Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief Paperback – March 26, 2002

Thsi book does a good job expounding the authors' theory of the neural mechanisms behind transcendent experience, and its relationship to religious belief. They start out explicitly relying on the traditional objective realist position, and show how interaction of certain brain areas can lead us to lose our sense of boundaries in time and space. Thus the authors theorize that ineffable mystical experience arises from inhibition of a brain region that is critical for maintaining our sense of boundaries in time and space. The description is not very technical, but it is clear and should make sense to general readers without any background in neurology. The authors use their own simple terms for brain areas and functions rather than using the more obscure jargon of neuroscience. The excplanations work well up to a point.
There is another, weaker aspect to this book, which is the philosophical musings of the authors. Somewhere in the middle of the book, they decide that there are only two positions to be taken, objective realism and subjectivism. They make the reasonable point (though without supporting it in the book) that current neuroscience research reveals human perception to be constructed to a great degree, rather than directly providing a literal reflection of nature. This particular point is made in more detail by others, such as by Gerald Edelman in "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire," also suitable for general readers, and by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their writings, as well as Walter Freeman in "How Brains Make Up Their Minds."
Having made the point that objective realism is not an accurate way to think about how experience arises from the brain, and assuming that the only think left is subjectivism, he is forced to concede that "neurological reality" as he calls it, hs to reflect ontological reality.
That is, he jumps to the conclusion that since mystical experience reflects something _really happening_ in the brain, that there must be a 'reality' being perceived by mystics. This may be true in some sense, but it is very confused and confusing thinking.
For one thing, the authors claim that hallucinations are distinguishable from mystical experience in that mystical experience seems much more real. Yet hypnosis research not cited by the authors reveals that under some conditions hallucinations are as real as perceptions, and rely on the same brain areas, and that our bodies respond to them as if they were perceptions. In other words, the authors seem to get even the neurology wrong when they discuss what they call the "existential operator" that assigns a sense of reality to experience. Contrary to the claims of the authors, the brain can indeed produce a perfectly solid sense of reality, right down to the brain regions used for sensory perception, from products of imagination, through suggestion. This weakens their conclusion that "mystical experience is more real than hallucination" considerably, though of course it does not completely negate it.
Secondly, the authors don't recognize that there are options besides metaphysical dualism and objective realism. The fact that we perceive mystical union as if it were as real as sensory experience doesn't mean it has ontological reality. There are also very credible alternate views such as pragmatism (Walter Freeman, in "How Brains Make up their Minds,"), embodied realism (Lakoff and Johnson in "Philosophy in the Flesh"), and "relational consciousness" (John Taylor in "The Race for Consciousness").
These alternate views all allow for meaning to be constructed in the mind, such as through meaningful action on the environment, without making it either a delusion or an objective reality in itself. Thus, mystical experience can be meaningful and we can have theories, about its signficance as an evolutionary adapatation for example, without making mystical experience ontologically equivalent to a table or a chair, or resorting to a dualism of "objective realities."
The authors simply don't make the case they claim to make that mystical experience is 'objectively real' because it is 'neurologically real.' However, they do an excellent job of describing their evidence for the neural mechansisms in very clear and simple terms for general readers.

Science cannot determine that gods of any type exist, nor can it determine that no gods exist. However, there may be scientific reasons why the belief in gods remains strong. In the surprisingly titled _Why God Won't Go Away_ Ballantine Books) by Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquilli, M.D., and Vince Rause, we get a fascinating scientific answer to the title question, and a review of the current scientific understanding of the roots of belief. The authors have done research by means of brain scans on those who are having mystical or religious experiences. The brain scans show that something is going on among the neurons that doesn't happen at other times. Most of the scans described in the authors' research show an increase in activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area just behind the top of the head. They call this for operational purposes the "orientation association area (OAA)," because the OAA orients a person in physical space. "To perform this crucial function, it must first generate a clear, consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. In simple terms, it must draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else; to sort out the you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe." When this area is damaged by trauma or stroke, patients have difficulty maneuvering in physical space; when it is extra active, it seems to be a source of an inexplicable feeling of connection to all creation. A meditator describes the ineffable state in terms that are typical: "There's a sense of timelessness and infinity. It feels like I am part of everyone and everything in existence."
The authors explain that the gene-driven wiring of the brain to encourage religious beliefs exists because it has been evolutionarily good for us. Stimulating the OAA or the autonomic nervous system can produce calm and a sense of well-being which may be not only pleasant but physically beneficial. Beliefs driven by neurology could reinforce themselves by building myths, encouraging ritual, uniting societies and providing social support from fellow believers. They can check worry about eventual annihilation. They can provide a feeling of control.
Those of a religious bent will find matter to argue with inside these pages, even though the authors are very careful not to argue for or against the existence of deities, only that "the neurological aspects of spiritual experience support the sense of the realness of God." Some may also find disconcerting the idea that ecstasy of religious mysticism may have its roots in the structures that bring on orgasm. Others will find the practical answer to the title's question just too pragmatic and pat, but given the extraordinary research as it now stands, it is the best that science can do as it begins to look into religious feeling: "What we know beyond question is that the mind is essentially a machine designed to solve the riddles of existence, and as long as our brains are wired as they are, God will not go away." This book is a wonderful introduction into this fascinating research.