology may not necessarily define religion better than the various approaches we have considered in this chapter, neurotheology may be able to help the process along by providing a systematic framework to study what religion is. A crucial realization for neurotheology is that any time one begins to talk about, research, or theorize about religion, the definitions and various elements of religion must be clearly stated. That way, regardless of whether people agree about the definitions, they at least have a common understanding of what each person means and how each is interpreting the data.