Born-Agains Have Smaller Brains?

A conclusion based on the study of only 268 people over only a 2-8 year timespan. A conclusion that implies a negative impact on being born again.

Thought processes prompted by satan, of course. How many other ways will he find to sway the thinking of the lost?

 

Maybe the need to examine me and my famiy. 6 Masters degees in everything from Education to Geosciences, a BS in nursing and a PhD in Physics All Born again Baptists.

 

Not too shabby considering we are "back woods, old school, experienced based" baptists, huh Brother Jeff?

 

When pastoring I have not wondered about how many think. It is common to hear a "repeat after me" theology without ever checking any sources or asking questions. How many believers who show on Sunday actually study their Bible during the week?

 

ya got that right!

 

That kind of person would have been in the minority in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. Then it was the educated who attended church. In the 1700s very few attended church.

 

Iz dunno what youz all are talkin about. Iz birthed agin and full er joy. Iz has a ful 6th grade education. Iz exerciz my brain evr day with liftin weights on top my head. My brain is big. :thumbs:

 

So you have a big head?

 

The study also showed that almost everyone studied in that age range saw similiar shrinking of the brain.

Two things are going on here:
1. Yellow Journalism - the headline is caustic and divisive, not honest or journalistic
2. It's part of the larger New Atheist assault on religious liberty

Belief is not a detriment. It is, more often than not, a strength.

 

In the 17 and 18 hundreds their findings would have easily been quite the opposite. if one's brain shrinks does that mean they lack intelligence. If a brain of the intelligent person were twice as large as the average person then it is most likely the intelligent person would have more shrinkage.

Seems that their research is highly flawed. I saw no null hypotheses or hypotheses.

More than twice as many women as men were in the study. Two completely different variables in the same study? sounds like a study that was done years ago and recently hit the national news as seriously flawed and fraudulent. Most of them were white. Looks to me like they did not deal with a cross section of America. Amazing that such a poor article could get published. So much for peer review. How about having professional review instead?

"The findings of this study indicate that certain religious factors may influence longitudinal change in hippocampal volume during late life." MAY influence! How could anyone write "may' in a statistical report. It is either did or did not. No dissertation committee would ever accept that kind of a statement.

 

You may have noticed, the article has your attention. This item is on page two already.

Cheers,

Jim

 

ROFL...... Utterly rediculous! Jeff..... how dare you apply fact to fiction?:thumbs:

 

We use less than 10% of our brain. So who cares if those of us who are going to Heaven have a smaller brain than those who do not?


Side note: Society as a whole is not getting smarter. Maybe they should do some studies on that.

 

I tried not to do this, but I have to make a couple of comments:

1. Both the referenced article and the OP have misrepresented the study.

2. The primary supposition of the study is: "The researchers suggested that tress over holding religious beliefs that fall outside of the mainstream may help explain the findings" those findings being that this alleged stress may have a causative affect on atrophy of the hippocampus.

3. The two groups that were noted to have higher atrophy of the hippocampus were "born-again" Christians and individuals who professed no religious affiliations.

4. Do I think the title of article was intentionally prejudicial? Yes. But no less so was the title of the OP. And to those who responded without reading, those reflexive reactions would tend to confirm the prejudices of the world. What is the definition of a reflexive action? "An involuntary (unreasoned parentheses mine) response to a stimulus."

Be salt and light folks.

 

I apologize for grouping all of the responses with the OP.

I do believe that the purpose of the article was to provoke a response from us "small-minded" born-agains. I suspect that the purpose of the study itself was to prove a presupposition. Kind of a quasi-scientific method gone mad. The study may or may not have had an agenda. The article definitely did.

I also believe that the purpose of the mistated title was to to provoke a specific response. Which it did. It appeared that many of the responders responded to the title without reading the article. Those were the folks that I was calling out (mostly).

We don't have to take the bait. We must respond in truth and love. That doesn't mean that we are wimps. The truth of the Gospel can withstand critical scrutiny

 

I can make a study that supports that eating pig hooves increases endurance in runners if I want to. Many studies serve one of two purposes. First is to make the conclusion any way they want to in order to support their beliefs, and second, to try to land govt funding for further research. You know, $$$