Eugene G. d'Aquili (1940–1998)

This book is an attempt to create an integrated, multi-disciplinary "explanatory model" (p. 41) of ritual behavior. Besides being undermined by a problematically vague definition of ritual (p. 29), the writing is generally inelegant, and often seems to be cloaking commonplaces in sesquipedalianisms.

My original motive for picking it up was to follow up on the recommendation of Barabara Lex's chapter "The Neurobiology of Ritual Trance," which was the subject of great enthusiasm by Robert show more Mathiesen in his paper on the Sworn Book of Honorius included in Claire Fanger's collection Conjuring Spirits: Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic (1998). As it turned out, the Lex piece was fairly unenlightening and mostly consisted of tallying systemic theories of neurobiology with possible ritual stimuli in order to support a hypothesis of neural "tuning" as the functional basis of ritual. It seemed odd that Mathiesen would reference the Lex paper in his discussion of a "ritual to obtain the Beatific Vision," since Lex subordinates ritual functionality in both individuals and social systems to the goals of homeostasis and therapeutic change.

For my comrades in the Church, however, I would recommend the penultimate chapter of The Spectrum of Ritual, by G. Ronald Murphy, S.J. (that's Society of Jesus), "A Ceremonial Ritual: The Mass." Although it purports to be an applied exemplification of "the major concepts presented in the first six chapters," it contains a lot of interesting reflections in no way dependent on the structural models of the rest of the book. Murphy's analysis of the Roman Mass demonstrates the kind of reflection on the magical mechanics of a eucharistic ritual canon that I have rarely seen outside of Leadbeater's Science of the Sacraments. On the strength of this paper alone, the book is worth borrowing from a school or public library. show less

This book was very thought provoking. I expected it to be more of a Dawkinian approach to squash religion with science, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it has a much more even-handed approach to the traditional dichotomy, making a real concerted effort to bridge the divide. The book basically centers around the attention and orientation centers of the brain, and the principle that certain events/behaviors can deafferent them (or shut them down), providing an extra-sensory show more experience. As opposed to taking a radical scientific standpoint (i.e. this proves there is no god) the authors suggest that perhaps during these mystical "altered states" (which we all attain periodically in varying degrees) we are in fact perceiving a truer reality than our own. Their arguments are often driven by conjecture, although still backed by scientific evidence, and make for great contemplation. show less

I could tell that the authors were trying very hard to make their work accessible (i.e., dumb it down) for the general public, but it was still quite a sweat. I had to read most paragraphs and some sentences 2 or 3 times before I felt I had a grip on what they were on about. And I'm not sure how accurate that feeling is.

Altho the authors take no position on whether or not God (or what they prefer to call Absolute Unitary Being - AUB) actually exists they declare that their research reveals show more that the human brain is wired for mystical experiences from which perception of "god", and religion to appease/celebrate that god, are born. As far as they'll go regarding the god issue is to state that god could either be neuron blips in the brain, or a perception authentically experienced in a mystical state that indicates a non-material reality, and that they're betting on the second one.

Their bet is based on their research, which is frequently mentioned but not described -- at least that I could see. Not being well versed in science, I could have simply not recognized it or not understood it, but I read nothing that made a compelling case for non-material reality over brain blips. To me, the possibilities seemed 50/50 at best and, based on what I read in this book, I'd be betting for the brain blips.

One point I wish they would have stressed more is that when they used the word "god" they are always referring to their AUB, which is some non-physical, non-personal and certainly non-individual form of ultimate reality -- what some philosophers call the ground of being. They are most definately not referring to any human-like entity with a separate and individual personality, nature, emotions or plans for humankind. They also aren't referring to anything with a gender, anything that is an actual "he", and they did point this out once but then continued to refer to god as "He" rather than the more accurate "It".

I can understand this, a lot of people find the use of "it" as a pronoun insulting (except for animals) and I expect the authors felt that even people who understood it's use would have a knee-jerk negative reaction to it, and to their work. I do believe they should have soldiered on with "It" tho, not because it's politically or metaphorically correct, but because it would be the best way to drive home the otherness of their meaning of "god".

Having written all that negative sounding quibbling, I did enjoy the book very much. Their theory is fascinating and well worth the struggle of reading for someone who didn't even take basic biology in high school. show less

Interesting book on the physiology of our brains when we meditate or pray. I read this for a book club for my Skeptic group. Not a real fast read but very interesting, especially if you are science minded. The book doesn't end up saying one way or the other whether god is a figment of our imagination or real.