Over the past few years, I have highlighted how many Christians (and/or other conservatives) are deemed to have severe mental illness. For those skeptical about man-made climate change, several years ago I wrote about how some professors have indicated that man-made climate change skeptics are guilty of “aberrant sociological behavior,” available here. Then earlier this month, I wrote about a research study in Italy that purportedly “proved” that Christian marriage traditionalists suffer from psychosis and are severely mentally ill, available here. Then piling on, in an interview with Alan Colmes, atheist biologist Richard Dawkins decried that some Republican presidential candidates are “creationists.” Professor Dawkins called such a view “disgraceful” as he proclaimed that nihilistic macro-evolution is a “fact” that you “cannot seriously disbelieve.” Mr. Colmes then asked whether the biologist thinks that religious people are “mentally ill.” Professor Dawkins responded, “It’s hard to use the word ‘mentally ill’ when there are so many of them. If they believed what they did and they were the only one they would undoubtedly be called mentally ill.” So I took that to be a “yes.”

brain 300x297 Mind Control Treatment for Mentally Ill Christian BelieversFortunately for those who are among the enlightened non-mentally ill elites, there is some hope. An updated study entitled “Neuromodulation of Group Prejudice and Religious Belief” by Colin Holbrook and four others was published on October 13, 2015, in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. The lead study author, Professor Holbrook, teaches for the Center for Behavior, Evolution and Culture in the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study’s abstract states:

People cleave to ideological convictions with greater intensity in the aftermath of threat. The posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) plays a key role in both detecting discrepancies between desired and current conditions and adjusting subsequent behavior to resolve such conflicts. Building on prior literature examining the role of the pMFC in shifts in relatively low-level decision processes, we demonstrate that the pMFC mediates adjustments in adherence to political and religious ideologies. We presented participants with a reminder of death and a critique of their in-group ostensibly written by a member of an out-group, then experimentally decreased both avowed belief in God and out-group derogation by down-regulating pMFC activity via transcranial magnetic stimulation. The results provide the first evidence that group prejudice and religious belief are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation, and point to a shared cognitive mechanism underlying concrete and abstract decision processes. We discuss the implications of these findings for further research characterizing the cognitive and affective mechanisms at play.

Emphasis added. The study describes how 38 UCLA undergraduate volunteers were asked questions about a belief in God and other subjects. (The researchers deliberately sought out volunteers who had religious convictions.) One-half of the volunteers were then zapped with magnets aimed at a region of the brain where the researchers believe emotions related to God are located. How was this done? Using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation, the researchers said that they could “safely shut down certain groups of neurons” in the brain. And so, after being zapped, all of the participants were re-asked the same questions. Those who were zapped “reported an average of 32.8% less conviction in positive religious beliefs” (such as a belief in God, angels, and Heaven) than those who were not zapped. The researchers deemed this to be “statistically significant.”

In the researchers’ questionnaire, they further asked, “Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you” and “Please jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to your body as you physically die and once you are physically dead.” The study authors observe in supplementary material to the main article that these “threat-inductions” have an “evident link between the prospect of death and palliative thoughts of God and the afterlife, and also because” thinking about one’s death “has been shown to reliably heighten both intergroup prejudice and religiosity in prior studies.” Emphasis added. In my church on Sunday mornings, for example, we recite the Nicene Creed (“I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”). And yet, at coffee time after church, I have not yet seen any discernable increase in “intergroup prejudice” that follows our affirmation. And, of course, it seems to me that people believe in God for many more reasons than to assuage palliative thoughts about death. While I have never asked anyone specifically about that question, at least I believe in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ, for many more reasons than because I worry about my own death.

One can readily think that brain “regions” of complex emotions are far from well understood, but the researchers have published much foolishness. These “scientists” hope that belief in God, or some other politically incorrect question, can be treated, and perhaps even cured, by mind control using magnetic zapping. And therein lies the real danger. Although one can presume that Professors Holbrook and Dawkins are reasonably sincere, but please ask yourself why do so many among society’s “elites” believe that most humans are so horribly stupid that we must be monitored, regulated, coerced, and now zapped, into proper behavior and belief?