Chattanooga Times Free Press

Do religious fundamenta­lists suffer from brain damage?

- BY JOHN STONESTREE­T AND ROBERTO RIVERA

In 1902, Rudyard Kipling published a collection of children’s stories that became known as the “Just So Stories.” These were fanciful “explanatio­ns” for how various animals acquired their best-known characteri­stics, like the camel’s hump, the leopard’s spots and the elephant’s trunk.

They were called “just so stories” because his daughter Josephine demanded that they be told in the same way each time, in other words, “just so.”

In 1976, the paleontolo­gist Stephen Jay Gould, writing about the emerging field of evolutiona­ry psychology, used that phrase, “just so story,” to express his skepticism about the entire field of study. Since then, the label “just so story” has come to mean “an unverifiab­le narrative explanatio­n for a cultural practice, a biological trait or behavior of humans or other animals.”

The most recent “just so story” I’ve seen announced a link between brain damage and religious fundamenta­lism. Yes, you heard that right: brain damage.

The study, titled “Biological and Cognitive Underpinni­ngs of Religious Fundamenta­lism,” was published in the journal Neuropsych­ologia. In it, researcher­s went over the data from 119 Vietnam War veterans who were “specifical­ly chosen because a large number of them had damage to brain areas suspected of playing a critical role in functions related to religious fundamenta­lism.”

Is your Spidey-sense going off here? It should be … The researcher­s weren’t studying the brains of 119 random people looking to see what, if anything, they might find. No, they assumed that a particular kind of brain damage played a role in whether someone became a religious fundamenta­list and then went looking for evidence that confirmed those suspicions.

Can you spell “confirmati­on bias,” boys and girls?

Comparing the brain-injured vets’ CT scans to those of non-injured vets, researcher­s found that an injury to a specific region of the prefrontal cortex “was associated with religious fundamenta­lism.”

If your Spidey-sense is now giving you a headache, good. So many unanswered questions here. For example, “What do they mean by ‘religious fundamenta­lism?’” In this case, “an ideology that emphasizes traditiona­l religious texts and rituals and discourage­s progressiv­e thinking about religion and social issues.” So, like, every Abrahamic religion?

It gets “better.” “Fundamenta­lists” tend to “oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life” and “are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatur­al beliefs.”

The researcher­s theorize that damage to the particular region of the prefrontal cortex causes “a reduction in cognitive flexibilit­y and openness.” This leads to “an increase in religious fundamenta­lism.”

So many problems here, so little time, so I’ll settle for two obvious problems. First, we have no idea whether these brain-injured vets were actually “fundamenta­lists,” or if they simply answered the questionna­ires in a way that led a researcher to label them that way. The lack of “cognitive flexibilit­y and openness” in what the researcher­s deemed “religious matters” might also be true of the rest of their lives. Why single out religion? Not to mention, the researcher­s seemed to lack a good bit of “cognitive flexibilit­y and openness” to any understand­ing of religion that’s different than theirs. Are they brain-damaged fundamenta­lists too?

And, second, don’t lots of non-religious people aggressive­ly “oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life?” Some are even running for president right now. Is there something wrong with their prefrontal cortex?

In the just-so story “How the Elephant Got Its Trunk,” a curious elephant wanders too close to a river and a crocodile grabs it by its then-stubby nose, stretching it until the calf gets away. The new elongated nose proves so useful that no elephant would even dream of going back to their old stubby one.

The only difference between that story and the one published in Neuropsych­ologia is that Kipling actually knew he was writing a “just so story.”

From BreakPoint, Jan. 31, 2019; reprinted by permission of the Colson Center, www. breakpoint.org.

 ?? GETTY IMAGES ??
GETTY IMAGES

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States