https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/li...m-and-brain-damage-established-by-scientists/
Looks like about 20% of it, although the sample size is small.
Looks like about 20% of it, although the sample size is small.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/li...m-and-brain-damage-established-by-scientists/
Looks like about 20% of it, although the sample size is small.
On an old PBS Tavis Smiley show I listebd to neuro scientist talk about research on religious experience.
He ran brain scans while theists contemplated god and prayed.
Not by design, he ended up with secular scientists in his control group.
He found religious contemplation and scientific contemplate lit up the same parts of the brain.
Conclusion, religious experience is not unique to religion.
Christians think their psycho-physical sensations are unique to being Christian. It is not.
Seems like there's a strong correlation between being a US citizen who lived in the 60's-70's (Vietnam era) and strongly held religious views.
Meanwhile, in other news...science finds a correlation between surviving near death experiences (like being shot at) and increased religiosity.
Seems like there's a strong correlation between being a US citizen who lived in the 60's-70's (Vietnam era) and strongly held religious views.
Meanwhile, in other news...science finds a correlation between surviving near death experiences (like being shot at) and increased religiosity.
War is a common way to get brain damage. You would expect vets to be way overrepresented in a pool of those with brain damage.
"To investigate the cognitive and neural systems involved in religious fundamentalism, a team of researchers...conducted a study that utilized data from Vietnam War veterans"
Seems like there's a strong correlation between being a US citizen who lived in the 60's-70's (Vietnam era) and strongly held religious views.
Meanwhile, in other news...science finds a correlation between surviving near death experiences (like being shot at) and increased religiosity.
War is a common way to get brain damage. You would expect vets to be way overrepresented in a pool of those with brain damage.
We've discussed the study itself on this forum before. Typical treatment of a good article by confused reporting.
If all you're looking for is a "scientists say..." article that confirms your biases, I guess you've got what you need. If you want to actually learn something about the brain, read the article not the press summary, which is inaccurate.
Is this a two tailed question?We performed all behavioral analysis with SPSS 21.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.), with significance level set to 0.05 (two-tailed) for all analysis. We examined the normality of data using the Kolmogorov-Smirnovtest, and parametric tests were conducted on normally distributed data.
Thus, we hypothesized that lesions to the vmPFC would be associated with increased fundamentalism, and this relationship would be mediated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness.
We computed Pearson's correlation coefficient to assess the relationship between cognitive flexibility, openness and fundamentalism in pTBI patients and HC.
On an old PBS Tavis Smiley show I listebd to neuro scientist talk about research on religious experience.
He ran brain scans while theists contemplated god and prayed.
Not by design, he ended up with secular scientists in his control group.
He found religious contemplation and scientific contemplate lit up the same parts of the brain.
Conclusion, religious experience is not unique to religion.
On an old PBS Tavis Smiley show I listebd to neuro scientist talk about research on religious experience.
He ran brain scans while theists contemplated god and prayed.
Not by design, he ended up with secular scientists in his control group.
He found religious contemplation and scientific contemplate lit up the same parts of the brain.
Conclusion, religious experience is not unique to religion.
It's likely this study, which has nothing to do with how people form religious beliefs vs. secular/scientific conclusions.
They didn't have people actually think about a topic or form beliefs about them. Rather that asked them to simply retrieve from memory their already well formed beliefs about very common topics. For example, they showed them a simple statement like "Angels exist." or "The Sun is a star." and had people say "true" or "false". Similar brains regions lit up regardless of whether the statement was about a religious idea or whether the person was religious or not. But all that says is that once we already have a formed belief, the simple act of retrieving that pre-formed belief when prompted involved similar brain regions. But that would be true even if the beliefs were formed via completely different psychological processes and had different impact on how people think when confronted with new information.
On an old PBS Tavis Smiley show I listebd to neuro scientist talk about research on religious experience.
He ran brain scans while theists contemplated god and prayed.
Not by design, he ended up with secular scientists in his control group.
He found religious contemplation and scientific contemplate lit up the same parts of the brain.
Conclusion, religious experience is not unique to religion.
It's likely this study, which has nothing to do with how people form religious beliefs vs. secular/scientific conclusions.
They didn't have people actually think about a topic or form beliefs about them. Rather that asked them to simply retrieve from memory their already well formed beliefs about very common topics. For example, they showed them a simple statement like "Angels exist." or "The Sun is a star." and had people say "true" or "false". Similar brains regions lit up regardless of whether the statement was about a religious idea or whether the person was religious or not. But all that says is that once we already have a formed belief, the simple act of retrieving that pre-formed belief when prompted involved similar brain regions. But that would be true even if the beliefs were formed via completely different psychological processes and had different impact on how people think when confronted with new information.
From Popper's book Objective Knowledge, how science becomes accepted as fact is not a logical objective process. As depute expands around experiment it becomes a subjective social process. My experience in engineering generally matches.
Religious and science truths are arrived at by the same process. What separates the two is the premise or hypothesis. There is only logic and reasoning, the same mental faculties for both science and religion.
Most every college sophomore takes a psychology class that includes conditioning a rat, other small rodent, pigeon or fish in a Thorndike, Skinner box or to a Harlow tube in fish bowl. On top of that they learn to distinguish unconditioned response from conditioned response.
Many get their animal to do more than just bar press in response to a signal like a light or sound. This additional behavior is called superstitious behavior and it arises from action the animal has after the signal and before the bar press or nose nudge that is retained through their association of light or sound with manipulandum action to reinforcement.
I prefer to think of any behavior associated with stupid things like jumping or spinning or saying a word or sentence or even having a particular thought randomly associated with a practical learning experience as religious behavior. Religious behavior has very little to do with evidence or reason or explanation. Religious behavior is just stupid behavior acquired but not explained otherwise by experience.