| The Spiritual Brain |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by John Feakes |
| Sunday, 07 June 2009 14:11 |
Book Review: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, by Neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’ Leary (Harper Perennial, 2007)Review by John Feakes  Science means “knowledge." An expanded definition would be "systematized knowledge based on observation." Most would agree that science is, or ought to be at least, the pursuit of knowledge of the truth. Scientifically this is done by establishing firm causal relationships through observation and experimentation. The benefits of real scientific research and application are evident. Technology in every area has blossomed to extents undreamed of. Travel, medicine, industry, even entertainment all have as their roots rigorous scientific investigation and application. Knowing that society as a whole deeply appreciates what science has done to prolong our lives - to make them easier and more entertaining - we must be cautious of ideologies "marrying themselves" to science, in fact, masquerading as science. As Mario Beauregard points out so very clearly in his insightful treatise, materialism has done just this.Materialism is the belief that everything that exists is comprised of matter. That is, that human beings are merely walking concatenations of atoms. For most of the 20th century mainstream science has operated under this assumption. But here is where we pause to take note of the fact that materialism is just that - an assumption. The scientific method was not employed to arrive at materialism as a conclusion, but rather, materialism as a philosophical preference is being assumed prior to any scientific investigation. So married are the two in the minds of many people that any question a person may have concerning materialism's validity is immediately interpreted as an attack on science. Indeed, many scientists to today have all but completely lost sight of science's true intent. Rather than using the scientific method to discover the truth, they are using it to argue for the truth of materialism! But what if the scientific method begins to point away from strict materialism? Beauregard argues, and convincingly so, that this is indeed the case. Specifically, he argues against materialist notions that human beings are without an immaterial nature. Beauregard's thesis, as the subtitle states, is that humans are indeed more than molecules in motion. Several convincing lines of evidence are presented which argue for the existence of an immaterial soul as well. You are not your Brain Beauregard's thesis is that human thoughts originate somewhere other than the brain. Though the brain receives and translates these thoughts, it is the immaterial soul that actually originates the thoughts themselves. Traditionally materialists have scoffed at such an idea, but scoffing is not the same as refuting. The fact is, there is absolutely no understanding of what consciousness actually is or how the brain might produce it. Beauregard points out, and rightly so, that strict materialism applied to the mind is actually self defeating. In other words, if minds are really just the result of meaningless atoms in flux, why should any particular importance be attached to the thoughts produced by such processes? How can the materialist holding to such views regard any thought as more or less "valid" than any other? In the end, materialism undermines the validity of all reasoning - including the materialists'. This is a fact consistently ignored by the materialist camp. Beauregard might have pointed out that even the materialist must acknowledge that immaterial things do in fact exist. The laws of logic are a classic example. These laws are absolute, universal and invariant. There is no way we can dialogue unless we abide by these laws. In fact, to deny their existence would require that we employ them in the denial process! Numbers would be another example. Human beings did not create numbers. Like the laws of logic, numbers were discovered. Acknowledging the existence of such immaterial realities is simply devastating to the materialist worldview. Consciousness is more than computing ability Scientists and Sci-Fi devotees have dreamed for years about computers one day achieving consciousness. The idea was that with greater and greater computing ability machines might someday begin to actually “think” the way we do. Beauregard et al dispel such delusions by pointing out that chess computers whose computing powers allow them to plot millions of possible future moves still lose to human chess champions. Most importantly, chess computers don’t “feel” anything about winning or loosing, whereas humans clearly do. It has become obvious, even to the dyed-in-the-wool materialist that there is a fundamental difference between a human mind and the most advanced computer. Humans appear quite unique and the chasm between our minds and that of anything else under the sun, from the most advanced computers to our supposed nearest living relative – the chimpanzee – appears profoundly wide. I would add, unbridgeable. The “God spot” and Memes Materialist science faces a real challenge. If all reality, including ourselves is reducible to matter alone, how is it that the vast majority of humans disagree? How is it that the vast majority of people living today and throughout human history, as far as we can tell, believed that there was more to the universe, including ourselves, than the purely physical? The materialist has an answer. Since on the materialist view thoughts arise from purely physical processes in the brain, it was assumed that there must be a “God spot” somewhere in the brain. This “spot”, it was assumed, triggered mystical experiences in particular individuals throughout history, leading to the various schools of religious belief. These religious beliefs (aka memes, units of thought) were then supposedly communicated to others through speech, writings etc. Using fMRI (functioning magnetic resonance imaging) techniques, Beauregard et al have demonstrated, however, mystical experiences involve multiple areas of the brain. Clearly mystical experience cannot be the result of any particular “God spot” as earlier hypothesized. Furthermore the whole idea of the belief in the supernatural as a viral “meme” is actually a self refuting one for the materialist. Consider that on the materialist view, the entire universe is the result of irrational causes. In this case, it would be impossible to speak of “accidental” events in the brain (i.e. neurons “misfiring). An accident occurs when one intends for something to take place but unintentionally causes something else to occur. In a materialist universe it would simply be senseless to speak of such things as “accidents.” Furthermore, even if we forget the inconsistency in the materialist language for a moment, we still must ask how, if certain beliefs are really the result of a “misfiring” in the brain, can we be sure that materialism itself isn’t a viral meme caused by a brain malfunction? If the whole “viral meme” idea is true, the fact that the vast majority of people disagree with materialism must certainly support the contention that it is materialism that resulted from the brain’s “misfiring” rather than the belief in the supernatural. Arguments in Favor of Man’s Immaterial Nature The following is a list of some of the most compelling arguments for the existence of the human soul advanced by Beauregard. Qualia: (Singular, Quale) “are how things appear to us individually – the experiential aspects of our mental lives that can be accessed through introspection. Every person is unique, so complete understanding of another person’s consciousness is not likely possible in principle…Rather, when we communicate, we rely on an overlapping range of meaning.” (p.103). Beauregard uses the color red as an example. Red takes on a whole range of meanings for different people, a fact that materialist science has a tough time interpreting. For instance, Francis Crick stated, “It is certainly possible that there may be aspects of consciousness, such as qualia, that science will not be able to explain. We have learned to live with such limitations in the past (e,g.; limitations of quantum mechanics) and we may have to live with them again.” (As quoted by Beauregard, p. 105) Replacement of Neural Material Beauregard notes on p. 114 that, “Within each neuron, the molecules are replaced approximately 10,000 times in an average life span. Yet humans have a continuous sense of self that is stable over time.” Consciousness researcher Dan Radin is then quoted: “All of the material used to express that pattern has disappeared, and yet the pattern exists. What holds the pattern, it not matter? This question is not easily answered by the assumptions of a mechanistic, purely materialist science.” (p. 114) I would point out that not only do we ourselves perceive a sable sense of self over time, but we also perceive a stable sense of “self” in others as well. For instance, given non-materialist assumptions, it necessarily follows that those who have been convicted of heinous crimes and sentenced to life in prison ought to serve their sentence. On the materialist view however, it hardly makes sense to keep an individual locked up who wasn’t responsible for the crime that was committed. In fact, on the materialist view, the person actually responsible for the crime has ceased to exist, just as the person now locked up years later had not yet come into existence at the time the crime was committed. The materialist view simply contradicts our sensibilities. Objective Moral Values (p.118) All agree that some things are just plain wrong, no matter who may believe otherwise. Things like murder, rape, or the torture of innocent people, are not just “socially unadvantageous”. They are by any sane person’s reckoning, moral abominations. But one can only identify something as being “wrong” when we have some kind of standard by which to measure it. Atheists thinkers are no less quick to label things (like the teaching of creation in the classrooms) as “wrong”, but what sort of standard are they applying? If right and wrong originate at an individual level, then no one would be justified in judging the actions of another individual. Similarly, if societies decide right and wrong, then one society (i.e. Canada) would not be justified in judging the actions of another society (i.e. Nazi Germany). The materialist is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If absolute, objective moral values exist, then he must acknowledge that there is more to this universe than matter. On the other hand, if such a standard does not exist, then he must be prepared to acknowledge his belief that things such as murder, rape, or the torture of innocent people are not really “wrong” in an absolute sense. In fact, he must be prepared to acknowledge that it is possible that under different specific conditions, these things could actually be considered “right.” Consciousness Unpredicted by Evolution (p. 121) Atheistic, materialistic evolution does not predict that beings would ever evolve consciousness. Beauregard, himself an evolutionist, makes far less of this fact than I would. In my opinion this is just another nail in the coffin; another phenomenon unaccounted for by the evolution story. Brain adapted for fitness, not truth: self refuting (p. 122) When challenged on how they can trusts their own thoughts (which are supposedly the product of irrational causes), the materialist usually responds that valid thinking “evolved” due to its pragmatic nature. That is, our ability to think a certain way conferred on us some sort of selective advantage. The assumption here is that what evolved was the ability to see reality as it truly is. This assumption has hardly been proven and is, in fact, subject to serious objections. Beauregard quotes Steven Pinker as stating, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” Beauregard rightly observes that, “…materialist doctrines undermine our confidence in a capacity to asses evidence, so it is useless for materialists to claim that they have better evidence than nonmaterialists.” Non Materialist Neuroscience in Medicine Beauregard gives several examples of how emotional and behavioral problems might be overcome by approaching the mind with nonmaterialist presuppositions. He notes that the brain as an organ is not immutable, but is, in fact, subject to physical change over time. Amazingly, these changes may be due to how we use the brain. The way we choose to think affects the way the brain functions physically. Choosing to think a certain way will broaden and strengthen certain “neural roads”, transforming them into “highways” over time. Conversely, choosing to neglect other thought patterns can cause what was once a “neural highway” to shrink back down to the status of a small gravel road. The point here is that our immaterial minds are being called upon to influence this physical organ we call the brain. From a materialist point of view the situation is impossible, yet, as Beauregard points out, the practical benefits can hardly be argued against. Folks suffering with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and certain phobias have been cured when instructed that “they” are not the problem here. It is their brains that are not functioning correctly. Once this is understood, these folks learn to instruct their brains to function a certain way. In time, the appropriate neural roads are strengthened and emotional/behavioral abnormalities are corrected – without drugs. Placebos and Nocebos Beauregard points out that given materialist assumptions, neither placebos nor their evil twin nocebos would be predicted. It is a well established fact however, that folks believing that a certain medicine will cure a bodily ailment often experience physical healing, even though the “medicine” was merely a placebo. The reverse effect (nocebo) is just as well attested. That is, folks believing that a particular medicine/treatment is non-effective or harmful will experience either no positive results or, worse, a decidedly negative one. Again, these examples of what appear to be “mind over matter” are unaccounted for by materialistic science. Near Death Experiences NDE’s We’ve all heard stories about the experiences of people who had apparently been revived after “dying.” The materialist explanation is that these people were hallucinating due to a lack of oxygen to the brain. Of course, this might be the case in some instances where the exact condition of the brain is unknown. But Beauregard turns our attention to well documented cases where brain states were known to be nil. In these instances, doctors were carefully monitoring brain activity and noted that absolutely no neural activity was going on. Nonetheless, when these folks were revived, they told of vivid experiences including looking down upon themselves, observing the activities of the doctors, etc. Their descriptions of what the doctors were doing while they were unconscious - in fact, dead - are startlingly accurate. Again, these occurrences are quite congruent with non materialistic assumptions. On the other hand, such occurrences have absolutely no place within a materialistic framework. Psi Effects Telepathy (shared thoughts with another person without physically communicating them) and telekinesis (mind over matter) are both well documented. Beauregard points out that the results of careful, scientific analysis of these phenomena reveal a consistent, repetable, low-level effect. Materialists, apparently no longer able to deny the reality of such phenomena, are quoted by Beauregard has simply denying the importance of them. But this is simply a subjective assessment of the situation by those who understand that if telepathy and telekenesis are real, materialism is thrown into serious question Mystical Experiences As noted above, using fMRI equipment, Beauregard was able to examine the brains of claimed mystics, both at rest and while undergoing a claimed “mystical union” with the divine. The results were completely inconsistent with materialist assumptions that these people were either faking their experiences (which would have produced distinctly different waves, consistent with conscious effort) or that a particular “god spot” was somehow being activated. The scientific evidence indicates that mystics are indeed encountering something beyond themselves, something immaterial. Conclusions and Caution “The Spiritual Brain” by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary is a landmark book. For the Christian apologist is a valuable resource when demonstrating the utter fallaciousness of the materialist worldview. For those in the materialist camp who have hitherto accepted their worldview as more or less and article of faith, Beauregard’s thesis is certainly an adequate incentive to reexamine cherished presuppositions. For the Christian, however, Beauregard’s treatise does raise of few red flags. As anyone who has studied eastern religions, or has read Ray Yungen (“A Time of Departing”, “Many Shall come in My Name”), Rodger Oakland (“Faith Undone”), or Bryan Flynn (“Running Against the Wind”), understands that mystical experiences almost always lead a person to embrace a pantheistic worldview. In other words, these mystical experiences leave the practitioner with a certainty that the universe really is one being of which we all are a part. Individuality is recognized as simply an illusion. Of course, pantheism is indefensible rationally. For instance, it requires an infinite universe, whereas both science and philosophy demonstrate that the universe is not infinite. Pantheism escapes such denouncement due to rational evaluation by claiming that the mystical experiences one has puts them in touch with a realm where our laws of logic simply do not apply. Such experiences cannot be explained rationally, they simply need to be experienced. Beauregard lets his readers know that he himself has had such experiences, and these have helped shape his own worldview. Presumably, they were part of the incentive in writing this book. The Christian ought to recognize the problem immediately. If a personal God exists and has communicated with humanity via the Bible, then human experiences which contradict the clear teachings of scripture must simply be jettisoned. Such a view is portrayed by Beauregard as intolerant and ultimately harmful to humanity. The Christian view is simply assumed to be incorrect without any rational justification being given for such a denouncement. Interestingly, Beauregard makes much of the testable, repeatable science that has been done and rationally interprets these findings as evidence that immaterial realities (souls) do exist. In my view, his approach makes all the sense in the world. Ignored however, is the science that was done on Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. His death was verified by a professional executioner. His burial in Joseph’s tomb which was later found empty is as well an established historic fact as anything we can point to. Equally well-established is the fact that multiple independent eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ existed within 3-5 years of the crucifixion. These witnesses were not only followers of Jesus but at least two of them were hostile to Christ and his claims. The testimony of such “hostile witnesses” certainly ought to count for something! The inconsistencies become glaring: If the science that was done on phobics, mystics, etc can be rationally evaluated as evidence against materialism, why is the science that was done on Jesus so ignored? Furthermore, if we are expected to embrace pantheism on the mystics’ claimed experiences, what are we to make of the experiences of those that claimed to have walked with Jesus in life, and experienced Him after His resurrection from the dead? Why must we so believe the pantheism of the mystic, which is admittedly irrational, while rejecting the claimed experiences of the earliest Christians, whose claims hold up under rational evaluation? I see no reason at all. Beauregard ends his treatise with these words: “There is a trend in human evolution toward spiritualization of consciousness. The proposed new scientific frame of reference may accelerate our understanding of this process of spiritualization and significantly contribute to the emergence of a planetary type of consciousness. The development of this type of consciousness is absolutely essential if humanity is to successfully solve the global crises that confront us (e.g., destruction of the biosphere, extremes of poverty and wealth, injustice and inequality, wars, nuclear arms, clashing political interests, opposing religious beliefs, etc) and wisely create a future that benefits all humans and all forms of life on planet earth.” The Christian ought to see the problem immediately. A pantheism derived from subjective mystical experience, clearly antagonistic to the biblical message, is being touted by Beauregard et al as mankind’s only salvation. Further, this systemically contradictory belief system, much like the evolution story, is fast becoming “married” to science. Just as the earliest Christians experienced opposition from two great authorities – the Jewish religious system of the day, and the Roman government, so too can Christians of the future expect strengthened opposition from the mystical/pantheist community as it attaches itself to an already venerated scientific establishment. |