Scan barcode
bupdaddy's review against another edition
4.0
What I liked about this was the authors had plenty of chances to go into "woo" science territory BUT DIDN'T. They remain agnostic on any questions about the reality of God, but stick to their basic theme - actively meditating on God, morality, and the moral social contract that makes humans human is good for the brain in an empirically measurable way.
Subjects who meditate can, in lab settings, focus on tasks better, demonstrate better memory, and have a different neural pattern that (the authors posit) handles stress better.
Really interesting. I wonder if it's good for recovering stroke patients.
Subjects who meditate can, in lab settings, focus on tasks better, demonstrate better memory, and have a different neural pattern that (the authors posit) handles stress better.
Really interesting. I wonder if it's good for recovering stroke patients.
19paws's review against another edition
medium-paced
3.5
I read this because I'm interested in neuroplasticity and especially in how meditation and prayer affect the brain. The authors share interesting data on this which made the book well-worth reading. (I especially liked that they talked about benefits of Kirtan Kriya since I just started this practice. Their findings on its benefits have encouraged me to continue with it.) They share excellent information on how to exercise your brain (most of which have nothing to do with meditation) and also provided ideas for meditation practices, which may have been more helpful when this book was first published more than 20 years ago. The information is widely available now. And, I was less interested in the chapters on how people perceive what God "looks like" and on the chapters on compassionate communication. But the book certainly inspired me to continue with meditation and centering prayer. I'd love to see it updated!
blackoxford's review against another edition
1.0
Don’t Think of the Colour Blue… No Really, Don’t
OK, here’s the breakthrough experimental framework: the word ‘God,’ which has an indefinite meaning is hypothesised as having an integrative effect on the three different realities that, according to the researchers, all human beings have. Using advanced brain scanning technology they are able to say definitively that “If you contemplate God long enough, something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change.” They haven’t yet proven experimentally that these changes get the three realities to converge but someone somewhere is giving them lots of money to do so.
Unfortunately, the three realities that we all supposedly operate within (or generate, who knows?) are as indefinite as the word ‘God.’ The first is what is usually referred to as ‘objective reality,’ which is constituted by things without the words that tend to distort and unreliably represent things. These things and events occurring among them are certainly ‘there’ but not as the words we use to describe them. So this reality is therefore mute and awaits interaction with us to speak… through us of course.
The second reality is subconscious and therefore also entirely wordless as well as mysterious - a sort of dark matter of the mind. We have to presume it’s there in order to make sense of other things - like the first reality which is also opaque (the phrase ‘blind leading the blind’ comes to mind). Essentially the subconscious consists of the neural algorithms that have proven useful for survival. Some of these are genetically programmed, others are learned as we develop. Since these neural algorithms are dependent upon experience in an historical set of circumstances, they may not always function to maintain life and limb in the future. In any case we only know of them by inference not observation.
The final reality is that of ‘consciousness.’ Of course this term is as indefinite as that of ‘God’ and ‘subconscious’ (some folk consider the two terms to be equivalent; this possibility has not been considered by the researchers however). In any case consciousness consists of lots of words, some of which we use to describe (or to map as the researchers prefer to say) the world we think we live in. Consciousness is a world that exists entirely within language.
It is only in language that we can express our conscious beliefs, feelings, thoughts, concepts, and explanations about the other two realities, and all those things exist only in language. Because it puts words out willy-nilly, consciousness gets pretty cocky and thinks it rules the roost. This is the essence of delusion. As is typical, the researchers don’t want to apply their theory to themselves. So they get themselves in a tremendous muddle. It is only necessary to apply their own words to themselves to understand why.
According to the authors, consciousness (which is necessarily the location of their theory, according to their theory) “represents a reality that is the farthest removed from the world that actually exists outside of the brain.” And, they go on “we have yet to discover if, and to what degree, these two inner realities [of the subconscious and the conscious] communicate with each other.” But they do know that there is only the most tenuous connection between where the two internal maps are located, the brain, and what happens in the world:
I have no problem with this psychological framework per se. If somewhat culture-specific and epistemologically as well as ontologically puerile, it is nevertheless standard Freudian stuff which these guys have imported to interpret their brain scans. Not that they can see the conscious or subconscious parts of the brain. All the can see are the scan results.
The experimental design is simple and has nothing to do with what actually happens in Reality #3 aside from researchers talking to subjects and interpreting brain scans. Signals in the form of words, phrases, and instructions are passed from the researchers to the subjects of the study. Changes in neural activity are then recorded. These are then correlated with verbal reports from the subjects to the researchers about their ‘state of mind.’ The conclusions reached by the researchers are that when the word ‘God’ or other rather imprecisely described ‘godly thoughts’ are involved in a researcher/subject interaction, specific neural pathways are created which are correlated with subjective reports of well-being.
It should be obvious that this is systematic research not into the psychology of religion but of applied linguistics. The researchers have no idea what interaction between the conscious and unconscious brain might be (or if indeed such a distinction has any foundation except in consciousness itself). Nor do they know anything about the consequent behaviour of the God-oriented subjects versus the rest of the population. Are there fewer criminals? More beneficent millionaires. Lower divorce rates? Fewer (or more) suicides? Etc. Apparently no one has sought to inquire.
And, more to the point, no one knows whether words other than ‘God’ can be contemplated with equivalent reported changes in goals, attitudes, or feelings of well being. The claim is that “the moment God is introduced to the human brain, the neurological concept will not go away.” And what about the colour ‘blue’ or the relationship ‘mother?’ Or for that matter E = mc2? Neither the researchers nor the subjects know what the other means by ‘God,’ that is, how God is connected to other words and what unconscious algorithms might be involved in determining that meaning.
I have no doubt that reflective thinking, whatever form that might take from Zen meditation (technically non-thinking) to a quiet moment in the park (where thinking is allowed to go rampant). It might even make you a better person. But these guys have a thing about Compassionate Communication which actually has nothing to do with God or their Freudian theory of reality. Their thesis is that civility and respect given to people often provokes them to respond in a similar manner. And even further, when that response happens, it tends to generate feelings of well-being!
I want to know where these guys get their funding. As an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania where they do their research, I think I already have a leg up. I have an idea for which I want first round venture-finance, see? It’s a thing, the components of which are all equidistant from any arbitrary point by any arbitrary distance. I’ve already demonstrated its usefulness in moving heavy loads from point A to pint B. I’m keeping it general for the moment because I don’t want the practical consequences to leak. I have a prototype in my garage. Serious investors are welcome to inspect upon appointment.
Postscript: I think it would be useful to reference another rather less stupid book on neurological research in order to demonstrate the point that at any point in time most scientific results are just junk: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3089177922?type=review#rating_431259269
OK, here’s the breakthrough experimental framework: the word ‘God,’ which has an indefinite meaning is hypothesised as having an integrative effect on the three different realities that, according to the researchers, all human beings have. Using advanced brain scanning technology they are able to say definitively that “If you contemplate God long enough, something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change.” They haven’t yet proven experimentally that these changes get the three realities to converge but someone somewhere is giving them lots of money to do so.
Unfortunately, the three realities that we all supposedly operate within (or generate, who knows?) are as indefinite as the word ‘God.’ The first is what is usually referred to as ‘objective reality,’ which is constituted by things without the words that tend to distort and unreliably represent things. These things and events occurring among them are certainly ‘there’ but not as the words we use to describe them. So this reality is therefore mute and awaits interaction with us to speak… through us of course.
The second reality is subconscious and therefore also entirely wordless as well as mysterious - a sort of dark matter of the mind. We have to presume it’s there in order to make sense of other things - like the first reality which is also opaque (the phrase ‘blind leading the blind’ comes to mind). Essentially the subconscious consists of the neural algorithms that have proven useful for survival. Some of these are genetically programmed, others are learned as we develop. Since these neural algorithms are dependent upon experience in an historical set of circumstances, they may not always function to maintain life and limb in the future. In any case we only know of them by inference not observation.
The final reality is that of ‘consciousness.’ Of course this term is as indefinite as that of ‘God’ and ‘subconscious’ (some folk consider the two terms to be equivalent; this possibility has not been considered by the researchers however). In any case consciousness consists of lots of words, some of which we use to describe (or to map as the researchers prefer to say) the world we think we live in. Consciousness is a world that exists entirely within language.
It is only in language that we can express our conscious beliefs, feelings, thoughts, concepts, and explanations about the other two realities, and all those things exist only in language. Because it puts words out willy-nilly, consciousness gets pretty cocky and thinks it rules the roost. This is the essence of delusion. As is typical, the researchers don’t want to apply their theory to themselves. So they get themselves in a tremendous muddle. It is only necessary to apply their own words to themselves to understand why.
According to the authors, consciousness (which is necessarily the location of their theory, according to their theory) “represents a reality that is the farthest removed from the world that actually exists outside of the brain.” And, they go on “we have yet to discover if, and to what degree, these two inner realities [of the subconscious and the conscious] communicate with each other.” But they do know that there is only the most tenuous connection between where the two internal maps are located, the brain, and what happens in the world:
“… the human brain seems to have difficulty separating fantasies from facts. It sees things that are not there, and it sometimes doesn't see things that are there. In fact, the brain doesn't even try to create a fully detailed map of the external world. Instead, it selects a handful of cues, then fills in the rest with conjecture, fantasy, and belief.”
I have no problem with this psychological framework per se. If somewhat culture-specific and epistemologically as well as ontologically puerile, it is nevertheless standard Freudian stuff which these guys have imported to interpret their brain scans. Not that they can see the conscious or subconscious parts of the brain. All the can see are the scan results.
The experimental design is simple and has nothing to do with what actually happens in Reality #3 aside from researchers talking to subjects and interpreting brain scans. Signals in the form of words, phrases, and instructions are passed from the researchers to the subjects of the study. Changes in neural activity are then recorded. These are then correlated with verbal reports from the subjects to the researchers about their ‘state of mind.’ The conclusions reached by the researchers are that when the word ‘God’ or other rather imprecisely described ‘godly thoughts’ are involved in a researcher/subject interaction, specific neural pathways are created which are correlated with subjective reports of well-being.
It should be obvious that this is systematic research not into the psychology of religion but of applied linguistics. The researchers have no idea what interaction between the conscious and unconscious brain might be (or if indeed such a distinction has any foundation except in consciousness itself). Nor do they know anything about the consequent behaviour of the God-oriented subjects versus the rest of the population. Are there fewer criminals? More beneficent millionaires. Lower divorce rates? Fewer (or more) suicides? Etc. Apparently no one has sought to inquire.
And, more to the point, no one knows whether words other than ‘God’ can be contemplated with equivalent reported changes in goals, attitudes, or feelings of well being. The claim is that “the moment God is introduced to the human brain, the neurological concept will not go away.” And what about the colour ‘blue’ or the relationship ‘mother?’ Or for that matter E = mc2? Neither the researchers nor the subjects know what the other means by ‘God,’ that is, how God is connected to other words and what unconscious algorithms might be involved in determining that meaning.
I have no doubt that reflective thinking, whatever form that might take from Zen meditation (technically non-thinking) to a quiet moment in the park (where thinking is allowed to go rampant). It might even make you a better person. But these guys have a thing about Compassionate Communication which actually has nothing to do with God or their Freudian theory of reality. Their thesis is that civility and respect given to people often provokes them to respond in a similar manner. And even further, when that response happens, it tends to generate feelings of well-being!
I want to know where these guys get their funding. As an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania where they do their research, I think I already have a leg up. I have an idea for which I want first round venture-finance, see? It’s a thing, the components of which are all equidistant from any arbitrary point by any arbitrary distance. I’ve already demonstrated its usefulness in moving heavy loads from point A to pint B. I’m keeping it general for the moment because I don’t want the practical consequences to leak. I have a prototype in my garage. Serious investors are welcome to inspect upon appointment.
Postscript: I think it would be useful to reference another rather less stupid book on neurological research in order to demonstrate the point that at any point in time most scientific results are just junk: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3089177922?type=review#rating_431259269
davehershey's review against another edition
4.0
The first part of this book was rather fascinating, as the authors discussed what affect religion has on the brain. In general, things like prayer and meditation and involvement in a religious community are helpful for bodily health. The big caveat I saw is that how we view God does matter. If you believe God is an authoritarian tyrant who is going to punish you every time you slip up, then this form of religion is not good for you. The question of whether there is an infinite being we call God in actual existence is beside the point for what this book is about. Heck, I'm sure a fundamentalist Christian wouldn't care if a God of extreme wrath is bad for you. Some believers may welcome this!
It was also intriguing how they talked about how different views of God may have evolved. The story they told, especially when they got to the last few millennia, seemed a bit sloppy. They kind of played the "once humans were dumb and believed in God of wrath but now we are more evolved" card. It seems they should stick to the science or at least brush up on their history. That said, the science of where different ideas of God reside in the brain and how this has changed was interesting.
Likewise, their discussion of how children develop views of God and how this changes over the years was also intriguing. They spoke of asking children to draw a picture of God and how children usually draw faces and people. When adults are asked the same, adults often draw suns or shapes or more abstract images. One thing they noted was that children who were raised in faith communities often develop such abstract understandings while non-religious children are more likely, in later years, to still draw faces (or to refuse to draw anything). My take-away from this is that this is why some religious education is important. Not to promote any religion, for sure, but so people understand what religions actually believe. Christians do not believe that God is merely a bigger version of ourselves, despite what some skeptics (and perhaps some Christians) may believe. If you are going to be critical of something, understand it.
The last few chapters were on spiritual practices that are beneficial for your brain and health. I mostly skimmed these, noting they may be worth coming back to at some point. Some of the practices are common, if you are in a faith community. Others might not be. The best was when they mentioned YAWNING as a spiritual practice and its health benefits!
Finally, and this was not touched on in the book, but there is a lot to think about how spiritual and physical relate. I could see an atheist arguing that since there is neurological evidence of what goes on during prayer, that it is just a physical thing. In meditation, they may argue, all that is happening is some relaxation in the brain which we can study and see. This seems to me, and admittedly, I believe in the supernatural, as reductionist. It seems to offer a false dichotomy that says there are spiritual things (or there are not) and there are natural ones and the two do not touch. Yet, I think most believers who know what they are talking about would have no problem with spiritual things making some sort of mark in the natural world.
There may be synapses in my brain that fire when I see my spouse, but love is deeper than a biological impulse. There may be synapses that fire when someone has a religious experience, but this does not mean it is ONLY a natural phenomena.
I suppose the real challenge for people of faith in light of books like this is that it demonstrates that these natural health benefits occur regardless of the truth of the religions. A Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and atheist can all meditate in similar ways and get similar benefits. So does it matter which one you are a part of?
I'll end with that :)
It was also intriguing how they talked about how different views of God may have evolved. The story they told, especially when they got to the last few millennia, seemed a bit sloppy. They kind of played the "once humans were dumb and believed in God of wrath but now we are more evolved" card. It seems they should stick to the science or at least brush up on their history. That said, the science of where different ideas of God reside in the brain and how this has changed was interesting.
Likewise, their discussion of how children develop views of God and how this changes over the years was also intriguing. They spoke of asking children to draw a picture of God and how children usually draw faces and people. When adults are asked the same, adults often draw suns or shapes or more abstract images. One thing they noted was that children who were raised in faith communities often develop such abstract understandings while non-religious children are more likely, in later years, to still draw faces (or to refuse to draw anything). My take-away from this is that this is why some religious education is important. Not to promote any religion, for sure, but so people understand what religions actually believe. Christians do not believe that God is merely a bigger version of ourselves, despite what some skeptics (and perhaps some Christians) may believe. If you are going to be critical of something, understand it.
The last few chapters were on spiritual practices that are beneficial for your brain and health. I mostly skimmed these, noting they may be worth coming back to at some point. Some of the practices are common, if you are in a faith community. Others might not be. The best was when they mentioned YAWNING as a spiritual practice and its health benefits!
Finally, and this was not touched on in the book, but there is a lot to think about how spiritual and physical relate. I could see an atheist arguing that since there is neurological evidence of what goes on during prayer, that it is just a physical thing. In meditation, they may argue, all that is happening is some relaxation in the brain which we can study and see. This seems to me, and admittedly, I believe in the supernatural, as reductionist. It seems to offer a false dichotomy that says there are spiritual things (or there are not) and there are natural ones and the two do not touch. Yet, I think most believers who know what they are talking about would have no problem with spiritual things making some sort of mark in the natural world.
There may be synapses in my brain that fire when I see my spouse, but love is deeper than a biological impulse. There may be synapses that fire when someone has a religious experience, but this does not mean it is ONLY a natural phenomena.
I suppose the real challenge for people of faith in light of books like this is that it demonstrates that these natural health benefits occur regardless of the truth of the religions. A Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and atheist can all meditate in similar ways and get similar benefits. So does it matter which one you are a part of?
I'll end with that :)
lcdthethird's review against another edition
4.0
The scientific portion of this book is amazing. Some of the facts laid out are astounding and profound. This is a perfect book to introduce someone to meditation as it contains various different styles of meditations and instructions.
rybooks's review against another edition
5.0
Excellent excellent excellent. So important for everyone to read. Super influential on my thought this year.
More...