Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

[Zzyzx]

.
Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Scientists establish link between religious fundamentalism and brain damage

A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness.

Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge. On the other hand, religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid, which helps promote predictability and coherence to the rules of society among individuals within the group.

Religious fundamentalism refers to an ideology that emphasizes traditional religious texts and rituals and discourages progressive thinking about religion and social issues. Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life. For this reason, they are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs, and towards science, as these things are seen as existential threats to their entire worldview. https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/scient ... kxG0vo2sMM

Bold added. Article continues

Might this help explain some differences we see here in debate and elsewhere?

[Wootah]

.
Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Scientists establish link between religious fundamentalism and brain damage

A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness.

Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge. On the other hand, religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid, which helps promote predictability and coherence to the rules of society among individuals within the group.

Religious fundamentalism refers to an ideology that emphasizes traditional religious texts and rituals and discourages progressive thinking about religion and social issues. Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life. For this reason, they are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs, and towards science, as these things are seen as existential threats to their entire worldview. https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/scient ... kxG0vo2sMM

Bold added. Article continues

Might this help explain some differences we see here in debate and elsewhere?

I think our website can help contribute to the research to show this phenomenon crosses many boundaries as well. Unless we have damaged pre frontal cortexes we must be open-minded to this affecting everyone.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

This seems to be little more than a journalist's religious and political propaganda. I'm not sure whether you looked at the study cited, but most of what you have quoted is entirely unsupported by the scientists' findings. Do you have any kind of credible source for the claims in the OP? Specifically, is there any statistically significant data supporting your bolded claims that:

• > "religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations"
  > "religious beliefs are... strongly associated with conservatism"
  > "Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life"
  > "Fundamentalist groups... are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs"

Might this help explain some differences we see here in debate and elsewhere?

No, that would be fallacious. Just because impairment of some brain regions can correlate with or contribute towards fundamentalist tendencies in specific cases, does not mean that any other example of fundamentalist tendencies implies brain impairment. Quite obviously, to the rational thinker, that would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Realworldjack]

.
Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Scientists establish link between religious fundamentalism and brain damage

A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness.

Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge. On the other hand, religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid, which helps promote predictability and coherence to the rules of society among individuals within the group.

Religious fundamentalism refers to an ideology that emphasizes traditional religious texts and rituals and discourages progressive thinking about religion and social issues. Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life. For this reason, they are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs, and towards science, as these things are seen as existential threats to their entire worldview. https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/scient ... kxG0vo2sMM

Bold added. Article continues

Might this help explain some differences we see here in debate and elsewhere?

What seems amazing to me is the fact that there are those on both sides to the equation, who seem to want to insist that there must, and has to be some other explanation for those who do not agree with them, other than the facts, and evidence involved?

Many Christians assume that it has to be the fact that those opposed to Christianity, must, and have to be evil sinners who are simply blinded by their sin, would be the reason they cannot see the truth, because their unbelief cannot possibly be based on facts, and evidence.

And of course, there are unbelievers, who resort to things like "Christians must have some sort of brain damage"?

Has anyone considered the fact that there are many very intelligent, well educated folks on both sides of the equation? I certainly have, which causes me to understand the possibility of my error. Therefore, I continue to discuss, and debate with those opposed, and I continue to think about what I believe very critically. However, this cannot possibly be the case, and so I am continually accused of being indoctrinated, and holding on to this indoctrination, being brainwashed, and now I may have some sort of brain damage?

I am a Christian, and I have been convinced by the facts, and evidence involved. However, since I have, and do think critically about what I believe, and why I believe it, I can understand unbelief, and the reasons for unbelief. In other words, I do not insist that anyone who does not see things in the same way, must have some sort of mental disorder.

This is what I have been saying for years now, "it is not as simple as many folks make it out to be". Whether one would like to admit it or not, there are facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, and there are facts, and evidence to support unbelief.

Ergo, all any of us can do, is to explain what it is we believe, and why we believe it, and the only way we can insist that others see things in the same way, is only if we can demonstrate what we believe concerning the claims to be fact.

Or, we can simply assume those opposed to us have some sort of brain damage? Yeah! It must be that simple!

[Divine Insight]

This is what I have been saying for years now, "it is not as simple as many folks make it out to be". Whether one would like to admit it or not, there are facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, and there are facts, and evidence to support unbelief.

But this simply isn't true. There are no facts or evidence to support Christian claims.

All that exists are ancient fables that cannot be shown to be true. That does not constitute facts or evidence for anything.

Christianity is an entirely faith-based belief system. If you are unwilling to accept this truth, then there may be something to the following claim from the OP:

religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid

Here you are claiming that there exists facts and evidence to support Christian claims, when in truth no such facts or evidence exists. In fact, just the opposite is true. There are facts and evidence that reveal that many Christians claims are indeed false.

[Realworldjack]

This is what I have been saying for years now, "it is not as simple as many folks make it out to be". Whether one would like to admit it or not, there are facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, and there are facts, and evidence to support unbelief.

But this simply isn't true. There are no facts or evidence to support Christian claims.

All that exists are ancient fables that cannot be shown to be true. That does not constitute facts or evidence for anything.

Christianity is an entirely faith-based belief system. If you are unwilling to accept this truth, then there may be something to the following claim from the OP:

religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid

Here you are claiming that there exists facts and evidence to support Christian claims, when in truth no such facts or evidence exists. In fact, just the opposite is true. There are facts and evidence that reveal that many Christians claims are indeed false.

But this simply isn't true. You see, anyone can make these sort of statements. Like, you refer to the content of the NT as being "fables" but you cannot in any way demonstrate this to be a fact. So we are to imagine that the author of the two letters to Theophilus traveled with Paul for decades on his journeys, and then after all this time traveling with Paul, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed "fables" to an individual, and goes on to tell this individual it is out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth", and you want to refer to it as "fable". My friend, it may indeed be false, and, or a lie, but it was not intended to be, "fable".

Next, the letters written by Paul were instructions to certain Churches, and, or individuals, which certainly demonstrates how Paul was living out his life, and his letters certainly cannot be referred to as "fables".

In fact, the author of 2 Peter knew all about "fables", and had this to say to his audience,

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised "fables" when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Of course this certainly does not guarantee that what is recorded would be fact, but it does indeed demonstrate that these folks understood what "fables" would be, and went on to ensure his audience that what they were recording would not be based on these sort of things, but would have rather been based upon "eyewitness" testimony.

So while I am sure you would love to demonstrate these things to be "fables", you have not, and the evidence is certainly against you.

Christianity is an entirely faith-based belief system.

Oh really? Well why in the world would the authors of the NT go to the trouble of using words like, defense, witness, eyewitness, evidence, proof, proving, convict, judge, judgement, and other such words you would hear in a courtroom everyday? Why would they be concerned with these things, or other things such as an empty tomb, if all they wanted was for people to believe upon faith? It would be pointless.

With this being the case, I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. I do not need faith in order to believe that this same Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried. I do not even need to exercise one ounce of faith in order to believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Because you see, we have facts, and evidence for these things, and I can look at, analyze, study, and weigh this evidence.

What I would need faith in order to believe, is that these events somehow atoned for my sin. In other words, I require faith in order to believe my sins have been forgiven, because I cannot see, touch, feel, analyze, study, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence for the rest.

It is utterly amazing to me, for there to be one who admits to being a totally convinced Christian at one point, now to only insist that it is all based upon "fables", and I don't care how you slice it? This sort of demonstrates one who would make a major life decision without really thinking it all the way through. I will assure you that it certainly does not help your argument to admit such a thing. It would be really comical, if it was no such a sad admission.

So then, if we have one who would make such a decision, in this way, what in the world would cause use to believe the thinking has changed? Simply because one has the ability to change the mind, does not in any way demonstrate the thinking has changed.

[Divine Insight]

But this simply isn't true. You see, anyone can make these sort of statements. Like, you refer to the content of the NT as being "fables" but you cannot in any way demonstrate this to be a fact.

I don't need to. Many of the things that are written in the NT can be see to clearly be falsehoods. Falsehoods = Fables. Whether intentional or not.

So we are to imagine that the author of the two letters to Theophilus traveled with Paul for decades on his journeys, and then after all this time traveling with Paul, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed "fables" to an individual, and goes on to tell this individual it is out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth", and you want to refer to it as "fable". My friend, it may indeed be false, and, or a lie, but it was not intended to be, "fable".

Intent is irrelevant. Paul was clearly an extremely troubled man suffering from hallucinations and other delusion by his own decree.

Just because he may have believed they represented some sort of reality does not make it true.

Next, the letters written by Paul were instructions to certain Churches, and, or individuals, which certainly demonstrates how Paul was living out his life, and his letters certainly cannot be referred to as "fables".

I never claimed that everything Paul ever wrote (or any other authors of the NT) were writing intentional fables. What I said is that many of the "Christian Claims" within the NT can be shown to be false. That makes them fables whether intentional or not.

In fact, the author of 2 Peter knew all about "fables", and had this to say to his audience,

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised "fables" when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

This could be far worse than fables. This could be outright purposeful lying.

Of course this certainly does not guarantee that what is recorded would be fact, but it does indeed demonstrate that these folks understood what "fables" would be, and went on to ensure his audience that what they were recording would not be based on these sort of things, but would have rather been based upon "eyewitness" testimony.

Or based on outright lies.

So while I am sure you would love to demonstrate these things to be "fables", you have not, and the evidence is certainly against you.

You are dead wrong. For one thing you have focused in on things that cannot be disproved. Such as people claiming to have seen Jesus ascend into heaven, etc. Or God speaking from the clouds.

But there are many claims in these stories that are clearly false. For example, the claim that evil demons were the cause of diseases and had to be exorcised from people's bodies, and in one case cast into the bodies of pigs.

Give me a break. We know that's nothing more than nonsense. So we have the facts and the proof that these fables are false.

Christianity is an entirely faith-based belief system.

Oh really? Well why in the world would the authors of the NT go to the trouble of using words like, defense, witness, eyewitness, evidence, proof, proving, convict, judge, judgement, and other such words you would hear in a courtroom everyday? Why would they be concerned with these things, or other things such as an empty tomb, if all they wanted was for people to believe upon faith? It would be pointless.

They were religious scam artists. No different from what we see in the world today.

This is typical human behavior. Nothing even strange about it.

With this being the case, I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure.

Actually you do need to believe that on faith. And even if there was a historical figure named Jesus who argued with his religious leaders, was crucified, and people claimed to see him alive after the crucifixion that is neither facts nor evidence of the Christian claims that Jesus actually died and rose from the dead. All it would be evidence for is unsubstantiated rumors.

I do not need faith in order to believe that this same Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried.

Yes you do need to believe that on faith. Maybe Jesus didn't die and was never buried, and what you have are the NT rumors that claim that he did die and was buried.

There are no "facts" or "evidence" that Jesus had ever died or was buried.

I do not even need to exercise one ounce of faith in order to believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Because you see, we have facts, and evidence for these things, and I can look at, analyze, study, and weigh this evidence.

And this requires the most faith of all. You have absolutely no facts of evidence to back up such claims. If you think you do, then go back and read the OP because it's addressing people who flat-out refuse to acknowledge that there are no fact and evidence to back up these religious claims.

What I would need faith in order to believe, is that these events somehow atoned for my sin. In other words, I require faith in order to believe my sins have been forgiven, because I cannot see, touch, feel, analyze, study, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence for the rest.

Finally you speak TRUTH!

But even far more importantly, BEFORE you can have faith that these things atone for your sins you must FIRST place your faith in the idea that you are indeed a sinner who is in dire need of forgiveness from an invisible jealous God for which you have no facts or evidence for.

Why do you even believe that some God will condemn you for not being perfect?

That's a faith-based belief already.

It is utterly amazing to me, for there to be one who admits to being a totally convinced Christian at one point, now to only insist that it is all based upon "fables", and I don't care how you slice it? This sort of demonstrates one who would make a major life decision without really thinking it all the way through. I will assure you that it certainly does not help your argument to admit such a thing. It would be really comical, if it was no such a sad admission.

Thank you for your derogatory Christian judgment.

However, you are dead wrong in your conclusions. I originally believed in the religion because I had faith that my parents, pastor, aunts and uncles knew what they were talking about and weren't lying to me.

It actually turns out that they were lying. And they even confessed later in life that even they actually believe it on faith and cannot know that it's true.

So yes, it would be comical if it wasn't such a said situation of parents and pastors lying to children.

I caught on to the lies early enough. By the time I was 20 I knew the truth of the fallacy of Christianity.

By the way, it's strange that you say that I would have made major life decisions based on my original belief in Christianity. Actually that's not true. I've lived my life precisely as I would have lived it if I had remained a Christian. The only difference is that instead of being able to explain what God wants from people I can explain to them whythere's no God behind the fables.

That's the only difference, and it wasn't even a major decision. I simply followed where the truth led. And in your derogatory Christian Judgement you judge that to be a sad situation.

It's never sad when someone embraces truth.

So then, if we have one who would make such a decision, in this way, what in the world would cause use to believe the thinking has changed? Simply because one has the ability to change the mind, does not in any way demonstrate the thinking has changed.

It's not on me that the Bible has proven itself to be false.

You'll need to take your derogatory Christian judgements somewhere else. They don't fit here.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Realworldjack]

By the way, your derogatory comments toward me on a personal level only verify another part of what was posted in the OP:

they are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs

You can't argue against my points, so you stoop to trying to belittle me on a personal level.

And that's supposed to be "Christian Behavior"?

I think this speaks volumes and only verifies the points made in the OP.

[benchwarmer]

It is utterly amazing to me, for there to be one who admits to being a totally convinced Christian at one point, now to only insist that it is all based upon "fables", and I don't care how you slice it? This sort of demonstrates one who would make a major life decision without really thinking it all the way through. I will assure you that it certainly does not help your argument to admit such a thing. It would be really comical, if it was no such a sad admission.

What is amazing to me is that you keep coming back to this tired, ill informed, back handed insult whenever your 'facts and evidence' are questioned by former believers.

Have YOU discovered every possible fact about anything? Is it possible to think one has thoroughly investigated something and then later discover something that renders previous decisions incorrect? Are you familiar with science?

We all make decisions based on whatever information we have accumulated. Some of use try to be very thorough, yet still fail to discover all the facts. This was my journey with Christianity. I came to it later in life after doing much investigation. Sadly my investigation was not originally thorough enough. I had read the Bible, taken classes, questioned priests, etc. What I had failed to do was any serious historical inquiry OUTSIDE the information given to me by Christians. I had not bothered to look into what scholars were saying as I assumed the priests were the experts at the time.

Impugning the thought processes of others because they didn't realize there was actually more information out there shows more about the person making the accusation than the person it is leveled at. It smells like a diversion tactic that is used to take the spotlight off the FACT that there is nothing beyond claims made about a man who supposedly rose from the dead then flew off into the sky.

The only facts and evidence we have for many Christian stories are the claims themselves. Failing to realize this seems more dodgy than someone admitting they once believed in the claims and then later realized that's all there was. Some of us wrongly assumed the claims were actually good evidence at one time. Some of us have now realized the error of our ways. This is a fact.

[Mithrae]

Impugning the thought processes of others because they didn't realize there was actually more information out there shows more about the person making the accusation than the person it is leveled at.

Bearing in mind of course that this is being discussed in a thread whose OP both
- asks (apparently in all seriousness) whether religious fundamentalism and differences we see here in debate can be 'explained' not by imperfect access to information, but by outright brain impairment, and
- emphasizes a number of pejorative claims against the thought processes and behaviour of "fundamentalist groups" and "religious beliefs" generally which are totally unsupported by the cited scientific study and so far any other source either.