preacher4truth
Active Member
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html
I wonder what thought processes prompted such a study? :type:
I wonder what thought processes prompted such a study? :type:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Born-Agains Have Smaller Brains?
- Thread starter preacher4truth
- Start date
Old Union Brother
New Member
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.
preacher4truth
Active Member
All that belong to God will come to Him.
The report is ridiculous and merely a fallacious ad hominem attack upon truth. Those who are perishing think truth to be foolishness.
The smarter and more wise the world makes itself out to be, the more foolish it becomes. Government, satan, others rely upon this.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence.
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
- 1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
According to the article, the implication is that religion is OK, and any real regeneration via the supernatural act of God that changes a persons life is to be looked upon with disdain.
convicted1
Guest
Not too shabby considering we are "back woods, old school, experienced based" baptists, huh Brother Jeff?
Old Union Brother
New Member
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.
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.
ROFL...... Utterly rediculous! Jeff..... how dare you apply fact to fiction?:thumbs:
Bobby Hamilton
New Member
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.
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.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Oh stop it. Your post is the strawman here. Nothing in the OP misrepped the article. Here's my quote which argued nothing but simply asked a question and didn't represent a thing withihn the article itself:
The only thing that was off track was my title, which was purposeful. Get a grip and be salt and light yourself. Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
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 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
Last edited by a moderator:
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, $$$