pcnthuziast
Posts: 1,592 +1,403
How about keep religious hit pieces off a tech site. Thank you.
Brain damage linked to increased likelihood of religious fundamentalism, new study finds
- Thread starter zohaibahd
- Start date
The staff at Techspot needs feedback from their constituency.
demonicmaniac
Posts: 10 +26
I feel compelled, to pick up on what trents and fadingfool said, to clarify another point that seems to be willfully ignored by commenters - not by trents or fadingfool though, just that they mentioned relevant things about this.
They used standardized public fundamentalism scale testing to gauge the extent of individuals fundamentalism. Fundamentalism in this definition is things like there is only one true god, everybody not believing in my god goes to hell etcpp - taking scripture literal. It makes no assumptions or suggestions about being religious or preaching or evangelizing. They are also not claiming or suggesting that religiousness causes brain damage. They are not claiming that all zealots have damage in these brain areas. They are observing a corelation between brain damage in specific areas and higher extent of fundamentalism.
They used standardized public fundamentalism scale testing to gauge the extent of individuals fundamentalism. Fundamentalism in this definition is things like there is only one true god, everybody not believing in my god goes to hell etcpp - taking scripture literal. It makes no assumptions or suggestions about being religious or preaching or evangelizing. They are also not claiming or suggesting that religiousness causes brain damage. They are not claiming that all zealots have damage in these brain areas. They are observing a corelation between brain damage in specific areas and higher extent of fundamentalism.
But what does it have to do with technology?
Technology and science are almost always highly intertwined. the medical technology we have available today allowed scientists to study this correlation.
Granted, they overlap but this article clearly deals with subject matter that is outside the scope of digital technology. If the article had focused on how technology had facilitated this study I would see it as relevant to this website. But that was not the focus. The focus was on the sociological results of the study.
You're not wrong, but there are many articles on techspot that have little or nothing to do with technology. I don't think we need all the updates on space karen here; but if they never posted anything that wasn't strictly about modern digital technology, they would have a pretty slow news feed.
Seems to me that the vast majority of the articles on Techspot do have a digital technology emphasis. The current one represents an exception IMO.
Life is full of exceptions.
demonicmaniac
Posts: 10 +26
I don't have any opinion about this, I just wanted to highlight people kneejerking not reading the article and jumping to conclusions. I am used to stuff like this from arstechnica, I honestly don't read techspot long and - excuse the pun - religiously enough to have an opinion on whether this was a complete shocker here or not.
But the inclusion of this particular exception begs the question, "Why"?
This is true and I appreciated the transparency of the study's authors in this regard.
What do you mean by saying the study "makes no assumptions or suggestions about being religious or preaching or evangelizing."? The very title of the article contains the words "religious fundamentalism".
demonicmaniac
Posts: 10 +26
I meant it in the way that it does not say/claim/suggest religiousness to be tied to brain damage in any way, neither causing nor being caused by. Only the extent of fundamentalism as defined and measured by the Religious Fundamentalism Scale. I am not quite sure how else to put this. Maybe "brain damage can make you more fundamentalistic but we do not claim or suggest being religious at all is related to brain damage in these regions"?
edit:
maybe to paraphrase the study more - I just don't want to replicate/copypaste the contents of the study or the scale/test questions: corelates with cognitive rigidity and outgroup hostility intensity. As in being religious and preaching can still be tolerant and not unquestioning
Last edited:
LimyG
Posts: 208 +80
Very controversial as in bound to cause indignation for some. Also not really suited to a tech forum.
However, were this a different (religious) forum, I would say that it's pretty obvious.
Still science - fact based, and revised if old theories found to be wrong - an on going huge study of everything that can never provide the answers to a seemingly simple question like, "why are we here," "what is life," and, "what's it all about."
Religion: First pick one. Read it's main book, bible, koran etc. Believe all of it, and force yourself not to question anything. I guess life is far simpler that way.
We all can choose either. And it's not for me or anyone to say which is best. It's a purely personal thing.
Edit: I am referring strictly to fundamental type religion. Nothing wrong with going to church on Sundays. It' a good social thing. Being fundamental means every other religion, and anything scientific that mentions stuff more than 7000 years old (When the earth was created, flat, in the center of the universe.)
means that only that persons believe structure is correct. So the others are totally wrong. It's caused wars you know!?!
However, were this a different (religious) forum, I would say that it's pretty obvious.
Still science - fact based, and revised if old theories found to be wrong - an on going huge study of everything that can never provide the answers to a seemingly simple question like, "why are we here," "what is life," and, "what's it all about."
Religion: First pick one. Read it's main book, bible, koran etc. Believe all of it, and force yourself not to question anything. I guess life is far simpler that way.
We all can choose either. And it's not for me or anyone to say which is best. It's a purely personal thing.
Edit: I am referring strictly to fundamental type religion. Nothing wrong with going to church on Sundays. It' a good social thing. Being fundamental means every other religion, and anything scientific that mentions stuff more than 7000 years old (When the earth was created, flat, in the center of the universe.)
means that only that persons believe structure is correct. So the others are totally wrong. It's caused wars you know!?!
Last edited:
LimyG
Posts: 208 +80
Good point. Doesn't need to be, "religion," in the way that word is normally thought of. I'll add fundamentalist before religion. That's important.
The horrific events you refer too were similar though. The majority of the population, either chose not to see, "had no choice", or were complicit. They said after.
The good people who tried to stop it, sadly, often ended up in those same chambers. Any belief system taken too far can, by no means always, but has the potential to lead to awful things.
The true historical events you describe are possibly the worst example in history. But worth noting.
Simmering and ongoing atrocities are a global fact. People who belief they are 100% "right." Don't get on with different people who are 100% right but with a different belief system.
There are flash points all over the world. Europe has plenty of problems, but as a mostly secular part of the world, fundamentalism isn't inherent. Still, there are people prepared to blow themselves up and take with them as many as possible. They belief 100% they are right. Anything other than their particular 100% correct beliefs must be evil. Being brougt up that way is no excuse. It requires self brain washing, or insanity to go that far.
"Fundamentalism," of any type or structure, historically and today, is one of, if not the most destructive force of humankind.
The vast majority of religious people are good people, no better or worse than an athiest. But when it's taken to the fundamental level in a persons mind seems they are willing to do anything - because they are 100% right.
Fundamentalism, is the twisted opposite of religion.
As far as I know all religions have something similar to, "love thy neigbour." Fundamentalists of the worst type, well its' clear they dropped that core principle and head in the opposite direction.
It (fundamentalism) always has and always will exist. Quite literally deadly. Regardless if it is insanity or not, the awful results are the same.
It's cute that people think fundamentalism can be only linked to religion.
Similar threads
