Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #1

Post by 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?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #31

Post by benchwarmer »

Realworldjack wrote: [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,
Divine Insight wrote:There are no facts or evidence to support Christian claims.
Divine Insight wrote: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 appears you are not making the distinction between:

1) The facts and evidence used by Christians to support their beliefs: The claims in the NT

and

2) Facts and evidence that support the above claims in (1): Have yet to see any facts and evidence beyond more claims that actually support the claims in the NT.
Realworldjack wrote:
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?
Did you look at the definition of fable? Does it insist that the story is false? You seem to be gravitating to one sense of the definition and ignoring the other ones - notably the ones I actually highlighted.

Are some of the stories in the NT used to teach moral lessons? I think so.
Are some of the stories in the NT about supernatural or extraordinary persons? I think so.

Look at that, 2 out of 3 matches to the definition of a fable that I quoted in my previous reply.
Realworldjack wrote:
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".
And you missed 'in this context'. I explained this above.
Realworldjack wrote:
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"?
Apparently you didn't bother to read the quoted dictionary definition I provided in the post you are replying to. I can't help you beyond that. Might I suggest looking up the definition yourself and seeing what matches?

No, I am not insisting the material is false. Where did you get that idea? You seem to project your ideas onto others often here. Feel free to quote one of my posts where I insisted the material is false or where I only supplied a definition of fable that requires the story to be false.
Realworldjack wrote:
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?
No. Explained above. I'm in disagreement with you. You can't seem to separate some facts and evidence from others.

We have facts and evidence to support that there are Christian claims.

I have yet to see any facts and evidence (beyond simply more claims) that actually support the Christian claims.

Do you have a method to verify any of the claims such as the resurrection? If not, then your 'facts and evidence' that you keep harping on about are nothing more than claims which I have already, multiple times now, agreed exist.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
I can't help it if you choose to cherry pick pieces of the actual definition to support your argument. I suggest reading the full definition, not focusing on the example. Do NT stories teach moral lessons? Yes or no? Do they have supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents? Yes or no?
Realworldjack wrote: 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"?
I think we should make this a drinking game. Every time you bring up the letter addressed to Theophilus all the non-theists have to take a shot. You'll have us all drunk in short order.
Realworldjack wrote:
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".
Well, gee, I dunno. Keep reading?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.

8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense.
I bolded the important bits to consider when deciding if we are in 'fable' territory or not.

I see mention of at least two supernatural entities and one extraordinary incident. Seems to fit the bill to me, but I'll let readers decide.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Well, my friend, if you have never suggested the claims can be verified we seem to be done. What can we do with unverifiable claims? It seems silly to me to keep believing in something once you realize there is no way to verify it. It might be nice to hope it's true, but it seems more pragmatic to chase things one can verify.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
I have no need to continue the conversation. I only jumped in to point out your mischaracterization of another poster since you did basically the same thing to me.


Clearly I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything, just pointing out to the readers what's going on.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #32

Post by Zzyzx »

.
[Replying to post 29 by Mithrae]

The study of reference is ““Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism,�'

Zhong W, Cristofori I, Bulbulia J, Krueger F, Grafman J. Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism. Neuropsychologia. 2017 Jun;100:18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.009. Epub 2017 Apr 6. PMID: 28392301; PMCID: PMC5500821.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5500821/

Does anyone wish to dispute the study with something more substantial than “I don't like your sources� and “I don't like the findings�?

Does anyone wish to dispute Pope Francis with something other than “religious authority from a rival sect�.

And a few other sources:

religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 63446.html

Also, Book: “Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible� Jerry A. Coyne

religious beliefs are... strongly associated with conservatism
https://psmag.com/news/how-christian-na ... nservatism
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land ... servative/

Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369219/

Fundamentalist groups... are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs"
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/ ... -violence/
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #33

Post by bjs »

Zzyzx wrote: Does anyone wish to dispute the study with something more substantial than “I don't like your sources� and “I don't like the findings�?
To be clear, the response has not been, “I don’t like your source.�

The response has been, “You have been blatantly dishonest about your source. You have claimed that your source was a peer reviewed journal, when in reality your source was an article form liberal new outlet and the majority of the article was not supported by the actual findings of the study.�
Last edited by bjs on Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #34

Post by Mithrae »

Zzyzx wrote: [Replying to post 29 by Mithrae]

The study of reference is ““Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism,�'

Zhong W, Cristofori I, Bulbulia J, Krueger F, Grafman J. Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism. Neuropsychologia. 2017 Jun;100:18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.009. Epub 2017 Apr 6. PMID: 28392301; PMCID: PMC5500821.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5500821/

Does anyone wish to dispute the study with something more substantial than “I don't like your sources� and “I don't like the findings�?
Who are you quoting there? Not me obviously, though it seems intended to create that misleading impression.

And are you ever going to have the integrity to acknowledge the obvious falsehood of your multiple claims that "that the OP quotes the journal Neuropsychologia"? Without any willingness to admit such basic and obvious falsehoods, it's difficult to see how any productive discussion can be possible.
Zzyzx wrote: Does anyone wish to dispute Pope Francis with something other than “religious authority from a rival sect�.
You made an appeal to religious authority. Are you going to acknowledge that fact, and justify the reasoning on which that decision was based? And, yes, Pope Francis' more progressive view of Christianity is indeed a rival sect to fundamentalism (including Catholic fundamentalism, though 'sect' may be an awkward word in that case). Perhaps more importantly, Pope Francis' progressive view of Christianity is rather weighty counter-example to your bolded claim that "religious beliefs are... strongly associated with conservatism."
Zzyzx wrote: And a few other sources:
religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 63446.html
Another sensationalist headline from a dubious media source? What makes you think that this will be any more viable than AlterNet? (Admittedly it is at least less openly partisan and more widely read!) Unfortunately the source does not support your claim: It notes that "In both [religious and nonreligious] groups, they found people with higher critical reasoning skills were less staunch in their beliefs" and that "despite espousing critical thinking, dogmatic atheists "may lack the insight to see anything positive about religion," said Mr Jack." In other words both religious and nonreligious groups include a continuum from more dogmatic to more open-minded people, and the purpose of the study was to find the correlates of dogmatic tendencies in both groups. The headline and opening paragraphs of your source adopt a somewhat sensationalist approach by emphasizing the religious side of that question. But if you actually looked at the study itself, it arguably seems to contradict or at least undermine your bolded claim above: "Usually" means significantly more than half of the time, yet in their assessment of dogmatism among religious people the participants on average scored lower than the halfway mark on the scale of dogmatism, 4.03 from a 1 to 9 point scale (Table 1). Nonreligious participants scored a little lower still on average (3.19), which of course doesn't change the fact that it is false to claim that religious beliefs usually are not updated in response to new information.

Nor have you addressed the point I raised earlier - after you twice demanded that I cover the burden of proof which you had failed to - that in probably the most prominent modern example of religious intransigence against science, it's actually the case that former religious beliefs on the age of the world have usually been updated in deference to scientific progress. Those still insisting on the formerly overwhelming Christian belief in a young earth are now in the minority, particularly outside the US. Why did you all but beg for my comments on this, if you were simply going to pretend that I had not refuted the claim at all?
From your first link:
"New research provides some clarification. It finds support for authoritarian impulses and harsh, punitive punishments isn't rooted in Christianity or nationalism per se..."
Your apparent argument here is even more obviously fallacious than a positive attitude towards the 'question' of the opening post. Even if current instances of authoritarian conservatism in the USA were caused by Christianity itself (which your source explicitly says is not the case), it would not follow either that authoritarian conservatism generally is caused by Christianity nor that Christianity generally leads to authoritarian conservatism - let alone religious beliefs generally!

I have already shown you the Pew data showing that even among Christians in the USA, on average among the various groups only a minority align with or lean towards the conservative Republican party (37% including black Protestants, 41% excluding them); while Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims all lean Democratic by a considerable majority. So to go from that to looking solely at the breakdown within those who are conservatives is an obviously disingenuous approach which does not in any way support your bolded claim that "religious beliefs are... strongly associated with conservatism." Again I have to wonder why you repeatedly demanded a refutation which you have now chosen to pretend does not exist?
Zzyzx wrote: Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369219/
As I've said, literally everyone opposes things that challenge their beliefs or way of life, so the question is do you have any statistically significant data showing that fundamentalist groups do this more commonly and/or more strenuously than the general population?
Zzyzx wrote: Fundamentalist groups... are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs"
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/ ... -violence/
Also as I've said, you can take the word 'often' to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. Atheists are often violently aggressive :lol: But the main problem with this claim lies in the suggestion that fundamentalist 'aggression' is directed towards "anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs." I suspect that on the contrary, most if not all fundamentalist groups who are accused of any kind of 'aggression' - verbal, violent or otherwise - could probably be shown to be quite tolerant of many people who don't share their specific set of supernatural beliefs; it's only particular types of differences which cause 'aggressive' behaviour.

For example one belief which is perhaps the most distinctive indicator of fundamentalism in western countries is young earth creationism, as your source above suggests, yet it would be highly dubious if not obviously false to claim that Answers in Genesis (for example) is "aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs": They're probably quite sympathetic towards children and young adults who've been taught by everyone around them that evolution is fact, for example, or towards Christian supporters of theistic evolution.


Of course these two comments against "fundamentalist groups" are less problematic or more likely to be at least partially correct than the obviously false claims against "religious beliefs" generally, partly as a consequence of how fundamentalism (religious and otherwise) has come to be defined by society at large: It's almost like discussing 'extremism,' obviously a highly circumstantial and subjective term but if and once we accept a given cultural perspective on the characteristics of 'extremism,' it opens the door to at least partial justification of all kinds of otherwise dubious and derogatory generalisation.

User avatar
Daedalus X
Apprentice
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #35

Post by Daedalus X »

SallyF wrote: For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.
Almost two millennia ago, Christians made the same observation.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29

The lack of intelligence would be feature, not a bug, in Christianity.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #36

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 31 by benchwarmer]
It appears you are not making the distinction between:

1) The facts and evidence used by Christians to support their beliefs: The claims in the NT

and

2) Facts and evidence that support the above claims in (1): Have yet to see any facts and evidence beyond more claims that actually support the claims in the NT.
Oh really? Well, what in the world was it that would have convinced you that Christianity was true? The fact of the matter is, there are facts, and evidence in support of the claims, and we certainly do not have time to go through all of them here, but I would imagine one would have done all this work before becoming convinced in the first place?

Because you see, there are "scholars" who attempt to explain what the facts, and evidence we have would mean, and there would be no need in these "scholars" attempting to explain away all these facts, and evidence, if there were no facts, and evidence to explain?

The most common form of evidence in a court of law, would be what is called, "testimonial evidence" and we have at least 4 authors who report a resurrection. We have very good evidence, that one of these authors actually traveled with Paul, which would mean that this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making from their very lips, which would mean that he would have had every opportunity, to "investigate everything carefully from the beginning" just as he ensured the individual he was addressing that he had done.

Of course, the "scholars" understand this to be evidence, which is exactly why they attempt to insist, with no evidence whatsoever that, this author was simply using a common name in order to address a wider audience. And of course, because they understand there is evidence to indicate this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, they attempt to tell us, without any sort of evidence, that this author used some sort of literary device. Moreover, they want to insist, with no evidence whatsoever, that Paul would not have been the author of the letter which would have mentioned the name of the one this letter has been attributed to, as being the only one with him at the time, exactly because they understand this to be evidence.

You see, if none of these things were evidence, the scholars would have no need in attempting to explain it away.

Moreover, this debate has been raging for over 2000 years, and there are arenas filled with people who come to listen to folks who debate these very things, and I have been to a number of these debates.

Of course, there have been times when the unbeliever wins the debate, but there have been other times when the apologists clearly wins the debate, and the point is, there would be no way to even have a debate, if there were no facts, and evidence involved, and there would certainly be no way for an apologists to win a debate without facts, and evidence. In other words, the apologists is not standing up there simply saying, "you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart".

All of the above should demonstrate that there are plenty of facts, and evidence in support, and it should also demonstrate that it is not something we can tackle in it's entirety, in this type of format.

However, it is not all that shocking, to understand one who became convinced of something they now say there would be no facts, and evidence in support of, other than the claims themselves, coming to the conclusion that the matter can be settled with one liners, because they are not use to having to put a whole lot of thinking into anything. In other words, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them that Christianity would be true, and so it should not be shocking to us that it does not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out, and that they are under the impression that it is all so simple. Easy in, easy out.
Did you look at the definition of fable?
Yes.
Does it insist that the story is false?
One of them certainly does. 2. a story not founded on fact.

So it looks like you are "cherry picking" yourself, which is exactly why I am asking you to tell us exactly what you mean by, "fable"? In other words, which "cherry are you picking"? Because you see, I would think that when most folks think of "fable", it would be in the context of not being based in fact, which I would also guess this is the reason you and others choose this word, and you have a convenient out, when you are challenged.
Are some of the stories in the NT used to teach moral lessons? I think so.
I'm not so sure you can demonstrate this? Because you see, if one is reporting that Jesus told a story, I am not sure how you can say, the story was intended to teach us a lesson, when he was not addressing us?

Next, the definition actually says,
1 a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue:
the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables.
So then, it is talking about the whole story, and again you demonstrate that you are "cherry picking" certain things, out of the whole, that was intended to be based in fact.

In other words, in our history class, we learn that George Washington was reported to have chopped down a cherry tree, (no pun intended), and this may not have been based upon actual fact, so would you suggest that history is based upon "fables". If so, then I am fine with that, but I really do not think this is why you prefer to use the word "fable" to describe the content of the NT.
Are some of the stories in the NT about supernatural or extraordinary persons? I think so.
Okay, in order for me to understand you better then, you are preferring to use the word, "fable" to describe the content of the NT, only because it contains some moral lessons, and reports "supernatural or extraordinary" events, and for no other reason? Well if this is the case, then I have no problem at all.
No, I am not insisting the material is false. Where did you get that idea? You seem to project your ideas onto others often here. Feel free to quote one of my posts where I insisted the material is false or where I only supplied a definition of fable that requires the story to be false.
No, I think we have it straight now. When you use the word "fable" to describe the content in the NT, you simply mean that it contains moral stories, supernatural and extraordinary events. Correct?
I can't help it if you choose to cherry pick pieces of the actual definition to support your argument. I suggest reading the full definition, not focusing on the example. Do NT stories teach moral lessons? Yes or no? Do they have supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents? Yes or no?
I think that I have demonstrated that I was asking which "cherry you were picking" from the definition?
I think we should make this a drinking game. Every time you bring up the letter addressed to Theophilus all the non-theists have to take a shot. You'll have us all drunk in short order.
If we did make it a drinking game, and I had to drink every time anyone had an answer to explain these things, I would be stone cold sober.
I bolded the important bits to consider when deciding if we are in 'fable' territory or not.

I see mention of at least two supernatural entities and one extraordinary incident. Seems to fit the bill to me, but I'll let readers decide.
Right! So then, you prefer to use the word "fable" simply because it has "supernatural entities and one extraordinary incident", while you seem to ignore the fact that this author reports in a letter addressed to one individual, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would ever read these letters, that he is writing these letters to him, after "investigating everything carefully from the beginning", in order for this individual to "know the exact truth".

So what do you have to say about this? Let me guess? He could have been lying? He could have been deceived? Well you would be correct, but the fact of the matter would be, he could have been reporting the truth. So then, what facts, and evidence do we have, which would suggest to us that this author after spending decades traveling with Paul, would have sat down, in order to write out what would be false information? What evidence do we have that he may be lying? What evidence do we have, that he may have been deceived? What would motivate this author to write out false information?

Of course, your question would be, what evidence do we have that he was reporting the truth? Well, how about the fact that he actually went to the trouble, to sit down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth", with no evidence whatsoever, which would indicate that he would have been lying?

Now you may say, this does not demonstrate that what he wrote would be fact, and you would be correct. However, this is certainly not evidence that what he wrote would be false.

The bottom line here is, we have the claims, and we also have facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, and there also may be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims to be false. I cannot demonstrate the claims to be true, nor can you demonstrate the claims to be false. Ergo, all either of us can do, is to explain what it is we believe, along with why we believe as we do, based upon the facts, and evidence we have.

I do not insist that you, nor anyone else would not have reasons to doubt the claims, but for some reason you seem to want to insist that I have no reasons to believe the claims. The problem is, you cannot demonstrate that I would have no reasons to believe the claims, on top of the fact that you once believe the claims yourself.

And for what reason did you believe the claims? Well, I do not have to guess about that, because according to you, there would be no reason for you to be as convinced as you were? GOOD ARGUMENT!
Well, my friend, if you have never suggested the claims can be verified we seem to be done.
I think it would also include the fact that, you cannot in any way "verify" the claims would be false.
What can we do with unverifiable claims? It seems silly to me to keep believing in something once you realize there is no way to verify it. It might be nice to hope it's true, but it seems more pragmatic to chase things one can verify.
Why don't you tell me? I am not the one who claims to have been convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support?
I have no need to continue the conversation.
I can certainly understand why.
I only jumped in to point out your mischaracterization of another poster since you did basically the same thing to me.
How is my simply repeating what others say themselves, a "miss-characterization"? All I have said is, "there are those who claim to have been totally convinced Christianity would be true, to now tell us, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of". What do I have incorrect here?
Clearly I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything, just pointing out to the readers what's going on.
And as we can see, not doing a very good job.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #37

Post by Realworldjack »

Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: .
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?

As you can see, I ask this question above in another post, and I never received a response?

The reason why I asked this question, is the fact that we have a very large number of members here on this site, who identify as, "former Christians", and I was wondering, would this mean that their brain damage somehow corrected itself?

My point is, if this brain damage is the cause of "religious beliefs in general", and not simply "fundamentalists beliefs" it seems sort of strange how the brain damage of so many folks, has somehow reversed itself on it's own? Or, is the brain damage that I have, preventing me from seeing the real picture here?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #38

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Zzyzx]

What the article this article says is different between fundamentalist and so called normal people is their cognitive flexibility. The article you cited defines cognitive flexibility the following way. "Cognitive flexibility allows organisms to update beliefs in light of new evidence, and this trait likely emerged because of the obvious survival advantage such a skill provides."

What some people may call a mental disorder others may call a blessing from God.

Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it."

There has been many "scientific discovers" that turned out to be false.

Take for example Phrenology:

Phrenology (from Ancient Greek φ�ήν (phrēn), meaning 'mind', and λόγος (logos), meaning 'knowledge') is a pseudoscience which involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits.[1][2] It is based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules.[3] Although both of those ideas have a basis in reality, phrenology extrapolated beyond empirical knowledge in a way that departed from science.[1][4] The central phrenological notion that measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits is discredited by empirical research.[5] Developed by German physician Franz Joseph Gall in 1796,[6] the discipline was influential in the 19th century, especially from about 1810 until 1840. The principal British centre for phrenology was Edinburgh, where the Edinburgh Phrenological Society was established in 1820.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology



The Blank Slate Theory

Tabula rasa (/ˈtæbjələ ˈrɑ�sə, -zə, ˈreɪ-/ 'blank slate') is the theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception.

Science states

Psychologists and neurobiologists have shown evidence that initially, the entire cerebral cortex is programmed and organized to process sensory input, control motor actions, regulate emotion, and respond reflexively (under predetermined conditions).

Important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind comes from behavioural genetics, especially twin and adoption studies (see below). These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits.[12] Critically, multivariate studies show that the distinct faculties of the mind, such as memory and reason, fractionate along genetic boundaries. Cultural universals such as emotion and the relative resilience of psychological adaptation to accidental biological changes (for instance the David Reimer case of gender reassignment following an accident) also support basic biological mechanisms in the mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Why would man doubt what the Bible says? If you think the Bible maybe wrong in some science observation, just wait history has shown that the Bible will be shown correct just as Robert Jastrow says.

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement

At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief. Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107
http://bevets.com/equotesj.htm

Can I believe this study? Yes, I can believe this study, because this is what Christians strive for, belief in the Bible by faith.

Hebrews 11

4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.


You can try to call Christians brain damaged but the contributions to Science and the pursuit of knowledge that Christians have made over the History of man has led to the modern marvels that we have today.

People like
Werner Heisenberg 1901 – 1976.
J. J. Thomson 1856 – 1940
Ernest Walton 1903 – 1995.
Carl Friedrich Gauss 1777 – 1855.
John Dalton 1766 – 1844.

https://www.famousscientists.org/great- ... hristians/

I think the world may need a few more brain damaged people.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #39

Post by Zzyzx »

.
bjs wrote: The response has been, “You have been blatantly dishonest about your source. You have claimed that your source was a peer reviewed journal, when in reality your source was an article form liberal new outlet and the majority of the article was not supported by the actual findings of the study.�
The study of reference is ““Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism,�'

Zhong W, Cristofori I, Bulbulia J, Krueger F, Grafman J. Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism. Neuropsychologia. 2017 Jun;100:18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.009. Epub 2017 Apr 6. PMID: 28392301; PMCID: PMC5500821.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5500821/

Neuropsychologia is a peer reviewed journal. "Read the latest articles of Neuropsychologia at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier's leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature." https://www.sciencedirect.com › journal › neuropsychologia
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Religious fundamentalism and brain impairment

Post #40

Post by otseng »

bjs wrote:You have been blatantly dishonest about your source.
Just a comment to please avoid the personal comments. Feel free to correct others, but do not comment about one's honesty.

Post Reply