Religious fundamentalism linked to brain abnormality

[floo]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28392301

I came across this article on another forum and thought it was worth putting on here.

I am not quite sure what to make of it, but if it has any veracity, it might explain a lot.

What do other posters think?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28392301

I came across this article on another forum and thought it was worth putting on here.

I am not quite sure what to make of it, but if it has any veracity, it might explain a lot.

What do other posters think?

I think I would have to sit down and read all of it which I'm not really prepared to do at the moment particularly when I know the strawclutchers of antitheism will do the legwork for me.

Initially though I find the fusion of social science and neuroscience a bit questionable...........Mash up?

[Nearly Sane]

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28392301

I came across this article on another forum and thought it was worth putting on here.

I am not quite sure what to make of it, but if it has any veracity, it might explain a lot.

What do other posters think?

What do you think it might explain?

[floo]

  What do you think it might explain?

The lesions might explain why some people  think their version of god approves of them using abusive tactics in order to force their faith on others.

[Nearly Sane]

The lesions might explain why some people  think their version of god approves of them using abusive tactics in order to force their faith on others.

There didn't seem to be any mention of abuse in the extract.

[floo]

There didn't seem to be any mention of abuse in the extract.

Fundamentalism can lead to abuse can't it?

[Nearly Sane]

Fundamentalism can lead to abuse can't it?

But there is no mention of abuse here. The problems with the extract, amongst others, is that it's not clear what the way of judging fundamentalism is, it concentrates entirely on those with lesions, rather then being some form of double blind test. It's interesting but not really helpful at this stage in explaining anything.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

The abstract (we have no access to the body of the paper) does not mention abusive or any other kind of overt behaviour at all.  Perhaps it might be interesting to know whether people with ventromedial prefrontal cortex injuries are more likely to accept, say, conspiracy theories, or whether they should be exempt from jury duty.

[jeremyp]

There didn't seem to be any mention of abuse in the extract.

Why do you think there has to be?

LR has read the paper (or the abstract, at least) and has formed the opinion that the phenomena described might explain the abuse committed by fundamentalist people.

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you think there has to be?

LR has read the paper (or the abstract, at least) and has formed the opinion that the phenomena described might explain the abuse committed by fundamentalist people.

Why did you say paper when there is no claim from Littlerosees to have read the paper? Why would a claim made about something not mentioned in the extract be something that the paper if anyone had read it would explain?

[jeremyp]

Why did you say paper when there is no claim from Littlerosees to have read the paper?

It's a reasonable assumption that she read the abstract at least given that she posted the link.

Why would a claim made about something not mentioned in the extract be something that the paper if anyone had read it would explain?

If you read a paper describing Archimedes' principle that was written by Archimedes, it would make no mention of the QE2. There would be no mention of steel ships in the abstract and yet, you can use Archimedes principle to predict that you can make a steel ship that floats.

LR didn't say that the paper claims that fundamentalist abuses are explained by lesions in the brain. She looked at the paper and then made a conclusion of her own based on what it says (or what she thinks it says).

[Nearly Sane]

It's a reasonable assumption that she read the abstract at least given that she posted the link.
If you read a paper describing Archimedes' principle that was written by Archimedes, it would make no mention of the QE2. There would be no mention of steel ships in the abstract and yet, you can use Archimedes principle to predict that you can make a steel ship that floats.

LR didn't say that the paper claims that fundamentalist abuses are explained by lesions in the brain. She looked at the paper and then made a conclusion of her own based on what it says (or what she thinks it says).

I didn't she hadn't read the extract, again you seem to be arguing against a point not made. I sad there was no suggestion she had read the paper.

Your analogy is invalid. There is nothing equivalent in the abstract (who knows about the paper) that discusses a specific activity or says that abuse is a characteristic of fundamentalists as defined in the detailed, again which we have no evidence that anyone has read.


You seem to have got confused in your lat point between the extract and the paper and also Arguing against a point not made by me i.e. that Little roses claimed that the paper said that fundamentalist abuses were caused by lesions, simply that there is no mention of such abuses so given the extract I don't see how the conclusion was in any way valid, especially given, ask pointed out earlier, it's not clear what fundamentalist means from just reading the extract.

[Sassy]

The lesions might explain why some people  think their version of god approves of them using abusive tactics in order to force their faith on others.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink the water.

I am not sure what you want to find or even prove. But there is nothing within what you have posted which suggest that there is brain abnormalities in people whom you refer to as fundamentalists.

[jeremyp]

Your analogy is invalid.

No it isn't.

There is nothing equivalent in the abstract (who knows about the paper) that discusses a specific activity or says that abuse is a characteristic of fundamentalists as defined in the detailed, again which we have no evidence that anyone has read.

No it is LR's hypothesis that the lesions account for abusive tactics which she has drawn based on what she thinks is in the paper. She hasn't claimed that her hypothesis is in the paper.

You seem to have got confused in your lat point between the extract and the paper

Well, since it's not an extract, it is an abstract, I think I can make a good case that it is you who is confused.

and also Arguing against a point not made by me i.e. that Little roses claimed that the paper said that fundamentalist abuses were caused by lesions, simply that there is no mention of such abuses so given the extract I don't see how the conclusion was in any way valid, especially given, ask pointed out earlier, it's not clear what fundamentalist means from just reading the extract.

It's one thing to argue that LR is wrong, it's another thing to use spurious grounds to argue she is wrong. She did not claim her hypothesis is in the paper, so arguing against her on the grounds that it's not in the paper is a waste of time.

However, I think it is reasonable to argue that LR has misunderstood the paper. The paper claims to have found a link between religious fundamentalism and a certain type of penetrative brain injury. However, that doesn't mean all fundamentalists have a brain injury, in fact, most do not.