(1/7/01)

.

.

.

p. 185: “No matter what degree of complexity the nervous system has attained or will attain in the future, this complexity never implies in itself the existence of subjective awareness…. There is no reason why subjective awareness should, in fact, exist.”

RESPONSE: That seems like a totally unsupportable statement. Since we know so little about consciousness, to say there is no reason for it is highly conjectural. I myself believe consciousness is necessary to make non-automatic choices. Should this turn out to be the case it would not be a trivial attribute of consciousness in evolutionary terms.

In my mind awareness is what happens when this process goes on. It is not some mystical state achieved to allow this to happen.

p. 185: “It would seem that subjective awareness is epiphenomenal. Again, why should such an epiphenomenal reality exist at all? We do not claim to have the answer to this question, but we are left with a mystery and a fundamental paradox.”

RESPONSE: In my mind the paradox is created by the way the authors defined the issues. I don’t believe there is a paradox.

p. 186: “It seems to us that if we start our philosophical analysis with the reality of matter and the external world, then there are fundamentally two great discontinuities in the universe. The first discontinuity is the big bang, or more specifically, why there is something rather than nothing. This is, of course, the question that plagued Martin Heidegger and many philosophers since. The second great discontinuity in the physical universe is the existence of subjective awareness. It simply represents an unexplainable jump from material organization to a level of reality of another order, analogous to the jump from nothing to something. Again, we must keep in mind that all these statements are true only if we assume the primacy of material reality as our philosophical starting point.”

RESPONSE: In the absence of knowledge how can we describe something unknown as a discontinuity? Considering the last 400-year history of science it seems very risky to justify worldviews based on our current ignorance, especially when there is no justification for doing so other than one’s cultural traditions. Beyond that what does “discontinuity” mean in this context? It seems to me that it gets back to lack of understanding and definition. It seems likely to me that we will never understand completely this universe should our species survive for a billion years. So what? It is our home and has all the things we need to live wonderfully and well when we focus on living this life as we evolved to live and not get distracted by fantasies that bubble up from our undisiplined thoughts.

Discontinuities or not we still have the same challenge, how to help our species survive and advance. And that is the issue that gives our lives purpose and meaning. And belief in the reality of the feelings produced by “the mystical mind” will not help us in this effort, but only confuse thinking abut what we need to be doing.

p. 186: “If the traditional definition of truth as the adaequatio intellectus ad rem [“conformity of the intellect to reality,” or “a conformity between the intellect and reality.”] be taken at all seriously, then truth can be at best an approximation, perhaps a fairly weak one at that.”

RESPONSE: Which is of course the position of Science of Ethics. Knowledge, not Truth is the goal. How can we use whatever knowledge we have to help each person achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning is what drives Science of Ethics.

p. 186: “From the point of view of any careful conscious examiner of the world, the only thing that is certain is that all aspects of material reality, including the laws of science and the mind/body itself, exist within subjective awareness. Whether they have any other substantive reality is an open question, but what is certain is that they exist within awareness.”

RESPONSE: For those who accept a Science of Ethics it does not seem an unreasonable leap of faith to assume that the world shown to us by our senses does in fact exist though not necessarily as we interpret our perceptions. A goal of science is to compare what we perceive about objective reality in every way we can learn to do in order to increase our knowledge about it so we can use that knowledge to improve the quality of our collective lives.

p. 187: “What are the advantages and disadvantages of starting our analysis of the relationship of subjective awareness to external material reality by granting the primacy to subjective awareness? The greatest advantage is that the problem of explaining the development of subjective awareness evaporates because subjective is the fundamental given matrix that permeates everything…. From this perspective, all of physical reality exists in present subjective awareness, including the knowing brain, all the laws of science, the compelling sense of the otherness of external material reality, of a past of completed events, and of a future of possible ones…. As disagreeable as such an epistemological position might be to those of us trained in Western science, it is the only possible rigorous stance unless one wishes to make a complete act of faith that the vivid sense of the otherness of external reality, which certainly exists in subjective awareness, reflects an isomorphic referent outside of subjective awareness. From a pragmatic point of view, such an act of faith is not so terrible. But if one wishes to take a rigorous phenomenological approach, it is clearly impossible to get outside of subjective awareness to determine the existence of a corresponding alternate reality. One clear advantage of approaching the problem through the priority of subjective awareness is that, in such a system, there are no discontinuities.”

RESPONSE: Can one but scratch one’s head after reading the above and wonder what state a person’s thinking must be in to say, “it is the only possible rigorous stance unless one wishes to make a complete act of faith that the vivid sense of the otherness of external reality, which certainly exists in subjective awareness, reflects an isomorphic referent outside of subjective awareness.” And why, pray-tell, would one even consider taking a “rigorous phenomenological approach” when it moves one toward such a view? I can only conclude that should a person find comfort in the gods, they can find ways to justify that desire.

In my mind Science of Ethics cuts through all this dancing around in the obvious way, by recognizing that human beings are the ultimate reference system. This act ties everything together and at the same time gets rid of all the Gods. It recognizes that there is indeed an objective reality. That we can understand to varying degrees the reality which provides the milieu in which we live. That we can utilize the real world to develop our full positive potential. That the foregoing is true because we evolved in that milieu and can with the proper effort determine how we must interact with it for our own welfare.

p. 188: “The major disadvantage of such an approach is solipsism, or rather, not so much solipsism itself, but solipsistic behavior. If indeed there is a world of other subjectively aware beings as external realities with whom the subjectively aware philosopher must interact as if they have individual external integrity, then any behavior based on a solipsistic belief must appear psychotic.”

RESPONSE: How true! And for me this is why human beings as the ultimate reference system is so appealing. It is able to deal with all levels of reality, including “the mystic mind.”

p. 192: Some “alternate phases of consciousness… appear to be ‘more real’ than baseline reality and are vividly described as such by experiencers after they return to baseline reality. This observation is true… of the experience of AUB; it is true of cosmic consciousness, certain trance states, hyperlucid visions (usually of religious figures, religious symbols, and dead persons), and the core near-death experience (NDE).”

p. 192: “Again, if it is true that all of the proposed criteria by which reality is judged to be real can be reduced to the vivid sense of reality, then we have no choice but to conclude that in some sense, these states are, in fact, more real that the baseline reality of our everyday lives.”

RESPONSE: This is of course why the rational mind and the findings of science are so important. They provide us a way to understand that our minds can mislead us as well as lead us. The “mystical” mind provides experiences that we need our rational mind to interpret. When we have failed to develop our rational mind so it can provide that guidance we become victims of our “tribal” propensities, just as much as the person who would kill and terrorize others in order to rule over them.

p. 193: “But there is a strange theological conclusion to be drawn from the fact that individuals and cultures have an irreducible choice whether ‘external’ reality or ‘subjective’ consciousness is primary. In the first case, one can conclude with certainty that the concept and experience of God, and all religious phenomenology, are generated by the brain and nervous system. In the second case, one can conclude with equal certainly, from a rigorous phenomenological reflection on experiences, that God (absolute unitary being or pure consciousness) generates the world (including the brain) and subjective experience itself. Since it is in principle impossible to determine which starting point is more ‘fundamental,’ external reality or the awareness of the knower, one is forced to conclude that both conclusions about God (AUB) are in a profound and fundamental sense true – namely, that God is created by the world (the brain and the rest of the central nervous system) and that the world is created by God.”

RESPONSE: I would hope that Science of Ethics would help all persons to realize whatever their feelings about mystical experiences, in the final analysis all they are, are feelings. If one chooses to take them as showing a world more real than the world of evolution of our species and our responsibility to maintain and develop it, then they have been misled by their language ability, the very thing that provides us a special standing in the universe.

p. 195: “As we described at the beginning of the preceding chapter, a metatheology can be understood as the overall principles underlying any and all religions or ultimate belief systems and their theologies. A metatheology comprises both the general principles describing and, implicitly, the rules for constructing any concrete theological system. In and of itself, a metatheology is devoid of theological content, since it consists of rules and descriptions about how any and all specific theologies are structured. We propose that neurotheology, as presented in this book, is the best current contender for the title of ‘ultimate metatheology.’ Indeed, barring a major Kuhnian shift in fundamental scientific paradigms, it is hard to see how neurotheology, in principle at least, can fail to constitute an ultimate metatheology. While building the case for neurotheology, most of this book has been, in fact, elaborating a metatheology. In other words, the principles by which any and all theologies are formulated are contained within the structure and function of the mind/brain as described in the previous chapters.”

RESPONSE: Well, I vote for a major Kuhnian shift in fundamental scientific paradigms since that is the goal of Science of Ethics. The authors take the practices and procedures of folk religions as the “religious paradigm.” As a result they totally miss the naturalistic dimension that underlies their paradigm. Therefore, their results end up creating a fantastically useful model making clear why one must avoid interpreting “the mystical mind” as anything more than something the brain does under certain circumstances.

p. 195: “An ultimate metatheology must account for three things. First, it must describe how and why foundational, creation, and soteriological [spiritual salvation especially through Jesus] myths are formed. Second, it must describe how and why such myths are elaborated into complex logical systems that we call specific theologies. Third, it must describe how and why the basic myths and certain aspects of their theological elaborations are objectified in the motor behavior that we call ceremonial ritual.”

RESPONSE: Certainly to understand the physiology of folk religions is very valuable. However, for me the biggest value of this is to clarify the inadequacy of folk religions at their very base, and to clear the ground for a Science of Ethics based on that which is underneath these mechanism; i.e., meaning of human life.

p. 196: “Neurotheology addresses these three demands of metatheology by referring to three basic neuropsychological explanatory elements of the mind/brain:

1. The cognitive imperative [ingrained need in human beings to organize their world cognitively]
2. The cognitive operators
3. Arousal/quiescent states and rhythmicity”

p. 196: “As we have explained, the cognitive imperative provides the motive force for explaining any phenomenon or series of phenomena either simply or systematically… The predominant operator activated by the cognitive imperative is the causal operator… Only the artificial scientific social contract that developed in seventeenth-century Europe, and by which natural philosophers refrained from positing any initial terminus unless it was observed or immediately inferable from sense-data, prevents modern science from generating gods, demons, and other power sources. It appears, however, that the mind/brain naturally posits such entities. Even the most rational of scientists and philosophers must occasionally construct and deal with such entities, if only in their dreams.”

RESPONSE: Well! There it is. “Only the artificial scientific social contract that developed in seventeenth-century Europe, and by which natural philosophers refrained from positing any initial terminus unless it was observed or immediately inferable from sense-data, prevents modern science from generating gods, demons, and other power sources.” The statement is true. However, the authors feel that this “artificial scientific social contract” now needs to be abandoned in order to have the perceptions of “the mystical mind” considered on a par with science!

And obviously they are not alone in this effort. Presumably there exists a hard core of dedicated scientists committed to putting science back into the realm of mysticism and under the control of our “tribal” propensities rather than our “wisdom” potential. Science of Ethics is submitted in opposition to this approach. When one recognizes “the mystical mind” for what it is through the processes of science -- which the authors very fairly provide all the data necessary to do this -- then it seems clear to me that Science of Ethics provides a superior approach.

p. 197: “Since theology is based on logic and deductive reasoning the causal operator (this time operating on abstract concepts), the abstractive operator, and the quantitative operator are all integral to the formation of the organized body of knowledge that we have traditionally called a theology.”

RESPONSE: But since each theology is committed to its own foundational myths there is no way for it to escape that. And even if some persons do discard the foundational myths and attempt to use metatheology and megatheology as the authors propose, they would not be moving in the best direction. They are still following their “tribal” propensities rather than their “wisdom” potential.

Therefore, the guidance they receive in life decisions is limited and no better than what folk religions have provided in the past. The primary benefit to society is that this will tend to help these persons attain a mellow mood till they die. And, there may be many who would prefer this approach to the Science of Ethics approach. In one regard there shouldn’t be a problem with this since this approach will not appeal to persons with a fundamentalist mind set so persons following this approach would not be a threat to human progress as religious fundamentalists are. And if they can be attracted to Science of Ethics rather than fundamentalist folk religions then there is hope that humanity will soon fulfill its evolutionary potential.

p. 198: “Since all religions present their myths, and to some extent their theologies within some sort of ritual context… any inclusive metatheology must account for human ceremonial ritual. We have seen the effect of slow and fast rhythmicity on arousal/quiescent states and ultimately on the generation of pleasurable experiences, from mild satisfaction to ecstatic bliss. We have also seen how this rhythmic, arousal/quiescent system can briefly activate the holistic operator, generating powerfully unitary as well as pleasurable experiences…. union of elements that are logically opposed…. provide experiences that are among the most intense that a religion can provide for one of its practitioners.”

p. 198: “Last, any metatheology must account for intense mystical experiences derived from meditation and to some extend from prayer. In chapter 6, we proposed neurophysiological mechanism that account for all of the major religious and spiritual experiences generated by the mystical mind.”

p. 198: “We can see that neurotheology constitutes a great formal apparatus that is required for the structure and understanding of any specific myth, its theological elaboration, and its incarnation and resolution in ceremonial ritual, as well as the otherworldly, transcendent, or mystical experiences that certain practitioners of all religions enjoy. Although neurotheology as a metatheology is devoid of specific theological content, neurotheology is full of content at the level of the neuropsychology that both underlies and constitutes it.”

RESPONSE: The authors’ models seem to me to be compelling. They appear to tie together all the elements of “religious” experiences in a very thorough way. They help us to understand why folk religions work and probably why the more advanced folk religions are able to win converts from less sophisticated religions. Also why persons who are deeply enmeshed in a folk religion may not be able to give it up easily.

p. 198: Megatheology: “Just as metatheology is devoid of content, a megatheology should contain content of such a universal nature that it could be adapted by most, if not all, of the world’s great religions as a basic element without any serious violation of their essential doctrines. Alternately, a megatheology should have such universal content that it could be used as the basis for the development of a new specific theology, one, it is to be hoped, more universal in nature than those arising from the cultural exigencies of humanity’s remote past.

RESPONSE: A fascinating proposal! But I haven’t yet figured our what it means.

p. 199: “As we have seen, hyperlucid unitary states derive from various causes – meditation, effective ceremonial ritual, severe fasting or ascetic practices, and spontaneous mystical experiences. Major examples of such hyperlucid unitary states are vivid mystical visions, sensorially constellated archetypes, a vivid sense of the unity of being (cosmic consciousness), and absolute unitary being. Although it is true that all such hyperlucid unitary states have their basis in neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and the flux of neurohumoral transmitters, it is equally true that baseline reality, or what we have called ordinary lucid consciousness, which both the average person and the average scientist construe to be really real, nevertheless is based on exactly the same parameters. Simply put, one can never get at what is ‘really out there’ without its being processed, one way or another, through the brain.”

RESPONSE: True. Human beings are the ultimate reference system, and until we realize what this means we will be misled by writings such as the above.

p. 199: “So what criteria can we use to evaluate whether God, other hyperlucid unitary experiences, or our everyday world is more ’real’? Can we use our subjective sense of the absolute certainty of the objective reality of our everyday world to establish that that world is ‘really real’?”

p. 199: “If we use the criterion… of the sense of certainty of the objective reality of AUB, it wins hands down.”

RESPONSE: Then obviously we must use another criterion.

p. 199-200: “From the point of view of neuropsychology, AUB is likely ‘caused’ by the total deafferentation of the orientation association areas on both the left and right side…. But we must keep in mind that baseline reality is a cognized environment and, as such, is molded by brain mechanisms just as hyperlucid unitary states are. As we noted in chapter 10, this is the point at which a strict neuropsychological analysis grinds to a halt. We are forced to move to a phenomenological analysis of these various states (including baseline reality) in order to determine what reality might mean and whether it has degrees.”

RESPONSE: As indicated before the only reason one would be “forced to move to a phenomenological analysis of these various states” would be if they wanted to load the dice and give the products of “the mystical mind” some standing where otherwise it would be obvious that this is a brain state just as the perceptions provided by baseline reality are brain states. What we make of them depends on bringing all the tools we have available to bear on the issue just as we would on any other.

p. 200: “We would maintain there is no way to determine whether the various hyperlucid unitary states or baseline reality are more ‘real,’ beyond the sense of reality described in Chapter 10. In other words, outside of consideration of the sense of reality, we cannot tell which state represents more fundamental ontological reality without first making gratuitous and unsubstantiated assumptions. This being the case, it is foolish reductionism indeed that states that because hyperlucid unitary consciousness can be understood in terms of neuropsychological processes, it is therefore derived from baseline reality. Indeed the reverse argument could be made just as well. Neuropsychology can give no answer as to which state is more real, baseline reality (coherent, lucid consciousness) or hyperlucid unitary consciousness. As we have seen, a phenomenological analysis renders reality as the sense of reality. So, phenomenological analysis must yield hyperlucid states as more real. But in terms of neuropsychology, we are reduced to saying that each is real in its own way and for its own adaptive ends. This may not be epistemologically satisfying, but up to now any alternative has escaped us. We suspect that this is because of an inherent indeterminacy in brain functioning.”

RESPONSE: In my mind it is due to the functioning of the brains of the authors. For whatever reasons they have been attracted by mysticism, and have been able to justify that attraction through tackling the issue in just that way that appears to support it. But should one choose to take a naturalistic approach, all the mysticism disappears once one accepts that human beings are the ultimate reference system, and they are a product of an evolutionary past, and exist in a world where all mysticism is in our brains as a result of that evolutionary history.

p. 201: “It [AUB] is almost universally described as being pure consciousness. It is clearly not local consciousness or subjective awareness. Individuals who have experienced AUB curiously describe it as neither subjective nor objective. Most would describe local consciousness as subjective and external reality as objective. But AUB appears to be logically, and perhaps ontologically, anterior to the categories of subjective and objective. What is shocking, and certainly counterintuitive, is that this pure consciousness, apparently undivided and unenduring in time, this nonsubjective and nonobjective entity, is real. At least, according to the only criterion by which we can judge reality, AUB is more ‘really real’ than any other known phase of consciousness. At this point, one cannot refrain from asking, ‘Are we looking at God?’ To go beyond this point is to speculate. But perhaps some speculation based on the reality of what we have presented thus far is not amiss. First of all, there is the temptation to speculate that, since AUB or pure consciousness is not experienced as either subjective or objective, the subjective and objective arise from it…. Therefore, the two worlds, which at times seem to us incommensurable, may in fact relate to each other by both arising from a pure and creative consciousness.”

RESPONSE: And of course one is produced when the brain is processing input from our sense organs and the other when no such input is available so it’s functioning in the absence of input. In a very real sense this is “experiencing God.” So now we know more clearly where one of the aspects of God came from and why the idea is so widespread within our species. This also makes clear why all the answers we get from God have never been any better than the human mind creating them.

p. 201: “One further speculation is permitted to us on the basis of the empirical observation that AUB comes in two forms. The absolute unity and simplicity of AUB can be perceived as suffused with positive affect. In such a case, the experience, whether Hindu, Sufi, or Christian, experiences AUB as personal and generally refers to it as God. The timeless and perfect simplicity of AUB can also be experienced suffused with neutral affect. This most often happens in the Buddhist tradition and is described after the fact as nonpersonal or void consciousness. One wonders whether it would be helpful in constructing a megatheology to see void consciousness as the anterior nature of God and to see AUB suffused with positive affect or bliss as the posterior nature of God. The anterior nature of God would represent total and infinite conscious potentiality, as counterintuitive as the juxtaposition of the notions of consciousness and potentiality may be. The posterior nature of God might be seen as the total actuality. Thus, the phrase ‘anterior and posterior natures of God’ is theological language reflecting the empirically different affects associated with the perfect unity and perfect simplicity of AUB arising out of different traditions. The concepts of an anterior and posterior nature of God, the one representing the total potential consciousness and the other representing totally inclusive actuality, have the virtue of being able to unite God seekers and void consciousness seekers in one superordinate conceptual framework.”

RESPONSE: In my mind a more appropriate speculation is that the experience is merely the brain functioning in the absence of external input. The cultural traditions that provide the expectations for interpretation of experiences lead those looking for God to find God, and those seeking Nirvana to find it.

p. 206: “The mystical mind must be understood as either more real or as real as baseline reality when recalled from baseline reality.”

p. 206: “Thus, it seems that in spite of the fondest hopes of eighteenth century philosophes and nineteenth-century materialist scientists, religion and theology will not go away. The reason is that, if we take external reality as primary for our ontology, then God appears to be ‘hard-wired’ into the brain. On the other hand, if we take subjective awareness as having ontological primacy, then a phenomenological analysis of altered phases of consciousness reveals that certain individuals experience God, as the absolute unitary being (AUB), as a primary epistemic/ ontological state. While the state of AUB occurs in very few individuals, other hyperlucid states occur in many. These non-AUB hyperlucid states are not understood to be the direct experience of God… but they are, nevertheless, extremely powerful unitary/epistemic/ontological states. Since neuropsychology not only can document the possibility of these hyperlucid states existing in terms of what is currently known about neurophysiology, but also is now beginning to demonstrate their reality (as neuropsychological states) in current brain-imaging studies, contemporary philosophy and science are forced to take them seriously. One can no longer dismiss the description of such states in the world’s religious and mystical literature as the ‘silly imaginings of religious nuts.’ They must be accounted for and their claims and practical implications carefully examined.”

RESPONSE: I would agree with the authors that religion is unlikely to disappear in the near future. However, I would like to believe that folk religions will begin to be replaced by natural religions drawing from Science of Ethics in the coming centuries. If that were to happen theology would move into the realm of astrology, alchemy, and with the other studies based on the mystical. As I’ve said before God is certainly not “hard-wired” into the human brain. My working hypothesis is that God gets entangled in the belief in magic and the power of wishing propensity like so much of the rest of what makes up any folk religion.

There is no question in my mind that the basic ideas the authors present in this book are correct. However, once they accept phenomenology as having some validity in interpreting brain states, they move from relevance to interesting (interesting as another example of good minds gone bad).

So, the states experienced by “the mystical mind” are very real. They have something important to tell us about human evolution. But if folk religions are to progress to become natural religions these states are then barriers to progress.

p. 206: “As presented in this book, there is increasing evidence that these states are associated with particular brain states. In fact, the brain may have evolved in such a way that these experiences were possible.”

RESPONSE: And as I’ve indicted elsewhere I tend to agree with this line of conjecture. In my best thinking these states comes out of a “tribal” (genetic) propensity to believe in magic and the power of wishing. And this propensity exists because it had survival value for our ancestors in terms of encouraging them to struggle on even when things seemed hopeless.

p. 207: “Neurotheology… suggests that the reality of the mystical mind is crucial to the development of religion and spirituality.”

RESPONSE: And the foregoing would seem to be true when that religion and spirituality is based on mysticism. But when we are talking about a natural religion and spirituality that goes beneath the mystical level to the naturalistic level, then things must be interpreted in a very different way. And that is the level of interpretation that Science of Ethics brings to the discussion.

p. 207: “The second practical implication deriving from neurotheology is that the general structures of theology and religion necessarily arise from the functioning of the human brain. We have seen that the functioning of the various operators lays the foundations for numerous theological concepts as well as the spiritual components of religion. The individual aspects of a particular religion and theology are then determined by the cultural and societal milieu. Thus, neurotheology offers a thoroughly integrated approach to understanding religion, spirituality, and theology, in terms of their general as well as their specific aspects.”

RESPONSE: And hopefully when this is understood individuals will also understand that these things are brain states generated by the way the brain works and have nothing to do with the real world, other than in the way they are interpreted. And that is the only way I see to get around the divisiveness of the cultural and societal foundational myths of each folk religion.

p. 207: “Another interesting conclusion drawn from neurotheology is that ritual is an extremely powerful technology that in itself is neither good nor bad.”

RESPONSE: I would not agree that the preceding conclusion is valid. Up to this time the power of ritual has been used to tie the individual into a particular formulation of a folk religion with absolutely no aspect that prepares them to discard the mystical for the naturalistic. Any who move in that direction do so in spite of the rituals, not because of their beneficial effects. So I would have to say up to this point the effects have been bad to the degree that they have limited thinking. If they can be used differently that effect remains to be substantiated though humanistic psychology may have some evidence in that direction.

p. 208-209: “It is fashionable in certain circles to maintain that traditional religions have outlived their usefulness and that they are no longer adaptive in modern technological society. Given the well-winnowed quality of traditional religions, their surprising endurance over even the most hostile of times, and the tight mesh between religiously motivated behaviors and generally successful adaptation to the cultural environment, it is probably extremely dangerous to write off traditional religions as anachronistic. It is with this caution in mind that we suggest that those who are persuaded by neurotheology and its megatheology first consider realigning themselves with their faith community of origin before considering developing their own specific theology based on this megatheology.”

RESPONSE: Certainly anyone who writes off folk religions is treading on dangerous ground where legions have been wrong in the past. My hope is that Science of Ethics can write a new chapter ending a 3,000-year period of the effort to replace the mystical with the natural. Hopefully, d’Aquili and Newberg’s efforts in allowing us to see how the “mystical” mind works will prove helpful in opening a new chapter on humanity’s progress.

p. 209: “Whether because of early emotional abuse or because of the development of issues that appear to become more one of intellectual honesty than of mental reservation, it may be impossible for certain individuals to be spiritually nourished by their faith community of origin, even when they reinterpret it through the perspective of neurotheology. Such individuals have little choice but to construct their own theology or their own life path, ideally one based on a meaningful megatheology such as that derived from the neurotheological considerations put forth in this book.

RESPONSE: I would hope rather that these persons will find in Science of Ethics whatever they need to answer the motivations that move them to search for answers to replace what they have discarded. With the efforts of such persons perhaps we can assemble structures to help humanity grow and prosper not only in the 21st Century but also in all the centuries that lie ahead.

p. 210: “Our hesitancy [to suggest that everyone construct their own personal theology] derives from a bit of wisdom possessed by all the world’s great religions, namely that the greatest enemy of access to the divine or to wisdom or to enlightenment is ego. Ego is rapacious, self-seeking, hedonistic, acquisitive, materialistic, and above all else, proud… The lone individual… is in grave danger of constructing a personal theology that ends in the worship and love of ego rather than of God.”

RESPONSE: May Science of Ethics make clear what it means to love and worship oneself in such a way that the self will indeed be served and helped to avoid all the pitfalls laid for us by our “tribal” propensities not the least of which is God!

p. 210: “That which gives religious poetry and metaphor its meaning is real in an absolute, ultimate, and unconditional way, as the experience of AUB clearly demonstrates.”

RESPONSE: Since human beings are the ultimate reference system it is critical that they not get diverted by the workings of “the mystical mind” from becoming what their unique nature makes possible. The “mystical mind” was necessary to get us to this point, but is now an impediment that can seriously threaten our survival and ability to reach the light at the end of the tunnel.

p. 211: “Thus, the mystical mind has led us down a new and fascinating path toward the understanding of human beings and their relationships to religion, spirituality, and God. As we stated in our dedication, we certainly believe that neurotheology can help open us to a greater sense of… the tremendous and spellbinding mystery – and to the awareness that we, who are brought together in a love of truth, are the mystical minds seeking that mystery.”

RESPONSE: My hope is that this gigantic effort by d’Aquili and Newberg to understand and explain the “mystical mind” will indeed help to lead us down a “new and fascinating path.” Hopefully, once an individual understands the neurological mechanisms that underlie folk religions and God, they would see things differently from the way the authors have. I would expect at least some persons once they understand the naturalistic basis for these approaches to be ready to discard them. At that point perhaps Science of Ethics might be helpful to them in focusing their energy on helping to ensure the perpetuation of our species in such a way that all persons will be able to achieve their full positive potential.

.

.

1. “THE MYSTICAL MIND: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience,” Eugene d’Aquili and Andrew B. Newberg, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1999.

2. LIFE AT DEATH: A Scientific Investigation of the Near-Death Experience, Kenneth Ring, Quill Publisher, New York, 1980.

3. NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, NEUROPSYCHIATRY, And BEHAVIORAL NEUROLOGY, Rhawn Joseph, Plenum Press, New York, 1990.

4. “Right Hemisphere Lateralization for Emotion in the Human Brain: Interactions with Cognitions,” SCIENCE 190; p. 286-288; Gary Schwartz, Richard Davidson, and Foster Maer; 1975.

5. CULTURE AND PERSONALITY, Anthony Wallace, Random House, New York, 1961.

6. Franz Alexander,

7. THE UNIVERSE, THE ELEVENTH DIMENSION, AND EVERYTHING: What We Know and How We Know It,” p. 144, Richard Morris, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1999.

8. Richard Morris, op. cit., p. 146.