The Science of the Brain and the State of the Soul

As humans, we desire to improve ourselves, and the rise of a self-help industry of books and influencers, in both the secular and Christian spaces, has capitalized on this longing. It is increasingly common for self-help books to adopt neuroscience language: phrases like “rewire your brain to be who God wants you to be,” “harness the power of dopamine,” “change your brain structure by prayer and meditation.” Books at the intersection of neuroscience and Christianity are rife with this kind of language.

Self-help authors promise fixes through understanding ourselves and our brains better. The front flap of James Clear’s bestselling book Atomic Habits claims “he draws on ideas from biology, psychology, and neuroscience to create an easy-to-understand guide for making good habits inevitable and bad habits impossible.” Not surprisingly, both the neuroscience and psychology cited in the book are vastly oversimplified. For example, within the book, Clear explains feedback loops in the brain by focusing on dopamine, and he does acknowledge that other neurotransmitters are involved, yet many of Clear’s examples do not provide sufficient scientific explanation for the phenomenons he cites.

The problem is that popular science does not lend itself to deep understanding. Many popular science books, whether about neuroscience, plants, or genetics, present high-level, pithy conclusions. These conclusions may be gleaned from specific research, but often such works do not walk the reader through the rationale behind the conclusions or how they could be extrapolated from the research in the first place. It is almost amusing that in some popular neuroscience books there is extensive discussion about the power of attention. Yet, authors do not trust their readers to pay close enough attention to be patient through an in-depth scientific explanation that substantiates a complex scientific conclusion. In fact, authors do readers a disservice when they jump to the interpretation without giving the readers a chance to try to understand.

As a scientist myself, I appreciate when an author expects me, as a reader, to invest in understanding the complex topic at hand. I recognize that not everyone has this desire, and many instead prioritize an overview of the research that supports a claim. The trouble with this approach, when it comes to complex sciences, however, is that it opens a door for authors to misguide their readers with sweeping scientific statements.

The value of deep understanding

At the beginning of my doctoral program, I thought I knew everything about science and truly wondered what more there was I could learn. After defending my dissertation — the degree’s capstone project — I was acutely aware of the limits of my knowledge, even after five years of diligently researching and systematically studying. Most scientists will tell you a similar variation of this realization. In fact, it is concerning if scientists do not realize and acknowledge the limits of their knowledge. In general, it is challenging to understand the nuances of a specific field of science unless you have studied it. This is especially true of neuroscience and the burgeoning field of neurotheology, an interdisciplinary approach combining neuroscience and theology.

The brain is a mysterious and incredible organ that helms our bodies and ensures synchronized communication and interaction across widely different organ systems. We are completely unaware of the many intricate biological, biochemical, and biophysical processes that are continuously being managed by precise communication from our brains. In the past 30 years, the ability to visualize the brain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other techniques has led to a vast expansion in neuroscience research. In the past 10 years, there has also been an increased interest in psychology to better understand mental health which naturally stems from brain function.

In recent years, there has been specific interest in the pairing of brain research with the spiritual elements of being a human. The resulting interdisciplinary combination of neuroscience and theology is an attractive notion. Combining knowledge across two fields may provide unique insights, less likely to be discovered by seeking wisdom from one field alone. However, there is a danger here — much like that of many a self-help book. Oversimplifying both neuroscience and theology, to the point that the nuances and complexities of each field is lost, will only result in unconvincing, watered-down ideas.

Neuroscience on its own is an exciting field that can help Christians understand how God designed our brains and how that design impacts our interactions with the world. Generally, neuroscience research focuses on the detailed intricacies of brain function and its internal communication. Examples of this include the study of  the mechanisms of addiction, Alzheimer’s, or other practical biomedical questions. As the field of neuroscience advances, scientists are asking more abstract questions. They are beginning to explore how cells within the brain talk with each other, carry information from one part of the brain to another, and how these functions give rise to complex thoughts, memories, perceptions, and emotions. Neuroscience is often turned to as the ultimate culmination of who we are and the utmost justification of why we do what we do. For that reason, it is important to establish its limits.

Neuroscience is also a hard science in which hypotheses about the brain are tested to determine if the data aligns with scientific expectations. Even within the field, different areas interact together, though they are often studied in isolation. Interactions across the brain, let alone with different systems, are difficult to measure in a reproducible way. Because of this emphasis on control and reproducibility, basic neuroscience research does not capture a holistic view of a person that encompasses their relationships with others and the world.

Much of what we hear about the brain in popular science books and on the internet is actually from the field of psychology. Since psychology is more focused on social interaction and behaviors, it has much less of a mechanistic emphasis than neuroscience. Psychology researchers use surveys or individual case studies; it can be difficult to research topics such as connection, community, or relationships in a hypothesis-driven way.  Neuroscience and psychology need to be uniquely integrated to help contribute to understanding the whole person and not just the isolated functions or behaviors of the brain.

Science and religion

In both neuroscience and psychology, the spiritual element of being a human is generally not included in these conversations. For Christians, who believe the soul is a critical element of the human being, there is value to exploring both science and the soul — because we believe God created both.

Christians have historically tended to be distrustful of science because of the perceived expulsion of the soul from the scientific conversation, scientists scorning religion, and efforts among some churches to vilify science. In the last century, this sense of distrust has been exacerbated within evangelical churches by the intense focus on debates between the Bible’s creation account versus the theory of evolution.

More recently, the constant push of technological progress, especially in fields of genetics and artificial intelligence, has continued to feed this cycle of distrust between Christians and science. This tension has translated to academia and industry, and some scientists have even questioned the presence of Christians in scientific fields. I have felt this tension myself, and others have caused me to question my own place as a Christian in science, leaving me wondering if I was compromising my faith. But we in the church also want to know ourselves, understand our bodies, and explore the world — all of which are God-given desires. Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton write in The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy:

For the early scientists, there had been no epistemological dilemma. They believed that the biblical God had created the world according to an intelligible pattern — and that he had designed the human mind to apprehend that pattern. God provided the link between the natural world and the human mind.

The typical tension between science and religion surprisingly does not seem to apply to neuroscience. Learning about the brain and how it works is an attractive prospect because it whispers that we can not only understand ourselves and others better, but potentially connect with God on a deeper level.

Neurotheology

The topic of neurotheology attempts to bring together matters of the soul and of science by explaining religious and spiritual experiences with neuroscience research. One of the leading scientists of this burgeoning field is Andrew Newberg. He champions the interdisciplinary integration of religion and science, with an impressive research portfolio that includes extensive study of the effects of different religious practices on the brain, mostly through fMRI studies.

In Neurotheology: How Science Can Enlighten Us About Spirituality, Newberg defines neurotheology as “an integrated approach to the nature of the human person by combining the physical and spiritual” and goes on to explain that the “neuro” part in his conception encompasses psychology, biology, psychiatry, and other fields, while the “theology” part encompasses spirituality, religious practices, and mysticism. Newberg uses the term “neurotheology,” but his research seems to be focused more on “neurospirituality,” which is an important distinction.

Newberg’s work emphasizes the complexity of integrating science and religion, as he explains that the brain seeks a way to understand the world quickly instead of wrestling with complexity and nuance, which also explains the draw of self-help books. “People want practical, definite answers to questions rather than more and more reflection on the complexity of the problems,” he writes in Neurotheology. Newberg provides a litany of questions that can be asked about both religion and science and explains the pros and cons of the different scientific techniques that could be used to assess these questions while acknowledging that more techniques are needed. Overall, Newberg communicates how much there still is to understand in this field: “Neurotheology is really in its infancy in terms of what it might be able to say or do about religious or spiritual phenomena.”

However, Newberg’s books present only some research examining discrete religious groups and how their brains respond to specific spiritual practices, and instead research across people is more condensed. Newberg clarifies in Neurotheology:

My research team’s data, including both imaging and descriptions of various subjective spiritual experiences, suggest the difficulty in trying to group individuals together with regard to religious and spiritual phenomena. In fact, I have often argued there are really seven billion religions in the world, one for each individual. No two individuals think about religion, spirituality and God in the same way.

He freely acknowledges that he does not believe in God, but is open to the idea if the science supports it. While the weight of Newberg’s arguments regarding neurotheology are on the side of science, which makes sense considering his background, the focus on theology is sorely lacking. This demonstrates a unique role to be filled by a religious scientist in the field of neurotheology.

Related but distinct from neurotheology, the field of interpersonal neurobiology often comes up in discussions about the brain and religion, as it offers helpful insight. It looks at the body as a connected system that includes how we interact with others. Intuitively, we understand that the body and the mind and the spirit are connected and should be treated as such. It is important to acknowledge that in situations of neurological trauma such as stroke, or neurological conditions such as attention deficit disorder, some individuals do not have the ability to control their brains in the same way as those without these conditions.

Again however, there can be a danger in trying to break down deep theological concepts with scientific explanations. If not handled with care, both concepts might then be reduced to their very simple parts. This reductionism does injustice to both neuroscience and theology fields. What is needed is hybridity. Newberg writes in Neurotheology:

Ideally, according to a neurotheological perspective, scholars should take a hybrid approach that would somehow strive to incorporate the best of what science can offer and the best of what religion and theology can offer to address these questions.

Neurotheology should consider both the spiritual and physical in a way that allows for integration that can dig into some of these deeper questions about theology while also accounting for the capacity of someone’s brain.

While the implementation of neurotheology has caveats, it exhibits potential as an area of research requiring collaboration between neuroscientists and theologians which may help build a bridge where there has historically been tension. Ideally, neurotheology will address questions at the intersection of the two fields such as a deeper understanding of our minds during prayer to facilitate better focus, the reciprocal effect between mental health struggles and religious experiences, and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding our brains.

Proving the Christian Faith

The idea of Christians being able to prove their experiences and demonstrate the legitimacy of their faith sounds promising and addresses a desire of many for faith to be verified and validated by the world. As Katelyn Beaty explains in Celebrities for Jesus: How Personas, Platforms, and Profits are Hurting the Church, “With celebrity conversions, many Christians feel their faith is being validated in realms that otherwise appear hostile or indifferent to their deepest beliefs.” This is especially true in science where Christians can feel that scientists are against them.

As a Christian, but also a scientist, I appreciate when science verifies that something is true. Neuroscience, for example, has demonstrated the importance of meditation, worship, and gratitude, and how those who prioritize these practices have been shown to reorganize neural networks, according to several studies. Additionally, the benefit of being part of community is supported by psychology research that shows that those in community tend to have better mental health outcomes as they are able to share their struggles with others and rely on a support network.

Many popular science books, as well as some academic literature, fail to communicate the value of interdisciplinary work to help make sense of a topic. Our overall view of science needs to consider all fields of science since one field cannot fully explain the human experience or capture the interplay between various fields. The increased focus on neuroscience in our culture is interesting because we want to understand our brains, but there is so much more that goes into making our bodies work. Our brains are dependent on genes, chemicals, proteins, electrical signals, messengers, transporters. Similarly, we are also more than our physical components — our full selves go beyond the physical realm into the spiritual and we interact with others and in communities.

Both the neuroscience and theology disciplines that make up the concept of neurotheology are complex and deserve more time and attention to understanding them individually before trying to combine them. Newberg fully acknowledges this in his research. As for Christians, the tendency can be to gloss over the science and heavily focus on the theology, but making a concerted effort to understand the science can have spiritual benefits as well. As Tony Reinke writes in his book God, Technology, and the Christian Life, “Science, like agriculture, is the art of listening to the Creator, the art of following out the patterns and possibilities that God coded into creation.”

Popular science

The value in interdisciplinary work is in the varying questions asked in each field and how one field’s questions can uncover something entirely new in another field. My Ph.D. research, for example, combined genetics, cell biology, and physics to tell a scientific story straddling different fields. A common example in the case of neuroscience is treatment for brain-related disorders. While medicine that targets serotonin receptors may help with anxiety or depression, there are often other elements of an individual’s life that should be considered alongside their brain chemistry. While medication has a place, it is important to account for how much care for the body physically through exercise, eating well, and sleeping can contribute to the health of the brain. Likewise, the spiritual element of a person can often be overlooked when trying to address mental health concerns. External factors — like having a support system in a church community, forgiving others, and understanding the harmful effects of sin — could also help with mental health.

Mental health is complicated and requires creative thinking with an interdisciplinary approach to address the complete person. Neuroscience, theology, and other fields are all needed to address mental health. Reductionist approaches often fail to value solutions that involve patience, investment, and deeper understanding, which are each required for processing or addressing complex science.

In popular science books, I am concerned if studies providing original data are not cited and explained but rather quickly mentioned and glossed over to make a point. Providing source material that includes original data to support content establishes that an author understands the current state of the field and is building on the work of other researchers -— rather than sharing underdeveloped, but nonetheless attractive, ideas. As a medical writer who communicates neuroscience clinical research, it can be difficult for me to understand the literature despite over 10 years of training for these academic manuscripts. Research is called “re-search” for a reason — it involves searching over and over and over again. Good research acknowledges the limitations of a study and highlights the assumptions inherent in the conclusions.

These nuances do not often make it into popular discussions, especially in neuroscience. One example of this is the notion that the left side of the brain is considered to be the “logical” side and the right side the more “creative” side. While location in the brain does matter, specific tasks are not limited to one side of the brain, and, according to psychologist Tania Lombrozo, the activity of the brain hemispheres actually looks very similar. Yet this popular myth still persists.

Unfortunately, nuanced and complicated explanations do not capture attention like quick-fix, reductionist approaches. When I read popular science books there are certain red flags that I try to be aware of that indicate if the author is a good steward of their expertise. If no attempt is made to walk a reader through understanding data or studies underlying claims, or if detailed sources are not provided to allow for further research, this signifies that either the expert may not fully comprehend the subject or that the he or she believes the reader will not understand the science.

Good science communicators empower others to understand the science and leave them with excitement about their newfound understandings. Anytime an expert claims to have special knowledge and the answers to a big question, the alarm bells should immediately begin to ring. An expert should acknowledge the growth areas in the field and its unanswered questions as it communicates that both they and the field have limitations to their knowledge.

Knowledge as power

Being an expert in a field is a huge responsibility. When I defended my doctoral dissertation, one of my committee members told me that “You are now an expert and people will listen to what you have to say because of the letters after your name.” He emphasized the weight of that responsibility and encouraged me to ensure I wielded that power well.

In a culture where we want proof, it can be appealing to find scientific evidence for aspects of faith. But the mystery is worthwhile, too. The brain and the body are subjects so complex that fully understanding them is beyond our ability. But as Newberg put it in Neurotheology, “the brain is essential for both science and religion and this just might be the intersection we need to more fully understand ourselves and the world.”

We have limits to our knowledge as Reinke asserts in God, Technology, and the Christian Life, “God sets the height and width and depth for the sandbox of our discovery.” We may strive toward realizations about our bodies, our minds, and the world around us, but we will never fully fathom them while we are on this earth — and we may never know. There is no secret knowledge about the brain that humans can find that will unlock a new plane of cognition and supersede the wisdom that comes from God. We still research, explore, and ask questions, but we do so believing that God is the one who helps us make scientific discoveries and that knowledge should drive us to worship him