See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248941968

How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings From a Leading

Neuroscientist. By Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman

Article  in  International Journal for the Psychology of Religion · June 2010

DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2010.481231

CITATION READS

1 1,836

2 authors:

Kevin L. Ladd Meleah L. Ladd

Indiana University South Bend Indiana University South Bend
44 PUBLICATIONS   461 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Threefold Nature of Spirituality (TNS) model View project

Social Psychology of Religion Lab: Systematic Research on Prayer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin L. Ladd on 20 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ladd, K. L. & Ladd, M. L. (2010). [Review of the book How God changes your brain:
Breakthrough findings from a leading neuroscientist]. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 20(3), 219-222.

How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings From a Leading Neuroscientist. By

Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman. New York: Ballantine Books, 2009. xii + 348 pp.

$27.00 hardcover; $16.00 paperback.

Reviewed by Kevin L. Ladd

Indiana University South Bend

South Bend, Indiana

and Meleah L. Ladd

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame, Indiana

Tigons, and ligers, and God--Oh my! As with the crossbreeding of big cats, efforts to

combine neuroscience and theology result in some unique creatures and plenty of controversy.

This book, written primarily for a lay readership seeking self-improvement, is no exception. The

authors attempt to summarize scholarly work for lay readers (undertaken in Part One) and to

offer “how to” guidance for people seeking a method to become more compassionate (provided

in Part Two).

Eugene d’Aquili and Newberg began publishing in this area just over a decade ago. That

initial foray clearly articulated their position: “We feel certain…that any specific theological idea

may eventually be reducible to neuropsychological functions. …[but] we do not feel in any way

that a neuropsychological analysis of theology or mysticism alters their true spiritual and
possibly transcendent nature. It merely indicates how human beings perceive these phenomena”

(D’Aquili & Newberg, 1999, pp. 175-176). Since the death of D’Aquili in 1998, Newberg (MD,

neuroscientist) has collaborated with Waldman (BA, therapist) on similar books under the

auspices of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Spirituality and the Mind. Those

volumes, including the current one, maintain the same stance, but the 1999 publication, in our

reading, provides the most thorough and technical detailing of their position.

So what has changed since that original publication? Perhaps the most readily apparent

difference is the increased sophistication of the neuroscientist’s toolkit. Imaging quality and

analyses available today significantly outstrip those of ten years ago, making today’s

explorations of brain processes less ambiguous. There can be no question that this increased

precision represents a boon for a host of physiological applications, including both diagnosis and

treatment. The present text introduces readers to a sliver of that high-tech research, with the

intent of whetting the reader’s appetite rather than engaging in critical review.

We wish to emphasis, however, the qualifier less with regard to the level of ambiguity

inherent in this arena of research. Readers could put down this book mistakenly believing that

neuroscience results are clean and crisp, with interpretations that border on the self-evident. This

is not the case in the mainstream of neuroscience, however, let alone in the subfield exploring

issues of spirituality. For instance, Nichols and Poline (2009) note that many studies employing

fMRI technology are problematic in that the common multiple-testing approach can

unintentionally alter interpretations of significance, and that methods are vastly under-reported.

They contend that the field must continue to work toward solving the problems of multiple

comparisons, and clarifying if not also standardizing the reporting of methodology. These

critiques of methods and statistical analyses have clear implications for work in the more
controversial realm of spirituality, where precise operationalizations are even more elusive than

when dealing with directly observable brain structure and functional response.

The problem of operationalizing variables is among the most critical aspects of

methodology and analysis, for without a clear understanding of the concept under scrutiny,

meaningful interpretation will remain elusive. To be seen as viable within the scientific

community, psychology of religion and areas such as the study of consciousness must address

this challenge head on. The present work partially engages the issue of definitions, but it never

really settles into a specific position with regard to its internal use of much foundational

terminology. The book’s title and various subtitles throughout the book—e.g., WHAT PART OF

THE BRAIN MAKES GOD REAL? (p. 54)--exemplify the extent of the difficulty, for too often

they are more provocative than they are enlightening. “God,” for another example, sometimes

refers to a traditional theistic concept but at other times is an explicitly post-theistic construct,

with hints of panentheism and pantheism falling in between. Similarly, “spirituality” takes on a

wide variety of linguistic shapes, sometimes morphing in its meaning within a single paragraph.

In addition, the authors contend that meditation is effective with or without a sense of

spirituality, a position that is hard to reconcile with the book’s title (until one realizes how

broadly the authors employ the word “God”). The bottom line of the author’s reasoning is that

belief in God, on the one hand, and non-theistic or even nonspiritual positive-thinking exercises

on the other, provide similar physiological and psychological benefits. This position identifies

the content of the book as a more or less secular version of a “prosperity gospel,” wherein one of

spirituality’s central values is its ability to pragmatically influence the present (e.g., augment

health and wealth). This view of spirituality stands in stark contrast to the classic understanding
of it as a personally engaged discipline yielding inner tranquility without concern for tangible

payoffs.

In a secular context, the primary reason to use “compassionate communication” as an

interaction style (e.g., mindfulness or paying attention to the situation at hand) appears to be its

tangibly practical outcomes. Indeed, the authors seek to marshal evidence for positive outcomes

borne of the compassionate practice. In our reading, however, the scientific literature presented is

greatly strained by over-interpretation in the attempt to make this point. There is also a notable

lack of consideration of the potential for negative side effects. Can compassion taken to an

extreme be detrimental in any way?

Part of the challenge here is that the authors are attempting to advocate for the

“rightness” of a specific philosophical perspective (i.e., compassion is an optimally good

condition of existing) on the basis of empirical evidence. We are not necessarily disagreeing with

that position or suggesting that the presentation must (or even can) be free of all value

judgments. Rather, we simply concur with Alexandrova (2008) that it is necessary for authors in

this realm to explicitly acknowledge both the ethical/philosophical assumptions at work and the

presence of viable alternatives when preferencing one state of being over another. Even a very

brief section on such issues would help readers contextualize the present work more effectively

by contrasting it with some other possible positions.

Readers may or may not concur with the controversial interpretation of the evidence

related to outcome measures, but their curiosity concerning how those various experiences are

understood to unfold will certainly be piqued. The topic of individual developmental differences,

however, is not directly addressed, with the work maintaining a nearly exclusive focus on

outcomes. This is in keeping with the initial D’Aquili and Newberg (1999) argument that the
nature of specific beliefs is fundamentally an artifact of perception, a position that sets this book

apart in a literature that more typically stresses “the journey” than “a goal.”

Given the emphasis on practices that can both encompass spirituality and simultaneously

transcend it to incorporate purely secular expressions, one must ask why the authors recommend

using the mantra “sa, ta, na, ma” (from the Kirtan Kriya tradition) for meditative practice rather

than a collection of randomly selected syllables. (Though unintended, that particular series of

sounds carries theological significance for many people if the pronunciation and phrasing are just

slightly changed during their utterance.) Since no explicit evidence is presented to argue that this

specific combination of sounds is critical, it seems that it would be most helpful to draw from

research concerning nonsense syllables to provide neutral alternative vocalizations, though it is

unlikely that even such randomly selected stimuli will remain devoid of some sense of meaning

after extended exposure.

We also note with some concern that the quest for self-improvement comes across as an

almost mechanical process: “Gus wanted to improve his memory, so he did” (p. 33); “…the

more you believe in what you are meditating or praying about, the stronger the response will be”

(p. 48); “Focus on peace, and your body will become relaxed and serene” (p. 166); “The choice

is entirely yours – that’s how easy it is to control nonconscious circuits in your brain” (p. 127);

“Forgiveness meditation improves not only the health of your brain and heart, but your

pocketbook as well” (p. 209). While there is no doubt that optimism is an important feature in

goal selection, attention, and motivation, such unqualified statements can easily be construed as

signposts of failure for those who seriously engage the author’s suggestions but do not achieve

the same clear results (i.e., a “blame the victim” mentality). It is not uncommon for devout

people to report that their prayers feel ineffectual; for people who earnestly desire and seek after
 peace to continue experiencing great turmoil; and for highly compassionate people to dwell in

extreme poverty. Were these people not sufficiently sincere or were specific neurological aspects

of their brains malfunctioning?

In sum, the authors set themselves the enormous task of translating complex and often

contradictory scientific findings for a non-scientific readership. Some of the above issues arise

because of the nature of that effort. Others of the observations arise from particular portions of

this book (e.g., issues of operationalization), but can also be seen as reflecting the extent to

which the work is embedded within a larger research area experiencing similar challenges.

Scholars wanting an authoritative introduction to the neuroscience of spirituality or who are

curious about “neurotheology” may find that the first portion of the text raises more questions

than it answers. The second part of the book, will primarily be of interest to individuals who are

seeking to wrestle with what it means to practice meditation or “compassionate communication”

either within or outside of a spiritual context.

References

Alexandrova, A. (2008). First-person reports and the measurement of happiness. Philosophical

Psychology, 21(5), 571-583.

D’Aquili, E., & Newberg, A. B. (1999). The mystical mind: Probing the biology of religious

experience. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Nichols, T. E., & Poline, J. (2009). Commentary on Vul et al.'s (2009) "Puzzlingly high

correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition." Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 4(3), 291-293.

View publication stats