What Science? Who's Theology? A Reformed Theological Response to Andrew Newberg's ...

144 Pages·2015·2.54 MB·English

What Science? Who’s Theology? A Reformed Theological Response to
Andrew Newberg’s Neurotheological Model
By
Dubois du Toit
Student No: 15184323
Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Theology at the University of Stellenbosch
Department of Systematic Theology
Promoter: Dr. Dion Forster
March 2016
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Declaration
I, the undersigned, Dubois du Toit, hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis is my
own original work and it has not been submitted previously in its entirety or in part at any
university or college for a degree.
Signature: Dubois du Toit
Date: March 2016
Copyright © 2016 Stellenbosch University
All rights reserved
i
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Abstract
Religious, mystical and spiritual experiences are some of the most important and complex
experiential qualities of human life. It has always been our greatest endeavour to make sense of
our reality, and these experiences have permeated our theories, analogies and theologies since
the beginning. The rise of the modern scientific enterprise has given us access to previously
unattainable perspectives and insights into just how significantly these experiences influence us
on a psycho-somatic level. In no other field of study has this investigation seen more prominent
development than in the neural sciences. Their studies and findings gave us the opportunity to
engage our experiences critically, but researchers started asking questions regarding the
experiences’ causal nexus as well – where some even dismissed them as an evolutionary by-
product of brain function. In reaction to this position, a new field of study emerged that
endeavours to reconcile the scientific study and theology of these experiences, namely,
neurotheology. Andrew Newberg, a proponent of neurotheology, is currently spearheading an
attempt to establish neurotheology as a autonomous discipline. However, his perspectives on
the goals, principles and neurological basis of a neurotheology raise some concern from both the
scientific and theological communities.
Thus, it will be the task of this study to critically evaluate Newberg’s neurotheology from different
interactive perspectives, while focussing on the relevance of its contribution and possible
relationship with regards to neuroscience and theology. In order to undertake this task it is
necessary to provide a few frameworks which will be able to accommodate neurotheology,
neuroscience and theology. An argument will be made for the specific use of a cognitive
neuroscientific and critical reformed theological model with respect to the unique thrust of this
study.

ii
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Opsomming
Godsdienstige, mistieke en spirituele ervaringe is van die belangrikste en mees komplekse
ervarings-kwaliteite van die mensdom. Dit was nog altyd ons grootste strewe om sin te maak van
ons werklikheid. Hierdie ervaringe het van die begin af ons teoretiese, analogiese en teologiese
refleksies deurspek. Met die opkoms van die moderne wetenskap het ons toegang verkry tot
voorheen verskuilde perspektiewe en insigte, tot hoe noemenswaardig die psigosomatiese
impak van hierdie ervaringe op ons is. In geen ander studieveld het hierdie ondersoek meer
prominente vooruitgang getoon as in die neurale wetenskappe nie. Hul studies en bevindings het
ons die geleentheid gegee om krities om te gaan met ons ervaringe, maar die navorsers het begin
vra na die kousaliteit hierin betrokke – dit het sommige gelei om die ervarings bloot te ontslaan
as ’n byproduk van die brein se funksie. In reaksie hiertoe het ’n nuwe veld ontluik wat streef om
die wetenskaplike studie en die teologie van hierdie ervaringe te versoen, naamlik,
neuroteologie. Andrew Newberg, ’n voorstander van neuroteologie, is tans besig met ’n poging
om neuroteologie te bevestig as ’n navorsingsveld uit eie reg. Sy perspektiewe op die
doelstellings, beginsels en neurale begronding van neuroteologie het egter kommer gewek
vanuit die wetenskaplike en teologiese gemeenskappe.
Dit sal dus die taak van hierdie studie wees om Newberg se neuroteologie krities te evalueer
vanaf verskeie interaktiewe perspektiewe, terwyl daar gefokus word op die relevansie van sy
bydrae en die moontlike verhouding ten opsigte van neurowetenskap en die teologie. Met die
blik op hierdie onderneming sal dit nodig wees om ’n aantal raamwerke te voorsien wat in staat
sal wees om neuroteologie, neurowetenskap en teologie te akkommodeer. ’n Argument sal
gemaak word vir die spesifieke gebruik van ’n kognitiewe neurowetenskaplike en ’n kritiese
gereformeerde teologiese model, met betrekking tot die unieke invalshoek van hierdie studie.

iii
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Acknowledgements
I am eternally indebted to every person that spoke a word of comfort or encouragement towards
me, during the time I was writing this thesis. I specifically want to thank my wife for all the
understanding and support – she has definitely been my greatest cheerleader. I would also like
to thank my family – biological and in-laws – and friends, for their continued interest, patience
and intercessory praying toward the completion of my studies.
A special note of thanks for the guidance, patience, motivation and insights I received from Dr.
Dion Forster. He is truly an inspiration, and an unmistakable asset for theological scholarship at
Stellenbosch University.
Lastly, and most importantly, I submit my everlasting gratitude to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus
Christ; all I am, and have, and could ever hope to be is by His grace and mercy.

iv
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Table of Contents

Declaration ........................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ ii
Opsomming......................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Table of Contents................................................................................................................. v
Chapter 1 – General Introduction to the Study ............................................................. 1
1.1. Background and Rationale .................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 4
1.4. Contribution and Relevance ............................................................................................... 4
1.5. Research Methodology and Goals ...................................................................................... 4
1.6. Structure of the Study ......................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 – A Description of Andrew Newberg’s Model for Neurotheology ............... 10
2.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1. Newberg’s Research Model Systematized ............................................................. 11
2.1.2. Chapter outline ....................................................................................................... 14
2.2. The Foundational Goals of Newberg’s Neurotheology .................................................... 15
2.3. The Foundational Principles of Newberg’s Neurotheology .............................................. 20
2.3.1. Levelling the playing field ....................................................................................... 21
2.3.2. The Rules of Engagement ....................................................................................... 24
2.4. The Neurophysiological and Neuropsychological underpinnings of Newberg’s Model .. 28
2.5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 3 – Engaging Neurotheology ......................................................................... 35
3.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 35
3.2. Science and Neurotheology .............................................................................................. 36
3.2.1. Reductionist view .................................................................................................... 36
3.2.2. Religionist view ....................................................................................................... 39
3.2.3. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 39
3.3. Religion and Neurotheology ............................................................................................. 40
v
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
3.3.1. Apologetic view ....................................................................................................... 40
3.3.2. Integrative view ...................................................................................................... 41
3.3.3. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 42
3.4. Critically engaging and categorising Newberg’s neurotheology ...................................... 43
3.5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 4 – Paradigm-theory ..................................................................................... 53
4.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 53
4.2. Data, Theory, Models and Paradigms ............................................................................... 54
4.2.1. The Basic Paradigms of Inquiry ............................................................................... 60
4.3. A Description of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods .................................................. 65
4.4. Mixed Method Research ................................................................................................... 70
4.5. Conclusion: Paradigm-theory and Newberg’s Neurotheological Model .......................... 75
Chapter 5 – Contemporary Models for Neuroscience and Reformed Theology ........... 79
5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 79
5.2. Some Ways of Relating Science and Religion ................................................................... 81
5.3. An Evaluation of Newberg’s Integrational Presuppositions ............................................. 92
5.4. Towards a Contemporary Understanding of the Foundational Principles of
Neuroscience .................................................................................................................... 94
5.5. Towards a Contemporary Understanding of the Foundational Principles of Reformed
Theology .......................................................................................................................... 100
5.5.1. Defining the task of Reformed Theology .............................................................. 103
5.5.2. Theology as the critical justification of faith ......................................................... 105
5.5.3. Summary of the criteria for a critical realist theology .......................................... 110
5.6. How does Newberg’s neurotheology relate to cognitive neuroscience and reformed
theology. ......................................................................................................................... 110
5.6.1. Categorizing cognitive neuroscience and reformed theology .............................. 111
5.6.2. To what extent can Reformed theology and cognitive neuroscience relate to
Newberg’s Neurotheology? ................................................................................. 112
5.7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 116
Chapter 6 – General Conclusion ............................................................................... 118
6.1. Answering the research questions ................................................................................. 120
6.2. Limitations and further study ......................................................................................... 121
Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 124

vi
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Chapter 1 – General Introduction to the Study
1.1. Background and Rationale
With the abatement of the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview – especially due to the dawn of
Einstein’s relativity theory and Heisenberg’s quantum uncertainty principle – science gradually
started asking more and more elaborate ontological/metaphysical questions (Ward, 2006). The
search for ultimate answers, ultimately led honest scientists away from a physically deterministic
view of reality, toward an understanding and appreciation of complexity and higher order
causality, and even the possibility of a transcendent intelligence or mind underlying our physical
reality (cf. Ellis and Murphy, 1996). From the side of religion, a correlating inclination took place.
The search for ultimate answers, led honest believers away from a fideistic/fundamentalist view
and explanation of reality, with the realization that religion needs a stronger scientific as well as
contextual grounding to come to its full right.
Thomas Kuhn, in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), titled this phenomenon
a “paradigm-shift” (1962:85). 1 A closer look at paradigm-theory elucidates this shift in terms of
two main concepts and their constituents, i.e. quantitative2- and qualitative3 research (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994:105f). Although qualitative research initially functioned as a post-modern critique
of the primacy of quantitative research in the early twentieth century, the latter is still considered

1Paradigm-shift: change in “a basic belief system based on ontological, epistemological, and
methodological assumptions” – Guba and Lincoln, 1994:107
2 Associated with inquiry conducted in what is known as the hard sciences: producing testable predictions,
performing controlled experiments and relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models.
3 Associated with inquiry conducted in what is known as the soft sciences: a method of inquiry employed
in many different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and
further contexts. Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behaviour
and the mechanisms that govern such behaviour.
1
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
the dominant paradigm for scientific inquiry today. It is also known as the positivist paradigm.
A very recent addition to paradigm-theory can be considered a synthesis between quantitative
and qualitative research called mixed method research. “In general, mixed methods research
represents research that involves collecting, analysing, and interpreting quantitative and
qualitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying
phenomenon” (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2009:265). The impetus of this third overarching
paradigm, is the novelty created by the integration of quantitative and qualitative research –
therein lies the distinction; it is a paradigm in its own right, and not dependent on the other two.
It is within this framework that researchers started to contemplate the nature and implications
of physical and transcendent reality working with, and parallel to each other. One such field of
research that recently began labouring to breach the quantitative-qualitative dualism, is
cognitive neuroscience. This field of inquiry encapsulates neuropsychology, neurophysiology,
neurophilosophy and, recently added to the list – the focus of this study – neurotheology4 (cf.
Brandt, 2010:305). Addressing the Neurotheological endeavour, Andrew Newberg and the late
Eugene d’Aquili, among others – both pioneers in their respective fields of radiology and
psychiatry – constructed a model for neurotheology, which, after the passing of d’Aquili,
Newberg expanded upon (d’Aquili and Newberg – The Mystical Mind).
The claim made by means of this model, is that of an integration between neuroscience and both
religious and transcendent experience in a single study. It is the hope of this neurotheological
model – contending, in due course, that all religious, ritual and spiritual (RMS) experience has its
basis in the functional interdependency of the mind and brain – that through it, a better
understanding of these experiences will be facilitated.
The proposition made by Newberg’s neurotheology, is that the meaning of all RMS experiences
can be reworked – using neuropsychological and neurophysiological research as platform – into

4 Neurotheology: referring to the study of religion – including myth-making, rituals, and the writing of
theology – from a neuroscientific perspective.
2
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
an overall theological framework he terms a metatheology, which could ultimately lead to a
megatheology (d’Aquili and Newberg, 1999:195ff).
1.2. Statement of the Problem
The problem that this research paper will address, pertains to the proposed integration of science
and religion – specifically neuroscience and theology – by Andrew Newberg’s model for
neurotheology (d’Aquili & Newberg, 1999:4; Newberg, 2010:1). Utilizing this model, Newberg
constructs a theoretical framework, wherein the distinct principles of both science and theology
are, for lack of a better word, relativized. By arguing that the human mind is incapable of purely
objective observations, he concludes that both the scientific and theological enterprises must
use abstract metaphor to describe reality (d’Aquili et al. 2001:170-171).
It follows that quantitative measurements and objectivity – the core principles of empirical
science – can be dropped in such a way that removes any inherent incompatibility science has
with theology (Gilroy 2005:10). Conversely, with neurotheology’s goal being to construct a meta-
and megatheology,5 unique a priori theological assumptions regarding RMS phenomena falls out
of support, in favour of an a posteriori approach, implicating, to a large extent, religious
universalism (cf. Brandt, 2010:305-306; Gilroy 2005:11). In other words, the focus is shifted from
the transcendent to the concrete and measurable.
Choosing – contrary to the above mentioned invalidation of the distinctive principles of empirical
science and theology – to acknowledge the integrity of both these enterprises in their own right,
it would be necessary to explicate their individual fields of inquiry to ascertain the extent to which
they can engage with Newberg’s Neurotheological model – without having to make a paradigm-
shift or be made subject to a universalistic view of reality (cf. Newberg, 2010:58).

5 This is done by means of a neuropsychological and neurophysiological explanation of religion, traditional
and doctrinal a priori theological assumptions.
3