I'm sure the religious community will be outraged by this and will continue to deny science is actually true.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html

i wonder what stephen jay gould would have said about this? seems to be the same kind of bigiotry he debunked.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i wonder what stephen jay gould would have said about this? seems to be the same kind of bigiotry he debunked.

It's a study, it's not some self-righteous ass with a baseless opinion shouting about what he/she thinks he/she knows....no offense Only

rudedog said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i wonder what stephen jay gould would have said about this? seems to be the same kind of bigiotry he debunked.

It's a study, it's not some self-righteous ass with a baseless opinion shouting about what he/she thinks he/she knows....no offense Only

so now it is insult someone (such as it was) and then say no offence?

and you think (I assume you know who gould is) this study was done with anything other than showing that religious person's less intelligent? like flax seeds in a skull... this is no better science.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

It's a study, it's not some self-righteous ass with a baseless opinion shouting about what he/she thinks he/she knows....no offense Only

and you think (I assume you know who gould is) this study was done with anything other than showing that religious person's less intelligent? like flax seeds in a skull... this is no better science.

Is that what you gather from this? Is that was the article said? Hmmm...interesting. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

It's a study, it's not some self-righteous ass with a baseless opinion shouting about what he/she thinks he/she knows....no offense Only

so now it is insult someone (such as it was) and then say no offence?

and you think (I assume you know who gould is) this study was done with anything other than showing that religious person's less intelligent? like flax seeds in a skull... this is no better science.

The OP is baiting. That's what's up

From the article:

"According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again."

Rudedog, I think that you need to change the title of your post to "Being 'Born-Again' AND Having No Religious Affiliation Linked to More Brain Atrophy: Study'.

Being 'Born-Again' Linked to More Brain Atrophy: Study

WEDNESDAY, May 25 (HealthDay News) -- Older adults who say they've had a life-changing religious experience are more likely to have a greater decrease in size of the hippocampus, the part of the brain critical to learning and memory, new research finds.

According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again.

The study is published online in PLoS ONE.

As people age, a certain amount of brain atrophy is expected. Shrinkage of the hippocampus is also associated with depression, dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

In the study, researchers asked 268 people aged 58 to 84 about their religious affiliation, spiritual practices and life-changing religious experiences. Over the course of two to eight years, changes to the hippocampus were monitored using MRI scans.

The researchers suggested that stress over holding religious beliefs that fall outside of the mainstream may help explain the findings.

"One interpretation of our finding -- that members of majority religious groups seem to have less atrophy compared with minority religious groups -- is that when you feel your beliefs and values are somewhat at odds with those of society as a whole, it may contribute to long-term stress that could have implications for the brain," Amy Owen, lead author of the study and a research associate at Duke University Medical Center, said in a Duke news release.

The study authors also suggested that life-changing religious experiences could challenge a person's established religious beliefs, triggering stress.

"Other studies have led us to think that whether a new experience you consider spiritual is interpreted as comforting or stressful may depend on whether or not it fits in with your existing religious beliefs and those of the people around you," David Hayward, research associate at Duke University Medical Center, added. "Especially for older adults, these unexpected new experiences may lead to doubts about long-held religious beliefs, or to disagreements with friends and family."

The researchers noted other factors related to hippocampal atrophy, such as age, depression or brain size, as well as other religious factors such as prayer or meditation, could not explain the study's findings.

More information

[Edited 6/20/12 21:57pm]

rudedog said:

I'm sure the religious community will be outraged by this and will continue to deny science is actually true.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html

I'm sure the non-religious community will be outraged by this unless their degree of brain atrophy is already too much.

The results of the study are:

Descriptive statistics for the study sample are presented in Table 1 (N = 268), including demographics, religious factors, covariates, and brain volumes. Table 2 presents longitudinal regression models of religious factors and covariates on change in left and right hippocampal volumes. Positive model coefficients indicate less atrophy over time. Reported life-changing religious experience at baseline was associated with greater atrophy between baseline and follow-up in the left and right hippocampus (left: b = −0.45, P<.001; right: b = −0.32, P = .012). Born-again Protestant group membership at baseline was associated with greater atrophy in the left and right hippocampus compared with non born-again Protestant group membership (left: b = −0.15, P = .046; right: b = −0.15, P = .050). Catholic group membership (n = 22) (b = −0.22, P = .046) and no religious group membership at baseline (n = 19) (b = −0.28, P = .046) were also associated with greater atrophy in the left hippocampus over time compared with non born-again Protestant group membership.

This study shows greater atophy for born again religious, Catholics (like me) and for non-religious groups compared to non-born again Protestants. It pays to read the report before jumping to conclusions.

I'm not really convinced either way here. For starters, the study only had 268 participants, so I'm guessing there would have only been *at most* 50 or so in each religious category - and probably a lot less in some. Hardly demonstrative numbers IMO. Secondly, people's brain atrophy increases as they get older anyway, so what are we determining here - whose atrophy gets worse? Righteo.

The only interesting thing to me here is the fact that those who appear to have less atrophy are those essentially born into the "majority" religions. And given that brain atrophy is also linked to stress and depression, that makes total sense. People who are born into the majority culture are more likely to be less stressed and depressed given that there will be more avenues of support for them within that community. I think this study says more about the effects of living in a minority community than anything else - particularly when one makes the switch from a majority to minority community (be that from believer to non-believer, or non-believer/vague-believer to "born again"-believer etc.)

If there were a way to determine the rate of atrophy among non-believers from those born in a majority culture of non-believers then that would help answer the question, if still not definitively. It's a shame such a majority culture of non-believers doesn't exist yet (at least not in the US, or in my home country of Australia).

But hey, I used to believe, and now I don't. If that makes me a "born again Atheist" (given that we're all Atheists at birth ), then so be it. But at the end of the day, as much as I don't want to increase my brain atrophy, I still have no good reason to accept the claims of the born-again religious as being true. And for me, that's what it's all about - determining what is actually true.

.

[Edited 6/20/12 23:46pm]

Being an older adult in itself is causes brain atrophy, I agree that the study seems flawed. I think I could make a link to older people voting conservative as being linked to brain atrophy, older people wearing pants way up to their neck being related to brain atrophy. Anything older people do could be attributed to brain atrophy. Leaving their fortune to their cat...

toejam said:

I'm not really convinced either way here. For starters, the study only had 268 participants, so I'm guessing there would have only been *at most* 50 or so in each religious category - and probably a lot less in some. Hardly demonstrative numbers IMO. Secondly, people's brain atrophy increases as they get older anyway, so what are we determining here - whose atrophy gets worse? Righteo.

The only interesting thing to me here is the fact that those who appear to have less atrophy are those essentially born into the "majority" religions. And given that brain atrophy is also linked to stress and depression, that makes total sense. People who are born into the majority culture are more likely to be less stressed and depressed given that there will be more avenues of support for them within that community. I think this study says more about the effects of living in a minority community than anything else - particularly when one makes the switch from a majority to minority community (be that from believer to non-believer, or non-believer/vague-believer to "born again"-believer etc.)

If there were a way to determine the rate of atrophy among non-believers from those born in a majority culture of non-believers then that would help answer the question, if still not definitively. It's a shame such a majority culture of non-believers doesn't exist yet (at least not in the US, or in my home country of Australia).

But hey, I used to believe, and now I don't. If that makes me a "born again Atheist" (given that we're all Atheists at birth ), then so be it. But at the end of the day, as much as I don't want to increase my brain atrophy, I still have no good reason to accept the claims of the born-again religious as being true. And for me, that's what it's all about - determining what is actually true.

.

[Edited 6/20/12 23:46pm]

I agree with (most) of this. The interesting point for is the irony that the OP was trying make this about believers rejecting science whilst the OP was misinterpreting the "science".

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

It's a study, it's not some self-righteous ass with a baseless opinion shouting about what he/she thinks he/she knows....no offense Only

so now it is insult someone (such as it was) and then say no offence?

and you think (I assume you know who gould is) this study was done with anything other than showing that religious person's less intelligent? like flax seeds in a skull... this is no better science.

Me! Me! I know

he's a guy who never left a doubt that evolution is fact

he's also a guy who repeatedly made clear in his works that abiogeneis is not part of evolution theory like some crack heads continue to believe

Hawking, Gould... you should really stop the empty namedropping when you do not really know enough about the works of those guys

Since for ages, the APA has listed homosexuality as a mental disorder, does this mean we can now list being born again as one?