Empirical evidence of causal connection between religious belief and brain damage

Bristolscale7

Fascinating:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393217301318

Abstract

Beliefs profoundly affect people's lives, but their cognitive and neural pathways are poorly understood. Although previous research has identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as critical to representing religious beliefs, the means by which vmPFC enables religious belief is uncertain. We hypothesized that the vmPFC represents diverse religious beliefs and that a vmPFC lesion would be associated with religious fundamentalism, or the narrowing of religious beliefs. To test this prediction, we assessed religious adherence with a widely-used religious fundamentalism scale in a large sample of 119 patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI). If the vmPFC is crucial to modulating diverse personal religious beliefs, we predicted that pTBI patients with lesions to the vmPFC would exhibit greater fundamentalism, and that this would be modulated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness. Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness. 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.

magicbastarder

is this a causal relationship between religious beliefs and brain damage, plus the converse?
i.e. do we know that brain damage causes religious beliefs, but that there's no correlation between religious beliefs and brain damage?

Peregrinus

No, other way round. "Cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment"; if you have dlPFC lesions your capacity for this is impaired and your religious beliefs tend to be fundamentalist, because you lack the capacity for flexibility and adaptivity.

The abstract is silent about whether unbelievers who suffere similar lesions become similarly fundamentalist in their unbelief.:)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, other way round. "Cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment"; if you have dlPFC lesions your capacity for this is impaired and your religious beliefs tend to be fundamentalist, because you lack the capacity for flexibility and adaptivity.

I would be interesting to get a description of what it means to be flexible and adaptive when it comes to religious commitment. Logically it suggest to me an ability to change ones religious beliefs on the basis of a changing understanding of what supports those beliefs. If you read it that way, this could include abandoning the religion you were raised with if you find that the evidence supporting it doesn't bear close scrutiny.

The abstract is silent about whether unbelievers who suffere similar lesions become similarly fundamentalist in their unbelief.:)

So for example, those that believe that Allah doesn't exist on receiving this brain injury believe Allah exists even less? Not quite sure how that works. Of course for those who simply don't hold a belief in the first place, it shouldn't make so much of a difference, as not holding a belief doesn't actually require any cognitive capacity.

recedite

This seems like a good excuse to recall The God Helmet.
I remember seeing Dawkins wearing it on a TV program, but he was a bit underwhelmed. Obviously the brain of this aggressive atheist was already so badly lesioned by alcohol that he was unable to respond to the mind expanding possibilities of such a wondrous invention.

Yes, he had been drinking. The scent was easily noticed. In addition, he was obliged to sit in hot tights within the chamber for almost an hour as the BBC director managed several television studio details before the experiment began. This forced us to deviate from our typical protocol....

We have found that intoxication, particularly ethanol, interferes with the experimental induction of the sensed presence. That is why we always employed an EEG monitoring at the time of the exposure. If the brain state is not optimal, similar to the calm or relaxation that facilitates meditation or prayer, the fields do not optimally interact. In addition, Dawkins had a low score for temporal lobe sensitivity, as mentioned on several web pages.

...an excerpt from Dr. Persinger's Blog

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I would be interesting to get a description of what it means to be flexible and adaptive when it comes to religious commitment.

Well, there may be an account of that in the article (which I haven't read).

smacl wrote: »

Logically it suggest to me an ability to change ones religious beliefs on the basis of a changing understanding of what supports those beliefs. If you read it that way, this could include abandoning the religion you were raised with if you find that the evidence supporting it doesn't bear close scrutiny.

Agreed, although I think if we confined it to just this, that might be a bit reductive. It would also include openness to considering the religious beliefs of others, adapting or developing your own religious beliefs in the light of insight or experience, etc, etc. And just generally being open to the possiblity that your religious beliefs are, in fact, wrong. And, if you have abandoned religious belief, being open to re-embracing it.

smacl wrote: »

So for example, those that believe that Allah doesn't exist on receiving this brain injury believe Allah exists even less? Not quite sure how that works. Of course for those who simply don't hold a belief in the first place, it shouldn't make so much of a difference, as not holding a belief doesn't actually require any cognitive capacity.

Well, what characterises fundamentalism is not so much the particular beliefs held as the inflexibility with which they are held, the vehemence with which they are expressed, and the general intolerance or dismissal of differing views. And of course atheists can express these characteristics just as readily as theists.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, what characterises fundamentalism is not so much the particular beliefs held as the inflexibility with which they are held, the vehemence with which they are expressed, and the general intolerance or dismissal of differing views. And of course atheists can express these characteristics just as readily as theists.

Agreed, but by that logic the more doctrinaire a religion the more fundamentalist. So for example, in Christianity we see the ten commandments, not the ten guiding principles nor the ten suggested practises. Once you declare a statement as incontrovertible truth that is beyond question or argument, you've created a fundamental truth and have taken a step on the road towards fundamentalism. Most major world religions are laden with such fundamental truths and hence lead their adherents towards fundamentalism. Religions are not alone in doing this, but they're the most notable example, and it could be argued that once you have a fundamentalist mindset you will apply it across all your activities.

Atheists can of course express these characteristics, but those raised atheist are less likely to be exposed to such an array of fundamental truths in their formative years through religious instruction. As such, I would imagine they are less likely to tend towards fundamentalism as theists.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, other way round. "Cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment"; if you have dlPFC lesions your capacity for this is impaired and your religious beliefs tend to be fundamentalist, because you lack the capacity for flexibility and adaptivity.

So what you're saying is that Richard Dawkins has dlPFC lesions?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, but by that logic the more doctrinaire a religion the more fundamentalist. So for example, in Christianity we see the ten commandments, not the ten guiding principles nor the ten suggested practises. Once you declare a statement as incontrovertible truth that is beyond question or argument, you've created a fundamental truth and have taken a step on the road towards fundamentalism.

But isn't the idea that there are no fundamental truths a fundamental position?

Atheists can of course express these characteristics, but those raised atheist are less likely to be exposed to such an array of fundamental truths in their formative years through religious instruction. As such, I would imagine they are less likely to tend towards fundamentalism as theists.

I can't say I've noticed that. Second only to the Calvinism vs. Arminian debate, athiests strike as the most fundamentally entrenched grouping. Not all mind, but certainly those from the Church of Dawkins/Hitchens

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't the idea that there are no fundamental truths a fundamental position?

Nope, the fundamental position comes from suggesting that we know what these truths are to such an extent that they are beyond question. There may well be fundamental truths out there, but we still question and test the veracity of what are possibly fundamental truths as a matter of course. As a result of this our knowledge evolves, e.g. progression from flat earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, currently observable universe, speculation of multiverse etc... This is pretty much the polar opposite of a fundamental religious truth.

I can't say I've noticed that. Second only to the Calvinism vs. Arminian debate, athiests strike as the most fundamentally entrenched grouping. Not all mind, but certainly those from the Church of Dawkins/Hitchens

Really? To make a blanket statement about atheists you would need to make a statement about some positive attribute that they share. To suggest that you can reasonably represent atheism from Dawkins or Hitchens position is as nonsensical as suggesting you can represent all religion from Calvinism.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope, the fundamental position comes from suggesting that we know what these truths are to such an extent that they are beyond question. There may well be fundamental truths out there, but we still question and test the veracity of what are possibly fundamental truths as a matter of course. As a result of this our knowledge evolves, e.g. progression from flat earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, currently observable universe, speculation of multiverse etc... This is pretty much the polar opposite of a fundamental religious truth.

You deny the ability to arrive at a fundamental truth, because you insist there must always be the possibility of overturning it with greater knowledge. Everything must remain tentative, nothing can be "beyond question".

Which is fine if that's the route you want to go. But it is a fundamentalist position to take: you cannot arrive at the end. There is no terminus where you can step off your investigation.

You are making a statement about something which is "beyond question". That is your definition of fundamentalism

Really? To make a blanket statement about atheists you would need to make a statement about some positive attribute that they share. To suggest that you can reasonably represent atheism from Dawkins or Hitchens position is as nonsensical as suggesting you can represent all religion from Calvinism.

I did note that it wasn't all. But certainly from that camp

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You deny the ability to arrive at a fundamental truth, because you insist there must always be the possibility of overturning it with greater knowledge. Everything must remain tentative, nothing can be "beyond question".

Which is fine if that's the route you want to go. But it is a fundamentalist position to take: you cannot arrive at the end. There is no terminus where you can step off your investigation.

You are making a statement about something which is "beyond question". That is your definition of fundamentalism

Nope. It is simply an observation that regardless of what anyone states to be a fundamental truth there is the possibility that someone else might question that assumption. To put anything beyond question demands we remove a person's right to ask questions. That is fundamentalism, having the freedom to ask questions is most certainly not.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope. It is simply an observation that regardless of what anyone states to be a fundamental truth there is the possibility that someone else might question that assumption. To put anything beyond question demands we remove a person's right to ask questions. That is fundamentalism, having the freedom to ask questions is most certainly not.

You yourself have put something "beyond question": it is not possible to arrive at a fundamental (unchangeable) truth.

Given this is beyond question, you yourself have arrived at what you say you can't arrive at.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You yourself have put something "beyond question": it is not possible to arrive at a fundamental (unchangeable) truth.

Given this is beyond question, you yourself have arrived at what you say you can't arrive at.

Not at all. Sure haven't you just questioned it yourself? :pac:

recedite

Is this a lesion-swinging contest?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Is this a lesion-swinging contest?

I'd rather have the full bottle in front of me than the full frontal lobotomy if its all the same to you

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Not at all. Sure haven't you just questioned it yourself? :pac:

My questioning what you've put beyond question doesn't alter what you've done: put something beyond question.

You hold it's not possible to arrive at a fundamental truth. For you (if not me) that's beyond question. You're not going to answer the asked question: you're simply going to cite the fundamental truth you hold to be the case.

In that, you are a fundamentalist. Don't confuse a fundamentalism which chops off your hand if you ask questions with a fundamentalism which is simply closed to questions being asked of it - because it supposes itself to have arrived at an unshakeable, fundamental truth.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

My questioning what you've put beyond question doesn't alter what you've done: put something beyond question.

Quite the opposite, you've actually nicely illustrated my point by questioning it. By doing so, you've made it a matter of conjecture and hence clearly not a fundamental truth. My assertion is that all assertions including my own may be questioned. While it seems reasonable to me at this point, I'm open to contrary opinion and would change my position if given good reason to do so.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, but by that logic the more doctrinaire a religion the more fundamentalist. So for example, in Christianity we see the ten commandments, not the ten guiding principles nor the ten suggested practises. Once you declare a statement as incontrovertible truth that is beyond question or argument, you've created a fundamental truth and have taken a step on the road towards fundamentalism. Most major world religions are laden with such fundamental truths and hence lead their adherents towards fundamentalism. Religions are not alone in doing this, but they're the most notable example, and it could be argued that once you have a fundamentalist mindset you will apply it across all your activities.

Atheists can of course express these characteristics, but those raised atheist are less likely to be exposed to such an array of fundamental truths in their formative years through religious instruction. As such, I would imagine they are less likely to tend towards fundamentalism as theists.

Well, you can imagine it all you like. Your imaginings might even be correct, but I'll await the evidence on that.

But this article isn't about the effect of upbringing; it's about the effect of dlPFC lesions on a person's capacity for cognitive flexibility and openness. I've no idea what causes dlPFC lesions, but I assume that the incidence is similar among theists and atheists. If we find that dlPFC lesions make theists more fundamentalist, it's reasonable to ask whether they have a similar effect on atheists.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what you're saying is that Richard Dawkins has dlPFC lesions?

Not at all.

In the first place, I am not identifying Richard Dawkins as a fundamentalist. (FWIW, I don't see him as a fundamentalist.)

In the second place, even if we assume for the purposes of the discussion that Dawkins is a fundamentalist, while the article provides some basis for suggesting that dlPFC lesions tend to induce fundamentalism, it does not suggest that all fundamentalists have dlPFC lesions.

To find out if Dawkins has dlPFC lesions, we'll need either an MRI scan or an autopsy. I don't have ready access to an MRI scanner. Meet me outside New College, Oxford at 2 a.m. tonight. Bring a hammer, a large sack, a hacksaw and a case of surgical instruments!

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you can imagine it all you like. Your imaginings might even be correct, but I'll await the evidence on that.

But this article isn't about the effect of upbringing; it's about the effect of dlPFC lesions on a person's capacity for cognitive flexibility and openness. I've no idea what causes dlPFC lesions, but I assume that the incidence is similar among theists and atheists. If we find that dlPFC lesions make theists more fundamentalist, it's reasonable to ask whether they have a similar effect on atheists.

Yet the article isn't on the effect of dlPFC lesions on a person's capacity for cognitive flexibility and openness either, it is specifically the biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism. As you've mentioned already, it doesn't talk about atheism any more than the effect of upbringing, so you're assumption above is also unfounded speculation until such time as you can demonstrate that atheism is a form of religious belief. I don't currently have access to the full text of the article, but reading a bit more about it here gives the following;

The researchers define fundamentalism as a cognitive approach that “embodies adherence to a set of firm religious beliefs advocating unassailable truths about human existence.“ They write in their paper that the appeal of such a rigid way of thinking is in promoting “coherence and predictability” within a religious group. People in fundamentalist groups tend to value strong commitment to their community, rejection of other beliefs, often combined with science denial and violence. Deliberation becomes victim to conviction.

From the above, I don't think your generalisation holds, but to be fair I'd need to read the original text rather than commentary on it.

Edit: Found a free gateway to the complete text here so will have a proper read once I get a few minutes.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Yet the article isn't on the effect of dlPFC lesions on a person's capacity for cognitive flexibility and openness either, it is specifically the biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism . . .

Yes, I agree. As I understand it, the researchers hypothesised that vmPFC lesions would be associated with religious fundamentalism and sought to investigate this. But what they observed was that it was dlPFC lesions that were associated with increased fundamentalism, and they explain this by suggesting that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary to support non-fundamentalist religious belief, and dlPFC lesions reduce cognitive flexibility and openness.

It doesn’t appear that they studied the effect of dlPFC lesions in non-believers at all.

My hypothesis is that, if dlPFC lesions reduce cognitive flexility and openess, they will do that for believer and non-believer alike. (Presumably you are not suggesting that unbelief confers supernatural protection against the effects of organic brain injury.) If so, we may reasonably ask how they affect the beliefs of the unbelievers on religious questions (or, indeed, the beliefs of both believers and unbelievers on non-religious questions). I cheerfully admit that the study doesn’t look at that at all. But it does raise the question.

smacl wrote: »

. , so you're assumption above is also unfounded speculation until such time as you can demonstrate that atheism is a form of religious belief.

This doesn’t make sense. My assumption is that your likelihood of suffering a dlPFC lesion is independent of your religious position. Just as being an unbeliever won’t provide miraculous protection from suffering reduced cognitive flexibility and openness should you suffer a dlPFC lesion, it equally won’t protect you from suffering a a dlPFC lesion in the first place. DlFPC lesions rain upon the just and the unjust alike, as it were. Yes, it's an assumption, but I don't think it's an extravagant one.

You can obviously be fundamentalist in matters other than religion. You can be a fundamentalist libertarian, for example, or a fundamentalist Marxist, or a fundamentalist advocate of secularism or free speech or the right to choose or the right to life. And presumably, even if your views on a religious question are themselves irreligious (“There is no god”) you can be just as fundamentalist in holding, expressing, etc this view as you can in holding the opposite view. This doesn’t involve classifying “there is no god” as a religious view.

While I cheerfully acknowledge that the study doesn’t look at all about how dlPFC lesions affect non-religious beliefs, or any beliefs of non-religious people, if in fact the mechanism by which it affects belief is by reducing cognitive flexibility and openness and this does affect a certain class of beliefs, it’s reasonable to point out that it may similarly affect other beliefs, not studied.

smacl

Ok, after a rather rushed read of the text...

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn’t appear that they studied the effect of dlPFC lesions in non-believers at all.

The study wasn't specific to believers though, the sample group were as follows (HC are the control group).

The pTBI group consisted of 2.5% Mormons,
38.8% Protestant, 16.3% Roman Catholic, 10% other affiliations, and
32.5% did not respond to this question. The HC group consisted of
35.3% Protestant, 23.5% Roman Catholic, and 41.2% did not respond
to this question.

From the above it seems that non-believers were included in the study.

You can obviously be fundamentalist in matters other than religion. You can be a fundamentalist libertarian, for example, or a fundamentalist Marxist, or a fundamentalist advocate of secularism or free speech or the right to choose or the right to life.

You doubtless can, but this study is very specific in that it deals with religious fundamentalism and how and where religiosity is manifested in the brain. The suggestion that you can generalise the study beyond this does not have any basis. From the text;

In general, religious beliefs tend to differ from empirical beliefs. Although people may think subjectively of religious belief as a true or false representation of how the world is, it is notable that certain religious beliefs do not generally update in response to evidence, and that conservatism is especially notable in the case of fundamentalist beliefs. Empirical beliefs are indications of how the world appears to us and are updated according to accumulated evidence. Fundamentalist religious beliefs, in comparison, do not track and predict variation in the world. Rather, they appear to track, and predict, social group-level commitments

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Ok, after a rather rushed read of the text...

The study wasn't specific to believers though, the sample group were as follows (HC are the control group).

From the above it seems that non-believers were included in the study.

Yes, they were included in the study. But if the study only looked at the expression of religious beliefs, presumably the fundamentalism or lack of it of their (necessarily, non-religious) beliefs was not studied.

smacl wrote: »

You doubtless can, but this study is very specific in that it deals with religious fundamentalism and how and where religiosity is manifested in the brain. The suggestion that you can generalise the study beyond this does not have any basis. From the text;

Your quote says that "religious beliefs tend to differ from empirical beliefs". But the instances I offered - libertarianism, marxism, secularism, belief in the right to life, belief in the right to choose - are not empirical beliefs. So the characteristics that distinguish empirical beliefs from religious beliefs wouldn't be relevant here.

I'd accept that you can't describe my empirical belief that, say, the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth is 9.8 m/s/s as "fundamentalist", no matter how firm and inflexible my conviction on the point. Or, if you do call it fundamentalist, you must be using the word in a very different sense. But my fundamentalist secularism (say) may be fundamentalist in a very similar way to your fundamentalist Mennonite beliefs. And if we find that the one is correlated with dlPFC lesions, well, I think the question of whether the other could be similarly correlated does raise its inquisitive little head.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, they were included in the study. But if the study only looked at the expression of religious beliefs, presumably the fundamentalism or lack of it of their (necessarily, non-religious) beliefs was not studied.

Maybe, even as an atheist, if you get a hard enough knock to the head, you'll start believing all sorts of things you previously might have considered crazy nonsense.

Your quote says that "religious beliefs tend to differ from empirical beliefs". But the instances I offered - libertarianism, marxism, secularism, belief in the right to life, belief in the right to choose - are not empirical beliefs. So the characteristics that distinguish empirical beliefs from religious beliefs wouldn't be relevant here.

But the same paragraph does point our that "conservatism is especially notable in the case of fundamentalist beliefs" which hardly correlates with libertarianism or the belief in the right to choose for example. Once again, this study is very specifically about religious fundamentalism, so I'd suggest extrapolating and generalising beyond that is speculation, plain and simple.

Thephantomsmask

Temporal lobe tumours are associated with hyper-religiosity. I don't know their beliefs pre tumour but I have met several patients with this, one became a nun several years after developing a slow growing temporal lobe growth.