What do you think?
Principles of Neurotheology
First Published in 2017. Neurotheology has garnered substantial attention in the academic and lay communities in recent years. Several books have been written addressing the relationship between the brain and religious experience and numerous scholarly articles have been published on the topic, some in the popular press. The scientific and religious communities have been very interested in obtaining more information regarding neurotheology, how to approach this topic, and how science and religion can be integrated in some manner that preserves both. If neurotheology is to be considered a viable field going forward, it requires a set of clear principles that can be generally agreed upon and supported by both the theological or religious perspective and the scientific one as well. Principles of Neurotheology sets out the necessary principles of neurotheology which can be used as a foundation for future neurotheological discourse. Laying the groundwork for a new synthesis of scientific and theological dialogue, this book proposes that neurotheology, a term fraught with potential problems, is a highly useful and important voice in the greater study of religious and theological ideas and their intersection with science.
288 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2010
About the author
Andrew B. Newberg
38 books189 followersDr. Andrew Newberg is Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Medical College. He is also Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He is Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Nuclear Medicine. He is considered a pioneer in the neuroscientific study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field frequently referred to as – neurotheology. His work attempts to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and experiences. This has been compiled into his latest book, Principles of Neurotheology, which reviews the important principles and foundations of neurotheology. Believing that it is important to keep science rigorous and religion religious, he has engaged the topic like few others. He has been fascinated by the implications of this research for the study of the mind, brain, consciousness, morality, theology, and philosophy. He has also been particularly interested in the relationship between the brain, religion, and health. His research has included brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and various trance states. He has also performed surveys of people's spiritual experiences and attitudes. Finally, he has evaluated the relationship between religious and spiritual phenomena and health. This includes a recent study on the effect of meditation on memory.
In his career, he has also actively pursued neuroimaging research projects on the study of aging and dementia, Parkinson's disease, depression, and other neurological and psychiatric disorders. He has also researched the neurophysiological correlates of acupuncture, meditation, and alternative therapies, and how brain function is associated with mystical and religious experiences. Dr. Newberg helped develop stress-management programs for the University of Pennsylvania Health Systems and received a Science and Religion Course Award from the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences for his program entitled "The Biology of Spirituality" in the Department of Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania. He is currently teaching a course in the Department of Religious Studies entitled, “Science and the Sacred: An Introduction to Neurotheology.”
Dr. Newberg has published over 150 research articles, essays and book chapters, and is the co-author of the best selling books, Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (Ballantine, 2001) and How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist (Ballantine, 2009). He has also published, Principles of Neurotheology (Ashgate, 2011) Why We Believe What We Believe (Ballantine, 2006), and The Mystical Mind (Fortress Press, 1999). He has presented his research throughout the world in both scientific and public forums. He appeared on Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America, ABC's World News Tonight, National Public Radio, London Talk Radio and over fifteen nationally syndicated radio programs. His work has been featured in Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and many other newspapers and magazines. An overview of his work can be viewed at on this site.
In his career, he has also actively pursued neuroimaging research projects on the study of aging and dementia, Parkinson's disease, depression, and other neurological and psychiatric disorders. He has also researched the neurophysiological correlates of acupuncture, meditation, and alternative therapies, and how brain function is associated with mystical and religious experiences. Dr. Newberg helped develop stress-management programs for the University of Pennsylvania Health Systems and received a Science and Religion Course Award from the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences for his program entitled "The Biology of Spirituality" in the Department of Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania. He is currently teaching a course in the Department of Religious Studies entitled, “Science and the Sacred: An Introduction to Neurotheology.”
Dr. Newberg has published over 150 research articles, essays and book chapters, and is the co-author of the best selling books, Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (Ballantine, 2001) and How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist (Ballantine, 2009). He has also published, Principles of Neurotheology (Ashgate, 2011) Why We Believe What We Believe (Ballantine, 2006), and The Mystical Mind (Fortress Press, 1999). He has presented his research throughout the world in both scientific and public forums. He appeared on Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America, ABC's World News Tonight, National Public Radio, London Talk Radio and over fifteen nationally syndicated radio programs. His work has been featured in Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and many other newspapers and magazines. An overview of his work can be viewed at on this site.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 12, 2018
Neurotheology's methodology
Principles of Neurotheology describes a methodology for neurotheological research. By trying to combine phenomenological and biological perspectives and by using scientific and theological forms of inquiry, it tries to tackle the complex problem of religion from different angles. Newberg points out that neurotheology is not neuroscience of religion, but that it tries to foster dialogue between science and religion.
Unsatisfying neutrality
The supposedly unbiased tone was frustrating sometimes. Newberg is trying too hard to remain uncommited; an unnecessary stance, considering that there is enough evidence to start making claims about the nature and cause of these phenomena. Consider the following historical parallel. Vitalists claimed that the notion of life was not reducible to physical sciences. This "hard problem of life" was not solved, but faded away as science started to make increasingly better predictions about this phenomenon. In the same way, the question of whether religious experiences are caused by the brain or caused by God intervening in the brain is no longer a serious one. Just as temperature is nothing more than mean molecular energy, religious feelings are most likely caused by the brain; no supernatural elements required. Reductionism shouldn't be the boogeyman, if done correctly.
Theological tensions
I came to this book with some a priori beliefs. I don't consider theology (which studies the attributes of the divine) as a serious field. I was looking for neuroscience of religion, not a combination of neuroscience and theology. The weakness of this interdisciplinarity is that the fields are probably incommensurable. Theology talks about concepts that might not exist on a neurological level. The soul or 'the will' won't be found in the brain, because no brain structures correspond to these notions. Going beyond Newberg's neutrality, I do believe that the scientific study of religion can be a threat to religion (especially conservative parts). If believers want to know God as intimitely as possible, and they acknowledge that the brain shapes their experience of the divine, then does this mean that believers should strive for a post-human state where the brain is altered to get to know as many aspects of God as possible? Any absolutist vision of God or a perceived Ultimate Truth will then have to be relativised.
Mysticism: neuroscientific perennialism
Humans largely share the same brain structures, and thus a commonality of experiences makes sense. A naturalist-perennialist framework that explains this by invoking brain structures, instead of appealing to a transcendent realm we supposedly tap into, seems to fit the data the best. On the other hand, a brain with an upbringing and beliefs will shape the interpretation and possibly the experience itself. How much diversity is present in mysticism? Is the variation in the mystical state negligible and the main source of diversity in the interpretation of the experience? People frequently report these states to have such attributed as ineffability and paradoxicality. This raises some epistemological questions. How can one report on this ineffable state? Why do you have a memory of the experience if the self was obliterated during the episode? I believe that a further neuroscientific study of these phenomena will help clarify how to tackle these questions. I recommend Thomas Metzinger's lecture on Minimal Phenomenal Experience to see a beginning of this.
Prospects of a post-religious spirituality
With religion in decline in the West, I wonder what it will be replaced with. Will we ignore our capacity to experience the "transcendent" or will we integrate this into a secular spirituality where we acknowledge that these are brain states of significant value to us, without believing the supernatural baggage? What will be the role of ritual and community? Neurotheology could help us to understand what happens when religion is in decline by looking at the evolutionary significance of these feelings. It could look at the difference between people that call themselves "spiritual" versus "religious". Contemporary spirituality is a box filled with feel-good "profound" messages. It is vague and ineffective in providing meaning and happiness. The prospect of any serious post-k-religious spirituality doesn't look very bright to me. And if religion is here to stay, at least we will understand the neuroscientific reasons for why God won't go away.
Principles of Neurotheology describes a methodology for neurotheological research. By trying to combine phenomenological and biological perspectives and by using scientific and theological forms of inquiry, it tries to tackle the complex problem of religion from different angles. Newberg points out that neurotheology is not neuroscience of religion, but that it tries to foster dialogue between science and religion.
Unsatisfying neutrality
The supposedly unbiased tone was frustrating sometimes. Newberg is trying too hard to remain uncommited; an unnecessary stance, considering that there is enough evidence to start making claims about the nature and cause of these phenomena. Consider the following historical parallel. Vitalists claimed that the notion of life was not reducible to physical sciences. This "hard problem of life" was not solved, but faded away as science started to make increasingly better predictions about this phenomenon. In the same way, the question of whether religious experiences are caused by the brain or caused by God intervening in the brain is no longer a serious one. Just as temperature is nothing more than mean molecular energy, religious feelings are most likely caused by the brain; no supernatural elements required. Reductionism shouldn't be the boogeyman, if done correctly.
Theological tensions
I came to this book with some a priori beliefs. I don't consider theology (which studies the attributes of the divine) as a serious field. I was looking for neuroscience of religion, not a combination of neuroscience and theology. The weakness of this interdisciplinarity is that the fields are probably incommensurable. Theology talks about concepts that might not exist on a neurological level. The soul or 'the will' won't be found in the brain, because no brain structures correspond to these notions. Going beyond Newberg's neutrality, I do believe that the scientific study of religion can be a threat to religion (especially conservative parts). If believers want to know God as intimitely as possible, and they acknowledge that the brain shapes their experience of the divine, then does this mean that believers should strive for a post-human state where the brain is altered to get to know as many aspects of God as possible? Any absolutist vision of God or a perceived Ultimate Truth will then have to be relativised.
Mysticism: neuroscientific perennialism
Humans largely share the same brain structures, and thus a commonality of experiences makes sense. A naturalist-perennialist framework that explains this by invoking brain structures, instead of appealing to a transcendent realm we supposedly tap into, seems to fit the data the best. On the other hand, a brain with an upbringing and beliefs will shape the interpretation and possibly the experience itself. How much diversity is present in mysticism? Is the variation in the mystical state negligible and the main source of diversity in the interpretation of the experience? People frequently report these states to have such attributed as ineffability and paradoxicality. This raises some epistemological questions. How can one report on this ineffable state? Why do you have a memory of the experience if the self was obliterated during the episode? I believe that a further neuroscientific study of these phenomena will help clarify how to tackle these questions. I recommend Thomas Metzinger's lecture on Minimal Phenomenal Experience to see a beginning of this.
Prospects of a post-religious spirituality
With religion in decline in the West, I wonder what it will be replaced with. Will we ignore our capacity to experience the "transcendent" or will we integrate this into a secular spirituality where we acknowledge that these are brain states of significant value to us, without believing the supernatural baggage? What will be the role of ritual and community? Neurotheology could help us to understand what happens when religion is in decline by looking at the evolutionary significance of these feelings. It could look at the difference between people that call themselves "spiritual" versus "religious". Contemporary spirituality is a box filled with feel-good "profound" messages. It is vague and ineffective in providing meaning and happiness. The prospect of any serious post-k-religious spirituality doesn't look very bright to me. And if religion is here to stay, at least we will understand the neuroscientific reasons for why God won't go away.
July 15, 2022
EDIT: I am rescinding support for the author's later work, Neurotheology, as in a late chapter the author makes the eugenic argument that criminality is determined by brain structure.
[CITATIONS NEEDED]
Skip this book if this topic or author interests you and read Neurotheology instead. The citation here is awful but the author seems to have learned proper citation by his later work.
[CITATIONS NEEDED]
Skip this book if this topic or author interests you and read Neurotheology instead. The citation here is awful but the author seems to have learned proper citation by his later work.
March 30, 2012
Over the past few years I've deeply enjoyed several of the books written by Andrew Newberg, especially those penned with his late collaborator Eugene d'Aquili. Newberg's latest, "Principles of Neurotheology," which he describes as a "principia" for this nascent field which he has done much to advance, left me cold for most of its 266 pages (it felt like many more before I checked). Newberg casts such a broad net that neurotheology might become all things to all its proponents. A cynic might wonder if the field he is mapping isn't the perfect vehicle with which to scoop up Templeton Foundation grants. A more charitable soul might surmise that Newberg either become (or admitted to himself that he is) a deeply religious person and is bending over backwards to leave his spiritual impulse some wiggle room. Things did pick up a bit in chapters 8-10, when it felt like Newberg was returning to his roots as a scientific researcher, but throughout "Principles of Neurotheology" he rarely describes any aspect of the field that wouldn't be better addressed by neurology or theology/philosophy alone. Predictably, some religious reviewers find his latest book too secular while some skeptics find it too religious. Offending both extremes sometimes means you are hewing a middle path, but science is about truth not balance. If you have not read on this topic, or on Newberg and d'Aquili's contributions to the field, I strongly recommend you start with "The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience" or "Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief."
January 9, 2013
Excellent scholarship. A very fine book.
My two stars rating do not reflect the quality of the book but rather my own interests. The book provides an overview of what neurotheological scholarship ought to look like. While there were any number of terrific insights scattered throughout the book, the overall subject matter isn't one I'll (likely) pursue in my life, and only of marginal interest. I would have been happier (as often is the case) with a fundamentally different book--one that, say, summarizes existing findings in the field.
My two stars rating do not reflect the quality of the book but rather my own interests. The book provides an overview of what neurotheological scholarship ought to look like. While there were any number of terrific insights scattered throughout the book, the overall subject matter isn't one I'll (likely) pursue in my life, and only of marginal interest. I would have been happier (as often is the case) with a fundamentally different book--one that, say, summarizes existing findings in the field.
March 16, 2012
Where do I begin? All in all this book, has been a very interesting read, the author has put a lot of thought into it and in large part I believe that author is genuine in his questions and proposals for this new science which I also believe has a lot we need to take into account as the field grows and develops over the years. However, there are some critiques I would like to share first and then I will share some appreciations to conclude this review.
*Philosophical Critiques*
(1) To start I believe the author is taking the Perennial Traditionalist Approach to the treatment of the Religions. I am leery of this approach to doing so, all of the religions shouldn't necessarily be placed side by side for they are different and seek differing ends, they have concepts that sometimes aren't shared or as identitical as we would like to them to be in terms of a scientific "operational definition." Also, there are somethings about his writing that seem to show ignorance on theological side of the science, I sometimes get the impression from the author that he is reading all of Christianity in a more Protestant lense rather than a Catholic Lense.
This concerns me because from the outset of this scientific journey if the understandings are weak then the operational definitions the science will set will be equally weak as well. Therefore, I would propose that, it will be up to each religious tradition to build this foundational bridge, connecting their intellectual/philosophical tradition [if any] to the principles of Neurotheology mentioned in this book to devise a more balanced and well informed scientific investigation. But this would mean then that the science of Neurotheology would then be broken up into Sub-Categories: The Neurotheology of Catholicism, The Neurotheology of Protestantism, The Neurotheology of Buddhism, etc...
I feel that Neurotheology might have more of a sound communion with Catholicism could be mutually beneficial, because science is concerned with Nature and Matter and Catholicism is a very incarnational Faith, which means it affirms nature and affirms the natural person. Whereas other wisdom traditions may put too much emphasis on the Spiritual side to point of neglect of the natural/bodily (e.g. Jainism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, etc...) side on one hand or on the other hand the focus is too bodily/matter focused and thus one is already dead set against The Spiritual Principle (e.g. Epicureanism, Hedonism, etc...).
(2) The Philosophical Foundations seem weak, a modernist philosophical foundation to this approach may lead to showing validity to one side of the investigation, thus favoritism and inherent bias my result. The biggest concern is if the science from its early conception is going to become just informed from either a materialistic reductionism/philosophical materialism becoming biased against The Spirit or if it will attend more so from an accurate methodical naturalism that is open to the Spirit.
For example, I have already seen that he would seem to take a Utilitarian / Evolutionary Reductionism Approach to ethics, in a word, seeing ethics merely as that which enhances our survival and nothing more. I also see that although I'm not sure if he's subtly advocating [at times] a degree of philosophical skepticism or if he is implicitly speaking of the effects of man's fallen nature. Perhaps theres a connection, that mans fallen nature leaves him susceptible to positivism and formal skepticism. The author, I believe is unknowingly making a case for Faith (which ought to be understood as something on the far side of our Reasoning Powers).
From a Catholic perspective, the author ought to inject more of Thomistic realism to the mix, these apparent conflicts are only conflicts in appearance between any neurotheological discoveries, since all Truth is One according to Thomistic thought.Again I am not sure if he's making a case for Subjectivism, Idealism, and Philosophical Skepticism or if he's just trying to remain neutral at times (e.g. seeing that our arguments for God's existence rely on functions of the brain that I am leery of such reductionism, yet it would seem that he forgets in his thoughts that those functions exist in nature and so if they exist they were meant to be for a purpose that goes beyond what humans think).
I tend to say that a man sees a tree and because he sees a tree he can describe it and have a certain dominion over it first before he can doubt whether it is there at all and so for this reason I feel like he is subtly advancing the Philosophical Skepticism of Modernity against the Realism of the Ancients and Medievals. I feel it would make sense to test the theories of the Natural Philosophers who made said religion possible (e.g. Aristotle, Plato, etc... on Christianity), some parts would be harder to integrate from those who believed, but if they had to pick from the Catholic Tradition certainly St. Thomas Aquinas might be best.
(3) I am leery of his position, treating Neurotheology as The "Be-All-End-All" to the discussion of God. Such a position is mighty ambitious, and perhaps has an undercurrent of imperialistic behavior and presumption to it that makes me leery as to how far the science could go, that somehow it could trump Theology and Philosophy.
*The Appreciations*
(1) I do however like the way he was being fair and balanced throughout the book so far, it would seem that he wants to have a large enough diverse audience so as to show impartiality.
(2) Calling said neurological events CORRELATES rather than as CAUSES to spiritual experiences.
(3) In the book he mentions briefly that modern science covers only a portion of Aristotle's notion of science, and that Neurotheology ought to make room for those neglected parts, perhaps serving as a point for other sciences as well to do the same.
*Conclusion*
Therefore, (1) I feel that although he was trying to be impartial the balance he is seeking still must be struck, so that the science can be individuated from other sciences yet integral to the overall legitimate scientific pursuits. (2) This book will make all sides of this issue/topic anxious one minute and the next happy the next. Probably best way to keep read on their toes. (3) Whatever comes of this book, I do know this however, if this field takes itself off the ground, every side from the God debate will be watching and people ought to be informed on the Science, Principles, and Philosophical undercurrents that may influence the interpretation of the data.
I feel that from a Catholic perspective, the author ought to inject more of Thomistic realism to the mix, these apparent conflicts are only conflicts in appearance between any neurotheological discoveries, since all Truth is One according to Thomistic thought, so to go with a story on this issue: "The Rational Scientist, has climbed the mountains of Knowledge and when he reached the top, he saw before him Theologians who have been waiting for him."
*Philosophical Critiques*
(1) To start I believe the author is taking the Perennial Traditionalist Approach to the treatment of the Religions. I am leery of this approach to doing so, all of the religions shouldn't necessarily be placed side by side for they are different and seek differing ends, they have concepts that sometimes aren't shared or as identitical as we would like to them to be in terms of a scientific "operational definition." Also, there are somethings about his writing that seem to show ignorance on theological side of the science, I sometimes get the impression from the author that he is reading all of Christianity in a more Protestant lense rather than a Catholic Lense.
This concerns me because from the outset of this scientific journey if the understandings are weak then the operational definitions the science will set will be equally weak as well. Therefore, I would propose that, it will be up to each religious tradition to build this foundational bridge, connecting their intellectual/philosophical tradition [if any] to the principles of Neurotheology mentioned in this book to devise a more balanced and well informed scientific investigation. But this would mean then that the science of Neurotheology would then be broken up into Sub-Categories: The Neurotheology of Catholicism, The Neurotheology of Protestantism, The Neurotheology of Buddhism, etc...
I feel that Neurotheology might have more of a sound communion with Catholicism could be mutually beneficial, because science is concerned with Nature and Matter and Catholicism is a very incarnational Faith, which means it affirms nature and affirms the natural person. Whereas other wisdom traditions may put too much emphasis on the Spiritual side to point of neglect of the natural/bodily (e.g. Jainism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, etc...) side on one hand or on the other hand the focus is too bodily/matter focused and thus one is already dead set against The Spiritual Principle (e.g. Epicureanism, Hedonism, etc...).
(2) The Philosophical Foundations seem weak, a modernist philosophical foundation to this approach may lead to showing validity to one side of the investigation, thus favoritism and inherent bias my result. The biggest concern is if the science from its early conception is going to become just informed from either a materialistic reductionism/philosophical materialism becoming biased against The Spirit or if it will attend more so from an accurate methodical naturalism that is open to the Spirit.
For example, I have already seen that he would seem to take a Utilitarian / Evolutionary Reductionism Approach to ethics, in a word, seeing ethics merely as that which enhances our survival and nothing more. I also see that although I'm not sure if he's subtly advocating [at times] a degree of philosophical skepticism or if he is implicitly speaking of the effects of man's fallen nature. Perhaps theres a connection, that mans fallen nature leaves him susceptible to positivism and formal skepticism. The author, I believe is unknowingly making a case for Faith (which ought to be understood as something on the far side of our Reasoning Powers).
From a Catholic perspective, the author ought to inject more of Thomistic realism to the mix, these apparent conflicts are only conflicts in appearance between any neurotheological discoveries, since all Truth is One according to Thomistic thought.Again I am not sure if he's making a case for Subjectivism, Idealism, and Philosophical Skepticism or if he's just trying to remain neutral at times (e.g. seeing that our arguments for God's existence rely on functions of the brain that I am leery of such reductionism, yet it would seem that he forgets in his thoughts that those functions exist in nature and so if they exist they were meant to be for a purpose that goes beyond what humans think).
I tend to say that a man sees a tree and because he sees a tree he can describe it and have a certain dominion over it first before he can doubt whether it is there at all and so for this reason I feel like he is subtly advancing the Philosophical Skepticism of Modernity against the Realism of the Ancients and Medievals. I feel it would make sense to test the theories of the Natural Philosophers who made said religion possible (e.g. Aristotle, Plato, etc... on Christianity), some parts would be harder to integrate from those who believed, but if they had to pick from the Catholic Tradition certainly St. Thomas Aquinas might be best.
(3) I am leery of his position, treating Neurotheology as The "Be-All-End-All" to the discussion of God. Such a position is mighty ambitious, and perhaps has an undercurrent of imperialistic behavior and presumption to it that makes me leery as to how far the science could go, that somehow it could trump Theology and Philosophy.
*The Appreciations*
(1) I do however like the way he was being fair and balanced throughout the book so far, it would seem that he wants to have a large enough diverse audience so as to show impartiality.
(2) Calling said neurological events CORRELATES rather than as CAUSES to spiritual experiences.
(3) In the book he mentions briefly that modern science covers only a portion of Aristotle's notion of science, and that Neurotheology ought to make room for those neglected parts, perhaps serving as a point for other sciences as well to do the same.
*Conclusion*
Therefore, (1) I feel that although he was trying to be impartial the balance he is seeking still must be struck, so that the science can be individuated from other sciences yet integral to the overall legitimate scientific pursuits. (2) This book will make all sides of this issue/topic anxious one minute and the next happy the next. Probably best way to keep read on their toes. (3) Whatever comes of this book, I do know this however, if this field takes itself off the ground, every side from the God debate will be watching and people ought to be informed on the Science, Principles, and Philosophical undercurrents that may influence the interpretation of the data.
I feel that from a Catholic perspective, the author ought to inject more of Thomistic realism to the mix, these apparent conflicts are only conflicts in appearance between any neurotheological discoveries, since all Truth is One according to Thomistic thought, so to go with a story on this issue: "The Rational Scientist, has climbed the mountains of Knowledge and when he reached the top, he saw before him Theologians who have been waiting for him."
May 11, 2017
Per chi non sa proprio una sega di Neuroteologia, ma anche in quel caso è largamente evitabile a fronte di altri testi.
August 13, 2015
This book puts up an incredible case for the scholarship of Neurotheology and it really pushes the idea of extensive opportunities to really break some incredible ground. Neurotheology has the potential to flip every single idea that Psychologists and Scientists have about God and how he interacts with his people. I have been inspired to pursue this area in an attempt to change the world and I am extremely excited about the future opportunities available in this field! A great investigation into the 54 principles will most definitely change a few ideas but this text can provide preliminary evidence for the propulsion of this field into scholarship.
March 16, 2019
A drag with redundant information and way too wordy for what supposed to be a scientific piece of work. Andrew's 'recommendations' and directions of future research in neurotheology seemed too confusing and jumbled up. The extent of theological details seemed totally unnecessary given the scope and focus of the book was neurotheology and its research principles.
January 1, 2012
Well researched and if it's a topic you're interested in then it's a good choice. I just don't find it nearly as interesting as I thought it would.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews