• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists Claim to Find Link Between Brain Damage and Religious Fundamentalism

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
As much as I might agree with the results of the researchers' study, I do think more research needs to be carried out before any conclusive judgment is made on the connection.

Scientists Claim to Find Link Between Brain Damage and Religious Fundamentalism

A team of scientists has claimed to have discovered a link between a willingness to engage in religious fundamentalism and a clear-cut impairment in brain function.

Published in the journal Neuropsychologia, the findings propose that damage inflicted upon particular areas of the prefrontal cortex results in the diminishing of cognitive flexibility and openness. This, in turn, results in a susceptibility to accepting certain fundamentalist viewpoints.

Jordan Grafman of Northwestern University headed up the study, which collected data from Vietnam War veterans, many of whom had suffered brain injuries to areas in their prefrontal cortex. The CT scans of some 119 brain-damaged vets were compared to 30 healthy vets with no damage, before the subjects were put through a test which assessed their susceptibility and acceptance of certain fundamentalist values.
 
As much as I might agree with the results of the researchers' study, I do think more research needs to be carried out before any conclusive judgment is made on the connection.

Fundamentalism is brain damage and damaging, as far as I can tell. However, fundamentalism is also a very recent phenomenon in the history of the world, and represents a weird kind of degenerate religion, as far as I can tell.
 
Fundamentalism is brain damage and damaging, as far as I can tell. However, fundamentalism is also a very recent phenomenon in the history of the world, and represents a weird kind of degenerate religion, as far as I can tell.

I'll disagree on one point: My studies and reading tell me that "fundamentalism" has been around as long as religious beliefs have existed. The connection with brain damage is a bit more tenuous. Societal pressure seems to be more central to fundamentalist beliefs and behaviour.
 
I'll disagree on one point: My studies and reading tell me that "fundamentalism" has been around as long as religious beliefs have existed. The connection with brain damage is a bit more tenuous. Societal pressure seems to be more central to fundamentalist beliefs and behaviour.

Interesting. Why do you think fundamentalism has been around for as long as have religious beliefs?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Why do you think fundamentalism has been around for as long as have religious beliefs?

How do you define "fundamentalism"? For me it is that aspect of a religious belief which calls for absolute adherence to ALL the tenets of a faith.

Read some history, of Christianity and the ways in which the "True Christians" acted toward those they saw as heretics and pagans. It's not only Christians however, who have acted in this way but those of other faiths also. When religious beliefs became a central part of any culture, those who claimed to be the most faithful were often seen as the ones to follow, they provided examples of the way in which the people were supposed to live and believe.

Now, time and time again in our modern day we have seen the stories of many who claim to be faithful believers all the while they are acting in not so religious a manner. Most recently, the Texas preacher who has called for the death penalty for homosexuals, who lost his pulpit because he was using church funds to pay for hookers and pot.

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that women should be allowed to enter the 'sacred spaces' in certain temples. Fundamentalist Hindu men blocked the attempts of the first women who attempted entry, saying females weren't worthy.
 
How do you define "fundamentalism"? For me it is that aspect of a religious belief which calls for absolute adherence to ALL the tenets of a faith.

Well, that's the million dollar question (okay, the thousand dollar question). Various attempts have been made to define fundamentalism, and there are various problems with all of them. It's one of those things that you just know when you see it. However, all of the following are typical of fundamentalism:

1. As you say, one of the central ideas is absolute adherence to all of the commandments to be found within holy scripture. In practice, this is seldom followed completely--the fundamentalist Christian who agrees that, say, the book of Deuteronomy is holy scripture will deny that it's necessary to bleed an animal completely dry before cooking it, or that it's necessary to ensure that the fibers of one's shirt match those of one's pants, and so on.

2. As a rather confusing corollary to 1, there is also typically a belief that holy scripture contains no contradictions.

3. Fundamentalists also typically insist that holy scripture be taken literally--the stories it contains are not metaphors or myths, but are literally true of history. Adam and Eve, for example, were actual people who lived about 6,000 years ago; Iblis is an actual being who physically refused to bow to Adam (for fundamentalist Muslims), and so on.

4. Fundamentalists typically deny the ideas and interpretations of mystical sects within the same religion. Jihadists don't like the Sufis, generally speaking, and fundamentalist Baptists find the writings of, say, Bernard of Clairvaux or Teresa of Avila heretical.

5. Finally, fundamentalists insist on their right to impose their practices and principles on others around them.

This complex of views is a rather recent development in the history of religion; it's the direct result of the development of secular societies in the West following on the Protestant Reformation, and then subsequent uptake of those ideas by Muslims and Jews. Fundamentalism in other religions, such as Buddhism, also seem to have arisen after contact with these ideas in the West.

Read some history, of Christianity and the ways in which the "True Christians" acted toward those they saw as heretics and pagans. It's not only Christians however, who have acted in this way but those of other faiths also. When religious beliefs became a central part of any culture, those who claimed to be the most faithful were often seen as the ones to follow, they provided examples of the way in which the people were supposed to live and believe.

Well, if all you're saying is that religious violence has been around for as long as religious belief, then sure, I agree. However, it doesn't take a fundamentalist to commit religious violence.

Now, time and time again in our modern day we have seen the stories of many who claim to be faithful believers all the while they are acting in not so religious a manner. Most recently, the Texas preacher who has called for the death penalty for homosexuals, who lost his pulpit because he was using church funds to pay for hookers and pot.

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that women should be allowed to enter the 'sacred spaces' in certain temples. Fundamentalist Hindu men blocked the attempts of the first women who attempted entry, saying females weren't worthy.

Yes, all true. And all the results of fundamentalism. The question, to my mind, is why. I tend to think that fundamentalists' rejection of mysticism is a rejection of intellectual, emotional, and spiritual depth, and hence they lack the tools necessary to actually live up to their ideals. Sort-of like vowing that you're going to assemble a car from spare parts, but then your first action is to give away all your tools and refusing to get any more. The outcome is guaranteed to be a disaster.
 
As much as I might agree with the results of the researchers' study, I do think more research needs to be carried out before any conclusive judgment is made on the connection.

Interesting article. I would love to see a better definition on what the study feels is "fundamentalism". If it's simply not being swayed to another religion, but holding to our own, I would suggest that given the last estimate, where ~84% of the world subscribes to one faith or another, and that being a diminished number vs. other points in history, even recent history, that's a lot of brain damaged folks walking around...hehe...

Of course...no matter what definition you put on there, there's gonna be someone hollering BS...hehe....still, it would be interesting.
 
As much as I might agree with the results of the researchers' study, I do think more research needs to be carried out before any conclusive judgment is made on the connection.

Well......let's get this straight.


The scientists specify that 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.

The scientists themselves point out the limitations of their study and call for more research into the subject. Grafman notes the fact that the sample was all male American veterans, certainly not representative of all demographic and cultural groups.
https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/study-finds-link-between-brain-damage-and-religious-fundamentalism






Anyway.....how many vets were involved in that study?


Here's an interesting article about that:


Brain Damage Increases Religious Fundamentalism — Or Scientific Arrogance?
It could either way



As it happens, the vets with injuries “consisted of 2.5% Mormons, 38.8% Protestant, 16.3% Roman Catholic, 10% other affiliations.” 32.5% did not respond. The healthy vets “consisted of 35.3% Protestant, 23.5% Roman Catholic” with 41.2% not responding.

Since there is a lot of variety in views among these groups, the imbalances in group membership are enough to explain the observed differences in “fundamentalism.” It’s odd the authors did not analyze “fundamentalism” by self-reported denomination to answer this obvious criticism.

What’s most disturbing is that they took the result of this tiny group and implicitly extrapolated it to the whole human race (at the end they do admit “larger…samples…are necessary to confirm that our conclusions are applicable to healthy individuals”, but they wave these doubts away throughout the paper and speak of religious beliefs in general). In other words, they used a rude statistical analysis with not even a hint that their results are far, far from certain.




Still, one of the authors was bold enough to insist that “the variation in the nature of religious beliefs are governed by specific brain areas in the anterior parts of the human brain and those brain areas are among the most recently evolved areas of the human brain.”

Which part of the brain caused this man’s over-confidence?
https://stream.org/brain-damage-increases-religious-fundamentalism-scientific-arrogance/
 
Last edited:
Fundamentalism is brain damage and damaging, as far as I can tell. However, fundamentalism is also a very recent phenomenon in the history of the world, and represents a weird kind of degenerate religion, as far as I can tell.

It’s a reactionary phenomenon to the sweeping changes of the scientific revolution, the rise of secularism, and the complete up ending of the older worldview. This has all happened in the last two or three centuries, a very fast time for such massive culture change in terms of human societies.

This was a great book I read a few years ago, looking at the rise of religious fundamentalism all around the world, especially in the Abrahamic religions like Islam, Judaism, Christianity, since the late 1970s. I would recommend it if you are interested in a closer look at the psychology and sociology underlying this phenomenon in the modern world.

https://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-K...t=&hvlocphy=9008183&hvtargid=pla-417692128225
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't doubt it:

map of terrorism:
546b2073a7026.jpg
(regional map even better)

map of inbreeding:
Globalcolorsmall.jpg

next leading cause of brain damage from infancy - feudal alcohol syndrome - ireland/russia?
 
Last edited:
Why are some self-professed Christians so defensive about this one study? Also, the question should be asked; is fundamentalism viewed as only possible among a specific segment of one religious belief?
 
As much as I might agree with the results of the researchers' study, I do think more research needs to be carried out before any conclusive judgment is made on the connection.

Based on fundie behavior in this forum, I think the study is correct lol
 
What else do you expect from academic brain scientists? They all believe that religion is caused by brain damage, so they contrived a study to "prove" it.

"academic brain scientists?"

What would be a non-academic "brain scientist"?
 
Why are some self-professed Christians so defensive about this one study? Also, the question should be asked; is fundamentalism viewed as only possible among a specific segment of one religious belief?

As for me, it's not a matter of being defensive. It's about pointing out the truth about it.
 
"academic brain scientists?"

What would be a non-academic "brain scientist"?

That terminology is not what I would expect from someone who claimed to have a degree in neurology. Funny how that happens.
 
Another study which found that the more religious a person is, the less capable they are at performing certain intellectual tasks. 63,000+ subjects in this study

The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict
Abstract
It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence. A prominent hypothesis states that this correlation reflects behavioral biases toward intuitive problem solving, which causes errors when intuition conflicts with reasoning. We tested predictions of this hypothesis by analyzing data from two large-scale Internet-cohort studies (combined N = 63,235). We report that atheists surpass religious individuals in terms of reasoning but not working-memory performance. The religiosity effect is robust across sociodemographic factors including age, education and country of origin. It varies significantly across religions and this co-occurs with substantial cross-group differences in religious dogmatism. Critically, the religiosity effect is strongest for tasks that explicitly manipulate conflict; more specifically, atheists outperform the most dogmatic religious group by a substantial margin (0.6 standard deviations) during a color-word conflict task but not during a challenging matrix-reasoning task. These results support the hypothesis that behavioral biases rather than impaired general intelligence underlie the religiosity effect.

. . . scientists have shown a striking paucity of religious belief (Ecklund et al., 2016), particularly within the elites of the National Academy of Sciences (Larson and Witham, 1998) and the Royal Society (Stirrat and Cornwell, 2013).

Psychometric population studies have now firmly established that religiosity influences cognitive style (Shenhav et al., 2012), and that religiosity and intelligence negatively correlate (Verhage, 1964; Pargament et al., 1998; Nyborg, 2009; Gervais and Norenzayan, 2012; Pennycook et al., 2013, 2014; Razmyar and Reeve, 2013; Zuckerman et al., 2013). Furthermore, it has been reported that IQ and disbelief in God correlate at r = 0.60 across 137 countries (Lynn et al., 2009).
 
That terminology is not what I would expect from someone who claimed to have a degree in neurology. Funny how that happens.

I believe it was a supposed PhD in Cognitive Science. The lack of awareness of the body of published literature/typical terminology used in that field, tells me all I need to know about that claim.
 
I believe it was a supposed PhD in Cognitive Science. The lack of awareness of the body of published literature/typical terminology used in that field, tells me all I need to know about that claim.

Ditto. More like cognitive dissonance.
 
Back
Top Bottom