Analysing the Shema in the Light of the Neurobiology of Virtue
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript analyzing the Shema through a neurobiological lens. Your work represents an innovative approach to bridging religious studies and neuroscience. I have reviewed your manuscript carefully and offer the following comments and suggestions for improvement.
Strengths:
The manuscript's primary strength lies in its innovative approach to religious text analysis through a neurobiological lens. For example, when examining the Shema's command to "love the Lord your God with all your heart," the paper skillfully connects this ancient directive to modern understanding of neural reward systems and emotional regulation pathways. This integration of classical religious text with contemporary neuroscience represents a groundbreaking methodological approach that opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research.
The scholarly depth and comprehensive treatment of both religious and scientific material stands out as another significant strength. The author demonstrates exceptional command of both domains, seamlessly weaving together insights from classical Thomistic philosophy with current neurobiological research. For instance, the discussion of virtue formation (lines 254-285) effectively bridges ancient philosophical concepts with modern understanding of neural plasticity and habit formation, supported by relevant citations from both classical texts and recent neuroscience publications.
The paper's methodological rigor is particularly commendable in its systematic analysis structure. Each section of the Shema receives careful examination through both philosophical and neurobiological lenses, maintaining consistent analytical depth throughout. The discussion of memory formation and emotional salience (lines 428-448) exemplifies this approach, showing how religious practices align with our understanding of memory consolidation and emotional processing in the brain.
Weaknesses:
The manuscript's most significant weakness lies in its structural organization and accessibility. Dense passages of technical content often lack sufficient scaffolding for readers less familiar with either neuroscience or religious studies. For example, the discussion of basal ganglia function (lines 332-341) launches into complex neurological concepts without adequate introduction or context, potentially alienating readers from either discipline who lack specialized knowledge in the other field.
The methodology section requires substantial strengthening, particularly in establishing clear research parameters and evaluation criteria. While the paper's approach is innovative, it lacks explicit statement of research questions and success metrics. The current methodological framework (lines 127-139) describes the general approach but fails to provide specific criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the neurobiological analysis in illuminating religious text interpretation.
Technical presentation poses another significant challenge, particularly in the absence of visual aids and summary materials. Complex neural pathways and systems are described solely through text, where diagrams or flowcharts would greatly enhance understanding. For instance, the description of reward pathways and motivational systems (lines 521-542) would benefit tremendously from visual representation showing the interconnections between described brain regions and neurotransmitter systems.
Language accessibility presents an ongoing challenge throughout the manuscript. Technical terminology from both neuroscience and religious studies is often employed without sufficient explanation or context. For example, the discussion of "use-induced plasticity" and "neural pathways" (lines 358-371) assumes considerable background knowledge, while religious concepts like "eudaimonia" (lines 596-600) are similarly introduced without adequate explanation for readers unfamiliar with these terms.
The paper would also benefit from more robust treatment of practical implications and alternative interpretations. While the theoretical analysis is strong, the manuscript offers limited discussion of how these insights might be applied in religious education, character development, or clinical settings. The conclusion (lines 649-761) focuses primarily on theoretical implications while leaving practical applications largely unexplored.
These weaknesses, while significant, do not fundamentally undermine the paper's valuable contribution to scholarship. Rather, they represent opportunities for enhancement that, if addressed through revision, would make the paper's innovative insights more accessible and applicable to a broader academic audience. The addition of visual aids, clearer methodological framework, and more explicit practical applications would significantly strengthen what is already a pioneering piece of interdisciplinary research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript demonstrates a strong foundation in academic English, successfully conveying complex interdisciplinary concepts across neuroscience and religious studies. The author shows competency in technical vocabulary and maintains an appropriately scholarly tone throughout the work. Particularly noteworthy is the precise usage of scientific terminology, as evidenced in sections discussing neural plasticity mechanisms and neurotransmitter interactions. The writing effectively bridges specialized language from both religious studies and neuroscience, demonstrating the author's command of both fields.
However, several aspects of the writing require attention to enhance clarity and accessibility. The manuscript frequently employs overly complex sentence structures that could impede reader comprehension. For instance, the discussion of rationality (lines 99-102) contains nested clauses that obscure the main point. Such passages would benefit from restructuring into shorter, clearer sentences that maintain the sophisticated content while improving readability. Similarly, many paragraphs are densely packed with multiple complex ideas, particularly in sections describing neural systems (lines 139-151). These could be more effectively organized into smaller, more focused units with clear topic sentences and logical progression.
Technical language presentation represents another area needing refinement. While the use of specialized terminology is generally appropriate, there is inconsistency in how technical terms are introduced and explained. Some concepts receive detailed explanation while others are presented with minimal context. This unevenness in technical detail could challenge readers from either discipline who lack specialized knowledge in the other field. The manuscript would benefit from a more systematic approach to introducing and explaining technical concepts, perhaps including a glossary or more consistent in-text definitions.
The organization and flow of language could be enhanced through more effective use of structural elements. Current transitions between sections sometimes feel abrupt, and the relationship between ideas isn't always clearly signaled through language choices. Adding more explicit transition sentences and strengthening paragraph topic sentences would help guide readers through the complex material. Furthermore, the varying levels of technical detail across sections create an uneven reading experience that could be smoothed through more consistent attention to explanation and context.
To address these issues while maintaining the manuscript's scholarly merit, several specific improvements are recommended. Complex sentences should be restructured for clarity without sacrificing sophistication. Technical terminology should be standardized and explained consistently throughout the text. Paragraph organization should be tightened to ensure each unit focuses on a single main idea with clear support. Finally, transitions between sections should be strengthened to better guide readers through the logical progression of ideas. These revisions would significantly enhance the accessibility of the research while preserving its academic rigor.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI must begin this review with a full disclosure: I am just shy of convinced that philosophical naturalism is true. Any talk of love of God is, in this regard, vacuous without wholly naturalizing it, revealing thereby that this is an unhelpful metaphor. That said, I found the argument a bit forced. Yes, we know that there are neurobiological bases for all psychological phenomena. Without question, we are not dualists. Does the Shema uniquely engage neurobiological systems? Of course not. Does it in fact do everything you suggest that it can do? I am not convinced without more direct, empirical support. At the end of the day, neurotheology is not as promising of a field as some seem to think. To be sure, Andrew Newberg's conclusions are equally forced and unpersuasive. Perhaps unio mystica really is nothing but the deafferentation of the right superior parietal lobe. I found nothing helpful about the integration of Aristotelian/Thomistic theology, in particular, with neurobiology. Surely, there are better sources for considering virtues and virtuous behavior today. I also in no way believe that neurobiology does anything to support any theological vision. That said, if your theology is somehow wholly naturalized, then why continue to use theological language. I will say that I do appreciate your seeming command over some of the neurobiology, but I found your hermeneutics to be rather speculative and unpersuasive. If I were you, I'd jettison the entire theological approach here. If you want to show how repeating the Shema helps train up our attention and other putative virtues, so be it (see Sam Harris's "Waking Up"). For this reader, theology is never helpful for explicating anything in the twenty-first century.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis kind of cross-disciplinary study is of considerable interest to me, as it bridges between biology and spirituality. It is heavily research-connected even as it proposes connections which I find consistent with publications in the past couple of decades that suggest there is an empirical biology that can be connected with religions experience (and thus also with philosophical ideas e.g. virtue, humanitarianism). It was fitting that, in Section Three, the author's presuppositions and foundation(s) were made forthrightly.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThough this comment is admittedly vague, I would say that the mode of expression -- flawlessly native English -- is still somewhat wordy. For example, the purposes being expressed in lines 51-63 could be tightened and made more succinct. There is some comma displacement, usually with them missing (e.g. see lines 68, 78).
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an original work that is especially instructive with readers interested in moral psychology but by and large unfamiliar with neurobiology. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to learn from the essay.
I have written my response in a rather piecemeal fashion. Perhaps it would be appropriate that I think the paper could be improved by greater attention to what virtues and vices are. I'm not as persuaded as the author that Thomas helps us that much by attaching the virtues (and vices) to the four types of human power/action.
I also think the author's discussion of the unity of the virtues needs clarification and elaboration. What the author gives us, as I understand it, is not a unity of the virtues but an integration of the virtues or a complementarity of the virtues.
Finally, I'm not convinced that the insistence upon a "literal reading" of the Shema does that much work.
In the attached file, I have tried to index comments to line numbers.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
