I would of never gone as far to say or conduct a study that religious fundamentalist might literally be brain damaged individuals, but apparently: Three universities got together and studied and tested this idea, and had the results published in the journal Neuropsychologia.
The study finds: "religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex."
They did a study on Vietnam vets that had prefrontal cortex injuries and compared it to a control group that did not have prefrontal cortex damage and found statistically relevant data that can be concluded that essentially people that are religiously fundamentalist can be considered to have at least a statistically relevant link to diagnosable prefrontal cortex brain damage. Wow. Perhaps others smarter than me can read the study better than I can.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28392301
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393217301318?via%...
Above to links are behind paywalls. I probably should not provide links to complete article. ;)
Here is an opinion piece on it. That may help clarify for those that do not wish to read the study itself.
https://www.alternet.org/right-wing/scientists-have-established-link-bet...
And another:
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/study-finds-link-between-brain-damage-an...
What do you all think about this?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
My father is a Pentecostal preacher. I know I have more brain damage than he does!
chimp3
One of my favorite "gotchas" from an atheist view is on the question of heaven.
If your father is aware of your atheism, have you ever discussed how his heavenly reward can be "perfect" to him if his son will be spending eternity in damnation?
@LogicforTW:
The final line of the opinion piece is very interesting:
which could allow us to someday inoculate against rigid or radical belief systems through various kinds of mental and cognitive exercises.
Maybe there's a cure!
I note that the authors suggest that in addition to trauma, drugs, or genetic problems, the impairment of the prefrontal area could also result from developmental problems caused by extreme religious conditioning. There's another reason to classify religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.
Do you see anything wrong with this line of thought?
@John 61X Breezy: Do you see anything wrong with this line of thought?
Enlighten me.
You're talking about a cure where there is no disease; conservatism and fundamentalism are not disorders. The thing needing to be cured is frontal lobe damage, not fundamentalism.
Statement such as "...could allow us to someday inoculate against rigid or radical belief systems through various kinds of mental and cognitive exercises" has an ominous and unethical tone to it. By pathologizing those you disagree with ideologically, you can justify inhumane procedures. Its no different from shock therapy and homosexuality; or the infamous "prefrontal lobotomy" which ironically damages the vmPFC mentioned here.
Then you suggest classifying religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse, because you're now seemingly under the impression that raising a child religiously damages the brain. That's no different than when parents used to be blamed for their child's autism; because people believed their parenting style likewise damaged the child's brain.
"Statement such as "...could allow us to someday inoculate against rigid or radical belief systems through various kinds of mental and cognitive exercises" has an ominous and unethical tone to it."
I take you take the same ethical stance against indoctrinating children with religious beliefs? I don't see how it can be ethical to brainwash a child before they have the emotional and intellectual capacity to resist, yet unethical to help an adult with a brain disorder see that religious fundamentalism is pernicious.
"you can justify inhumane procedures. "
Who's done that?
"Its no different from shock therapy and homosexuality; or the infamous "prefrontal lobotomy" which ironically damages the vmPFC mentioned here."
Homosexuality isn't the result of a brain disorder unless you know something science does not, and again who has implied shock therapy or frontal lobotomies are ethical or necessary? Are these histrionics based on anything tangible beyond you disliking the results of this research?
"Then you suggest classifying religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse, because you're now seemingly under the impression that raising a child religiously damages the brain. "
Do you think brainwashing children is ethical? Religions have long known how easy and effective it is to make a lifelong convert of small children.
"That's no different than when parents used to be blamed for their child's autism; because people believed their parenting style likewise damaged the child's brain."
Of course it is?
"I don't see how it can be ethical to brainwash a child before they have the emotional and intellectual capacity to resist, yet unethical to help an adult with a brain disorder see that religious fundamentalism is pernicious."
What exactly do you mean by brainwashing and indoctrination? Just teaching a child an ideology you disagree with? Secondly, in what sense is fundamentalism pernicious?
"What exactly do you mean by brainwashing and indoctrination?"
The words have a common usage, I mean them exactly as they are defined in the dictionary.
"in what sense is fundamentalism pernicious?"
I don't understand the question, how are things usually harmful? They cause harm obviously. A literal interpretation of koranic or biblical texts is self evidently pernicious.
-Brainwashing: "The process of pressurizing someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means."
-Indoctrination: "The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."
So not only is brainwashing not very scientifically successful, its not even applicable in the common usage, since children are not born with beliefs that can be altered. Indoctrination seems more plausible; but it is precisely because a child's emotional and intellectual capacity are not fully developed, that once they do become developed, they can begin to think critically and decide whether or not to adopt those beliefs. I disagree with teaching children things uncritically for practical reasons, but not for psychological reasons. Whatever your parents do not teach you, life will teach you; and if you manage to live a happy life without ever having to think critically, then more power to you.
Fundamentalist beliefs are not pathological, they are not damaging, and are therefore not pernicious. If those beliefs ever turn violent or racist for whatever reason, then at that point it has become damaging. There are a thousand paths to violence and racism that do not require fundamentalism.
Children are not born at all. Babies are. Where did I claim religions brainwashed new born babies?
I never said you agreed with teaching children things uncritically. My post was about the pernicious nature of religious fundamentalism which *DOES* teach that religious texts like the Koran and bible are literally true, and so by definition have to be accepted uncritically.
You've ignored what I posted and presented two straw man arguments I'd quite obviously not made?
" if you manage to live a happy life without ever having to think critically, then more power to you."
Are you really studying psychology? Blimey...
"Fundamentalist beliefs are not pathological, they are not damaging, and are therefore not pernicious."
You're absurdly wrong, quite obviously. One has only to read the bible or Koran to see they both contain pernicious teachings.
I see you finish with a third straw man argument I'd not made. Where did I say fundamentalism was the only path to violence and racism?
Even by your fairly mendacious standards this misrepresentation is poor form.
Fundamentalism is pernicious, it teaches bible or Koran are immutable truths that have to be accepted uncritically. Since both contain endorsements for harmful acts including (but not limited to) slavery rapine homophobia and murder, this is axiomatic.
It's also the very definition of indoctrination and in many cases brainwashing.
damn, where IS that 100 likes button?
I asked you what you meant, you directed me to the dictionary, and I responded accordingly. I see no straw man.
Wed, 03/21/2018
John 6IX Breezy
"I see no straw man."
--------------------------------------**REALLY? I'M DUBIOUS, BUT LETS TAKE ANOTHER LOOK THEN.
Tue, 03/20/2018
John 6IX Breezy "brainwashing..... not even applicable......since children are not ***born with beliefs*** that can be altered."
Wed, 03/21/2018
Sheldon
Children are not born at all. Babies are. Where did I claim religions brainwashed new born babies?
-------------------------------------**THAT'S ONE STRAW MAN**
Tue, 03/20/2018
John 6IX Breezy "I disagree with teaching children things uncritically for practical reasons, but not for psychological reasons. "
Wed, 03/21/2018
Sheldon
"I never said you agreed with teaching children things uncritically. My post was about the pernicious nature of religious fundamentalism which *DOES* teach that religious texts like the Koran and bible are literally true, and so by definition have to be accepted uncritically."
--------------------------------------**THAT'S A SECOND STRAW MAN**
Tue, 03/20/2018
John 6IX Breezy
"There are a thousand paths to violence and racism that do not require fundamentalism."
Wed, 03/21/2018
Sheldon
"Where did I say fundamentalism was the only path to violence and racism?"
------------------------------------**THAT'S A THIRD STRAW MAN**
>>>Any thoughts on the rest of my post, or are you going to ignore that as well?
Those are not strawman.
“A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.“
Wiki
Good, then it's settled that they're not strawman.
Yes they were.
Ironically, I think this is a great example of what the study refers to when it measures Cognitive Flexibility. If I give young children a deck of cards and ask them to sort them into piles based on shape, they'll proceed to do it. If I then switch the task and ask them to sort it by color, depending on the age, the child may have difficulty doing it. They'll keep on sorting by shape, and have difficulty task switching.
When it comes to our conversation you had difficulty switching between a direct response to your comment (that indoctrination is limited), and my own thoughts on the idea of indoctrination (I disagree with teaching children things uncritically for practical reasons, but not for psychological reasons). Much like the children who continue sorting by shape, when the task switched to color, you continued viewing everything as a direct attempt to refute your position.
That's the problem with a debate mindset, it makes you inflexible, and unable to sustain a conversation.
Vapid verbiage.
Actually, I think it’s quite the opposite, John.
Yes, they certainly are.
@John 61X Breezy: you can justify inhumane procedures
The article specifically stated through various kinds of mental and cognitive exercises. There's no mention of shock therapy or surgery.
As for indoctrination, how do you feel about organizations like Hitler Youth, or the radicalization of children as suicide bombers? Also, what are your views on Jehovah's Witnesses who not only rigidly indoctrinate their children, but also allow them to die for want of blood transfusions?
@John: you're now seemingly under the impression that raising a child religiously damages the brain.
And you're seemingly under the impression that childhood and adolescent experiences have no effect on brain development.
Did I not use shock therapy and lobotomy as examples of where this line of thought leads? Surely you understood my analogy, and do not honestly think that the absence of their mention in the article has any merit. You've pathologized fundamentalism based on the words of an opinion piece; and you exclaimed on the basis of that information that perhaps there's a cure. If you do not grasp the danger of such a mindset, I'm not sure what else would convince you.
-"You're seemingly under the impression that childhood and adolescent experiences have no effect on brain development."
Depends on what you're talking about. Infants do have basic experiential requirements to develop normally. They require sensory stimulation; they require a caregiver for social and emotional stimulation; and growth is stunted in the absence of these. Yet even in their absence infants have an inborn drive to remedy their deficits; they’ll find random objects to play with for stimulation, or bond with the mother if the father is neglectful.
When you speak of brain development, keep in mind its not an abstract concept, it’s a real biological process guided mostly by genes. The majority of that process is complete by the age of two, and its like 90% done by age five. So, you mostly have between the ages of 2-5 if teaching religion is going to cause any issues in brain development, and by that age a child barely has a first grade education. Now, what's left of brain development occurs mostly in the frontal lobe, which interestingly enough is the part that's damaged in the paper; and when it comes to things like cognitive flexibility (mentioned in the study), its development has almost nothing to do with experience, and everything to do with brain maturation.
So my response is that short of outright maltreatment, neglect, and abuse, the normal experiences of childhood and adolescence have no significant effect on brain development; and no psychologist that I know considers teaching religion to be abuse, quite the opposite, evolutionary psychologists have identified plenty of advantages in religion.
P.S. It is precisely because the frontal lobe continues on developing into early adulthood that the whole idea of indoctrination is meaningless. Adolescence will always be the period when people question tradition, question their elders, and form their own standards. The "rebelliousness" of teens is due to them diverging from their parents teachings, as a result of their brain development. Hence why I'm certain that most of the atheist's here, that left religion, began to have their doubts as a teenager; because indoctrination doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
@ Breezy
"evolutionary psychologists have identified plenty of advantages in religion."
Citations and references please.
Even in my day, some time before yours, extreme fundamentalism of any religion was considered grounds for monitoring of the children's welfare for possible physical and mental abuse.
Although I agree that some psyches were ambivalent about religious education the thread conversation specifically mentioned fundamentalism.
"evolutionary psychologists have identified plenty of advantages in religion."
You have repeatedly claimed to not accept the scientific fact of species evolution.
Besides murdering your siblings might well have evolutionary advantages, luckily humans can reason past their instincts and need not mirror nature's insentient processes.
It's odd that you can cherry pick which parts of science you'll accept this way? The linked research is ignored or repudiated, but then you cherry pick some broad claims about religiosity and throw the word evolution into the sentence. Bizarre you don't see your bias.
Being religious can mean a happier longer life. So what, being a serial killer makes some people happy. You can't just cherry pick facts in this way. Were the 9/11 bomber happy to be off to their reward after immolating themselves and their terrified victims?
You have to weight perceived benefits of superstitious delusions against other factors. Not least of which is whether there is any validity to it.
I have never ignored the linked research. Most of what I mentioned, including the evolutionary advantages of religion, have been brought up in that article.
Evolutionary psychologists don't just come up with evolutionary explanations, and wherever they do I disagree with them. When they point out the health benefits of religion I agree, and when they conclude religion is a byproduct that evolved because of those benefits I disagree. When they find out men have higher libidos than women I agree, and when they give an evolutionary explanation for it using child birth I disagree.
@ Breezy
Citations and references please for your claims.
Should be easy as you have allegedly read them.
"Evolutionary psychologists don't just come up with evolutionary explanations, and wherever they do I disagree with them."
So as I said then, you cherry pick which scientific facts you accept based on your superstitious beliefs.
I'm glad were on the same page for once..
I notice you ignored most of my post though. Same old same old....
@ Sheldon
Psst, do you get the impression he doesn't want to speak to me?
Pages