I don't honestly think that the brains of believers and nonbelievers are different. Even atheists can be pigheaded, stubborn, stupid, and just plain wrong sometimes.
"Woo" is a pejorative label for some types of behavior associated with religion--mysticism, ritual, spiritualism, etc. I was mainly responding to the question in the OP and wasn't trying to explain all aspects of religion and religious behavior. People also use the term "scientism" to describe an exaggerated trust in scientific methodology or just using scientific language inappropriately.
I tend to see religion as grounded in Cartesian dualism--the belief that reality is divided between spiritual and physical realms. Since we directly experience the movement of body parts through pure volition, it is not unreasonable to speculate that external forces are also caused by other "spirits" using the same method to cause things to happen. Animism gives rise to belief in powerful agencies such as demons and gods, which are humanlike beings that are amenable to human influences. They can be cajoled, persuaded, and intimidated. Since they are exotic imaginary beings, people often develop ritual forms of behavior to communicate with them, strike bargains, and offer devotion. Ancient Semites actually formed legal "covenants" with deities. That's how Abraham got involved with Yahweh. He offered Yahweh the loyalty, devotion, and worship that gods seem to desire in exchange for protection, guidance, and good fortune.
Reward and punishment works for all animals with brains, because that is what shapes their model of reality. They learn to avoid punishment and seek reward in all aspects of life. We all have a flawed understanding of reality, but that understanding evolves over time. Sometimes our flawed understanding leads us to do good things for the wrong reasons. As I said earlier, religion plays a variety of roles that can have beneficial effects. The model doesn't have to be perfect in order to have value.
I think that you may have read more into that study than the authors intended. They were talking about a type of brain damage that they believe predisposes people to religious fundamentalism. It doesn't follow that religion or even religious fundamentalism is generally caused by brain damage. That type of brain damage might also predispose people to other forms of behavior akin to religious fundamentalism, e.g. radical devotion to Donald Trump.
affordance). People just come to rely on different models of how reality works. For example, most atheists tend to be physicalists, whereas people of religious faith tend to believe in substance dualism--the idea that reality comes in two distinct flavors: spiritual and physical.
Not sure how you are using that word "significantly," whether you're talking statistics or not. If one male is 6'10" tall, is there a "significant" difference in genetic inheritance compared to another male person who is 5'2" tall, all other things being equal of course? Humans vary a lot in physical characteristics, certainly you are not arguing that the causes of these differences are all external to their genetic inheritance. Environment and exposure are certainly measurable influences, no sane person will argue that.
Technically, what I meant was that the brains of believers and nonbelievers are not significantly different. Of course, every individual brain is different from all the others, and every individual is shaped by different experiences from other individuals. The underlying structure of cognition in all animals is the same--chains of associations grounded ultimately in sensory experiences. We build models of reality based primarily on observations of how we interact with it (see
People like to compare brains with computers, but the metaphorical analogy breaks down in at least one important way. Brains are, at best, analog computing devices, not digital ones. That is, they are not general computing devices (Turing machines) that can be loaded with different operating systems and programs. All "computations" (i.e. thoughts) depend on changes that occur in neural "hardware". The thoughts and beliefs that people have ultimately rely on physical differences, but there is no reason to believe that religious faith is the result of a physical brain disorder of any kind. It's more likely that things classified as physical disorders can lead to unusual or extreme behavior, but it is normal for people to have radically different beliefs, attitudes, and outlooks on life.
Technically, what I meant was that the brains of believers and nonbelievers are not significantly different. Of course, every individual brain is different from all the others, and every individual is shaped by different experiences from other individuals. The underlying structure of cognition in all animals is the same--chains of associations grounded ultimately in sensory experiences. We build models of reality based primarily on observations of how we interact with it (see
People like to compare brains with computers, but the metaphorical analogy breaks down in at least one important way. Brains are, at best, analog computing devices, not digital ones. That is, they are not general computing devices (Turing machines) that can be loaded with different operating systems and programs. All "computations" (i.e. thoughts) depend on changes that occur in neural "hardware". The thoughts and beliefs that people have ultimately rely on physical differences, but there is no reason to believe that religious faith is the result of a physical brain disorder of any kind. It's more likely that things classified as physical disorders can lead to unusual or extreme behavior, but it is normal for people to have radically different beliefs, attitudes, and outlooks on life.
Not sure how you are using that word "significantly," whether you're talking statistics or not. If one male is 6'10" tall, is there a "significant" difference in genetic inheritance compared to another male person who is 5'2" tall, all other things being equal of course? Humans vary a lot in physical characteristics, certainly you are not arguing that the causes of these differences are all external to their genetic inheritance. Environment and exposure are certainly measurable influences, no sane person will argue that.
I'm not saying there's a defect. Natural selection is natural selection. A short person is not defective either, nor is someone less coordinated and less athletic than the next person. What I am saying is that being dogmatic is an inherited trait as much as is having brown eyes. Some people are naturally better at math because of their brains. I don't see how being dogmatic or being prone to religious thinking is any different. I know you would not argue that we are all equally gifted at math or scientific thought. So why would you claim that we are all equally gifted when it comes to being religious or being dogmatic? What's the difference?
The fact that some people seem more gifted at math than others is not sufficient evidence to warrant a claim that they inherited the ability. We can speculate that, but you need evidence to support such a claim. The fact is that everyone experiences life differently, and innate abilities are only one factor that contributes to intellectual development. What you need to do is eliminate the possibility that environmental factors did not create the motivation and mental discipline that led to superior performance. As I pointed out above, we can observe dogmatic behavior in all sorts of communities, including our secular community.
