The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God [Paperback]

Matthew Alper (Author)

Book Description

Release date: September 1, 2008

Acclaimed by a wide range of experts, The "God" Part of the Brain is a classic. Matthew Alper presents a stunning argument: that our brain is hardwired to believe in a God. He offers a scientific explanation that we inherit an evolutionary mechanism that allows us to cope with our greatest terror - death.

The author also evokes his personal odyssey as he sought to understand why mankind created the concept of a higher power to deal with the fear and terror we experience due to our species' unique awareness of the inevitability of death.

The "God" Part of the Brain has sparked praise by scientists such as E.O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner; E. Fuller Torry, "the most famous psychiatrist in America"; and Arnold Sadwin, former Chief of Neuropsychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. The book has been adopted by universities across the country.

Praise for The "God" Part of the Brain

"This cult classic in many ways parallels Rene Descartes' search for reliable and certain knowledge...Drawing on such disciplines as philosophy, psychology, and biology, Alper argues that belief in a spiritual realm is an evolutionary coping method that developed to help humankind deal with the fear of death...Highly recommended."
- Library Journal

"I very much enjoyed the account of your spiritual journey and believe it would make excellent reading for every college student - the resultant residence-hall debates would be the best part of their education. It often occurs to me that if, against all odds, there is a judgmental God and heaven, it will come to pass that when the pearly gates open, those who had the valor to think for themselves will be escorted to the head of the line, garlanded, and given their own personal audience."
- Edward O. Wilson, two-time Pulitzer Prize-Winner

"This is an essential book for those in search of a scientific understanding of man's spiritual nature. Matthew Alper navigates the reader through a labyrinth of intriguing questions and then offers undoubtedly clear answers that lead to a better understanding of our objective reality."
- Elena Rusyn, MD, PhD; Gray Laboratory; Harvard Medical School

"What a wonderful book you have written. It was not only brilliant and provocative but also revolutionary in its approach to spirituality as an inherited trait."
- Arnold Sadwin, MD, former chief of Neuropsychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania

"A lively manifesto...For the discipline's specific application to the matter at hand, I've seen nothing that matches the fury of The 'God' Part of the Brain, which perhaps explains why it's earned something of a cult following."
- Salon.com

"All 6 billion plus inhabitants of Earth should be in possession of this book. Alper's tome should be placed in the sacred writings' section of libraries, bookstores, and dwellings throughout the world. Matthew Alper is the new Galileo...Immensely important...Defines in a clear and concise manner what each of us already knew but were afraid to admit and exclaim."
- John Scoggins, PhD

"Vibrant ... vivacious. An entertaining and provocative introduction to speculations concerning the neural basis of spirituality."
- Free Inquiry Magazine

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

First published in 1996, this is a minimally revised new edition of Alper's manifesto against belief in God. Beginning with philosopher Kant's supposition that humans cannot know a reality beyond their perception of reality, Alper uses his vast research into scientific phenomenon to build a case that humanity's perception of a spiritual realm is, in fact, the biological result of thousands of years of evolution. Alper writes that this is "'nature's white lie', a coping mechanism selected into our species to help alleviate debilitating anxiety caused by our unique awareness of death." Alper's theory is elegantly drawn, and he shows an admirable grasp of a wide range of scientific disciplines. However, generalizations weaken his case: Alper's proof relies on readers' agreement that all humans are equally spiritual creatures, whose "cross-cultural proclivity toward spiritualism suggests that we must be neuro-physiologically hardwired this way." A harsh anti-religion tone (i.e. "How much longer will be slaves to destructive religious creeds... ?"), though not entirely inappropriate, provides the book's main flaw; aside from the fact that his anti-faith proclamations themselves demonstrate a certain kind of blind faith, he gives no credence to others' views, nor is he compassionate to the helpful role that spirituality plays in peoples' lives. Ultimately, Alper is preaching to the choir, but in a time of renewed interest in the clash between religion and science, this cult classic will appeal to those caught up in the debate.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review

"A Cogent and Engaging Exploration into the Biological Foundations of Spirituality." -- David C. Noelle, Ph.D. -Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Carnegie Mellon

"Brilliant...Enormously important...Full of scientific and philosophical truths." -- Mark Waldman, Senior Editor of Transpersonal Review

"Brilliant...Provocative" -- Arnold Sadwin, M.D.; Chief of Neuropsychiatry at University of Pennsylvania's Grad. Hospital; Who's Who in Science, 1995; In Medicine, 1996

"Clear, Concise...Bold and Masterful" -- William Wright, Author of Born That Way

"Excellent Reading for every college student--The resultant residence-hall debates would be the best part of their education." -- Edward O. Wilson; Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner

"Matthew Alper is high maintenance. Not only is his intellect superior to most Ph.D. candidates that I know, but his intensity in displaying that intellect and arguing his world view is more compelling than many of my grad school courses. So, here I am, fiercely advocating for a self-published, self-educated, thoroughly unconventional first time author who, with one slim book, has thrown hundreds of years of human religious beliefs out the window and replaced them with a concise scientific view of spirituality that is impossible to argue with...The brain is the secret. In our brains lie nature's survival mechanisms in which god is nothing but a protective lens through which humanity is "programmed" to view the world. Matthew Alper has the chutzpah to remove that lens, to crush it under his heel, and then, as we cringe in the unfiltered light, he dares us all to look up into and stare into the pure scientific truth he has discovered...The "God" Part of the Brain is a challenge at first, but once you open your mind to the potentials of its theories, there is nothing to do but follow its arguments to their logical conclusions. And although he rips away our old stiff crutches, this audacious philosopher is kind enough to spoon feed us a new and positive way to approaching our existences." -- Rebecca Morris

"Thank you for finishing what Julian Jaynes and Joseph Campbell started." -- B.Brown

"The Atheist's Bible" -- Bob Worthington

"You have presented what amounts to a unified theory about the nature of mankind's concepts of God and an afterlife, their origins and evolutionary purposes. I have never seen a better-supported, more comprehensive theory on those questions. Until, or unless, I encounter evidence that meaningfully contradicts your conclusions, I'm going to adopt yours as my own working theory. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for making it available to me." -- James Hazel --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 288 pages
• Publisher: Sourcebooks; 4th ptg thus edition (September 1, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1402214529
• ISBN-13: 978-1402214523
• Product Dimensions: 5.6 x 0.8 x 7.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (99 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #247,933 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #40 in Books > Health, Fitness & Dieting > Psychology & Counseling > Experimental Psychology

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

83 of 94 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent in parts, but like 'religion', weak in others. June 15, 2002

By Roger McEvilly (the guilty bystander)

Format:Paperback

The thesis here is that spiritual and religious experience is essentially something the brain *does*, not something that comes from 'God'/'external being'. The author argues that spirituality and religious impulses have emerged in the evolving brain by default amongst evolving social organisms- in this particular book relatively recently in hominid evolution. Key processes include the growing hominid awareness of death, which, when coupled with an innate anxiety function necessary for survival, ultimately led to spirituality, religious and mystical experience.

The author ties together his own spiritual journey with ideas strung together from the likes of Jung, Kant, Plato, Freud, Darwin and E.Wilson, but unfortunately, in my view, leaves out many ideas concerning group conflict-something with which 'groupish' primates are very much affected. One trouble with emphasising 'awareness of death' in the evolution of religious impulses, is just how relevant the 'fear of death' is to say, teenagers-and yet teenagers can have a quite developed 'spiritual impulse'. (eg The average age of 'religious conversion' quoted in the book is 15.2 years, from a study of 15,000). The association of prayer with healing is discussed, (ie essentially placebo, but also stress reduction), 'near death experiences' (neurochemistry evolved to reduce anxiety), 'speaking in tongues' (glossolalia-not explained here, but possibly, in my view, an infant/childhood mechanism overlapping into adulthood-like crying tears), and others such as guilt, morality, etc are discussed in the light of evolutionary theory as applied to human behaviour.

One major point I think the author misses though, is that like consciouness itself, 'spirituality' is likely a holisitic and/or emergant brain function, there may in many cases therefore be no specific 'part' as such. Another problem I had is that he vastly under-rates 'thinking' in other biological organisms. For example, in describing pantheistic mysticism "one feels that totality of the world is the greatest power and one can see themselves as part of that totality. During this experience a person has a sense that he is part of all that is around him" (p111). Why couldn't this be a kind of territorial instinct?-it could therefore be in other animals. In describing monastic mysticism-"a person experiences a surrendering of personal identity to a singular or central point of consciousness" (p110)-again why can't this be present amongst other social, hirearcheal organisms? Also, theistic mysticism-"seeng or feeling the presence of a personification or a named force which intones a higher power" (p110). There is no discussion of the possiblility of any of these experiences having biological origins more ancient than recent hominid evolution. There may be a difference between the ability to be 'spiritual', and to ability to formulate abstract concepts. (How does a bat really 'think'?). His argument against spirituality in other animals is wholly the lack of religious rites (p84), but 'religious rites' do not necessarily constitute spirituality-as anyone disillusioned with conventional religion will happily tell you (He alludes to this on p149). Another example of his gross under-rating of thinking in other animals is on p117, where chimps are given foot-noted recognition that they can see themselves in the mirror only because they have "evolutionary proximity to our species".

The association of schizophrenia and (some) religious belief is also not mentioned, although the association is obvious and has been pointed out by others (eg Jaynes). In his discussion on 'religious conversion', for example, he suggests "when the ego is so riddled with anxiety that it ruptures, natural selection has installed our species with a physiologically based "religious spare"of "cognitive transformation", which often leads to "rapturous contentment". The cost of carrying this spare (in the gene pool) is "the small price of personal identity". However, there may also be more adaptive 'cost' than this-such a descriptive transformation is surprisingly similar to those who suffer schizophrenic breakdown through stress-there may *possibly* be a relationship, which is important. It is also possible that schizophrenia itself has biological precursors in other organisms-dissociating/splitting under stress may be adaptive.

These points aside, his journey from religious skepticism to scientific explanation is tinged with individual strength and understanding, (notwithstanding what I would call his human arrogance). I liked his distinction between 'spirituality' and 'religion' (p149)-this is not widely recognised. I also think his points about different kinds of spirituality/mysticism are good- it seems our words for 'religion'/spirituality are woefully inadequate-which of course reflects our lack of understanding of the functioning of our own brains.

Sociobiological in outlook-p156 quotes E.Wilson-"scientists and humanists should consider together the possiblity that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the philosophers and biologized." I happen to agree, but with much caution-frameworks which have stood socially for thousands of years need to be challenged/complimented very carefully, with verifiable science and open discussion.

The book is a strong attempt to understand human nature. Very good, very controversial, with gaps and weaknesses likely to be strengthened in future years through ongoing brain research. Other books recommended in this general genre of 'sociobiology' are "Consilience" (broader philosophy of science, religion, sociobiology), and "Why God won't Go away" (neurological basis of spirituality).

56 of 64 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A Spiritual Journey January 30, 2000

By Casey Dunn

Format:Paperback

Just as I did, as a teenager Matthew Alper asked the big questions: Who is "God" and what is my relation to him? Which, if any, of the hundreds of religions and sub-religions is correct? Why do religions change so much over time? How come every person's religious view is different from everybody else's? Just as I did, Alper began a personal search for the answers to these questions. He looked everywhere. Like me, he found that the answers to the big questions of "faith" lie not "out there" but within us. He then continued his search far beyond mine, came to many well-reasoned conclusions, then documented and explained his findings in 'The "God" Part of the Brain'. This work draws on many scientific disciplines, including evolution, psychology, anthropology and history, to put into clear perspective the origin of the human need to seek a higher power and, more important, the effect this need has on humanity and its cultures. I found the book to be a "revelation" of sorts in that it finally makes sense out of the din of competing religious views. In this book Matthew Alper shows an enviable commitment to truth, exacting logic and scholarly research as well as a vast intelligence as he explains his search and the answers he found. I did not want the book to end! It explains a very important part of what it means to be human. 'The "God" Part of the Brain' has already made a very great, very positive impact on my life.

23 of 26 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars A thoughtful, engaging story with a limited perspective on god December 17, 2006

By Wallace Guy

Format:Hardcover

The God Part of the Brain is the story of Matthew Alper's search for god. The short version of my review is that I think the author has articulately shared his genuine, open-minded search for an answer to the Big Question. It's a great read. He's smart and well read, and he presents a lot of interesting material. Few people tackle the question of god with as much humility, rigor and seeming lack of agenda as well as he does. Few people attempt to blend science and spirituality with the balance of open-mindedness and rigor that he does. I recommend it highly as a personal account of someone on the search.

However, I do not recommend it as a book with much to say about the answer to the Big Question for someone else. He comes up with a conclusion, and I'm afraid my review is going to be a spoiler. So if you want to enjoy the explorations and follow him as he asks his questions with equally open mind, I would stop reading this review now.

In my opinion his conclusion is a direct result of his process. His result was pre-ordained by his methodology and the decisions he made along the way. He walked himself into a box canyon and then concludes the canyon leads nowhere. I could see the result coming a thousand miles away. I don't think he had an agenda ... the book is personal enough for me to believe he has an open mind ... I just don't think he let his mind far enough out of the box.

To appreciate where I'm coming from as a reviewer, I've signed up for the belief that we all create our own reality. And I believe that in just about every way one can believe it.

So, in chapter 5 the author struggles with what he knows for certain about god, he comes to the conclusion that god is a word. At one level this is brilliant. It is just about the only thing one can say with certainty ... that "g ... o ... d" are 3 letters that form a word and exist as a concept. But this is where he starts to put god in a box. He now believes that god IS a word, and if we create our own reality, we now know that he is doomed to discover that god is only conceptual, which is what he discovers. Once he tried to anchor his search in certainty, all the aspects of god that can be experienced but not "known" by the mind got excluded from the search. I almost put the book down at this point, but the tale of his search was interesting enough.

Once he put god in a box, his mind then jumps to a lot of conclusions to support the box. Although the book is filled with excellent questions and a generally rigorous approach, he takes a few key left turns very quickly and doesn't seem to recognize them.

For example, he devotes a whopping 4 pages to plant medicine (e.g., mescaline, psilocybin) as chapter 10. The end of those 4 pages concludes with, "In essence, the fact that there exists a certain class of drugs - molecular combinations - that can evoke a spiritual experience supports the notion that spiritual consciousness must be physiological in nature. Herein lies the basis for an ethnobotanical argument against the existence of either a spiritual reality or a soul." What? Because a physical thing can cause an experience, the experience must be physical? At this point his argument is circular. It's like saying that because I'm in a physical body, the spiritual body doesn't exist. This sounds like a reasoned argument, but it's just an opinion, obviously one this reader disagrees with. But again ... I don't fault his search or even his conclusion; I just don't think his conclusion encompasses what is possible. For example, he never considers the possibility of viewing the plant itself as spiritual.

If I try to summarize where else I think he put himself and his conclusion in a box, it shows up in chapter 19. He discusses Kant (which I have not read) and agrees with Kant's perspective that humans are "forever bound to our relative human perspectives which are framed by the way our brains process information." So far, so good. But then he "applies the same argument to spirituality" and concludes that all our spiritual beliefs "constitute nothing more than manifestations of the way our species happen to process information and therefore interpret reality." The problem is this: he does not equally apply his conclusions to himself, the I. Yes, we are bound to our perspectives. Yes, spirituality is a fabrication of those perspectives. But there is a paradox he skips over ... I, also, am a fabrication of my perspectives. I don't exist as I think I do. But that doesn't mean I am not real. It also doesn't mean that the spiritual experience is not real. He's willing to accept the physical reality of himself in spite of his limited perception, but he turns the same argument against the existence of the spiritual. Again, the conclusion he arrives at is a simple function of how he applies his arguments.

He buys into the standard argument that belief in an afterlife is a result of humanity being conscious of, and afraid of, death. This argument always ignores the fact that many of the people who have come as close as humanly possible to the experience of death, but not died, are often the people who have the least fear and hang-ups around death. Talk to someone who has survived a terminal cancer diagnosis. By and large they are not the ones locked up at home afraid to live. It's the people who keep death at arms distance who are afraid of it. This argument never holds water with me.

So, as you can tell by my review, the spoiler is that he concludes we are physical beings and nothing more. I would say that this is the reality he has created for himself and he has done a magnificent job showing just how to create that reality. But if you are looking for a more expanded sense of self, there are other approaches that can lead to a different conclusion that are also completely consistent with rigor and the scientific method.