Skip to main content

God on the Brain, A Review

A Christian understanding of human nature holds that human beings are made in the image of God. As His image bearers we are created by God with an immaterial soul that survives death. This soul comes with the capacity and moral inclination to know and relate to God. All of this means that for Christians how we regard the relationship between the soul and the brain matters because it affects the validity of the Gospel. 

The good news of Jesus presupposes some fundamental things about our human nature. It assumes that we are moral beings who have fallen off an objective moral standard and in need of forgiveness. It tells us that death is not the end. We must one day give an account. Most importantly, Jesus who is fully God and fully man is our only hope for life with God. 

This good news of Jesus has become increasingly challenged by a materialist worldview of the brain led by secular neuroscientists. They argue that science and faith in God are opposed to one another; religious belief emerges out of an evolutionary need for survival; religious experiences are simply a function of the brain; and, neuroscience disapproves the existence of the human soul. 

Bradley L Sickler’s new book, God on the Brain (2020, Crossway) debunks these ideas. After reviewing each of the secular arguments, he shows us that we can still confidently maintain an orthodox, biblical view of human nature and the trustworthiness of Christian belief. 

Today it is common today for people to say science and science alone can lead to knowledge.  Sickler helpfully reminds us that though Science can give us a certain kind of knowledge it is inadequate for the tasks of living and certainly unable to satisfy our longings. For that, we need the certainty of faith that comes with trusting and knowing Christ. Indeed, all knowledge, properly understood, presupposes the existence of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Drawing on the work of the reformed epistemology, Sickler reminds us that belief in God is properly basic. It is basic because if we do not have to hold it at the end of a chain of reasoning or a lengthy string of inferences. It is properly basic because it is within our epistemic rights to hold because it does not result from faulty memory or any other problematic source. We deserve the confidence we have in our belief in God. 

The Bible presents us with an account of human nature according to which one of our faculties is what is often called the sensus divinitatis. Like our other senses, it is a sort of detector that, when functioning properly and in the right situations, will form properly basic true beliefs in us about God. It is not always in the right kind of setting to be activated, and it isn’t always functioning properly in everyone, but the sensus divinitatis can be a reliable source of knowledge. 

The way to approach the question of belief in God, then, is to affirm with confidence what the Scriptures teach: we are meant to know God, and our knowledge of him is in no way epistemologically disrespectable. The complaint that it fails to meet the strictures of this or that set of criteria is not something to worry about, since those criteria usually don’t even meet their own standards; in addition, they rule out a lot of commonsense knowledge that should be acceptable. 

Moreover, starting with criteria is probably the wrong way to begin anyway. Instead, we build our view of knowledge from the ground up, starting with examples of what we know and seeing what our warranted true beliefs have in common. Using this method and noting the problems with the other approaches, we can safely conclude there is no reason to exclude belief in God as being properly basic. This understanding is not in conflict with the current research in cognitive science. As Christians we are acting perfectly within our epistemic rights and more than meet the requirements of knowledge when we believe in God.

The book more than achieves it’s central of aim of providing a compelling case of why belief in God is not at odds with neuroscience research. Along the way, it makes several crucial observations about science and religion that Christians can deploy in their everyday conversation with those who are skeptical of religious beliefs. Four areas particularly stood out for me. 

First, we can be confident that secular explanations for religious belief rooted in the “evolutionary benefit” argument” are inadequate because even if all of those benefits really do accrue as a result of religion, that by no means indicates that they developed for that reason. The evolutionary benefit argument suffers from the fallacy of thinking that the consequences of an action, even if they are foreknown, are the same as the reasons for that action. 

Crucially, the argument fails to tell us why we have religion and why it is the way it is. It does not explain or account for the mechanisms that lead us to belief to begin with. Indeed, if we were to make a prediction about what human nature would be like if God made it, and the chief end of humanity is to glorify and enjoy God forever, we would expect humans to have an inward compulsion to believe in him. It would be more surprising if God who wanted us to know him made belief too difficult or harmful for most people to hold on to. 

Second, we can be confident that neuroscience research does not provide any credible evidence that religious experiences are simply a function of the brain. The research nowhere studies the encounters mentioned in the Bible which could not be produced on demand to satisfy the curiosity of researchers in a lab. Biblical encounters were with the living and true God and totally the result of God’s initiative, and nothing they could do would be able to generate something similar for the scientists to study. 

Most importantly, if God does exist, then it should come as no surprise that he would make us such that our brains are active when we encounter him. The God revealed in the pages of the Bible has made people with both physical and spiritual dimensions. A person is a mysterious and beautiful embodiment of both the physical and the spiritual working together. If encounters with God are real, we would expect them to engage the brain rather than bypass it. Brain activity, far from being a threat to God, is exactly what we would predict. 

Thirdly, neuroscience has not disapproved the existence of the human soul. Studies on the anthropology of religious belief conclude that “the doctrine of souls” is a basic belief underlying social and religious practices in all human societies. In addition, neuroscience has not been able to give an account of the nature of consciousness.  Similarly, Sickler shows the common argument that souls cannot exist because the non-material cannot causally affect the material is misguided, as is the slight changes argument which argues that minor changes in the brain can be correlated with changes in our mental life. 

Finally, the naturalistic evolutionary approach to the cognitive science of religion undermines our confidence in the conclusions of science. We are often told that science is based on physical evidence. But In fact it is built on a lot of unproven presuppositions e.g. the existence of a theory-independent, external world the orderly nature of the external world, the knowability of the external world, the existence of truth the laws of logic and mathematics, the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as sources of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment the adequacy of language to describe the world, the existence of values used in science and, the uniformity of nature and induction. 

These presuppositions are all held based solely on “what seems to be the case.” It seems like we can trust our senses; mathematics seems to work and make sense; it seems like nature is regular and that induction is reasonable and that we ought to report our findings honestly. But each of those claims is unverifiable directly. In fact, these beliefs are nothing more than “blind faith” because they are beliefs in the absence of any evidence. These things come on us with force and conviction, and they make sense of the world. They provide a cognitive framework for all kinds of useful investigations, and they ground the way we see and understand the world—even our human relationships. 

Religion is under attack because it appeals to unverifiable universals; transcendent, and abstract laws of morality. In general, religious belief appeals to foundational principles that cannot be empirically verified. But the scientific enterprise does the same thing. A building is never more secure than its foundations. Dismissing religious claims because they are not scientific ultimately require dismissing science because it is not scientific either.

But it is not only science that will be in danger. No rational process or way of knowing will be safe if we are cut off in principle from knowing things that cannot be proved through sensory perception. Without some unverifiable assumptions and unobservable foundations, all knowledge will be impossible. If naturalistic evolution is right, we have no reason to believe that any of our cognitive faculties or processes moves us closer to truth. And any argument that they would do so must depend on assuming that they are already reliable and that the arguments they lead us to endorse are trustworthy. 

In general, this book is a great defense of our Christian religious experience. It quite comprehensive covering a lot of difficult topics from cognitive science, neurophysiology, evolutionary morality, and evolutionary psychology. All explained in accessible language, although in one or two places I had to slow right down to take in the technical language. It is after all a topic about brain science! That said there are two areas that a second edition of this book may improve on. 

The first area relates to the audience. It is not easy to figure our who this book is for. I think it is primarily for people who regularly shares the gospel with academic sceptics. That said, parents that have teenagers who are asking difficult science-based questions may also benefit from being it. Our children are picking up strange ideas all the time, so it is good for us to be able to be as informed. That said, I don’t the average person is skeptical about the existence of the human soul. If one is in doubt one only needs to go a funeral. There is plenty of belief in the human soul at funerals. 

The second quibble I have is that the book at the beginning promises to “look at recent scholarship on brains to see how it provides orthodox Christian anthropology with some serious food for thought and, hopefully, develop a framework to think through what it all means”. As I have said, I think it does that. But if I were pedantic, I would say, that the book probably leans more to making a theistic argument rather a distinctly Christian argument. 

The Christian view presented and defended, but it is not sufficiently contrasted with other religious views, except in discussion of religious experience. Similarly, this book does not directly challenge the whole enterprise of evolution. The silence will unfortunately put off some readers. Sickler takes the evolutionary argument as given (without necessarily endorsing it, though if pushed my guess is that he is a theistic evolutionist) and focuses on working within that argument to show, even in a world where human evolution is assumed, one must make room for reality of religious experience and the truth of the Gospel. In that sense, I think some people will find the book slightly defensive than it needs to be. It is perhaps a little more focused on reassuring those who already hold a Christian worldview that the Christian faith makes better sense of the available evidence, than it needs to be. 

That of course is an important job.  It is helpful for followers of Jesus to be reassured of these things because even though we know God is real, we are all experienced doubts from time to time. There are times when we may find ourselves asking, is my belief all in my brain? Is my knowledge of God inferior to other forms of knowledge? To know that our knowledge of God is not only as good as other forms of knowledge, but also that much of what constitutes knowledge is in fact predicated on the knowledge of God is very comforting in our walk with God. It strengthens our faith and trust in Jesus.  And that is probably the best way to summarise this book. It is an excellent book that strengthens our confidence in God. 

Copyright © Chola Mukanga 2020

The above your review was based on a free copy of the book provided byCrossway.


Popular posts from this blog

I Am Mother

I think it is true to say that the Netflix film I Am Mother is one the most disturbing movies I have watched for a long time. The film is set in a near future. Human life has been wiped out. An artificial intelligence (AI) called Mother is living inside a bunker where thousands of embroyos are stored. It selects an embryo and initiates a program to grow a baby within 24 hours. The AI then goes on to raise the child as its mother over the next few years.  After 16 years, the girl, who now goes by the name of Daughter (Clara Rugaard) is a teenager. She has never been outside because Mother has told her that the air is toxic. Her time is spend being home schooled in science and ethics so that she can become a perfect human being. The bond between Daughter and Mother is unusually strong. To our surprise there does not appear to be any mental or pyschological trauma of having a machine as her mother.  The strength of the bond between man and machine is tested when a nameless Woman (Hilary

What is the best preparation for preaching?

The best preparation is not to be too anxious about it. Anxious care hinders liveliness and efficacy. It leads to too little dependence on the Spirit. Be not didactic. Aim at the conscience as soldiers aim at the faces. Consider I may be preaching my last sermon. This leads to setting forth Christ as The Way, the Truth and the Life . .. Make Christ the prominent figure…Pay less attention to dear self. JOHN NEWTON

White Fragility, A Review

Robin DiAngelo has a sermon to preach. It is in form of a short popular book called White Fragilit y. Straight off the bat she tells us not to expect balanced analysis but a forceful argument “unapologetically rooted in identity politics”.  She understands identity politics as “the [political] focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality”. The group she wants to save is black people, whom she blankets under “people of colour”.  So what is White Fragility about?  DiAngelo is sick and tired of white racism in the western world, and specifically the USA. She believes every white person, including babies, are guilty of racism by virtue of being white. So she wants to use her “insider status” as a white American woman to challenge this white racism by getting her fellow “white progressives” to force forward her thesis. In her words, “I am white...and I am mainly writing to a white audience”. I was immediately tempted to put down the book because being black Afri