Are human beings “designed” to evince spiritual purpose? Is the human brain not merely a great, buzzing network of neurons, but also an organ of self-transcendence? If so, can we conclude that the movement toward spiritual and transcendental goals truly is our destiny?
In addressing these expansive questions, I do not propose to resolve the thorny controversy explored by Prof. E.O. Wilson, in his essay, “The Biological Basis of Morality.”
There, Wilson describes the “split” between so-called transcendentalists and empiricists. For Wilson, “transcendentalists…think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind…[whereas] empiricists…think them contrivances of the mind.” My assumption is that whether or not there are “transcendent” values, the capacity to achieve moral and spiritual purpose is very much a property of the human brain. Indeed, the burgeoning field of neuropsychiatry is beginning to shed light on those innate brain structures that permit us to rise above our own, narrow egos.
Specifically, I want to suggest that our brains are “hard-wired” to permit three kinds of extroverted activities: empathy, bonding, and self-transcendence. These elements, in my view, are the “building blocks” of spiritual purpose. But if I succeed in making this argument, will I have shown that the human brain’s purpose is to achieve spiritual goals? I doubt it. For embedded in this inference is the notion that some entity—presumably super-human—has conceived a purpose for our brains. The discovery of such cosmic intentions is arguably beyond the reach of mere science. Nevertheless, I believe that neuropsychiatry can show us how brain structure and function may mediate certain types of self-transcending states.
In so revealing these innate properties of brain, neuropsychiatry permits us to argue something akin to Immanuel Kant’s claims, regarding innate “categories” of the mind. In brief, Kant held that human understanding springs not merely from the processing of raw, external sensations, but from “…some repertoire of concepts contained within the understanding itself…” (Scruton, p. 37, italics added). Kant developed a theory of cognition grounded in twelve a priori principles inherent in the human mind. These included, for example, the notions of quantity, quality, and causality. Our understanding of, say, a falling stone rests upon our innate recognition that a stone differs from stones; that a stone either exists or does not exist; and that stones fall because of some active, causal principle. Without such pre-existing schemata for structuring experience, Kant argued, our brains would be little more than great, grey lumps of countless sensory impressions. By analogy, I want to suggest that the human brain possesses certain innate structures and functions that underlie moral or spiritual purpose; i.e., all those impulses and intentions directed at some ethical or self-transcending goal.
To be sure, fully-formed moral or spiritual purpose undoubtedly requires more than the innate structures I am about to describe. We do not pursue spiritual ends without the infusion of behavioral content that springs from our communities, cultures, and religions. I mean by this the entire repertoire of mores, norms, and behaviors that society regards as “good”, “noble”, “spiritual”, and so on. There is, after all, a difference between feeling a powerful emotional bond with another human being, and resolving to help that person recover from some terrible trauma. Fortunately, my charge in this essay is both narrower and more technical than an examination of human culture and its innumerable mores; rather, my aim is to show that the human brain is endowed with those foundational elements that make moral and spiritual striving possible.

Empathy, Bonding, and the Brain

We see another human being stumble on the sidewalk and bloody his knee. We see his face contorted in agony. Instantly, even if this person is a complete stranger, we feel a rush of emotion and arousal. Perhaps we run over to help the unfortunate individual off the pavement, and to inquire if he is “OK”. This flood of intense emotion is almost certainly driven by quite primitive and innate brain structures. Indeed, our ability to feel “sympathy” or “empathy” is probably dependent on such structures. In individuals with severe damage to these portions of the brain, such extroverted feelings—and their behavioral consequences--are often compromised or absent.
Our Greek heritage has given us the term, pathos, or suffering. We may understand sympathy as “suffering with” another person; and empathy, as “suffering in” someone. The latter implies an ability to “get inside” and actually understand the other person’s feeling state, rather than merely mirroring the other person’s suffering. Recent neuropsychiatric studies have illuminated the biological basis of these related mood states. For example, in a study from the University of Washington (Decety and Chaminade, 2003), researchers examined the neural correlates of feeling sympathy for someone. They defined sympathy as, “…the affinity, association, or relationship between persons wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other.” Subjects were presented with a series of video clips in which semi-professional actors related either “sad” or “neutral” personal experiences. The stories were conveyed either with appropriate (congruent) facial expressions, or with inappropriate (incongruent) expressions. Subjects were studied using a technique called “positron emission tomography” (PET)—in essence, a window into the brain’s regional energy use or blood flow. The researchers found that—in contrast to watching neutral stories—watching sad stories elicited changes in blood flow in specific regions of the brain’s right hemisphere. But regardless of the content of the stories—whether sad or neutral—the facial expression of emotion led to increased blood flow in a portion of the left hemisphere of the brain. When the actors’ narratives and facial expressions were incongruent, still other brain regions showed increased activity, consistent with the experience of “social conflict”. Taken together, these findings suggest that our ability to “suffer with” another individual is grounded in specific brain structures and networks. The work of Ralph Adolphs and others has also pointed to right hemisphere structures, such as the insula, as critical in our ability to feel empathy in response to another individual’s expressions of emotion.
There is an important connection between empathy and moral or spiritual purpose. For example, the neurologist Antonio Damasio, in his seminal work, Looking for Spinoza, describes the results of damage to an area of the brain called the prefrontal cortex. In such patients, “…their spouses note a lack of empathy….Patients who, prior to their disease, were known to be concerned with social projects in their communities, or who were known for their ability to counsel friends and relatives in difficulty no longer show any inclination to help.”
Other data indicate that psychopaths—essentially, individuals utterly without a conscience—have great difficulty processing emotionally-laden words or images. Their brains seem to show different patterns of blood flow in response to such stimuli than do the brains of “normal” subjects. Similarly, J.P. Henry has linked human “bonding”—the formation of intense or intimate relationships--to the activity of the right hemisphere. The inability to form emotional bonds with one’s friends, family, or community may also interfere with activities of moral purpose, as Damasio notes. Even more important from the standpoint of spiritual purpose, Henry relates right hemisphere function to our ability to connect with, or to perceive, a “Higher Power”—what many would refer to as God. And this leads to our inquiry into the neurological underpinnings of self-transcendence.

Spirituality and The Brain

Antonio Damasio, in Looking for Spinoza, argues that

“…spiritual experiences, religious or otherwise, are mental processes. They are biological processes of the highest level of complexity. They occur in the brain of a given organism in certain circumstances, and there is no reason why we should shy away from describing these processes in neurobiological terms, provided we are aware of the limitations of the exercise.”

Indeed, Damasio cautions against the naïve view that we can identify “…a brain center for God…” or that we can somehow justify the tenets of religion by means of a brain scan. Nevertheless, since spiritual states represent a particular type of “feeling state”, Damasio believes that we can relate spiritual experiences to the network of brain regions we described in our discussion of empathy. Such correlations, Damasio explains, do not diminish the mystery of life. Rather, they reveal the brain’s “connection to the mystery”.
In addition to examining brain structures, researchers are also investigating the link between certain brain chemicals and spiritual or self-transcendent experiences. Recently, Jacqueline Borg and colleagues investigated the relationship between the chemical messenger serotonin and various dimensions of temperament. Once again, PET scans were used—this time, to determine the degree to which serotonin binds to specific brain regions. Subjects also completed a questionnaire aimed as assessing such personality traits as “novelty-seeking”, “harm avoidance”, “cooperativeness”, and “self-transcendence.” This last dimension is a composite of three subscales, including one called “spiritual acceptance.” The researchers found a correlation between the degree of serotonin binding in three brain regions, and self-transcendence scores. Scores for spiritual acceptance also showed a correlation with serotonin binding.
What does all this mean in terms of “spiritual purpose”? The authors concluded that “…the serotonergic system may serve as a biological basis for spiritual experiences…” perhaps explaining why people “…vary greatly in spiritual zeal.” If these conclusions are verified in larger studies, we may hypothesize that spiritual purpose is, indeed, partly a function of innate neurochemical systems within the brain. This is surely not to reduce spiritual striving to levels of a single brain chemical--nor is it an attempt to reduce spirituality to mere brain physiology. Rather, as Damasio would remind us, these findings simply link one of the mysteries of life to one of the activities of the human brain.

The Nexus of Brain and Spirit

Without empathy, emotional bonding between human beings is nearly impossible. Without the capacity for self-transcendence, spiritual experience becomes equally hard to attain.
And in the absence of all three faculties—empathy, bonding, and self-transcendence—our capacity to achieve moral or spiritual purpose must also suffer. To put the matter in mundane terms: when we see our fellow human being stumble and fall on the sidewalk, our ability to empathize with and comfort that individual is critically dependent on our brain’s capacity for extroversion. When we resolve passionately to help a homeless person, or to build a school in an impoverished country, we are also drawing on our ability to step outside of ourselves, beyond the confines of ego.
None of these observations is particularly surprising or novel. But the nexus between extroversion and innate properties of the brain is both surprising and novel. That specific regions of the brain’s right hemisphere are critical for empathic response; and that certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, may be linked with spiritual striving also seem remarkable. Of course, science alone cannot tell us whether these associations represent a “pre-established harmony” between the human brain and some larger cosmic purpose or power. But science does seem to say at least this: our brains come into being with innate structures and functions that form the foundation for spiritual striving. Without these pre-existing properties of brain, it seems doubtful that human beings could ever escape the prison-house of self-interest.

Readings and References:

Borg J, Andree B, Soderstrom H et al: The serotonin system and spiritual experiences. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:1965-69.

Damasio A: Looking for Spinoza. Harvest Books, Orlando, 2003.

Decety J, Chaminade T: Neural correlates of feeling sympathy. Neuropsychologia 2003;41:127-38.

Henry JP: Psychological and physiological responses to stress: the right hemisphere and the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis: an inquiry into problems of human bonding. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 1997;640:10-25.

Intrator J, Hare R, Stritzke P et al: A brain imaging (single photon emission computerized tomography) study of semantic and affective processing in psychopaths. Biological Psychiatry 1997;42:96-103.

Scruton R: Kant: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.

Wilson E.O.: The biological basis of morality. The Atlantic Online (April, 1998): www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm