Scientists establish a link between religious fundamentalism and brain damage

[Voltaire2]

Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be

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.

Salon (from RawStory)

[MineralMan]

1. That's a very interesting idea.

I'll have to go do some additional literature research. That area of the brain also plays a role in brand preferences, according to some fMRI neuroscience research. Brand loyalty and fundamentalist religious beliefs might well be related.

I have a paper somewhere in my pile on this. Since I'm currently involved in studying neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience, I have quite a pile of research papers. I'll have to look through them to see what was said about the relationship.

[Bretton Garcia]

2. I love Science.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Religious people seek confirmation of their beliefs. Scientists try to disprove their own theories.

Which approach is the brain-damaged way of dealing with reality and progressing in life?

[Bretton Garcia]

4. "Theories" come and go.

But the proven facts of science and technology have overall been a massive asset, good, for humanity.

Rigorous questioning, testing, of our beliefs, theories, has turned out to be extremely useful too.

"Test everything," as Paul said. With, as Daniel added, "science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Any theory that stands many attempts to disprove it is a theory that stands. Plus theories live on.

Einstein's Theories of Relativity did not make Newton's theory of gravity go away. His work incorporated and included Newton's theory.

[Bretton Garcia]

9. Einstein is a special case, still unsettled.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 06:06 AM - Edit history (1)

He had several theories. Some of which only very recently confirmed. Like black holes and, allegedly, gravity waves. Some yet to be proven or clarified.

Among scientists though, such theories as are proven, typically do go through a name change; into say, "law."

As for one theory subsuming another? In such cases, the older theory in effect is modified, often partly disproven, by the.new contextualization. Proving it was a theory, and not an absolute fact.

[Major Nikon]

10. I wouldn't go so far as to say typically

A scientific law is a collection of facts which explain part of the natural universe. A scientific theory is a model which explains something in the natural universe. So it's not as if one is designed to eventually become the other. Both are tools used by science and while having some intersection they are really two different things. One answers the question "what" and the other answers the question "why".

[Bretton Garcia]

11. I see them working together

Einstein's theories were built not just on math, but on a series of shocking, inexplicable empirical observations by physicists, about light, electricity, atoms. So his theories were derived by induction, from observations of ... many concrete things.

As it turned out, those observations might hold for many, even all things, as a general observation. But if not? Then those laws hold for a small class of subatomic things.

As I currently hypothesize, in a preliminary way.

If some theories now seem factual, and not general explanations? Or vice versa? Those are shifting moments in an often ever-changing picture. That sometimes stresses one, and sometimes the other.

[Major Nikon]

12. Scientific theories generally aren't even intended to be factual

A fact is something that can be proved. A scientific theory is more of a practical model which explains something in a useful way. It works for all testable applications, but it's only proven for the things you can test it against.

In other words let's say I have a theory that says all grass is green because every blade ever observed is green. It stands to reason every new hybrid or varietal of grass will also be green, but it does not mean there will never be an eventual one that will be a different color because I have no way to prove this to be always true.

[MineralMan]

13. Well, there are Newton's Laws of Motion

They've been proven to be incorrect on a universal scale, but they are still correct enough on our own planet in everyday use to be valid. You can use those equations, as long as your point of reference is scaled for our own planet.

Non-Newtonian Physics is full of theories about the laws of physics in other situations. Newton got his "laws" wrong, but we still use them, because they work in our own environment.

These days, you don't hear a lot of about the Laws of Science. That's old terminology. We have theories about just about everything that are supported by existing evidence. When new evidence is available, the theories are modified by that evidence. That's what science is all about. Evidence.

Anything that doesn't involve real, observable or measurable evidence can't be science. Religion is one such thing.

[Bretton Garcia]

14. So thanks everyone for helping me clarify things in my mind.

It all, even theory, seems to be concepts ... based on material evidence .. and objects.

I guess to be sure, that technically even material objects, even the cup of coffee in front of me, is only theoretical. Since it's not even a solid object, in the view that sees it as empty space, only partly filled by a tangle of competing atomic energies. And my brain sees it as solid, only thanks to built in theories in my brain, that are tuned to see it, predict it.

But most physical objects, though variable in many ways, are pretty stable on this world. And can be counted on as stable Material evidence for this or that theory. And especially the theory that there are real-enough, material things, objects, out there.

I guess that's where I'm headed. 1) Theories need material things as material evidence. 2) Even though even material things themselves are in some ways, hypothetical constructs, 3) still, they are stable enough to rely on. They are probably the firmest theoretical constructs we have.

4) Religionists like to point to some of that, to say it's all mental or spiritual, and is "faith" specifically. But?

Since objects are our firmest ideas or theories, by far, then they are in effect in a class by themselves. And very useful as evidence in any theory you might propose. And useful as evidence for or against, almost any mental or 'spiritual" idea or construct.

If that makes sense?

I'd add that 5) even if we do not refer so much to to "laws" any more, we do still refer to material objects, as having some substantial, evidential reality. And even our many theories about life, probably contain, are based in, objects.

So 6) even if nothing was entirely, simply material, still, nothing is entirely spiritual either. Material objects have probably always been, and likely for a long time will still remain. As therefore the firmest foundation for our ideas about life.

And the spirituality and faith that abandons that base, is very foolish.

[uriel1972]

16. There is only patterns of matter and energy in the Universe

It seems. No "spiritual" properties have yet been discovered. If it is immaterial how does it interact in any meaningful way with the material Universe?

We have seen to the end of the Universe, down to the Plank length, and yet no soul has been found.

[uriel1972]

15. ummm absolute facts can't be determined...

Not by us anyway. The best we can get is probability.

[Bretton Garcia]

17. Probably that's correct

But there are some things that seem far, far, far more likely than others. Those far more likely things, we could call "facts "

[uriel1972]

18. Yes, that's the joy of probabilities...

All things may be possible, but not all things are probable

[NeoGreen]

6. For humor's sake...

...

Or is that sake 酒?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Excellent! . . . nt

[Bretton Garcia]

8. To confirm or disconfirm confirmation bias existed?

Scientists ran studies, that tried hard to avoild such biases. And found that it probably did exist to a degree. In cases where, say, the facts were very well known, but some had an opposite thesis.