Study Finds Link Between Brain Damage and Religious Fundamentalism.

[CharonY]

You, and the study both said it when you reworded the study to say "Study finds link between brain damage and religious fundamentalism."

You both worded it as such.

Except, you added the word religious, because the original study didn't have that.

And since you can add religious without making it a false statement, I can also add atheism.

But both of those are dragging the results of the study, and twisting them to say what we want it to say.

Ultimately, it found exactly what the study says it found.

A link between brain legions and the non ability to change your fundamental beliefs.

 

I simply pointed out where the news article went wrong.

 

The title of the study is "Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism". Now try again.

[koti]

Except, you added the word religious, because the original study didn't have that.

And since you can add religious without making it a false statement, I can also add atheism.

You straigh up lie to my and everydody elses faces here to justify your agenda. Its disgusting. Don't do it again.

 

Let me give you some advice (again) and please listen this time; If you attempt to defend a concept or agenda for legitimate and sincere reasons it will have a way of defending itself. If you do not have sincere motives and try to force your agenda by bending, twisting and lying you will always fail - its just a matter of time. With such failure (like yours here) youre loosing your credibility which is very difficult and timely to regain. On top of loosing credibility youre also diminishing your own intelligence in the eyes of others and in the eyes of youreself. Don't go this route again. By going down this road youre only hurting youreself.

Edited May 22, 2017 by koti

[Raider5678]

You straigh up lie to my and everydody elses faces here to justify your agenda. Its disgusting. Don't do it again.

 

Click the second link and scroll down to the highlights box.

 

The first subset states "We examined religious fundamentalism in a large sample of penetrating TBI patients."

And unless we have different studies, you see the same thing correct? They examined for it.

 

The second subset says: "Patients with VMPFC lesions reported greater fundamentalism."

The definition of fundamentalism is:

strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

plural noun: fundamentalisms

"free-market fundamentalism"

So they were looking for religious fundamentalism in particular.

The third subset states: DLPFC lesions increase fundamentalism by reducing cognitive flexibility and openness

So: They were looking for religious fundamentalism.

Correct?

So I formed this statement.

The study looked for religious fundamentalism with patients having DLPFC lesions. They found the people with DLPFC lesions had increased fundamentalism(Definition: Strict adherance to the basic principals of any subject or dicipline) because the brain lesions reduced cognitive flexibility and openness.

Where did I lie?

[koti]

 

 

Where did I lie?

 

You know very well where you lied and still your arrogance is only equal to your stubbornness. I'm done with conversing with you on this subject.

Edited May 22, 2017 by koti

[Raider5678]

 

You know very well where you lied and still your arrogance is only equal to your stubbornness. I'm done with conversing with you on this subject.

The study looked for religious fundamentalism with patients having DLPFC lesions. They found the people with DLPFC lesions had increased fundamentalism(Definition: Strict adherance to the basic principals of any subject or dicipline) because the brain lesions reduced cognitive flexibility and openness.

 

You know very well where you lied and still your arrogance is only equal to your stubbornness. I'm done with conversing with you on this subject.

My statement:

The study looked for religious fundamentalism with patients having DLPFC lesions. They found the people with DLPFC lesions had increased fundamentalism(Definition: Strict adherance to the basic principals of any subject or dicipline) because the brain lesions reduced cognitive flexibility and openness.

Where did I lie?

Okay. In truth, that wasn't my exact statement.

Rather, it was that you guys added "religious" to what they found.

In this post:

You, and the study both said it when you reworded the study to say "Study finds link between brain damage and religious fundamentalism."

You both worded it as such.

Except, you added the word religious, because the original study didn't have that.

And since you can add religious without making it a false statement, I can also add atheism.

But both of those are dragging the results of the study, and twisting them to say what we want it to say.

Ultimately, it found exactly what the study says it found.

A link between brain legions and the non ability to change your fundamental beliefs.

 

I simply pointed out where the news article went wrong.

 

And that's true.

I showed you the exact quote from the study, and if you click the link and look, you'll see I'm telling the truth.

They did not say they found RELIGIOUS fundamentalism.

Simply fundamentalism.

And fundamentalism, I provided the definition for, can be applied to "any subject".

 

So where did I lie?

If you can show me, using just quotes.

Tell me the post number, and put " " around it. Then tell me where the conflicts with what the study says.

And I'll take everything back.

But for now, I don't "know very well" where I lied.

 

The title of the study is "Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism". Now try again.

I said they reworded the findings.

Not the title of the study.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Raider5678

[swansont]

The study found no link between brain damage and religiousness.

It found a link in the ability to modify your fundamental beliefs.

 

 

 

fundamental beliefs ≠ fundamentalist beliefs

[Raider5678]

 

 

 

fundamental beliefs ≠ fundamentalist beliefs

If your first post you quoted them saying:

"they are not stating religious people overall are mentally inflexible or that belief is caused by brain damage. There are many cognitive processes involved in forming beliefs. But in some people, the system of “belief revision” may become suppressed due to brain damage."

 

Unless I'm mistaken, that includes going from atheism to religion, and going from religion to atheism.

 

Because in both instances, that would be a revision of beliefs.

Fundamentalism is the strict adherence of rules. So they used religion as a medium, to see if people with that type of brain lesion had a stricter adherence to rules to their religion.

Correct?

Or am I mistaken?

Edited May 22, 2017 by Raider5678

[swansont]

If your first post you quoted them saying:

"they are not stating religious people overall are mentally inflexible or that belief is caused by brain damage. There are many cognitive processes involved in forming beliefs. But in some people, the system of “belief revision” may become suppressed due to brain damage."

 

Unless I'm mistaken, that includes going from atheism to religion, and going from religion to atheism.

 

Because in both instances, that would be a revision of beliefs.

Fundamentalism is the strict adherence of rules. So they used religion as a medium, to see if people with that type of brain lesion had a stricter adherence to rules to their religion.

Correct?

Or am I mistaken?

Is atheism a fundamentalist belief? Is rejecting atheism and adopting a very weak theistic stance the same as adopting a fundamentalist belief? I would say no. They are pretty clear in the abstract what they were testing, and "going from atheism to religion, and going from religion to atheism" isn't it.

 

They weren't studying a generic "revision of beliefs." "religious fundamentalism" is mentioned a dozen times on the abstract web page that was linked. "Atheism" was not mentioned.

[Raider5678]

Is atheism a fundamentalist belief? Is rejecting atheism and adopting a very weak theistic stance the same as adopting a fundamentalist belief? I would say no. They are pretty clear in the abstract what they were testing, and "going from atheism to religion, and going from religion to atheism" isn't it.

I've known atheists who've become theists. I would definitely say that is a "revision of beliefs" because they definitely do not believe the same thing they did before.

 

And I've known theists who've become atheists. I would definitely say that is a "revision of beliefs" because they definitely do not believe the same thing they did before.

 

 

In that context, my entire argument relies on the premise that "revision of beliefs" includes going form atheism to theism and theism to atheism. And not just the latter.

 

 

 

I felt it was logical to say that they would both count as someone changing their beliefs.

Do you?

They weren't studying a generic "revision of beliefs." "religious fundamentalism" is mentioned a dozen times on the abstract web page that was linked. "Atheism" was not mentioned.

Second link or first link?

The first link I'm not discussing because it's the news article.

The second link is what I'm discussing.

 

In which case, it says this:

 

"Beliefs profoundly affect people's lives, but their cognitive and neural pathways are poorly understood.

Although previous research has identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as critical to representing religious beliefs, the means by which vmPFC enables religious belief is uncertain.

We hypothesized that the vmPFC represents diverse religious beliefs and that a vmPFC lesion would be associated with religious fundamentalism, or the narrowing of religious beliefs.

To test this prediction, we assessed religious adherence with a widely-used religious fundamentalism scale in a large sample of 119 patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI).

If the vmPFC is crucial to modulating diverse personal religious beliefs, we predicted that pTBI patients with lesions to the vmPFC would exhibit greater fundamentalism, and that this would be modulated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness.

Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness.

These findings indicate that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment, and that such diversity of religious thought is dependent on dlPFC functionality"

 

 

If you look at the 2nd to last statement, it says it was mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness.

In other words, increased fundamentalism. Because the definition of fundamentalism is "the strict adherence to"

Edited May 22, 2017 by Raider5678

[swansont]

I've known atheists who've become theists. I would definitely say that is a "revision of beliefs" because they definitely do not believe the same thing they did before.

 

And I've known theists who've become atheists. I would definitely say that is a "revision of beliefs" because they definitely do not believe the same thing they did before.

 

 

In that context, my entire argument relies on the premise that "revision of beliefs" includes going form atheism to theism and theism to atheism. And not just the latter.

 

 

 

I felt it was logical to say that they would both count as someone changing their beliefs.

Do you?

 

 

 

This is moot. The study was NOT about someone changing their beliefs of an arbitrary nature. The wording in the abstract does not even suggest this. It was specifically about fundamentalist beliefs.

 

"Beliefs profoundly affect people's lives, but their cognitive and neural pathways are poorly understood.

Although previous research has identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as critical to representing religious beliefs, the means by which vmPFC enables religious belief is uncertain.

We hypothesized that the vmPFC represents diverse religious beliefs and that a vmPFC lesion would be associated with religious fundamentalism, or the narrowing of religious beliefs.

To test this prediction, we assessed religious adherence with a widely-used religious fundamentalism scale in a large sample of 119 patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI).

If the vmPFC is crucial to modulating diverse personal religious beliefs, we predicted that pTBI patients with lesions to the vmPFC would exhibit greater fundamentalism, and that this would be modulated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness.

Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness.

These findings indicate that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment, and that such diversity of religious thought is dependent on dlPFC functionality"

 

 

 

Emphasis added. Does that help?

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

Yes, it's all so simple from the atheist perspective. Atheists are smart, good, moral, scientific, rational, etc, and Christians are none of those things. This brilliantly explains why:

 

1. The Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters, having been founded by Christians for the advancement of science and knowledge.

 

2. No atheist college exists with an express charter so designating it.

 

3. Atheism is so *rational* that only 30% of children raised as atheists remain so as adults. This is far below the proportion of Christians, which is 60 to 70%, based on specific religion.

 

4. "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of communism." - Vladimir Lenin

[Phi for All]

Yes, it's all so simple from the atheist perspective.

 

!

Moderator Note

We invite you to open your own thread about atheism, rather than take this one off-topic with that tangent. The subject here is a particular study that was done on religious fundamentalism, if you didn't read the whole thread.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

!

Moderator Note

We invite you to open your own thread about atheism, rather than take this one off-topic with that tangent. The subject here is a particular study that was done on religious fundamentalism, if you didn't read the whole thread.

 

 

 

 

The purpose of the study and the thread is to cast aspersions on people of faith. It seems to me that making defenses on behalf of people of faith, particularly Christian Americans who, for example, founded Ivy League colleges, powerfully offsets this "intellectual" study.

But yes, I will open a thread about atheism. The question is, will you enforce that subject as assiduously as you do this one?

[beecee]

 

 

The purpose of the study and the thread is to cast aspersions on people of faith. It seems to me that making defenses on behalf of people of faith, particularly Christian Americans who, for example, founded Ivy League colleges, powerfully offsets this "intellectual" study.

But yes, I will open a thread about atheism. The question is, will you enforce that subject as assiduously as you do this one?

Ahh now I see...with reference to your other crusade. This study seems to have really miffed you somewhat.

In fact they are scientific studies, irrespective of how or why such studies may upset you. Calm down and take it easy, this afterall is first and foremost a science forum and we have no pulpit for any anti Atheistic or god bothering crusades that you may wish to push.

[koti]

 

 

The purpose of the study and the thread is to cast aspersions on people of faith. It seems to me that making defenses on behalf of people of faith, particularly Christian Americans who, for example, founded Ivy League colleges, powerfully offsets this "intellectual" study.

But yes, I will open a thread about atheism. The question is, will you enforce that subject as assiduously as you do this one?

No. The purpose of this study and any other legitimate scientific study is to gather data. If conclusions of this or other scientific studies assert a certain direction it is because of the scientific process which led to these conclusions.

[bimbo36]

I think our brain works something like this , no ?

 

 

 

so somehow , Religious Fundamentalism leads to brain damage ? maybe too much stress .

 

 

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

Let me give you some advice (again) and please listen this time; If you attempt to defend a concept or agenda for legitimate and sincere reasons it will have a way of defending itself.

 

Please, stop it. Stop the misrepresentation. I have attempted to defend "a concept or agenda for legitimate and sincere reasons" and all I have gotten from the group of hyenas is harassment, attacks, condescension, pettiness, and ignorance. The hyenas have put words in my mouth that I did not say, and misinterpreted and/or misunderstood what I did say. One in this *science* forum asked why I did not "include" oxygen and nitrogen" in a graph I created of greenhouse gases. For the record, so you do not spin and misrepresent, oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases. Water vapor and CO2 are.

 

And so it goes, with even "Man(sic)ticore" mocking my forum name - that it surely must be the opposite of reality.

Too clever by 0.00001. By "Man(sic)ticore"s brinksmanship, this "ScienceForums.net" is not science oriented and "Man(sic)ticore" is not a man.

 

Is this mature discussion, this "Man(sic)ticore" childishness, this relentless harassment of me by a pack of angry, screeching hyenas?

 

Or can you as a group try to practice some maturity, and listen and think about what is presented, because I'm not nearly as ignorant nor as evil as so many hyenas pretend. Why don't you give it a try, and I'll respond in kind. So far, you people have been only unkind and intolerant to me. This is terribly anti-scientific and unintelligent. Unmanly, even.

 

"Science is part and parcel humility." - Carl Sagan, in one of his books I read and critiqued.

Edited July 11, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive

[koti]

 

Please, stop it. Stop the misrepresentation. I have attempted to defend "a concept or agenda for legitimate and sincere reasons" and all I have gotten from the group of hyenas is harassment, attacks, condescension, pettiness, and ignorance. The hyenas have put words in my mouth that I did not say, and misinterpreted and/or misunderstood what I did say. One in this *science* forum asked why I did not "include" oxygen and nitrogen" in a graph I created of greenhouse gases. For the record, so you do not spin and misrepresent, oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases. Water vapor and CO2 are.

 

And so it goes, with even "Man(sic)ticore" mocking my forum name - that it surely must be the opposite of reality.

Too clever by 0.00001. By "Man(sic)ticore"s brinksmanship, this "ScienceForums.net" is not science oriented and "Man(sic)ticore" is not a man.

 

Is this mature discussion, this "Man(sic)ticore" childishness, this relentless harassment of me by a pack of angry, screeching hyenas?

 

Or can you as a group try to practice some maturity, and listen and think about what is presented, because I'm not nearly as ignorant nor as evil as so many hyenas pretend. Why don't you give it a try, and I'll respond in kind. So far, you people have been only unkind and intolerant to me. This is terribly anti-scientific and unintelligent. Unmanly, even.

 

"Science is part and parcel humility." - Carl Sagan, in one of his books I read and critiqued.

Look man...I can see that you are quite a smart guy but you have some issues and seem very disturbed. You are projecting things which are not there...the people who you call "hyenas" are actually good, knowledgeable and smart people and all you do is try to ridicule them in all your posts in mumerous threads. There are all sorts of people here on this forum - left, right, physisists, bilogists, mathematicians, etc. and all you are doing is insulting all of them and attempting to undermine everybody. Theres some really smart people here, you just don't march into a room full of scientists and start shouting that Dawkins is an idiot, evolution is a hoax and Sagan is a moron and start praising the word of god - this renders you a complete psycho. I ask you again, reconsider your stance and start engaging in a civilised dialog and get your emotions on a leash...and stop insulting people.

 

This is the "brain damage study" thread and not the "climate change" thread by the way.

[beecee]

Look man...I can see that you are quite a smart guy but you have some issues and seem very disturbed. You are projecting things which are not there...the people who you call "hyenas" are actually good, knowledgeable and smart people and all you do is try to ridicule them in all your posts in mumerous threads. There are all sorts of people here on this forum - left, right, physisists, bilogists, mathematicians, etc. and all you are doing is insulting all of them and attempting to undermine everybody. Theres some really smart people here, you just don't march into a room full of scientists and start shouting that Dawkins is an idiot, evolution is a hoax and Sagan is a moron and start praising the word of god - this renders you a complete psycho. I ask you again, reconsider your stance and start engaging in a civilised dialog and get your emotions on a leash...and stop insulting people.

 

This is the "brain damage study" thread and not the "climate change" thread by the way.

Actually your comments on the other comment, being observationally factual, support the link suggested in the OP.

[koti]

Actually your comments on the other comment, being observationally factual, support the link suggested in the OP.

Sory, I can't make out what you mean.

 

Edit: Oh, I get it. I wouldn't go as far as assuming he's a victim of brain trauma but I see your point.

Edited July 12, 2017 by koti

[beecee]

Sory, I can't make out what you mean.

What you claim in post 43, and about who it refers to, seems to be evidence supporting the link in the study in the opening post. His actions/posts/insults and obvious crusade fits the bill imo.

Edited July 12, 2017 by beecee

[MigL]

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to go with Raider on this one.

 

Any study that doesn't isolate extraneous variables is worthless.

And 'religious' fundamentalism, being a subset of fundamentalism ( in general ), all we can really draw from this study is that people with certain types of brain damage are more reluctant ( or unable ) to change their basic or fundamental belief system ( of which religiosity is a subset ).

I don't know if I would go as far as Raider, and imply that a LACK of belief is, itself, a belief.

As such, I don't see it applying to atheism.

 

My own take on the matter is that anyone who suffers ( any kind of ) trauma, is more likely to become religious.

God is there for people who need to believe in him; Those who don't, have no need for him.

And, if the concept gives my fellow human beings comfort, I have no problem with that.

Edited July 13, 2017 by MigL

[beecee]

 

My own take on the matter is that anyone who suffers ( any kind of ) trauma, is more likely to become religious.

God is there for people who need to believe in him; Those who don't, have no need for him.

And, if the concept gives my fellow human beings comfort, I have no problem with that.

I couldn't agree more with that ultra wise comment. Just for the record, my Mrs [we have been married for 42 years] is very highly religious and a Christian in the true sense of the word.....she mostly tolerates me, and I tolerate her...in fact she even has her choir group around once a month for singing practise......I at that time adjourn to my man cave and watch the match of the day Rugby League. game.

I don't mind her saying a prayer for me on occasion. but that's as far as any preaching ever gets.

Our only Son, now grown up and married, went to a Catholic school [my decision as I saw the education system in my country apply far more discipline then government run private schools. I also went to a Catholic school and as far as I know, am still in name anyway a Catholic...unless the Pope unbeknowns to me, has excommunicated me.

Edited July 14, 2017 by beecee