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?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]

Notice that what I say in the OP makes no claims but asks a question. The quotation is from a professional journal. Are you attempting to argue against a professional publication with nothing but personal opinions and/or objections?

Meanwhile after more than three days, a gentle reminder and a dozen other posts, the pejorative claims emphasized by the OP against fundamentalist groups and religious beliefs generally still have not been substantiated. We are often informed that in reasoned and honourable debate one should support claims with evidence when required, and withdraw them if unable to do so.

Thanks. I'll preserve your statement for quotation in future debates.

But perhaps slurs against religious people needn't be held to that same standard.

Is this to suggest that the Forum Admin and Moderators apply different standards regarding 'slurs against religious people' than regarding non-religious people?

It is of course your statement/standard of "honourable debate," and you (admittedly a moderator yourself) rather than the whole team who in this case has failed to either substantiate or withdraw the claims you've emphasized. Rather derogatory claims too.

“But perhaps slurs against religious people needn't be held to that same standard� IS a condemnation of the Admin / Moderator team.

If you think that you have a legitimate complaint, the proper procedure is to report any supposed infraction.

Regarding support of the OP: here is a bit of information from a religious source:

Pope Francis said, "Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions … Religious fundamentalism is not religious, because it lacks God. It is idolatry, like idolatry of money … We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil."

We are seeing something close to a global epidemic of fundamentalism. Pope Francis is right: "Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions." And it strikes at the heart of the common good, because it prevents people from growing as individuals and contributing to the welfare of others.

Fundamentalism is "a religion of rage." Fundamentalists are people who are outraged when they see the world around them disregarding their revered religious values. They respond in dangerously simplistic but militant ways to fears that they will lose their identity. They use words, or recourse to the ballot box, or, in extreme instances, bullets and bombs. Those who dare to question them are intolerantly scapegoated as enemies of the truth.
https://www.chausa.org/publications/hea ... ommon-good

If you disagree with what is said by the OP, the journal article cited, and the Pope, kindly present evidence to the contrary.

You have not substantiated any of the four points I questioned from the claims you emphasized. If anything you have contradicted two of them:

Perhaps it would be useful to read again the above with emphasis on the bold and red.

by citing a progressive religious source explicitly in favour of "people growing as individuals" and being open to questioning, you have undermined the claim that "religious beliefs are... strongly associated with conservatism" and

Notice that you left out the word prevents. Cut and paste of parts of statements which changes their meaning is not legitimate.

- the quoted comments that "Fundamentalists.... use words, or recourse to the ballot box" just like everyone else, and only in very rare and "extreme instances, bullets and bombs" contradicts the claim that "Fundamentalist groups... are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs"

Read the whole statement

“Fundamentalism is "a religion of rage." Fundamentalists are people who are outraged when they see the world around them disregarding their revered religious values. They respond in dangerously simplistic but militant ways to fears that they will lose their identity. They use words, or recourse to the ballot box, or, in extreme instances, bullets and bombs. Those who dare to question them are intolerantly scapegoated as enemies of the truth.

It's somewhat laudable that after only two reminders you did at least attempt to provide some kind of response before trying to shift the burden of proof. Nevertheless, it doesn't exactly bode well that this response has failed to substantiate any of those four points and instead seems to undermine two of them!

Notice that the OP quotes the journal Neuropsychologia. “a peer-reviewed scientific journal that focuses on cognitive neuroscience. It was established in 1963, and is published by Elsevier.�

Absent some kind of substantiation, perhaps it would be more appropriate to renounce those pejorative claims?

The supposed 'pejorative claims' appear in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Nothing has been presented to dispute the article's statements. Do you have contradictory evidence?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]

Notice that what I say in the OP makes no claims but asks a question. The quotation is from a professional journal. Are you attempting to argue against a professional publication with nothing but personal opinions and/or objections?

. . . .

Notice that the OP quotes the journal Neuropsychologia. “a peer-reviewed scientific journal that focuses on cognitive neuroscience. It was established in 1963, and is published by Elsevier.�

The link in the OP is to AlterNet, an explicitly political left-leaning website; the quote is from the linked page. That page offers a further link to an actual scientific source, but as I pointed out in my original post and quoted again in post #17, "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." It is obvious now that not only did you not bother to look at the study, but you're actually trying to pass a journalist's religio-political propaganda off as science!

It is of course your statement/standard of "honourable debate," and you (admittedly a moderator yourself) rather than the whole team who in this case has failed to either substantiate or withdraw the claims you've emphasized. Rather derogatory claims too.

“But perhaps slurs against religious people needn't be held to that same standard� IS a condemnation of the Admin / Moderator team.

If you think that you have a legitimate complaint, the proper procedure is to report any supposed infraction.

It's got nothing to do with the admin/moderation team: It's an observation/criticism of the obvious double standard in play here of regularly demanding evidence or retraction of even entirely benign religious claims, while failing to respond for three days to similar requests for evidence of offensive claims against religious people and (when some kind of response is finally dragged out) failing to substantiate or recant those claims.

Notice that what I say in the OP makes no claims but asks a question.

And notice that I have referred only to "your bolded claims" and "your emphasized claims": There were certainly other points in the quoted section from your propaganda source which could be disputed, but I have asked only about those sections which you chose to emphasize - what is your stance on those comments? You're the one who highlighted them, so is it really so surprising to be asked to either support or reject them?

If you disagree with what is said by the OP, the journal article cited, and the Pope, kindly present evidence to the contrary.

You have not substantiated any of the four points I questioned from the claims you emphasized. If anything you have contradicted two of them:

Perhaps it would be useful to read again the above with emphasis on the bold and red.

Yes, rather than doing what is appropriate in "reasonable and honourable debate" - either supporting or retracting the dubious and derogatory claims which you chose to emphasize - you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

by citing a progressive religious source explicitly in favour of "people growing as individuals" and being open to questioning, you have undermined the claim that "religious beliefs are... strongly associated with conservatism" and

Notice that you left out the word prevents. Cut and paste of parts of statements which changes their meaning is not legitimate.

Good grief, you cited an article which is explicitly against "prevent[ing] people from growing as individuals"; do you honestly not understand that means your source is in favour of people growing as individuals?

- the quoted comments that "Fundamentalists.... use words, or recourse to the ballot box" just like everyone else, and only in very rare and "extreme instances, bullets and bombs" contradicts the claim that "Fundamentalist groups... are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs"

Read the whole statement

“Fundamentalism is "a religion of rage." Fundamentalists are people who are outraged when they see the world around them disregarding their revered religious values. They respond in dangerously simplistic but militant ways to fears that they will lose their identity. They use words, or recourse to the ballot box, or, in extreme instances, bullets and bombs. Those who dare to question them are intolerantly scapegoated as enemies of the truth.

Why do you believe that the opinions of Rev. Gerald A. Arbuckle qualify as legitimate evidence substantiating the derogatory claims you emphasized? I asked for statistically significant data, and instead you are making an appeal to religious authority from a rival sect. Would you also accept a reverend's claim about the "dangerously simplistic but militant ways" in which atheists behave? It not, then why on earth should I take such wordplay seriously - all it seems to show is that you've got nothing of substance to offer in support of your bolded claims.

Absent some kind of substantiation, perhaps it would be more appropriate to renounce those pejorative claims?

The supposed 'pejorative claims' appear in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Nothing has been presented to dispute the article's statements. Do you have contradictory evidence?

AlterNet is not a "peer reviewed scientific journal" no matter how often you say it.

And for the third time, it's not up to me to disprove the derogatory claims that you've emphasized; it's up to you to either support them or reject them. Nevertheless in the spirit of charity I will point out that at least two of the four I quoted are demonstrably and obviously false. You emphasized the claim that "religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations," yet it is a fairly obvious fact that what used to be an overwhelmingly common Christian belief in a six thousand year old earth has usually given way to new scientific evidence. You emphasized the claim that "religious beliefs are... strongly associated with conservatism," but again it is a fairly obvious fact that in the USA for example only a minority of Christians belong or lean towards the conservative Republican party - as of 2014 it's barely even a majority among evangelical Protestants, for Chrissake, let along being a "strong association" - while Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims all lean towards the Democrat party by substantial majorities.

Thirdly you emphasized the claim that "Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life"... but of course everyone opposes things that challenge their beliefs or way of life, making it pointless and irrelevant rhetoric unless you could demonstrate - as I requested - some statistically significant difference between 'fundamentalist groups' and the general population in that regard. The claim that "Fundamentalist groups... are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs" is equally meaningless without further evidence, since terms like 'often' and 'aggressive' can mean whatever you want them to mean: You're seemingly trying to portray talking and voting as 'militant' or 'aggressive' acts, for example.

So even ignoring the problems with this attempt to shift your burden of proof, what we see here are two demonstrably and obviously false claims, and two which currently seem to be nothing more than meaningless rhetoric. I am pretty thoroughly opposed to fundamentalism myself; but when there's actually good, logical arguments which can be made against those tendencies, this propaganda hit piece really does seem to be a pretty poor showing.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

I've yet to see anyone claim there are NO facts or evidence.

From post #5 here on this thread,

There are no facts or evidence to support Christian claims.

Here you are claiming that there exists facts and evidence to support Christian claims, when in truth no such facts or evidence exists.

Now, I will assume you read this post, since your title is there saying you liked this post? So then, yes one has made the claim, and you have seen it.

It is a fact there is evidence of claims.

Okay then, we seem to agree here.

And that poster was correct in stating this.

Okay, so when you use the word "fable" to describe the content of the NT, would this be indicating that this material would not have been based upon fact? If so, how can you demonstrate this to be a fact? If you cannot demonstrate this to be a fact, then why not simply qualify the statement as being an opinion you hold, instead of insisting that it would be "fables"? My question is, why use the word "fable" at all? Why not simply say the writing would be false?

Your issue appears to be trying to force people to claim there is no evidence when no one seems to be claiming this. At least in this context.

As we have seen above, this statement would be false, because one has indeed made the claim, "there is no evidence".

Yes. It is all based on fables (in the NT to be precise).

Again, could you please explain precisely what you mean by, "fables"? And would this mean that you are insisting that this material would be false, by referring to it as "fables"?

I'll say it again: We have facts and evidence.

So then, you are in disagreement with this poster above, from a post you liked?

The writings in the NT fully qualify as fables. See (1) and (3) in the definition above.

As we look at definition 1, how would the claims in the NT compare with, "the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables? Because you see, I would think that when most folks think of "fables" they think of things which were never intended to be based upon fact, and I think it can be well demonstrated that the NT was at least intended to be based upon fact.

In fact, to demonstrate this, just look at the first few paragraphs of the first account addressed to Theophilus, and explain how this can be referred to as, "fable"?

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

How does one "carefully investigate" fables", in order to communicate the "exact truth"? It would be one thing to suggest you do not believe this information to be accurate. It is quite another to insist this information was a "fable".

I'm in the later category. There are definitely some facts and evidence. These being solely the claims made in the NT writings. That doesn't mean there are facts that verify a resurrection or a multitude of other claims made.

My friend, I have never suggested the claims can be verified, but rather there are facts, and evidence in support of the claims. However, I will also point out that those who hold the opinion that this information would be false, cannot verify their opinion to be fact.

In other words, the evidence we have is weak at best.

That is certainly an opinion, and I have no problem with your opinion, but I happen to have a completely different opinion. Now, we can leave it at that, and agree to disagree, because I do not insist that everyone see things in the same way as I do. As I have also said, "because, I have, and continue to think critically about what I believe, and why I believe it, I understand those who doubt, and I do not insist they have no reason for their doubt".

So again, we can agree to disagree, or you can go on to insist that I do not have any good reasons to believe as I do, and we can continue this conversation? I am fine either way.

It becomes apparent how weak when you really look at the meager evidence we have and what it is composed of.

Statements like this seem to indicate you would like to continue? Just let me know, but you better be prepared.

The last 2 paragraphs I am going to leave alone, and you just let me know how you would like to proceed here? Allow me now to make the point I have been attempting to make all along.

There are many former Christians who claim they were at one time convinced Christianity would be true. As demonstrated, there are those among them, who now want to claim, they were convinced of something, that there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

If these folks did any sort of thinking at all, before deciding to become a Christian, this would mean they were convinced of something to be a fact, which there would be no facts, and evidence to support, and the question would be, what would cause us to believe the thinking is any better now?

Of course there are others who make such claims, and attempt to blame this on their parents, family, friends, pastors, etc., and claim they were simply taking the word of others. If this is the case, they demonstrate one who would make such a major life decision, without a whole lot of thinking involved, and again the question would be, what would cause us to believe the thinking is any better now?

What I have not seen a lot of, is any of these folks who claim to have been convinced Christianity to be true, to now acknowledge that there would be facts, and evidence in support, and acknowledge that there would be good reasons for others to believe the reports.

So then, the choice is yours? Were you a convinced Christian, who truly believed, and commited yourself as an adult, to a belief you now claim there would be no good reasons to believe? Or, were you a convinced Christian who truly believed, and commited yourself as an adult, to a belief that you acknowledge there would be good reasons to believe?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 22 by Mithrae]

In the OP I present an article from a peer-reviewed journal and ask a question. Later I present an article in which the Pope is quoted agreeing with the article.

The response is NOT an answer to the OP question, but a series of claims that fail to answer the question, comments regarding what is in bold font, AND a referral to the Pope as “religious authority from a rival sect�.

Does the Pope represent a 'rival sect' to Christianity?

Rather than attempting to hold me responsible for the article (while dismissing the Pope as from 'a rival sect'), it might be prudent to attempt to answer the OP question: Might this help explain some differences we see here in debate and elsewhere?

Post #22 demonstrates one point from the article cited in the OP: “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 . . “

That includes referring to the leader of the largest Christian denomination as representing a 'rival sect'. Does internecine warfare contribute credibility to Christianity?

[bjs]

In the OP I present an article from a peer-reviewed journal and ask a question.

Mithrae has said this is a couple of times, but I wanted to say it as well:

In the OP you presented an article from alternet.org.

Alternet.org is not a peer-reviewed journal.

Alternet.org is a progressive news website.

Please stop falsely claiming that you presented an article from a peer-reviewed journal.

[tokutter]

[Replying to post 25 by bjs]

The first sentence of that article tells you it was gotten from the journal...….Neuropsychologia……………which according to wikipedia

IS A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.

why make things so hard?

anything to say about the article?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 25 by bjs]

The first sentence of that article tells you it was gotten from the journal...….Neuropsychologia

No, the first two sentences of the article tell you about the scientific study; it does not claim that the article is from the journal, and as I pointed out in post #3 after looking at the cited study, and again in post #17 - which the OP obviously did not bother to do - most of what's quoted there is unsupported by the study. Only the first/shortest of the three paragraphs quoted reflects the cited study (as you'd know if you too had bothered to glance at it). For example whereas the study notes in its first introductory paragraph that "Religious beliefs, like other beliefs, are embedded in different ways in different people and societies (Cristofori and Grafman, 2017)," the AlterNet article proclaims a narrow (and demonstrably false, as shown in post #22) stereotype that "religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism."

[SallyF]

We could play the "define impairment" deflection …

Nonetheless:

For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.

It's unclear why this trend persists, but researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct, they say, and people who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.

"Intelligence — in rationally solving problems — can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities," study lead author Edward Dutton, a research fellow at the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the United Kingdom, said in a statement. [Saint or Spiritual Slacker? Test Your Religious Knowledge] https://www.livescience.com/59361-why-a ... igent.html

Religious fundamentalists - for me - are at the very base level of instinctive obedience and compliance.

Deliberate atheists - for me - are at the higher end of intellectual independence.

And there's a whole bunch of area in between ...

As is evidenced by the ballast certain folks toss over the side of their belief balloons (magic Ephods and such).

"Impairment" …?

God only knows.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 22 by Mithrae]

In the OP I present an article from a peer-reviewed journal and ask a question.

Your earlier multiple claims that "the OP quotes the journal Neuropsychologia" are obviously and unequivocally false. I had already twice pointed out that the OP content differs from the journal content, and I explicitly responded to this false claim a third time in post #22: But instead of doing what is required in 'honourable debate' and recanting your false claims, you seem to be sidling back to an assertion that you 'presented' an article from a peer-reviewed journal rather than quoting it. Are you hoping that no-one will notice this duplicity?

The response is NOT an answer to the OP question, but a series of claims that fail to answer the question, comments regarding what is in bold font, AND a referral to the Pope as “religious authority from a rival sect�.

I responded specifically to the OP question in post #3 and have not received any kind of coherent answer: "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."

Since the answer to the OP question is either 'no' or an obvious fallacy, it seems more like a rhetorical question than an important point of debate, rhetoric which matches the derogatory content which you bolded in your AlterNet quote. Therefore I would think that the most productive approach both for you and for any other contributors is to first establish that this thread isn't just the propaganda hit piece which the quoted and bolded sections of the AlterNet article seem to be; to establish whether this thread is actually intended for discussion of dlPCF and vmPFC lesions, or just for sluring religious people.

You refuse to reject the unsubstantiated derogatory propaganda of AlterNet, and have also not bothered to answer my response to the OP question (nor Wootah's for that matter); these facts seem consistent with the hypothesis that the purpose of the thread was more about the derogatory propaganda than any real interest in the 'question.'

[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?

I have just happen to notice, this article begins by talking about "FUNDEMANTALISM" being, "the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex."

It then begins to talk about, "religious beliefs" in general. Therefore, my question is, is the "brain damage" only associated with "fundamentalism"? Or, would this include "religious beliefs" in general?