Negative Positive
Title: Poor Theology, Poor Neuroscience
Review: Ashbrook combines arbitrary categories of God's nature with partitions of the brain that are characterized in ways that have been shown to be inaccurate by better research. Like Ashbrook's original neurotheological work, it's an entire argument based on a metaphor. What exactly are these comparisons supposed to tell us anyway? What did Ashbrook intend for these supposed parallels to lead to? I can't think of anything. It's mediocre theology and mediocre biology. I appreciate Ashbrook's pioneering intent and vision, but he fails to actually create something worthwhile or accurate.
Is the review positive or negative? 