Where Is God?

Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA provides support to the critics of the idea that a God spot exists in the brain. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

One of the popular criticisms of fMRI brain imaging is the tendency for studies to plant flags in the brain. For instance claiming that one area is responsible for religion, and that the so-called “God spot” exists.

Critics say there is more to religious belief than a neural spot, as it involves faith and practice. So wide ranging networks of neurons may behave more like an R&B band, producing numerous melodies, rather than be dedicated solely to one rhythm.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences seems to support this side. Scientists scanned brains while subjects considered religious statements, one about God in our daily lives, “God’s will guides my family.” Another about God’s decrees, “God demands sacrifices.” And God’s emotions, “God is angered by human sin.”

All three types of statements sparked activity in well-known neural networks that also light up when we consider political beliefs, emotions, as well as abstract concepts, and when we understand others’ intentions.

Will we ever capture the idea of God in the brain? Most question this, after all, how does one find the region of soul in a rhythm and blues band?

—Christie Nicholson

Read more about this study in this 60-Second Science blog post.

60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe