What do you think?
Rate this book
Het spirituele brein: Bewijzen voor het bestaan van de ziel
Volgens Dawkins en Dennett brengt ons brein het beeld van God voort. De neurowetenschapper Beauregard zet een frontale tegenaanval in, met een polemisch boek. Samen met wetenschapsjournalist O'Leary beschrijft hij recente onderzoeken die het tegendeel bewijzen.
Zelf deed Beauregard neurologisch onderzoek bij mediterende karmelieten. Daaruit blijkt dat de nonnen tijdens het mediteren niet hallucineren, maar daadwerkelijk contact maken met 'iets' buiten zichzelf.
Mario Beauregard is onderzoekerleider aan het Montreal Neurological Research Center van de McGill University. In 2000 werd hij tot één van de honderd pioniers van de 21ste eeuw verkozen door het World Media Net, een samenwerkingsverband van twintig Europese en Aziatische dagbladen.
Denyse O'Leary is wetenschapsjournalist voor diverse Canadese kranten en tijdschriften.
Zelf deed Beauregard neurologisch onderzoek bij mediterende karmelieten. Daaruit blijkt dat de nonnen tijdens het mediteren niet hallucineren, maar daadwerkelijk contact maken met 'iets' buiten zichzelf.
Mario Beauregard is onderzoekerleider aan het Montreal Neurological Research Center van de McGill University. In 2000 werd hij tot één van de honderd pioniers van de 21ste eeuw verkozen door het World Media Net, een samenwerkingsverband van twintig Europese en Aziatische dagbladen.
Denyse O'Leary is wetenschapsjournalist voor diverse Canadese kranten en tijdschriften.
381 pages, Paperback
First published September 4, 2007
281 people are currently reading
3896 people want to read
About the author
Mario Beauregard
28 books19 followersMario Beauregard's groundbreaking work on the neurobiology of mystical experience at the University of Montreal has received international media coverage. Before becoming a faculty member there, he conducted postdoctoral research at the University of Texas and the Montreal Neurological Institute (McGill University). Because of his research into the neuro-science of consciousness, he was selected by the World Media Net to be among the "One Hundred Pioneers of the 21st Century." He lives in Montreal, Canada.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
January 18, 2013
I got this book a couple of years ago but was put off reading it by a couple of reviews that trashed it, saying it was rubbish pseudo-science and poorly researched and with an axe to grind. So I ignored it and read other recommended neuroscience books. Recently I decided to read it anyway and learn from its mistakes. I was astonished to find a very well researched book that was rigorously scientific in its approach. I found it a thought-provoking and enlightening read. Wish I'd read it earlier. What a fool I was listening to those negative reviewers without assessing it for myself.
Don't confuse scientific with neutrality. This book isn't an impartial account. It is a fierce attack on materialists - people who believe that the only explanation allowed for this universe and consciousness is one that only uses matter (i.e. there is no such thing as the spiritual dimension or the soul). The book looks at recent research on the brain and gives several compelling arguments why a person's mind is not identical to the electrochemical activities of his/her brain. For example there are reliably documented cases of people seeing things happening around them during near death experience while attached to medical instruments showing no brain activity. Elsewhere I have read explanations that a person having a spiritual experience was really having a epileptic fit in their temporal lobes. The neurological evidence laid out in this book convincingly destroys that theory.
The tone of the book is quite hot. I can understand why somebody who doesn't believe in a spiritual aspect to life would want to spit this book out. But a book cannot be dismissed as pseudo-scientific just because the author holds to a worldview different from yourself. The evidence needs to be looked at and counter-arguments listened to. Read it, weigh up the evidence presented and make an informed assessment for yourself. Don't make my earlier mistake and dismiss the book without reading it.
Don't confuse scientific with neutrality. This book isn't an impartial account. It is a fierce attack on materialists - people who believe that the only explanation allowed for this universe and consciousness is one that only uses matter (i.e. there is no such thing as the spiritual dimension or the soul). The book looks at recent research on the brain and gives several compelling arguments why a person's mind is not identical to the electrochemical activities of his/her brain. For example there are reliably documented cases of people seeing things happening around them during near death experience while attached to medical instruments showing no brain activity. Elsewhere I have read explanations that a person having a spiritual experience was really having a epileptic fit in their temporal lobes. The neurological evidence laid out in this book convincingly destroys that theory.
The tone of the book is quite hot. I can understand why somebody who doesn't believe in a spiritual aspect to life would want to spit this book out. But a book cannot be dismissed as pseudo-scientific just because the author holds to a worldview different from yourself. The evidence needs to be looked at and counter-arguments listened to. Read it, weigh up the evidence presented and make an informed assessment for yourself. Don't make my earlier mistake and dismiss the book without reading it.
June 2, 2014
I found the structure of “The Spiritual Brain” frustrating. As others have commented, Beauregard and O’Leary make an overt and excessive case against orthodox materialism but the text is interspersed with quotations of what the authors attempt to refute, which I found somewhat disruptive in terms of being able to pull coherent themes from their case.
The central thesis is that a separation exists between our physical brain and consciousness and that phenomena associated with psi, the placebo effect, Near Death Experiences (NDEs), and other mystical experiences confirm this, however I am not sure a clear enough case was made in this regard. That is not to say that the case cannot be made but I just didn’t feel it was made clearly within this work when compared with other scholars writing on similar topics.
Perhaps my favourite part was how the authors framed the concept of “promissory materialism”, or rather, the frame of thought orthodox materialists use to deny the possibilities of different paradigms that may hold the key to new understandings. The notion that whatever cannot currently be explained “will be” so we just have to wait while marginalizing ideas in the process that are theoretically legit yet untestable such as the Anthropic principle. This wouldn’t be a problem if materialists weren’t hostile to alternative investigations, but given the monistic nature of the system, and the perceived notion that any evidence against it could send its legitimacy tumbling, the paradigm is a breeding ground for our natural tendency to subscribe to “hallway” thinking. This promotes a structural perpetuation of blind-spots and the type of heretical reactions that have accompanied all new forms of thought from the Enlightenment onward.
Of the explanations provided that were legitimate, I enjoyed the one that countered the materialist proposition that we haven’t “free will” and that consciousness is contingent on our brain, a physical mechanism. These authors hold that consciousness does not appear to have a physical mechanism, and that it is a quantum system, whereby “…the action of holding an idea in place is truly a decision you make, in the same way that the physicists hold a particle in place by deciding to continue to observe it”. And since we know from quantum physics that non-mechanical causes exist, why wouldn’t one consider the extent to which this makes sense?
From an entertainment perspective, I found the sections on psi, the God helmet and the Carmelite experiences quite lame but the section on NDEs profound. The themes discussed match up succinctly with those explored by other reputable scholars and the general idea that consciousness and matter are only a partial reality. After having read numerous works by various scholars, I tend to the subscribe to the transcendental view that a fundamental reality exists that we cannot perceive given our terrestrial vulgarities and that organized religion has been man’s attempt to explain our inherently numinous and universal human experience.
3 out of 5 stars for Beauregard and O’Leary!
The central thesis is that a separation exists between our physical brain and consciousness and that phenomena associated with psi, the placebo effect, Near Death Experiences (NDEs), and other mystical experiences confirm this, however I am not sure a clear enough case was made in this regard. That is not to say that the case cannot be made but I just didn’t feel it was made clearly within this work when compared with other scholars writing on similar topics.
Perhaps my favourite part was how the authors framed the concept of “promissory materialism”, or rather, the frame of thought orthodox materialists use to deny the possibilities of different paradigms that may hold the key to new understandings. The notion that whatever cannot currently be explained “will be” so we just have to wait while marginalizing ideas in the process that are theoretically legit yet untestable such as the Anthropic principle. This wouldn’t be a problem if materialists weren’t hostile to alternative investigations, but given the monistic nature of the system, and the perceived notion that any evidence against it could send its legitimacy tumbling, the paradigm is a breeding ground for our natural tendency to subscribe to “hallway” thinking. This promotes a structural perpetuation of blind-spots and the type of heretical reactions that have accompanied all new forms of thought from the Enlightenment onward.
Of the explanations provided that were legitimate, I enjoyed the one that countered the materialist proposition that we haven’t “free will” and that consciousness is contingent on our brain, a physical mechanism. These authors hold that consciousness does not appear to have a physical mechanism, and that it is a quantum system, whereby “…the action of holding an idea in place is truly a decision you make, in the same way that the physicists hold a particle in place by deciding to continue to observe it”. And since we know from quantum physics that non-mechanical causes exist, why wouldn’t one consider the extent to which this makes sense?
From an entertainment perspective, I found the sections on psi, the God helmet and the Carmelite experiences quite lame but the section on NDEs profound. The themes discussed match up succinctly with those explored by other reputable scholars and the general idea that consciousness and matter are only a partial reality. After having read numerous works by various scholars, I tend to the subscribe to the transcendental view that a fundamental reality exists that we cannot perceive given our terrestrial vulgarities and that organized religion has been man’s attempt to explain our inherently numinous and universal human experience.
3 out of 5 stars for Beauregard and O’Leary!
August 28, 2012
"Non-materialist neuroscience is a rallying cry for dualism. Like creationism and intelligent design this "new" neuroscience is a reactionary movement against science. Rather than a hypothesis that leads to predictions and experiments, it is simply a catalog of things modern neuroscience supposedly cannot yet explain. Unsurprisingly, the movement is spear-headed by intelligent design lackeys from the Discovery Institute and related affiliates. The primary proponents of the movement are Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon and recent contributor to the Discovery Institute blog, Denyse O'Leary, a Canadian "journalist" who runs her own blog dedicated to non-materialist neuroscience and likes to copy and paste these entries over on William Dembski's blog as well, and Mario Beauregard, the author with O'Leary of a recent book on the subject of non-materialist neuroscience: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul. " http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-mate...
July 21, 2011
This book blows hot and cold, but pulled itself up from a 3 star range to a 4 star range in the very last chapter. For the best reading experience, skip the introduction. The book is really defensive (especially in the introduction and first couple of chapters), so go in expecting that. Don't let that put you off too much, though.
This book does not do a very good job making a case for the existence of the soul per se. What it is very good at is challenging scientific materialism and complicating understandings of the universe which are purely materialistic. This is done through a consideration of the scientific evidence itself, both in terms of materialistic scientific evidence and the scientific evidence that complicates materialism. The God Gene, the God Helmet, memetics, and especially evolutionary psychology are all demolished through the very application of scientific rigor. Evidence—although only limited evidence—is offered which is at least difficult for a materialist to account for, and which the authors outright assert proves the existence of a nonmaterial medium for the mind. There is also scientific evidence offered to challenge some of the broad misconceptions about religious individuals and religious experience (e.g. religion makes people more prone to violence).
Although the scientific parts of the book are really interesting, the philosophy based above that is sometimes weak, or at least insufficiently explained. For instance, evidence of a will does not necessarily imply evidence for a mind. And as someone who spent a lot of time in the Calvinist/Arminian fray, I wince in the way the author uses "free will", both in terms of identifying it and in terms of its necessary consequences.
The evidence offered for "psi" and "NDEs" both need a bit more room to breathe. The case for "psi", in particular, is not well made and generally lacks evidence. The case based on "NDEs" stakes a lot on a single instance, and it would have been nice to hear about some of the studies which have intentionally sought to demonstrate precisely the kinds of evidence the author is looking for.
The book seems like it is taking on a bit too much all at once. It does a nice (if overly defensive) job with the attacks on scientific materialism in the early chapters — those chapters alone make the book worth reading. The concluding chapters with the study for the Carmelite nuns and surrounding conversation on the scientific study fo religious-spiritual-mystical experience is also very good. It's the stuff in the very middle which is a little mushy, and either needed more room or to be removed altogether.
This book does not do a very good job making a case for the existence of the soul per se. What it is very good at is challenging scientific materialism and complicating understandings of the universe which are purely materialistic. This is done through a consideration of the scientific evidence itself, both in terms of materialistic scientific evidence and the scientific evidence that complicates materialism. The God Gene, the God Helmet, memetics, and especially evolutionary psychology are all demolished through the very application of scientific rigor. Evidence—although only limited evidence—is offered which is at least difficult for a materialist to account for, and which the authors outright assert proves the existence of a nonmaterial medium for the mind. There is also scientific evidence offered to challenge some of the broad misconceptions about religious individuals and religious experience (e.g. religion makes people more prone to violence).
Although the scientific parts of the book are really interesting, the philosophy based above that is sometimes weak, or at least insufficiently explained. For instance, evidence of a will does not necessarily imply evidence for a mind. And as someone who spent a lot of time in the Calvinist/Arminian fray, I wince in the way the author uses "free will", both in terms of identifying it and in terms of its necessary consequences.
The evidence offered for "psi" and "NDEs" both need a bit more room to breathe. The case for "psi", in particular, is not well made and generally lacks evidence. The case based on "NDEs" stakes a lot on a single instance, and it would have been nice to hear about some of the studies which have intentionally sought to demonstrate precisely the kinds of evidence the author is looking for.
The book seems like it is taking on a bit too much all at once. It does a nice (if overly defensive) job with the attacks on scientific materialism in the early chapters — those chapters alone make the book worth reading. The concluding chapters with the study for the Carmelite nuns and surrounding conversation on the scientific study fo religious-spiritual-mystical experience is also very good. It's the stuff in the very middle which is a little mushy, and either needed more room or to be removed altogether.
November 20, 2010
In this book, the author, a practicing neuroscientist at a Canadian university, argues that human beings have non-material souls that interact with the physical body by acting upon our neural networks to influence behavior. It's an interesting view, and one you don't hear often from scientists.
I'm not sure of the author's religious beliefs, but he seems to hold to something like the perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley, William James, and Evelyn Underhill. It's a view that there's a common, eternal philosophy that underlies all religions, and in particular the mystical streams within all religions (Wikipedia). So Christians could strongly endorse the author's critique of materialism and scientism, but they'll have some problems with the author's acceptance of the perennial philosophy and its ramifications.
Overall, I wish the book focused more on making a case for the existence of the soul. I was hoping for a detailed case with philosophical arguments and rebuttals of those who hold other views. There's some of that, but the book is also a hodgepodge of critiques of materialistic academics, discussion of mystical experiences and near death experiences, discussion of the author's own research, short bios of Catholic mystics, etc. I came away with the impression that the scientific data are consistent with his view, but I'm not convinced that his view is the only one on the table.
I'm not sure of the author's religious beliefs, but he seems to hold to something like the perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley, William James, and Evelyn Underhill. It's a view that there's a common, eternal philosophy that underlies all religions, and in particular the mystical streams within all religions (Wikipedia). So Christians could strongly endorse the author's critique of materialism and scientism, but they'll have some problems with the author's acceptance of the perennial philosophy and its ramifications.
Overall, I wish the book focused more on making a case for the existence of the soul. I was hoping for a detailed case with philosophical arguments and rebuttals of those who hold other views. There's some of that, but the book is also a hodgepodge of critiques of materialistic academics, discussion of mystical experiences and near death experiences, discussion of the author's own research, short bios of Catholic mystics, etc. I came away with the impression that the scientific data are consistent with his view, but I'm not convinced that his view is the only one on the table.
October 8, 2012
The part actually dealing with Beauregard's research is worthwhile. Unfortunately, you must wade through a significant amount of other material that's worth far less before you get there. To some extent written in an anti-new-atheist perspective - if they hate us and show how their research disproves God and call us fools, we'll show research that makes them the fools! I've heard that O'Leary, the coauthor not listed here, is the main problem. Given the medical papers of Beauregard's I've read, I believe it.
October 1, 2018
For several years now, I've known that the discipline of neuroscience is one that I want to dedicate my life to exploring - whether it be through academia, the entertainment I partake in, or the conversations I choose to have. Although I'm interested in STEM and learning about the biological basis to behavior, cognition, abstract thought, consciousness, and many other facets of what makes us (animals) exist as we do, I know that my love for the social sciences & humanities prevents me from limiting my exploration of the field to just the concrete nature of the physical sciences.
With a keen interest in spirituality and philosophy in particular, the notion of a metaphysical (or maybe physical) soul has always intrigued me, as it is something very frequently referenced in not only religious contexts, but also the social and artistic as well. Thus, when I came across Dr. Mario Beauregard's nonmaterialistic perspective on the brain, I knew that this was literature that was right up the alley of how I want to examine neuroscience. Focusing particularly are near-death experiences, the psi effect, mysticism, and general RSME (religious, spiritual, mystical experiences), Dr. Beauregard strives to combat the stigma and criticism that this "pseudoscience" has faced as a result of the persistent attempts of materialistic science perspectives at invalidating all nonmaterialistic viewpoints and findings.
Conceptually, I think Dr. Beauregard analyzes the discipline with good intentions, and does so with clear preparation regarding secondary sources. However, the problem with the book's execution is not only its excessive repetition of the same arguments, but also the weakness in the support from many of the refuting points and said provided secondary sources. Many of Dr. Beauregard's counterpoints are redundant and provide little background explanation - with that being said, I'm not even looking for "hard science" as that would defeat the whole aim of the book, however he has a tendency to make statements and not to follow up on them. Additionally, each of the nearly dozen chapters is scattered with quotations from various intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, and general professionals, however I find that they not only feel like page filler, but they often are either not really relevant to the specific angle Dr. Beauregard hopes to take in that passage, but some of them almost feel contradictory. Even various of the studies he includes to examine show results that don't support his hypotheses regarding the notion of a soul, the power of spirituality, and the existence of an intangible mind.
Being that Dr. Beauregard is hoping to convince readers of an unorthodox view of the physical science subdiscipline that is neuroscience, these weak points prove to be too prevalent and unfortunately, don't help his argument whatsoever.
With a keen interest in spirituality and philosophy in particular, the notion of a metaphysical (or maybe physical) soul has always intrigued me, as it is something very frequently referenced in not only religious contexts, but also the social and artistic as well. Thus, when I came across Dr. Mario Beauregard's nonmaterialistic perspective on the brain, I knew that this was literature that was right up the alley of how I want to examine neuroscience. Focusing particularly are near-death experiences, the psi effect, mysticism, and general RSME (religious, spiritual, mystical experiences), Dr. Beauregard strives to combat the stigma and criticism that this "pseudoscience" has faced as a result of the persistent attempts of materialistic science perspectives at invalidating all nonmaterialistic viewpoints and findings.
Conceptually, I think Dr. Beauregard analyzes the discipline with good intentions, and does so with clear preparation regarding secondary sources. However, the problem with the book's execution is not only its excessive repetition of the same arguments, but also the weakness in the support from many of the refuting points and said provided secondary sources. Many of Dr. Beauregard's counterpoints are redundant and provide little background explanation - with that being said, I'm not even looking for "hard science" as that would defeat the whole aim of the book, however he has a tendency to make statements and not to follow up on them. Additionally, each of the nearly dozen chapters is scattered with quotations from various intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, and general professionals, however I find that they not only feel like page filler, but they often are either not really relevant to the specific angle Dr. Beauregard hopes to take in that passage, but some of them almost feel contradictory. Even various of the studies he includes to examine show results that don't support his hypotheses regarding the notion of a soul, the power of spirituality, and the existence of an intangible mind.
Being that Dr. Beauregard is hoping to convince readers of an unorthodox view of the physical science subdiscipline that is neuroscience, these weak points prove to be too prevalent and unfortunately, don't help his argument whatsoever.
May 29, 2021
This is a fascinating account of the relationship between mind and brain. Beauregard, a leading neuroscientist, argues a good case for mystical/religious experiences arising from a non-material source, effectively underlining the spiritual nature we all share. He is meticulous in taking apart the materialist view that mind and brain are one, underlining the disservice this does to 'real' science with its shoddy arguments! He talks about the god gene, the 'god helmet' (an experimental device intended to simulate religious experience in the brain) and argues how near death experiences and the placebo effect demonstrate the non-materialist nature of the mind. He ends with a description of his own work on brain imaging among Carmelite nuns having religious experiences during prayer. I've only taken off a star because this appeared almost as an afterthought as the penultimate chapter and I'd have perhaps liked to have seen more made of it. Of course, there is a vast literature about the mind and the brain `- I think this (written with journalist Denyse O'Leary) is a readable and valuable contribution.
February 7, 2008
I am actually working on a radio program discussing many of the concepts in this book. It's premise is that many aspects of neuroscience cannot be explained by materialistic phenomenon. In other words there is a mind that is in charge of the firing neurons in the brain. Examples include the placebo effect, overcoming obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, and the effects of spiritual experiences (or prayer).
This book is not coming from a distinctly Christian perspective (although one of the coauthors is a Christian), but its research and argument against materialism is one that I recommend for the scientist apologist. The studies are fascinating; I enjoyed reading them. And the case against materialism and for mind/body duality is quite compelling.
This book is not coming from a distinctly Christian perspective (although one of the coauthors is a Christian), but its research and argument against materialism is one that I recommend for the scientist apologist. The studies are fascinating; I enjoyed reading them. And the case against materialism and for mind/body duality is quite compelling.
August 24, 2020
There is mystery and it is beautiful. This book gives good insight into the materialist biases, that shouldn't, but do inform some science in the neurology of spiritual experience. The good thing is, that the science is still there to observe. Reading this, means you will be taken on a tour to observe all of the evidence, and think critically about "what is out there". I appreciate the non-religious-bias, as they communicate the data recorded in all faiths and challenge people to "think before consuming".
January 12, 2025
This is a book for science nerds. It presents a logical argument against
materialist science (we are just an expression of our genes and chemical reactions) and non materialist science
(we have a spiritual nature). Read like a masters thesis.
materialist science (we are just an expression of our genes and chemical reactions) and non materialist science
(we have a spiritual nature). Read like a masters thesis.
August 17, 2018
Biblical literalists and champions of creationism have often been criticized for relying upon arguments supporting their beliefs based upon gaps in current scientific knowledge. The “God of the gaps” thrives in those niches where the fossil record is incomplete or in our sketchy understanding of how life originated on Earth, as well as other places where discovery lags behind theory. The problem, of course, is that science has a way of filling those gaps over time, leaving religious dogma with fewer habitable environments. One would suppose that the fewer and smaller the gaps, the more people would be persuaded by scientific explanations over divine ones. Faith, however, can endure with just the most minuscule evidence – or even none at all.
Consider, for example, the belief that human beings are endowed with immortal souls, independent from their bodies. On the surface, it may seem like this article of faith is beyond the purview of science, and thus safe for believers to endorse without fear of being proven wrong.
But not so fast. In “The Spiritual Brain,” Beauregard, a neuroscientist, reports on his research conducting brain scan experiments on Carmelite nuns during their prayers, when they reported having mystical experiences. Lo and behold, he discovered that their brains lit up like fireworks. What does this prove? First, he concluded that the nuns’ mystical experiences were real, not just some hokum concocted by ambitious soothsayers to impress their followers. That, it seems to me, is a legitimate supposition.
Some researchers would have stopped there. Undaunted, Beauregard further suggested that these altered states of consciousness occur when our spiritual selves connect with a transcendent reality. To support his claim to have found evidence proving the existence of non-material souls, the authors reach for the gaps. What about the Placebo Effect? Doesn’t that prove that the mind has a separate domain apart from the body, but which can nonetheless influence it? And what about near-death experiences? When people have no brain activity, yet upon resuscitation report having had bright and beautiful mental experiences, then that must be their souls breaking free, right?
I’m no neuroscientist, but all of this feels to me like creeping onto a very thin limb. Who is to say that a mystical experience isn’t just a non-specific neurological event? I have no problem believing that the Placebo Effect is caused by mental events (hopes) that have beneficial physiological effects – no mumbo jumbo is required to explain it. And I’m loath to trust the veracity of reports of people who managed to get away from the Grim Reaper. Sorry, but no matter how profound they recall the death experience in retrospect, I have a hard time regarding testimony made under such extreme conditions to be reliable.
Maybe there is indeed a non-physical, even a spiritual realm of existence. Who doesn’t hope for that? But the fact that we all wish for it seems reason enough to be skeptical.
Consider, for example, the belief that human beings are endowed with immortal souls, independent from their bodies. On the surface, it may seem like this article of faith is beyond the purview of science, and thus safe for believers to endorse without fear of being proven wrong.
But not so fast. In “The Spiritual Brain,” Beauregard, a neuroscientist, reports on his research conducting brain scan experiments on Carmelite nuns during their prayers, when they reported having mystical experiences. Lo and behold, he discovered that their brains lit up like fireworks. What does this prove? First, he concluded that the nuns’ mystical experiences were real, not just some hokum concocted by ambitious soothsayers to impress their followers. That, it seems to me, is a legitimate supposition.
Some researchers would have stopped there. Undaunted, Beauregard further suggested that these altered states of consciousness occur when our spiritual selves connect with a transcendent reality. To support his claim to have found evidence proving the existence of non-material souls, the authors reach for the gaps. What about the Placebo Effect? Doesn’t that prove that the mind has a separate domain apart from the body, but which can nonetheless influence it? And what about near-death experiences? When people have no brain activity, yet upon resuscitation report having had bright and beautiful mental experiences, then that must be their souls breaking free, right?
I’m no neuroscientist, but all of this feels to me like creeping onto a very thin limb. Who is to say that a mystical experience isn’t just a non-specific neurological event? I have no problem believing that the Placebo Effect is caused by mental events (hopes) that have beneficial physiological effects – no mumbo jumbo is required to explain it. And I’m loath to trust the veracity of reports of people who managed to get away from the Grim Reaper. Sorry, but no matter how profound they recall the death experience in retrospect, I have a hard time regarding testimony made under such extreme conditions to be reliable.
Maybe there is indeed a non-physical, even a spiritual realm of existence. Who doesn’t hope for that? But the fact that we all wish for it seems reason enough to be skeptical.
July 12, 2022
Amazingly fresh insights that I can't believe I've never seen compiled before. Research that should have been done decades ago.
Yes, the authors are evolutionists and deists, by no means Christians. But they're strong opponents of applying evolutionary theory to human psychology. ("It's speculative. No one was there to see it happen. You have to assume the materialist premise to believe in it." Odd then that they don't consider how their criticisms of evolutionary psychology would also apply to molecules-to-man evolution in general.)
But I digress. Fascinating book; a great evidence-based debunk of the claims that neuroscience has disproven the soul and explained away religion. On top of that, the authors provide fascinating evidence for the soul that materialists are going to have to chew on, as it can't be explained away easily.
I'm still unclear on whether the author's idea of quantum mechanics actually matches the evidence, since quantum mechanics is not their field. I was initially very excited by the proposition that the brain could be controlled by manipulating quantum mechanics, but after looking into the existing research that has actually been done on 'observers' etc, they may have overstated their case. Still, it's a stronger theory than anything the materialists have put out and you have to start somewhere.
I diverge most with the authors on the idea of 'Spiritual Experiences', especially when the author's view is that all 'mystic' experiences are fundamentally of the same type. As a Christian, you can't tell me that a spiritual encounter with the presence of the Christian God is fundamentally of the same type as a Buddhist's experience of 'the universe' or Nirvana. I see no problem with a "constructivist" approach here when I have already in my worldview a concrete set of rules that allow for some spiritual experiences to be real but false or misleading. As quoted in the book, "Satan appears like an angel of light", and also as stated in the book, Occam's razor is valid, but a razor should be used with caution. There are other spiritual entities besides the true God, and the Bible says to "test the spirits." That's because it's possible for humans to encounter a false spirit. Without that understanding it's possible for research on spirituality to veer into dangerous territory. Just my two cents.
Yes, the authors are evolutionists and deists, by no means Christians. But they're strong opponents of applying evolutionary theory to human psychology. ("It's speculative. No one was there to see it happen. You have to assume the materialist premise to believe in it." Odd then that they don't consider how their criticisms of evolutionary psychology would also apply to molecules-to-man evolution in general.)
But I digress. Fascinating book; a great evidence-based debunk of the claims that neuroscience has disproven the soul and explained away religion. On top of that, the authors provide fascinating evidence for the soul that materialists are going to have to chew on, as it can't be explained away easily.
I'm still unclear on whether the author's idea of quantum mechanics actually matches the evidence, since quantum mechanics is not their field. I was initially very excited by the proposition that the brain could be controlled by manipulating quantum mechanics, but after looking into the existing research that has actually been done on 'observers' etc, they may have overstated their case. Still, it's a stronger theory than anything the materialists have put out and you have to start somewhere.
I diverge most with the authors on the idea of 'Spiritual Experiences', especially when the author's view is that all 'mystic' experiences are fundamentally of the same type. As a Christian, you can't tell me that a spiritual encounter with the presence of the Christian God is fundamentally of the same type as a Buddhist's experience of 'the universe' or Nirvana. I see no problem with a "constructivist" approach here when I have already in my worldview a concrete set of rules that allow for some spiritual experiences to be real but false or misleading. As quoted in the book, "Satan appears like an angel of light", and also as stated in the book, Occam's razor is valid, but a razor should be used with caution. There are other spiritual entities besides the true God, and the Bible says to "test the spirits." That's because it's possible for humans to encounter a false spirit. Without that understanding it's possible for research on spirituality to veer into dangerous territory. Just my two cents.
May 9, 2012
Beauregard is tireless in trying to bring his findings into recognition in his field. I found the book both easy to manage yet very strong in defining this debate among neuroscientists. Especially compelling is the full chapter devoted to his study on the Carmelite nuns. For anyone interested in the discussion between the materialists scientists and what is becoming more and more a groundswell of those who are opening their study to consider reaching farther (as all change agents will do), then this is a great place to start. This book does more than make the case for a continuing need to study the brain and the mind and PSI effects, it shines a light on how science, in its sometimes narrow mindedness, can be its own worst enemy. It makes a case for how when a field of study is on the parapet of major breakthrough, there will be a revolt against the norm.
September 14, 2008
Although materialist thinking neurological researchers often condemn the idea of spirituality and soul as being unscientific and non-existent, they do so only by ignoring considerable amounts of evidence that are at least as scientific as the evidence they present to discount such concepts. We are not simply bags of chemicals that can walk, but we are spiritual beings with motivations and connections to plains of existence exploration of which is still outside the realms of science, but certainly not disproved by it.
February 10, 2011
This is a highly controversial book. Reviews I've seen are either highly positive or deeply personal and negative. I would say read it for yourself and see what you think. It does contain a lot of technical information, so it's not a book for the beach.
I should note that Denyse O'Leary encouraged me to forge ahead with Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret, a book many of her audience (if they are part of the Canadian right of right of centre populist set) probably wish I'd never written. Denyse isn't a mouthpiece for anybody. Nor is Dr. Beauregard.
I should note that Denyse O'Leary encouraged me to forge ahead with Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret, a book many of her audience (if they are part of the Canadian right of right of centre populist set) probably wish I'd never written. Denyse isn't a mouthpiece for anybody. Nor is Dr. Beauregard.
June 28, 2021
Compelling argument that materialism is narrow-minded and dogmatic, and an expression of intellectual arrogance. Opens up science to broader realms of inquiry.
November 29, 2024
XXXXX
NEUROSCIENCE MEETS...GOD!!
XXXXX
"As we have seen throughout this book, materialist neuroscientists and philosophers hold that mind, consciousness and self are byproducts of the brain's electrical and chemical processes, and that RSMEs [religious, spiritual, and/or mystical experiences] are 'nothing but' brain states or delusions created by neural activity.
Accordingly these scientists and philosophers believe that there is not a spiritual source for RSMEs, that is, they think that the human brain creates these experiences and, in doing so, creates God...this book has been a refutation of their views from a number of angles...
I think [or CONCLUDE] that the evidence supports the view that individuals that have RSMEs do in fact contact an objectively real 'force' that exists outside themselves."
The above quote (in italics) comes from this book by "non-materialist" neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and Christian journalist Denyse O'Leary.
For those who have read the above quote carefully, this book is really about mind.
Historically mind has been viewed in two ways:
(1) mind is a metaphysical entity separate and apart from the mechanistic system of the brain (the part of the central nervous system encased within the skull).
(2) mind is a biologic metaphor representing the manifestation of the (still not understood) neurophysiologic processes of the brain.
The structure of this book views the mind as given in (1) above but with a religious twist. This view is favoured by vigorously refuting the biologic or materialistic view given in (2) above.
Errors abound in this book and statements are given without any proof. For example, we are told that the brain is a "quantum system." There is no proof for this. Or the Hippocratic Oath contains the phrase "First, do no harm." It does not.
This book is rife with anecdotal stories and inferential conclusions. There is actually minimal science and neuroscience presented.
There is also endless quotations from others, and some of these quotations appear to be taken out of context so as to bolster the authors' argument. After a while, these become a tedious chore to read.
There is also a mistake in a key quotation by Albert Einstein. The authors say that he said "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical." The last word in this quote is actually "mysterious." This is an important distinction because the word "mystical" as used in this book implies "God power." Einstein did not believe in God.
Even though there is a glossary, many terms that are important to understand the main narrative do not appear in it.
The CONCLUSION of this book given in the above quote that begins this review can be restated as follows: the brain is a receiver of supernatural forces. The evidence for this seems to be that since science can't explain certain processes of the brain adequately enough to satisfy the authors, then God is responsible for them. This is called "God in the gaps [of knowledge]."
Finally, the biggest problem I found concerns this book's subtitle: "An neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul." The word "soul" is not defined in the book's glossary or its main narrative. I've read this book thoroughly and am unclear as to what the 'neuroscientist's case" for the soul's existence actually is.
In conclusion, this is a strange book where neuroscience unconvincingly meets God.
XXXXX
(2007; acknowledgements; introduction; 10 chapters; main narrative 295 pages: notes; glossary; bibliography; index)
XXXXX
NEUROSCIENCE MEETS...GOD!!
XXXXX
"As we have seen throughout this book, materialist neuroscientists and philosophers hold that mind, consciousness and self are byproducts of the brain's electrical and chemical processes, and that RSMEs [religious, spiritual, and/or mystical experiences] are 'nothing but' brain states or delusions created by neural activity.
Accordingly these scientists and philosophers believe that there is not a spiritual source for RSMEs, that is, they think that the human brain creates these experiences and, in doing so, creates God...this book has been a refutation of their views from a number of angles...
I think [or CONCLUDE] that the evidence supports the view that individuals that have RSMEs do in fact contact an objectively real 'force' that exists outside themselves."
The above quote (in italics) comes from this book by "non-materialist" neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and Christian journalist Denyse O'Leary.
For those who have read the above quote carefully, this book is really about mind.
Historically mind has been viewed in two ways:
(1) mind is a metaphysical entity separate and apart from the mechanistic system of the brain (the part of the central nervous system encased within the skull).
(2) mind is a biologic metaphor representing the manifestation of the (still not understood) neurophysiologic processes of the brain.
The structure of this book views the mind as given in (1) above but with a religious twist. This view is favoured by vigorously refuting the biologic or materialistic view given in (2) above.
Errors abound in this book and statements are given without any proof. For example, we are told that the brain is a "quantum system." There is no proof for this. Or the Hippocratic Oath contains the phrase "First, do no harm." It does not.
This book is rife with anecdotal stories and inferential conclusions. There is actually minimal science and neuroscience presented.
There is also endless quotations from others, and some of these quotations appear to be taken out of context so as to bolster the authors' argument. After a while, these become a tedious chore to read.
There is also a mistake in a key quotation by Albert Einstein. The authors say that he said "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical." The last word in this quote is actually "mysterious." This is an important distinction because the word "mystical" as used in this book implies "God power." Einstein did not believe in God.
Even though there is a glossary, many terms that are important to understand the main narrative do not appear in it.
The CONCLUSION of this book given in the above quote that begins this review can be restated as follows: the brain is a receiver of supernatural forces. The evidence for this seems to be that since science can't explain certain processes of the brain adequately enough to satisfy the authors, then God is responsible for them. This is called "God in the gaps [of knowledge]."
Finally, the biggest problem I found concerns this book's subtitle: "An neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul." The word "soul" is not defined in the book's glossary or its main narrative. I've read this book thoroughly and am unclear as to what the 'neuroscientist's case" for the soul's existence actually is.
In conclusion, this is a strange book where neuroscience unconvincingly meets God.
XXXXX
(2007; acknowledgements; introduction; 10 chapters; main narrative 295 pages: notes; glossary; bibliography; index)
XXXXX
April 30, 2018
One of the characteristics of materialism is to think that there is nothing beyond what can be seen and touched, that science can not understand other things than material and that this is all that exists.
And what happens for those who have had the experience of having a mystical state, an experience of being close to death, an astral journey or some other spiritual experience?
Many of these scientists say that they are altered states of mind, fully explicable. I do not believe it.
If you want to know more from the point of view of neuro science, I recommend this great book.
The book begins by denying many of the concepts of scientists who try to explain spiritual experiences as disorders of the mind, or as simply material things, such as: Is there a program within our mind that makes us believe in God? Is there a part of our mind that makes us believe in Him? Are the mind and the brain the same?
And then he speaks, using scientific studies, about things like: neuroscience from a non-material point of view, what are mystical experiences and why do they happen? Can mystical experiences change your life?
And finally our studies with people who have done many years of meditation and prayers, as is their different mind.
It is a very good book to begin to understand what there are other realities, beyond the material.
And what happens for those who have had the experience of having a mystical state, an experience of being close to death, an astral journey or some other spiritual experience?
Many of these scientists say that they are altered states of mind, fully explicable. I do not believe it.
If you want to know more from the point of view of neuro science, I recommend this great book.
The book begins by denying many of the concepts of scientists who try to explain spiritual experiences as disorders of the mind, or as simply material things, such as: Is there a program within our mind that makes us believe in God? Is there a part of our mind that makes us believe in Him? Are the mind and the brain the same?
And then he speaks, using scientific studies, about things like: neuroscience from a non-material point of view, what are mystical experiences and why do they happen? Can mystical experiences change your life?
And finally our studies with people who have done many years of meditation and prayers, as is their different mind.
It is a very good book to begin to understand what there are other realities, beyond the material.
May 20, 2025
Op dit moment op de helft en ik moet erg veel moeite doen om er doorheen te komen. In het begin denk je nog dat het bashen tegen de populair wetenschappelijke journalistiek een opzetje is en kun je het negeren. Vanaf hoofdstuk drie word het simpelweg irritant en voegt het over het algemeen he-le-maal niks toe. Als je dat even negeert blijft er overigens vrij weinig over. Het boek zet wel aan tot nadenken omdat puur materialisme en de puur gelovige stromingen ook niet alles kunnen verklaren, de verklaringen van de schrijver(s) zijn ook niet zaligmakend. Het lijkt er soms op dat wat hij de journalistiek verwijd ook zelf doet. In een bepaald hoofdstuk heeft ie het over de god helmet waarbij het statistisch gezien niet relevant is in hoofdstuk 7 is een bepaald kleine, statistisch irrelevante afwijking, ineens wel van belang en moeten we die niet onderschatten. Nu moet ik eerlijk bekennen dat ik van statistiek nooit veel begrepen heb, maar dit leest gewoon gek. Verder worden er heel veel vragen gesteld en vooral de materialistische kant van het verhaal afgedaan als 'onzin' en 'kunnen we niet verklaren' maar echt antwoorden op wat er dan wel aan de hand is? Die beschrijft hij niet.
December 24, 2023
This book is more opinion piece than science unfortunately. It is a shame that Mario Beauregard chose to partner with an opinion piece author as it did nothing to support his message, just the opposite.
I read this book because Ray Dalio mentioned it in his book Principles and recommended it. I am surprised Mr Dalio recommends it because it kind of goes against everything he says about getting advice from professionals. A more “professional” scientist would never put their name on a book like this - a book that is 80% opinion piece and anecdote.
Mario Beauregard is looking to validate his personal spiritual experiences through science. Nothing wrong with that. But to be taken seriously and have others read and respect your work requires objectivity which seems to seriously be lacking here. The Scientific Method stands up for itself without the need for opinion pieces and anecdotes.
I read this book because Ray Dalio mentioned it in his book Principles and recommended it. I am surprised Mr Dalio recommends it because it kind of goes against everything he says about getting advice from professionals. A more “professional” scientist would never put their name on a book like this - a book that is 80% opinion piece and anecdote.
Mario Beauregard is looking to validate his personal spiritual experiences through science. Nothing wrong with that. But to be taken seriously and have others read and respect your work requires objectivity which seems to seriously be lacking here. The Scientific Method stands up for itself without the need for opinion pieces and anecdotes.
August 18, 2017
This book was written by a Christian neuroscientist. To say that there were parts of it that were "over my head" is an understatement. I learned to skip the "A View From Neuroscience" boxes embedded in the copy. In essence, this book was written to repudiate the viewpoint of materialist scientists who do not believe in the soul and believe religion is an evolutionary coping mechanism. I found many parts of this book most interesting:his insights on the narrow view of materialist science; his discussions on near death experiences; the placebo effect on humans; the research into obsessive-compulsive disorder; and the study that he did on RSMs (religious, spiritual and mystical experiences) with Carmelite nuns.
February 24, 2025
Struggles to find a balance between philosophy and neuroscience, ultimately failing at both. Author seems to either have a poor understanding of statistics (unlikely because he has a doctorate) or is choosing to frame them for the sake of his own argument. Rename this to "an anti-materialist's view on God, because I tripped balls once".
Chapter 8-10 were worth reading imo, and the current state of prayer and it's effects in medicine are worthwhile to discuss. His own research also seems to be well addressed.
Chapter 8-10 were worth reading imo, and the current state of prayer and it's effects in medicine are worthwhile to discuss. His own research also seems to be well addressed.
January 14, 2025
Thought provoking; definitely worth the read, both the scientific and spiritual insights it provides. It aligns with my beliefs so I’m not as triggered as other people by science and spirituality being presented as one. The last stories about the carmelite nuns were very touching and I really enjoyed learning about them.
It can be tedious because it does feel very academic, but the content is really interesting.
There’s a lot of layers and a lot of things to learn throughout the book.
It can be tedious because it does feel very academic, but the content is really interesting.
There’s a lot of layers and a lot of things to learn throughout the book.
September 12, 2017
3.5 I read this for some research on the neuroscience of prayer. The authors own research that he details in the last part of the book was interesting, but it was almost lost in the broader, ranting on/refuting of materialism in the first half.
April 4, 2018
Very interesting and well written. Great insights and fascinating research. Read a bit more like a text book so wasn’t the most fun book to read but definitely worth a read. Wish there were Cliff Notes.
February 26, 2023
I have my doubts about the author's final conclusions but love the concept that the mind responds to externalities - we don't argue that emotions aren't real just because they are neuro-chemical responses in our brains.
July 22, 2025
Absolute rubbish. One of the most important aspects in the scientific community is to respect pioneers of science and be subjective regarding new arguments, especially with cases that have not been empirically investigated. Writing is not good at all, either. unfortunately not to par.
December 19, 2018
Very well written, heady, scientific tome that debunks the “materialist” view of long standing science that claims spiritual experience is an illusion.
August 20, 2019
Very biased toward spiritual vs material. If you can get around that, there are a lot of interesting facts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews