Brain damage linked to religious fundamentalism

[mainer]

Hunting for God in our grey matter seems to be a popular topic for neurologists, with past studies comparing religious highs with drug-induced ones, linking spiritual experiences with neurotransmitters such as serotonin, and identifying which parts of the brain (if any) could be responsible for a faith in the supernatural.

Now a new study has now found that those with damage to a section of the brain associated with planning become less open to new ideas, explaining why some people are more likely to become extreme in their religious beliefs.

http://www.sciencealert.com/damage-to-a-specific-part-of-the-brain-could-result-in-religious-fundamentalism?utm_content=buffera671a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Throck]

1. Is this why peeps with substance abuse problems find god.

I do tech work for a substance abuse clinic. A lot of clients have found God and are not afraid to let you know. Given the alternate choice of poisioning the body, this is something I have learned to accept.

[ileus]

7. peeps with substance abuse problem are sent to God.

as part of their plea bargain / sentence / parole

[mountain grammy]

24. Yes, exacty!

No separation of church and state in drug rehab, no matter where the $$ comes from, faith in a higher being is typically part of the program. That and nicotine will get you through.
I'm ok with people needing faith. Whatever gets you though the night. But, it's the spreading of the faith that's causing nearly every world problem I can think of.. just my opinion.

Maybe this is some evolution anomaly that would have eventually disappeared, if we only had the time.

[gopiscrap]

58. that and greed

often faith, specially fundamentalism is a smoke screen for a grab for material or power

[irisblue]

76. It's not simple to find a recovery group that is not based in religion.

[tblue37]

26. In the 1970s one of my college students said to me,

"I used to be f***ed up on drugs, but now I'm f***ed up on Jesus."

[Mendocino]

63. One Toke Over The Line Sweet Jesus

One Toke over The Line...

[CanonRay]

47. One of my college roomies did the same thing

went from hooked on drugs to hooked on Jesus. I thought then it was the same problem in a less destructive form.

[maveric]

68. The Steven Baldwin syndrome.

And he turned right-winger too.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Also explains the intersection of RepubliCONs & evangelical christianism.

[Ligyron]

3. Brain Damage.

I knew it...

[TheBlackAdder]

4. Confusing fundamentalism with religiosity is an error, research doing so is subject to question.

[tomp]

10. agreed. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. It does NOT make that confusion. . . . nt

[rug]

39. His prior interest has been in neuromorality.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. So? And? That means he's confused? No.

[rug]

41. It means he leans toward sociobiology.

Sociobiology casts a very wide shadow which has absorbed many otherwise objective scientists.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

45. Nothing wrong with the concept of sociobiology.

If you wish to attack some specific science (some specific studies, theories) then have at it with cogent arguments and facts.

But blanket condemnation of a respectable field doesn't gain you much traction or credibility.

Nor do cryptic veiled sideways attacks on the author of the OP study like "His prior interest has been in neuromorality" (complete contents of one post). It's kind of passive-aggressive to be so overly terse. We do not read your mind or automatically share your opinions when dog-whistled at with trigger words like "neuromorality" or "sociobiology" in some kind of Pavlovian response to them.

[rug]

53. There's been plenty wrong with sociobiology since E.O. Wilson.

Neuromorality is a long-standing interest of Grafman.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/05/the-man-who-couldnt-stop-giving/389531/

Both disciplines, in the wrong hands, lend themselves to some pretty fucked up views of societies, humans, and groups of people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

56. Again you provide no cogent arguments or facts and refuse to take a clear stand.

Further, the link you provide shows reasonable research.

Restating your statement that "Neuromorality is a long-standing interest of Grafman" does not make a point for or against anything. If you think the field of neuromorality is a crock, don't be afraid to say so, don't fence around it, say it. And provide cogent arguments.

Providing a URL without comment on it and without explaining how it might or might not support the thesis that neuromorality is a crock or that neuromorality is an interesting field worthy of further study is also timid. If you think the article at the link you gave supports one position or another, state the position and why you think the article supports the position or exposes flaws in the position.

Your last sentence in your post uses the fallacy of guilt by association.

Any discipline or field or religion, "in the wrong hands" can lead to "fucked up views".

Case in point: climate deniers have "some pretty fucked up views" but that doesn't condemn the whole field of climate science.

Arguing guilt by association is fallacious.

With regard to E.O. Wilson, you seem to attack Wilson by saying "since". This again seems to be passive aggressive wording. If you think Wilson is responsible for something, say it. Please do not use wording so you can later take one side (anti-Wilson) or the other (pro-Wilson but anti-sociobiology).

If you think E.O. Wilson is wrong about sociobiology, say so.
If you think E.O. Wilson is right but has been misinterpreted, say so.
If you think E.O. Wilson is right but has been ignored, say so.

Just what exactly is you opinion about Wilson?

If you are referring to his book [iSociobiology: The New Synthesis] (1975 & 2000), then say so.

The sociologist Eileen Barker reviewed the book for The British Journal of Sociology. She called it an "impressive tome (it weighs 5 lb)" and "a comprehensive, beautifully laid out and illustrated reference book covering the amazing variety of animal social behaviour". She noted that the final section on "Man" contained "several surprises for most sociologists", and that the book should counter "many of the naive inferences that have recently been made about man's evolutionary heritage."[13]

Marion Blute, in Contemporary Sociology, noted that it was rare for any book to be reviewed on the front page of the New York Times, or to receive "the extremes of reaction" seen for Sociobiology.

Some sociologists do not like the book. Some do. Apparently it is more liked by biologists.

Where do you stand?

[democratisphere]

5. Makes sense. Why would so many people be hell bent on shooting themselves

in their own foot?

[TheBlackAdder]

8. Because 3-stage Evangelicals believe that Baptism w/Holy Spirit is a one-time event, and get cocky.

.


There are two-stage Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Charismatics who believe that, when a Baptism of the Spirit occurs, the Holy Spirit enters the body, and to seek continued grace, one must lead a good Christian life.

There are other Evangelicals who believe that the Baptism of the Spirit is a one-time event, and once that occurs, they will always have the Spirit within them and they are guaranteed to go into heaven and sit by the right side of Jesus, no matter what they do. This is a weird state of thought, but it sells well in church and attracts a lot of followers. After all, who doesn't want to believe that the Holy Spirit is sharing themselves with them? They, contraty to biblical passages, get an air of superiority about them. Since they will enter the Kindon of Heaven and others won't. On top of that, since they are eternally blessed, after the Baptism occurs, they can act like complete shitheads and assholes to everyone else, because, no matter what they do, they will go into heaven.

.

[hatrack]

19. Ah, yes, the "Get Out Of Moral Responsibility Free" card

I've seen that one about a million times . . .

[paleotn]

31. I grew up in single state baptism and you are spot on...

Some of the most arrogant humans on the planet. They couch their arrogance in "love", when in reality they simply think god loves them and hates everyone else. One of the reasons why telling them their belief system is based on a mythical house of cards (or an immense pile of bullshit...either way) drives them absolutely nuts. Loosing the legitimacy of their religion means they're just another prole like the rest of us and strips away their "special" privileges.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. God loves them?

[paleotn]

69. You've got 'em. Spot on.

[Ilsa]

78. "Stage 3". I like that. Great classification system! LOL. nt

[BigOleDummy]

6. Lol

I knew it......

[ileus]

9. Why we still allow religions in America is beyond me...we've progressed past that.

[tomp]

11. the idea of banning religion outright is insidious, unconstitutional, and quite narrow-minded.

and all just because of what you think you know. you apparently think you know something about religion and people but your post proves otherwise.

[ileus]

13. Read the post....religious people are brain damaged. It's not me..it's in the article.

We don't need to be promoting more brain damage do we? That's like trying to get more Trump voters. When we gain total power (like trump has now) we need to seriously consider at least pursuing balance among religions in America. With the eventual plan to be the first religion free Country...my god think of the progress we could make without religion.

We can't be a truly progressive country until we snuff out all the sky daddy believers.

[tomp]

20. the research is sketchy and "balancing" is different from banning.

we need to do three things:

1) strictly enforce separation of church and state.

2) ban certain religious practices that may involve harm to people (like genital mutilation).

3) educate people such as yourself to the difference between religiosity in general and the abuses of institutionalized religion.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. No. The article does NOT say that.

It says that brain damage may deepen religious conviction, not cause religiosity.

[hrmjustin]

37. "We can't be a truly progressive country until we snuff out all the sky daddy believers."

This sounds like fascist, not progressive!

[rug]

42. That's because it is.

Most likely caused by a damaged pineal gland.

[NastyRiffraff]

77. I'm an atheist, and I strongly disagree

"snuff out all the sky daddy believers"? I certainly don't agree with them, and I'm strongly pro-First Amendment, which protects both belief and non-belief. I don't like or trust Fundamentalists in particular; I think they're hateful and dangerous. But the only "snuffing out" I'd support is bombarding the public with reason and science. In other words, starve them out with truth.

[HAB911]

16. I think ileus is due his opinion

I'm an agnostic that chooses to be an atheist (I can't prove there are no gods but to move on with my life I chose a path with some modicum of certainty)

My own anti-religious opinions (different from the gods question) stem from being discriminated against, considered a second class citizen, continually told that I'm a filthy low class sinner that will burn in hell etc....frequently causes me to make statements like ileus'. It is just sometimes difficult not to hold up a mirror to that kind of supremacist discrimination we suffer every day.

Of course I cannot speak for ileus, just guessing a possible commonality

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. He can have his opinion since thought not a crime. If it was, he could outlaw religion AND himself

He'd have to outlaw himself for thinking.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. You supply an excellent statement of outlook on life that I would like to adopt.

I'm an agnostic that chooses to be an atheist (I can't prove there are no gods but to move on with my life I chose a path with some modicum of certainty)

I had not been able to state my position as succinctly as you have. Excellent.

I'm basically atheist but the scientist part of me says I must hold final judgement on the issue because the absence of god(s) has not been proven (and may well be unprovable, per se). Simultaneously, the scientist in me says that extraordinary claims (existence of god(s)) requires extraordinary evidence. Thus I am greatly preponderantly atheist.

Thank you!

[rug]

43. His study proposes attitudes toward belief are based on brain structure rather than experience.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. Some attitudes. Your flat bald binary statement is not a fair characterization of his study. . nt

[rug]

55. Many attitudes.

Last year, he found parts of the brain in the frontal and temporal regions responsible for downplaying the significance of mystical experiences.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. That's NOT an attitude. It is a factual statement supported by research.

he found parts of the brain in the frontal and temporal regions responsible for downplaying the significance of mystical experiences.

Further, that exact statement does not take any attitudinal stand on mystical experience. It does not deny it. It accepts that mystical experience is a fact.

Even more, it does not postulate an attitude about "downplaying" it. It neither says downplaying it is good or bad. It is a fact that some people downplay it and some people do not.

[HAB911]

17. +++++

[Sanity Claws]

25. Wow. You are intolerant.

This article focused on fundamental religion not all religion.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. Yes, you are right. And not even all fundamentalists. Just some. . . nt

[hrmjustin]

28. So I shouldn't be allowed to practice my faith because you say so?

Isn't that fascism?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. We MUST allow religion if we allow Freedom of Thought, Speech, and Association (and we need those)

Your post #9 is nonsensical. You want to put religious people ahead of socialists in the clampdown.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clampdown

[treestar]

61. that would require a police state

like the one in North Korea, which is an example of a state that "does not allow" religion.

[moriah]

62. So we've progressed beyond the Liberal Quakers?

Well, our country allows gay marriage now... so do they. Part of the equality Testimony -- Quaker "Testimonies" are not words but actions. Thus their role in abolitionist movements historically as well.

Others involve simplicity, peace, integrity, community, and stewardship of the Earth. Members of the Quaker churches, along with other historical peace churches, volunteered for human experimentation in WWII to try to figure out how to address the famine after the war was over, for just one example of the courage of their convictions.

Not all religion is bad. We could learn a lot from some.

[milestogo]

12. So how did all these people get brain damage?

[ileus]

14. Fell down and bumped their heads?

CTs for everyone.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. It is easy to read the article and see that you are wrong. . .nt

[mdbl]

18. obviously, it's an epidemic

[paleotn]

33. Being raised in a strict religious family?

That's child abuse to me and probably causes serious problems in brain development.

[hatrack]

38. Repeatedly smacked in the head by Benny Hinn?

[rug]

44. They read post #9 and collapsed laughing.

[moriah]

66. Would there be liability?

I know Skinner has already disclaimed liability for drinking and reading DUzys causing damage to computer equipment.

[rug]

70. No, we all assume the risk of reading posts. Caveat lector.

[moriah]

71. Or caveat bibitor, in drinking and DUzys. ;)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. Read the article. :eyes: The answer is in the first few paragraphs. . . . nt

[milestogo]

59. I understand that they were working with combat veterans in this research

but what about the millions of fundamentalists who have no history of head injury?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

67. Oh, you're asking about them. First it is important to know what the article does NOT say.

From the article:

It's important to note this doesn't imply a belief in the supernatural is caused by brain damage; epistemology - or the act of forming a belief - involves a rich mix of neurological processes that cannot be limited to any single piece of brain tissue.

Now, "millions of fundamentalists".

First, note that head injury does not mean brain injury nor the reverse. It is possible to have one without the other. Brain injury can occur without head injury.

Second, injury is only one way to change an area of the brain. There are many ways. Most prominent is the use or over-use or dis-use of that area.

Many of them, perhaps even most of them, do not have brain injury. They may have never acquired the habit of critical thinking. Or they may have over-used that area and burned it out, so to speak, though burnout pretty much only happens with things like dehydration, chronic lack of sleep, alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, etc.

Which brings us to the fact that many kinds of brain injury have no external physiological sign and no single event to mark their existence.

Some people are fundamentalist without injury simply by reflex or (to not put too fine a point on it) by laziness. They grew up in fundamentalism and/or they are surrounded by fundamentalists and they don't have the disposition or the skill to think critically about it. They accept it and believe it.

Finally, some people arrive at fundamentalism sincerely and fairly and squarely by careful thinking, study, and contemplation. I think they are misguided, but they have traveled their path cleanly to their destination.

[Honeycombe8]

15. Probably extreme in a number of ways, I would think.

There is no "religious" part of the brain. But they could be prone to being extreme in anything that catches their fancy: environmentalism, religion, healthy eating, jogging, anti-semitic, homophobic. Particularly if they start following a strong leader.

That's what I think, anyway.

[mdbl]

21. but aren't humans supposed to be able to separate fantasy from reality?

doesn't that separate us from the animals? LOL

[Honeycombe8]

23. It depends on the brain, as the article states. nt

[tblue37]

29. Where did you ever get that idea. Think of all the people who cannot distinguish

between real life and what happens on a TV show, or between an actor and the character he plays on TV or in a film.

No, humans have always shown a propensity to confuse fantasy and reality. It might actually be one of our most human traits.

[meow2u3]

22. It seems as if relgious fundamentalism is a form of addiction

Can I safely conclude that extreme religious fundamentalists, especially those once affected by subtance abuse issues, have effectively traded in one addiction for another?

[paleotn]

34. Makes sense to me.

[milestogo]

60. And the money they spent on the addiction is now given to the church

or the crazy televangelist.

[treestar]

65. I think that too

At least it is a safe "addition" when it comes to physical health.

[mopinko]

52. it was previously known that epilepsy in the same region

does the same thing.

[loyalsister]

72. Previously "known"

Are you saying the "scourge of christ" is a real thing or using sarcasm to highlight the mythology based on hate and fear of people who were.... epileptic, lunatics, feebleminded, suffering from demonic possession, among other derogatory characterizations?

[mopinko]

73. i dont understand your question, but yes, it has been shown

by science that people w epilepsy in that region tend to be more religious than people who dont.

[loyalsister]

74. I have epilepsy

Had some of my temporal, frontal, and parietal lobes removed to try to cure it. Atheist before and after.
It's ironic that religion has devalued us with claims that it was caused by demons and a bunch of bigots have turned it around to use religious observation against people with head injuries and epilepsy. Ableism is rampant on DU.

[mopinko]

79. it wasnt meant as an insult.

my daughter also has it. it is just an observation relevant to the discussion, and something i have learned about because of my daughter.
hers was a result of an injury, something that we didnt used to be able to differentiate from organically arising epilepsy. perhaps that is an important distinction.

very much about what used to be known about the brain was figured out by looking at what is different in people w injuries to specific areas. so those things have been heavily studied.
we have better tools now, but this is still an important area of inquiry.
i always find that stuff fascinating.

again, no insult intended. best of luck to you to regain your health.

[loyalsister]

80. It's only an important distinction in a few ways

It makes it easier to identify the focus, which can help guide clinicians with treatment. And, with that information available, people with head injuries are also often very good candidates for surgery. Actually, everyone has a seizure threshold. Anyone can have one if they have a high enough fever, ingest certain drugs, etc.

very much about what used to be known about the brain was figured out by looking at what is different in people w injuries to specific areas

Yeah, ask the Kennedy's about that. They used assumptions from that information to lobotomize Rosemary.

The funny thing people don't understand about the brain (especially people who make jokes about it) is that a person such as myself can be basically healthy but just have occasional neurological electrical disturbances.

If you want to learn more about it, here is a web site which also gives you a clue about what how we have been exploited by religion throughout history as well as what happened to us. It started in the US, and we were one of the most zealously pursued targets during the eugenics movement. And, here we are coming full circle being used to criticize religion.

http://www.epilepsiemuseum.de/english/

[mrmpa]

54. I once worked for a non profit...........

one of my "county contracted client" had a history of a severe brain injury. One day I met with him, the door was closed, but he was so loud, he could be heard by a psychiatrist 3 doors down. My client for 30 minutes (I was unable to get him to quiet down or change the subject) went on about the goodness of Christ, but in the extremes. A lot of what he said was stuff I knew he had heard on TV from fundamentalists.

After my client left, the psychiatrist knocked on my door, came in & said "you're client has had a brain injury, right?" This was back in 2000.

[moriah]

64. Sadly... I know an example of this. But only one out of the many...

.... people I know who became radically fundy almost overnight had a major head injury.

[loyalsister]

75. More ableism

Back in the 20s, biased standardized tests were created to provide "evidence" that people with various disabilities, people of color, and immigrants were all feebleminded. It was bigotry then and it's bigotry now to try to paint people as physically defective in order to malign their behaviors.

[Hortensis]

82. An UNSECURE site, JoshuaBE. Can you summarize?