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.
Since religious beliefs play a massive role in driving and influencing human behavior throughout the world, it is important to understand the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism from a psychological and neurological perspective.
To investigate the cognitive and neural systems involved in religious fundamentalism, a team of researchers—led by Jordan Grafman of Northwestern University—conducted a study that utilized data from Vietnam War veterans that had been gathered previously. The vets were specifically chosen because a large number of them had damage to brain areas suspected of playing a critical role in functions related to religious fundamentalism. CT scans were analyzed comparing 119 vets with brain trauma to 30 healthy vets with no damage, and a survey that assessed religious fundamentalism was administered. While the majority of participants were Christians of some kind, 32.5% did not specify a particular religion.
Based on previous research, the experimenters predicted that the prefrontal cortex would play a role in religious fundamentalism, since this region is known to be associated with something called ‘cognitive flexibility’. This term refers to the brain’s ability to easily switch from thinking about one concept to another, and to think about multiple things simultaneously. 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. It is a crucial mental characteristic for adapting to new environments because it allows individuals to make more accurate predictions about the world under new and changing conditions.
Brain imaging research has shown that a major neural region associated with cognitive flexibility is the prefrontal cortex—specifically two areas known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). Additionally, the vmPFC was of interest to the researchers because past studies have revealed its connection to fundamentalist-type beliefs. For example, one study showed individuals with vmPFC lesions rated radical political statements as more moderate than people with normal brains, while another showed a direct connection between vmPFC damage and religious fundamentalism. For these reasons, in the present study, researchers looked at patients with lesions in both the vmPFC and the dlPFC, and searched for correlations between damage in these areas and responses to religious fundamentalism questionnaires.
Continued in Full Article: [alternet.org]
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Well its nice to know I overcame my indoctrination because I wasn't brain damaged...at least in that way. Brilliant! Now I can honestly say "your just brain damaged for not accepting the evidence" and actually have evidence for that!
I am being a bit flippant, though the case may very well apply.
DavidLaDeau
Level 8
Jan 2, 2020
0
We each look at life from our own unique perspective. Because of this we all see a different world when we open our eyes. We interpret things and events differently based on our perceptions. Religious fundamentalists are not "wrong", they simply see the world differently from those who don't share their perspective.
Icarus420
Level 3
Dec 30, 2019
0
It is not about SEEING anything differently, there is a big difference between accepting facts and established science as opposed to simply BELIEVING fables and stories. Embracing fables as truth is not only "wrong", it is ridiculous or insane, just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
Rabbits and hyraxes do not chew cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), Noah's Ark didn't happen, if prayer worked it would be extremely evident and a valuable resource that everyone would exploit, and if a believers faith and prayers actually produced provable results they would be famous. There is no power or evidence to back up their claims. Religious fundamentalists ARE wrong.
@nogod4me My perception is that humans are equipped with sense organs that apprise us of only a fraction of the totality of reality that exists beyond our ability to perceive.
Established scientific facts change with new evidence, that’s precisely why scientists speak of scientific theories rather than scientific facts. To be a good scientist requires keeping an open mind because our understanding of reality is imperfect and continues to change.
My dictionary has two definitions for the word “accept”. The second definition is, “believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct”. In other words, “believe” and “accept” are synonyms.
When speaking in reference to religious fundamentalists you use the term “BELIEVING” in a disparaging and derogatory manner. But when speaking in reference to “facts and established science” you use the term “accept” as if it doesn’t mean to “believe” those facts to be true.
My point is that we each choose what to believe.
You have chosen to believe in “facts and established science”. I’m not sure what religious fundamentalists have chosen to believe in, but it doesn’t appear to be the Christian Bible. I understand they will pick and choose biblical passages out of context to support their own prejudices, but to me that doesn’t translate into believing what the Bible has to say.
From my perspective, their support for Trump is proof that they don’t believe in the biblical teachings of Jesus, and based on information in your bio, you may well be a better “Christian” than the average religious fundamentalist.
@Icarus420 Yes, we do choose what to believe, but some of us do so in a perspective that allows the entry of new information, as you refer to. Fundamentalists do not see a place for updating their views with new information.
Some theories that have been scrutinized multiple times, over many years, such as that of evolution, and relativity, have been deemed factual, after having always (at east so far) survived attempts to falsify them.
@Icarus420 Science starts with a basic understanding, then tests and experiments to expand that knowledge. When something is in error, or proven false, science embraces it as a part of a more comprehensive understanding. Religion starts with a preconceived notion, it resists science, change, or anything that can affect that notion negatively. We understand the science of combustion, please explain the science of gods existence. Is it verifiable or testable? No matter how much evidence there is against a god, a “believer” will simply continue to believe, changing and evolving so that their beliefs will not be eradicated. This has been proven to be a detriment on society as well as dangerous. Religion perceives, or declares, something as evil or good, which confuses the mind and causes emotional distress, which it then uses as a controlling influence.
First they must prove a god exists then everyone on this planet can join the conversation.
@nogod4me From my perspective, both scientific inquiry and religious belief were prompted by a sense of curiosity concerning life, the world in which we live, and how we and the world we inhabit came to exist. Both science and religion attempt to explain the world and our place in it.
It is evident that religion is not static. Beliefs have evolved over time and in numerous directions. The Christian religion, for example, used to advocate for the idea that great wealth would act as an impediment to entry into heaven, a claim made in their Bible. Now, however, many “Christian” leaders proclaim that wealth is a reward from God, that God wants you to “prosper” financially, and poverty is a punishment from on high.
Both science and religion begin with preconceived ideas.
Science requires that preconceived ideas (AKA theories) be tested and “proven” before they are widely accepted, but it is my understanding that many scientists resist new evidence that brings into question theories that they have come to accept as “fact”, which appears to be a very human inclination.
You say, “No matter how much evidence there is against a god, a “believer” will simply continue to believe”. I am not a “believer”, but I am aware of no evidence in support of the idea that there is no god. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Perhaps “evidence”, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I understand that some people gain comfort from religious belief, but my perception is that more harm than good is done in the name of religion, and I reject the concept that moral values and behavior are dependent on, or emanate only from religious beliefs.
I have seen no direct evidence of the existence of any “god”, but then I have seen no direct evidence of the existence of “black holes” either.
Though “black holes” are widely accepted to exist based on mathematical calculations, other mathematical calculations have proven that they cannot exist (see: [phys.org].
Science and religion are both inventions of humankind, and, as such, are both imperfect agents for understanding the world and our place in it.
@nogod4me I must take exception to this part of your statement: "When something is in error, or proven false, science embraces it as a part of a more comprehensive understanding."
No, when an hypothesis, or theory, is falsified it goes into the garbage pile. There is no place for a "more comprehensive understanding" of the theory of an Earth centered universe. No hard feelings, i do hope.
Have conjectured at the blindness of fundamentalists. Now these studies discovered evidence of a correlation to pre-frontal inflexibility. The researchers point out, "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." I'm scared that demagogues and plutocrats always will try to cultivate fundamentalist ideology in large populations. It's advantageous for their continued power to promote brain damage in a population by means of the planned lack of: adequate health care, adequate living conditions, adequate education, clean environment, etc. It is this lack that plutocrats and demagogues have steadily tried to increase in recent decades, and they've been successful at it, because of hard-line politicians. I speculate some politicians are probably pre-frontally brain-damaged also.
AnonySchmoose
Level 8
Dec 30, 2019
3
I may be wrong, but I suspect that most politicians who pander to fundamentalists know they are pandering and do so to exploit the religious perspectives of fundamentalists and gain their votes.
@Icarus420 Was remembering that since 1973 ALEC always has and will back pro-Republicans to stay in power in order to boost power of corporations, but will take power away from and neglect the populace. Since the Supreme Court and large numbers of judge appointments in recent years have upheld non-progressive and non-secular causes, we the populace are likely to lose constitutional rights.
@AnonySchmoose If you count the right to vote, some of us are already losing our constitutional rights. Unfortunately, voting for who will preside over the administration of the federal government was denied us by the Constitution from the very beginning in favor of those who are politically well connected. The large number of judges appointed to the federal courts that are rated "unqualified" is a sad note but doesn't really matter. The only judges that can take away our rights sit on the Supreme Court.
@Icarus420 I do count the loss of the right to vote as a major loss of constitutional rights, and is likely to be the beginning of more loss. I also count federal crimes of organized crime, financial crimes, and large scale fraud, and think "unqualified" judges tend to go easy on such crimes, because of monied influence. The wider spread the corruption, the easier it will be for the Supreme Court judges to judge certain grossly unfair rulings are alright ... such as their 'corporations are people' ruling.
I'm really not surprised. Religious fundamentalism has the same spasmodic qualities of really any other primitive, ignorant presumption. Ways of being, like religious fundamentalism exist because not everyone is on the same biological page. We still see people whose brains are either from the previous epochs in human intellectual evolution, or their brains are corrupt, causing them to behave and think like, well, someone with brain damage of varying levels of functioning.
But what I find more interesting than pointing out intellectual deficits in religious fundamentalists is how people seem to widely know about brain deficiencies that cause premature thinking and behavior, but they don't seem to use that as a reference point in assessing dyed in the wool religious fundamentalists, political extremists, and other people who exhibit that level of intellectual investment when it comes to matters of information. Because really, such things are about the completeness, competency and perceptual clarity of the mind's ability to deal with information, and yet these chatter-monkeys don't seem to really know about anything that is more g-loaded than something irreducibly simple, like a whack-a-mole video game.
...And what is such a community's obsession with the so-called importance of their fundamentalism? They think their gods with their super-intelligence and powers actually care about what we do, and that we, as humans can know what they want because of scriptures we wrote ourselves? We're supposed to just adopt religious claims when it's very plain as to their speciousness, haste, blatant storytelling and demagoguery? It's absurd. Let this whole sub-species of cavemen die off, and let the world be stewarded by people of passable quality.
DZhukovin
Level 7
Dec 30, 2019
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.