Thanks to Casey Ann in Natchez for this. What it says is that belief in God is influenced by the way our brains are structured:
We hypothesized that religiosity, a set of traits variably expressed in the population, is modulated by neuroanatomical variability. We tested this idea by determining whether aspects of religiosity were predicted by variability in regional cortical volume. We performed structural magnetic resonance imaging of the brain in 40 healthy adult participants who reported different degrees and patterns of religiosity on a survey.
We identified four Principal Components of religiosity by Factor Analysis of the survey items and associated them with regional cortical volumes measured by voxel-based morphometry. Experiencing an intimate relationship with God and engaging in religious behavior was associated with increased volume of R middle temporal cortex, BA 21.
Experiencing fear of God was associated with decreased volume of L precuneus and L orbitofrontal cortex BA 11. A cluster of traits related with pragmatism and doubting God's existence was associated with increased volume of the R precuneus.
Variability in religiosity of upbringing was not associated with variability in cortical volume of any region. Therefore, key aspects of religiosity are associated with cortical volume differences. This conclusion complements our prior functional neuroimaging findings in elucidating the proximate causes of religion in the brain.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007180
8 comments:
Does anyone else get this, totally? I'm doing a Neuroscience degree and there were stretches that I didn't understand.
I think they found God, apparently he lives inside (some) human brains. In other news scientists discover water is wet.
That is one possible explanation Steve. Another is that the brain has evolved specific areas that allow it to perceive God just as it has evolved specific areas that allow it to perceive light or sound.
"This study is correlational; therefore, it does not imply causality. Moreover, it was performed in adults. Subjects may have been predisposed to follow specific patterns of religious behavior by their individual brain development or their religious behavior may have contributed to volume changes of certain brain areas."
This is a pretty shaky study:
"We speculate that the range of R MTG volumes can be viewed as a spectrum, in which high R MTG volume is associated with stereotyped and ritualistic behavior, high-normal volume is associated with religious behavior (which, we should note, is by definition ritualistic), low-normal volume is associated with non-religiosity, and pathologically low volume is associated with schizophrenia..."
Less volume of this area denotes a negative trend culminating in schizophrenic behavior, one step above which is non-religiosity?
Out of 6+ billion people on earth, 40 people with different brain sizes were selected for the study and given an evaluation in which they self-reported their religious perceptions. Since the 40 people had unequal brain sizes to beging with, a method was employed to compensate for those differences and after the differences were compensated for the MRI scans were studied to see what differences could be found and then these differences were related to the matrix developed from the self-reporting of the participants.
More, this study was conducted with the assumption that a theorized conceptual space of three dimensions relating to Western religious thought does in fact exist as a given; this would not have worked for Buddhists because Buddhists don't fear God. So the study really shows nothing, except that funding can be obtained for any hair brained idea that can be thought of (which may not be a bad thing, who knows when some important discovery may be made by accident?).
"Religious behavior is a uniquely human phenomenon without accepted animal equivalents..." This is an odd statement for this study to make, given the ballyhoo over the previous Skinner study that showed pigeons would develop ritualistic behavior when reduced to a state of hunger and fed at intervals that had nothing to do with the pigeon's behavior; the pigeons began to associate their behavior prior to the appearance of food with the appearance of the food and would engage in that behavior in an attempt to get the food to appear. http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/0155060678_rathus/ps/ps09.html
Marty, your problem is that you can't conceive any way of falsifying your hypothesis, it's just an assertion or something you made up with the words "it could be" inserted (as if a vanishing probability makes something more likely!?).
For example, I could assert that aliens in a 5th dimension "could have" designed us to be delusional so that they can harvest our brain wave energy without us being aware of them; as a hypothesis it would be on exactly the same footing as yours, you cannot disprove it and therefore it is worthless.
If you could conceive an experiment to show that our brains are actually evolved to detect (undetectable) supernatural entities then you would be onto a winner; otherwise it's just yet another wacky idea that can be a priori discounted.
What these people have done is to construct a test to show a particular correlation; you may argue that the sample size is not sufficient for the conclusion, possibly true, but you have not shown or explained why you simply assert it. This is an assertion from, I suspect, a lay person's "intuitive" perspective; or in other words an argument from incredulity.
I don't see papers like this one as "proof" of anything, it's not supposed to be, its simply a little more weight to the argument and another (small, interesting, but certainly incomplete) Lego brick in our corpus of knowledge.
The hypothesis you assume I propose could be falsified by proving that God does not exist. Good luck on that one.
Still, you could be right; however it cannot be denied that if one believes, as you do, that the brain is the center of perception, the brain has evolved to perceive at least the concept of God.
My assertion that this is a shaky study is not rooted just in the size of the sample but that the sample was checked for a correlation based on what the researchers decided were the major identifying qualities of the western idea of god. Most people on the planet do not subscribe to the western idea of god, or to all of the qualities chosen by the researchers. So how could this conclusion possibly be reached: "Therefore, key aspects of religiosity are associated with cortical volume differences."
Comparing these differences in a meaningful way depends upon the ability of the researchers to take images of brains of different sizes and establish some sort of baseline for normal size of each studied area, and identifying all the genetic and environmental factors which can account for different cortical volumes. After identifying all these factors then the effect of the various factors would have to be added or subtracted to each image, with the resulting volumes then available for comparison.
To me it is very suspicious that this study concluded what it hypothesized, but that seems to happen more and more in this era of politicized science. Can it be that the growing number of atheists is due to a global decrease in R MTG volume? Because that is what this study identifies as lack of religiosity. Does it make sense to you that your beliefs about religion are due more to specific cortical volumes or because of your ruminations on the subject? If it does make sense to you, then you should simply pity those born with greater R MTG volume instead of mocking them as illogical. They are simply handicapped by having large brain mass than you.
Marty, but my brain can conceive of unicorns and fairies too and I can't prove they don't exist either, not much of an argument is it?
So your defence of "it could be so" is worthless from the point of view of utility (I wouldn't dispute that thinking such things might give the believer personal comfort of course, but that says nothing about its veracity).
If you don't agree that your brain is the source of your conciousness then try a little experiment, get someone to drive over it with an SUV, see if it still "perceives" ;)
Moreover, it is possible to conceive of things that are logically impossible, so cannot be true.
I've heard that argument before - if god doesn't exist where did the idea of god come from. It doesn't go very far.
All very likely so, but I want to see the sudy that measures cortical volume difference between kids who believe in Santa and those who don't, those who are afraid of Santa and those who see him as benevolent.
Post a Comment