How did the apostles die?

"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

—Matthew 10:2-4 (see also Mark 3:14-19)

By Adam Lee

According to Mark and Matthew, the apostles' names are as given above, although puzzlingly, the parallel list in Luke 6 omits Lebbaeus Thaddaeus and replaces him with James’ brother Judas, or Jude (apologetic tradition claims that the two are the same person). After Judas Iscariot’s death, Acts 1 informs us that Matthias was chosen to replace him.

An oft-heard Christian apologetic asks, “why would the apostles die for a lie?” Save for John, tradition holds, all of the original apostles eventually died martyr’s deaths – yet if the resurrection of Jesus was an invented story, they must have known that, and why would anyone go willingly to their death for a claim they knew to be untrue?

I’ll get into this claim in a moment, but first, an observation. One of the things I think any Christian should find strange is how little space the Bible gives to the twelve apostles. A few prominent ones such as Peter and John get more attention, but most of them vanish completely out of history after being named, with readers never being told anything else about them or anything they did. It is remarkable how unimportant most of the apostles seem to be in the Bible.

Of all the apostles, the Bible records the death of only two: Judas Iscariot, who either hanged himself or fell and burst open (depending on which contradictory gospel account one believes), and James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, whom Herod killed “with the sword” (Acts 12:2). The Bible has Jesus imply, in John 21:18-19, that Simon Peter will die by crucifixion, but such an event is not recorded in the text.

The question is, how did the other apostles die? More importantly, how does anyone know? Where textual evidence is lacking, tradition has obliged, and a wide variety of local legends sprang up in medieval times about the apostles’ journeys and eventual deaths. But most of these traditions are late, invented hundreds of years after the fact, and lack any basis in earlier evidence. They are simply stories, tall tales. Such popular myths provide no support whatsoever for modern Christian claims that the apostles were willingly martyred.

Below is a brief survey of what history has to say about the apostles, and what sources our traditions draw from:

Judas Iscariot: According to the Bible, either committed suicide by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or fell down and exploded (Acts 1:18). Not considered a martyr.
John: Not said to have been martyred. Reportedly died of old age.
James, son of Zebedee: Killed by Herod (Acts 12:2). The Bible gives no further information about his death, including whether it was willing. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius quoted an earlier, lost work by Clement of Alexandria which allegedly claims that James’ calm demeanour at trial sufficiently impressed one of his accusers to convert him (source).

Simon Peter: Crucifixion, as implied by Jesus in John 21:18-19. Tradition usually holds that this occurred in Rome, as mentioned by second-century sources such as Tertullian and the apocryphal Acts of Peter. The Acts of Peter also claims that Peter accepted crucifixion willingly, making him one of the few apostles for which the claim of willing martyrdom is at all plausible. Eusebius dismissed this book as spurious and heretical (source).

Andrew: Reportedly martyred by crucifixion on an X-shaped cross (“St. Andrew’s cross”). According to legend, he taught a gathered crowd while on the cross and refused their offer to take him down. This information comes from the apocryphal, probably second-century Acts of Andrew. Eusebius dismissed this book as spurious and heretical (source).

Philip: According to the apocryphal and probably fourth-century Acts of Philip, died after being hung upside-down with iron hooks through his ankles by the proconsul of Hierapolis. According to this book, before dying Philip cursed his enemies, causing seven thousand people to be suddenly swallowed up by an abyss. In return, Jesus appeared and rebuked Philip for “returning evil for evil”, and told him that he would be admitted to Heaven, but only after being tortured outside its gates for forty days as punishment. Like Andrew, Philip allegedly refused a crowd’s offer of rescue. The New Advent Catholic encyclopaedia calls this work “purely legendary and a tissue of fables” (source).

Bartholomew: According to the third-century schismatic bishop Hippolytus, he was crucified in Armenia (source). A different tradition claims he was beheaded in India on the orders of King Astreges, who belonged to a demon-worshipping cult (source). Some traditions add that he was flayed alive before, or instead of, suffering either of these two fates. The New Advent encyclopaedia says the manner of his death is “uncertain” (source), and adds that other than his name, “Nothing further is known of him”.

Thomas: Tradition holds that he was sent to India to preach, where he was killed by being stabbed with a spear. This claim is made by local Indian Christians and an apocryphal gospel called the Acts of Thomas, which Eusebius dismissed as spurious and heretical (source). The New Advent encyclopaedia says that “Little is recorded” of Thomas’ life, and that “it is difficult to discover any adequate support” for the tradition of his death in India. It also notes that the Acts of Thomas presents Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus, which is not accepted by Christians today or in the past and seems to be a Christian/Gnostic-themed variation of a pagan salvation cult that followed twin gods called the Dioscuri.

Matthew: Conflicting traditions. Catholic.org says, “Nothing definite is known about his later life”, and it is even “uncertain whether he died a natural death or received the crown of martyrdom”. The Christian History Institute says, “We have nothing but legend about Matthew’s death.” Even among those who do believe he was martyred, there is no evidence as to where. Another source says there is conflicting information about whether he was martyred in Egypt or in Persia. The manner of his death is unknown, and some churches even say he died a natural death (source).
James, son of Alphaeus: Conflicting traditions. There are several people named “James” in the New Testament and early Christian history, and it is uncertain which, if any, should be identified with this apostle. He is often identified with the “James the Less” mentioned in Mark 15:40 as the son of Mary and Clopas, which is fairly uncontroversial. However, the Catholic church also identifies him with James, the brother of Jesus, which is not widely accepted by Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. If this identification is correct, the Jewish historian Josephus says that James was stoned by the Pharisees. This is seconded by Hippolytus. However, other sources (example) say that James son of Alphaeus was martyred by crucifixion in Egypt.

Jude/Lebbaeus Thaddaeus: Conflicting traditions. It is often said that he went with Simon to preach in Armenia, though New Advent says this legend is a late development not mentioned by contemporary historians of that region. The Catholic Patron Saints Index says he was clubbed to death; however, the apocryphal Acts of Thaddeus says he died naturally. Still another account says he was crucified (source). No reliable written sources seem to exist to corroborate any of this.

Simon the Zealot: Conflicting traditions. According to Catholic.org, Western traditions hold that he was martyred in Persia with Jude, usually by crucifixion, while Eastern tradition says he died naturally in Edessa. Other sources, according to New Advent, variously give his place of death as Samaria (Israel), or Iberia (Spain), or Colchis (Georgia), or even Britain. Some sources dispute the crucifixion account and claim he was instead sawn in half.

Matthias: According to the 14th-century historian Nicephorus, died by crucifixion in Colchis, in the modern nation of Georgia. Alternatively, the 17th-century historian Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont says that he was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem. According to the New Advent Catholic encyclopaedia, “all… information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory” (source). Many apocryphal sources confuse Matthias and Matthew.

As we can see, information regarding the life and death of the apostles is extremely dubious and fragmentary. This fatally undermines the Christian claim that the apostles were martyred for their faith; there is simply no good evidence that would support such a claim. The gaping void in the historical record when it comes to these twelve men is certainly strange and unexpected under the assumptions of orthodoxy – how could the original twelve Christians, handpicked by Jesus himself, vanish so completely out of history so quickly? However, it does support the mythicist theory that early Christianity arose from a tissue of legends, not from the exploits of actual historical figures. Jesus, the central figure of this myth, became better fleshed out over time, but this process never proceeded so far as to be applied to the apostles.

There is another important point here: for the modern apologists’ claims to be proven, we must have evidence not only that the apostles died as martyrs, but that they died in a situation where recanting would have saved them. This requires specific and strong evidence, but then again, it is a very specific claim.

There is no biblical evidence that, for example, James could have saved himself by recanting Christianity. Herod might have been determined to kill him no matter what he said. The same goes for Peter’s eventual presumed crucifixion. And these are the best attested of all the apostles’ deaths (though that is a relative term). For the majority of the apostles, we have no good evidence even of how they died, much less that they could have saved themselves by recanting. Most of the sources we do have are late, contradictory, and dismissed as unfounded even by early Christian historians.

What is energy?

A concise explanation from Dave Morgan, PhD in Theoretical Physics from William and Mary.

Energy is a mathematical quantity - not a kind of stuff. When physicists talk about energy "transforming from one form into another" they are speaking in a kind of lazy shorthand. I like to make the analogy that energy is like "value". It's a number that we associate with objects. A dollar bill and a quarter both have value. So does an ice cream cone. If you buy a 50 cent ice cream cone with a dollar bill and get two quarters  in change, your dollar didn't "transform" into an ice cream cone. The "value" of your dollar didn't change shape or move somewhere. There was an exchange in the physical world that we can account for by using the abstract quantity we call "value". You exchanged a piece of paper, which has a "value" of 1 for an ice cream cone which has a value of .5 and two shiny metal disks that each have a value of .25.

When physical objects in the universe interact with one another, we can do an accounting of these interactions using an abstract quantity we call "energy". But energy is not any sort of "extra thing" in that physical process.

Also - a great video from astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd (assistant professor at the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Lehman College of the City University of New York.  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PUn2izowBkw

Atheism uses less brain function...

...claims a Christian Apologist, because he read it online. On an evangelical Creationist website "American Vision".


Unsurprisingly, the conclusions of that website do not reflect the conclusions of the actual study it refers to.  There's a reasonable discussion as far as line 68. Then the dodging starts!

	Atheism uses less brain function?
	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 23 Jun 2017 at 1:54AM
1	The posit of Hitchens's caricature of "faith" posted here recently--along with the general tactic of choosing emotionally-evocative misrepresentations of Christians which appeal to stereotypes of such rather than more rational discussion of actual issues on an even give and take basis--gave me pause to consider and do a bit of research into the anti-theistic mind. We're all more than familiar with atheists here failing to respond logically on point to what has been posited in perspectives opposed to theirs and their constant need to "reinterpret" rather than address such posits on point, but--as brilliant as some atheists are in terms of their intellectual capacity--here are the results of a study which confirms why:	"Research" LOL
2	"This has to be embarrassing . . . if you’re an atheist. A new study performed at the University of York used targeted magnetism to shut down part of the brain. The result: belief in God disappeared among more than 30 percent of participants.	Could be. I am aware of experiments that suggest belief in God can be traced to a specific part of the brain.
3	"That in itself may not seem so embarrassing, but consider that the specific part of the brain they frazzled was the posterior medial frontal cortex—the part associated with detecting and solving problems, i.e., reasoning and logic.	Detecting and solving problems is not the same as logic and reason.  Different parts of the brain are responsible for each. I wonder who wrote this?
4	"In other words, when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result.	That can't be true (see line 3)
5	"You’ve heard the phrase, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”? Apparently we can now also say, “I have too many brains to be an atheist.	I wonder who "we" are?
6	"For a group that makes so much noise vaunting its superior prowess with logic and reasoning, this study has got to be quite a deflator. For a group that claims to be rooted primarily in logic and reason, and to exist for little reason other than that they have used logic and reason to free themselves from belief in God and, as they allege, superstition and fairy tales, this study is the equivalent of a public depanting­—i.e., the would-be emperor’s got no clothes."	Can't wait to read the study and find out!
7	More here:
8	https://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/	Oh…  no link to the actual study. This is an American, evangelical Creationist organisation, not known for scientific accuracy.
9	Now in all fairness I don't want to claim that even though atheists may use less brain function than theists in discussions on the subject, that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't reasoned arguments that they can bring to discussions here. I believe that there are many potential reasoned arguments that they might make--and were they to do so, on a level playing field where each of us presents and defends their own perspective on its own basis, this could truly bring this discussion board back to life and we all might be given food for thought in the process! Unfortunately it's too "comfortable" for them to parrot the same posits after their deconstruction and hope that by repeating the lie often enough that that is all that we will remember.	I think the Apologist may have assumed the article he found was accurate, without reading the actual study.
10	Honestly, I see no signs of an honest and reasoned discussion happening here unless the other side were to finally quote me honestly, completely, and respond on topic--as I do for his posts----rather than "reconstruct" my posits and only respond to his own "straw dog" misrepresentations of such.	This seems irrelevant, and somewhat ironic, given that the Apologist is promoting an intepretation of a scientific study from ahighly biased source, without having read the study.
11	At least, we can now understand why...	I'm not sure "understand" is the right word, given the lack of critical thinking shown so far. But let's see what the study actually says.
12	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
13	Posted by JimC  on 23 Jun 2017 at 12:15PM
14	The conclusions of the organisation that you've copied and pasted are very different to what the study actually says, which you can find here...
15	https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/3/387/2375059/Neuromodulation-of-group-prejudice-and-religious
16	The study concludes that both belief in God (and prejudice towards immigrants) can be reduced by directing magnetic energy into the brain, specifically, the part of the brain that usually helps detect and respond to threats (the posterior medial frontal cortex). The researchers suggest that the brain mechanisms that evolved for dealing with basic threats, are also responsible for ideological reactions so that religious belief (and xenophobia) are instinctive, neurological responses to threats for certain people.
19	FYI, Logic and rational thinking tend to be based in the left cerebral hemisphere.
18	As a footnote, I always advise against believing the conclusions of second or third hand sources, and rather to actually read the source. Here are some guidelines I provided on the db a few years ago
	http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/check-your-sources-part-2.html
20	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
21	Posted by A Student of Philosophy  on 24 Jun 2017 at 11:31AM
22	I don't agree with the conclusions Dr. McDurmon arrived at in his essay "Atheists embarrassed..." and I don't think they accurately reflect the study itself. I found it differently did, the link I found and used is: https://academic.oup.com/scan/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/scan/nsv107, but after comparing both articles I think we used the same study.than JimC	Yes that is the same study
23	The study showed that belief in "positive" religious beliefs (God, angels, and Heaven) decreased with the neuromodulated group compared with the control group. Nor do I agree that is was xenophobia being measured, I think it was group prejudice in general. The participants were asked to read two essays, both purportedly from immigrants. One essay was very complimentary of the United States, the other was very critical of the United States. The group neuromodulated rated the critical essay of the immigrant 28.5% more positively than the control group did.	Good point about "xenophobia". Group prejudice means prejudice towards a specific group and in this study it was anti-US immigrants, rather than foreigners per se.,
24	Downregulating the pMFC via TMS significantly decreased both derogation of an anti-US out-group member and avowed belief in God, angels and Heaven following a reminder of death, supporting the hypothesis that the pMFC plays an important role in ideological responses to threat.	Correct.
25	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
26	Posted by JimC  on 24 Jun 2017 at 12:29PM
27	Good points well made. Here are some comments from the researchers themselves
28	https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2015/research/psychologist-brian-magnetic/
29	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
30	Posted by A Student of Philosophy  on 24 Jun 2017 at 1:53PM
31	Thanks for the link, Jim. I appreciated reading the comments from the researchers.
32	However, I find the introduction into the subject misleading:
33	New research involving a psychologist from the University of York has revealed for the first time that both belief in God and prejudice towards immigrants can be reduced by directing magnetic energy into the brain.
34	The study measured belief in "positive" religious beliefs: God, angels, heaven. So how can the author of the introduction write in good conscience that belief in God can be reduced? Why would he or she separate "God" from the set of three beliefs used in the study?	Again, this is a good point. It's not belief in God per se that is reduced - it's the belief that God (or angels, etc.0 can provide a solution to a problem and similarly the belief that Satan and demons might be responsible for a problem.
35	And how in good conscience can the author say it reduces prejudice towards immigrants? The study didn't measure prejudice towards immigrants, it measured group prejudice when ideology is perceived as under attack, specifically a very critical essay on the United States supposedly written by a recent immigrant:	Another good point - technically it was prejudice towards immigrants who were critical of the USA.
36	“We think that hearing criticisms of your group’s values, perhaps especially from a person you perceive as an outsider, is processed as an ideological sort of threat,” said Dr Izuma. “One way to respond to such threats is to ‘double down’ on your group values, increasing your investment in them, and reacting more negatively to the critic,” he continued.
37	“When we disrupted the brain region that usually helps detect and respond to threats, we saw a less negative, less ideologically motivated reaction to the critical author and his opinions.”
38	So unless you take the time and make the effort to go through the study yourself, you may be mislead. Caveat lector.
39	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
40	Posted by JimC  on 24 Jun 2017 at 2:35PM
41	What the study showed was that the part of the brain that responds to threats provides not just practical solutions, but in some people it also provides solutions based on supernatural beliefs and prejudice. By disrupting that part of the brain with a magnetic field, the solutions to threats based on the supernatural, and prejudice towards immigrants, were reduced. So when the subjects in the experiment were "threatened" their reactions were less negative and less ideological.
42	So it's not just belief in God and angels (positive) that reduces but also belief in Satan and demons (negative) reduces. Figure 2 [in the study] shows this graphically.
43
44	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
45	Posted by A Student of Philosophy  on 25 Jun 2017 at 2:05AM
46	I agree that the study notes belief in the Devil, demons and Hell reduces as well, but the researchers did not emphasize these results:	Depends what you mean by emphasise. They included the results but made the point that the difference was too small to provide a good level of confidence.
47	"participants in the TMS condition also reported less conviction in negative beliefs...relative to sham participants...but this difference was not statistically significant."
48	They also noted the complimentary, pro-US essay ratings rose as well:	Exactly. The participants became less critical of all immigrants.
49	As predicted, participants in the TMS condition rated the critical immigrant 28.5% more positively... than did participants in the sham condition...In contrast, overall ratings of the laudatory, pro-US immigrant were an average of 8.2% higher...in the TMS condition than in the sham condition...and this difference did not attain statistical significance. (Figure 2 shows this graphically).
50	I still disagree with you that the study measured prejudice towards immigrants. The study measured group prejudice when the participants were presented with critical and complimentary essays written by out-group members.	Group prejudice means prejudice towards a group and the group in this case was immigrants.
51	"Instead, the results are more consistent with a portrait of the pMFC as detecting poignant conflicts (including ideological conflicts), and recruiting responses relevant to addressing those conflicts (including ideological representations). According to this approach, the pro-US immigrant posed no ideological conflict and hence did not elicit a significantly enhanced affirmation of group values, whereas the problem of death is not as effectively ameliorated by negative religious beliefs (i.e. relative to Heaven, continued existence in Hell presents a poor alternative to annihilation), and hence negative religious beliefs were not bolstered following reminders of mortality to the extent that positive beliefs were."
52	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
53	Posted by JimC  on 25 Jun 2017 at 5:48AM
54	I assume they didn't emphasise the results of negative religious beliefs because they were not statistically significant, and they explain why that might be.
55	The essays you refer to were the method by which the "threat" was provided. "Group Prejudice" means prejudice towards a social group (in this case immigrants to the USA). The essays were ostensibly written by immigrants to the USA. One essay was critical of the USA, one complimentary. When the transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied, the participants became more favourable towards the immigrants, especially those immigrants who were anti-USA. The anti-USA immigrant poses more of a threat, hence the change after TMS is more pronounced.
56
57	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
58	Posted by A Student of Philosophy  on 25 Jun 2017 at 11:36AM
59	I agree with you. However, I think it's more important to say "group prejudice" as opposed to "immigrant prejudice". They could have used any group, say a group of Republicans with two Democrats writing complimentary/critical essays to represent members of the "out" group. Or vice versa.	Group prejudice is generic - the group in question were immigrants so "immigrant prejudice" is an accurate term. And yes it would be interesting to test against different groups…
60	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
61	Posted by JimC  on 25 Jun 2017 at 12:09PM
62	They do of course need to use different groups in future studies, as they stated...
63	"Future research is also required to address the potential role of individual differences in political orientation, personality, emotion and other potentially relevant dimensions in moderating the relationship between the pMFC and ideological investment."
64	But given that this study only focused on attitudes to just one social group (immigrants), they can only report conclusions based on that group. One assumes similar results would arise for other social groups that are perceived as a threat by certain people. But maybe not.
65	Bottom line is this experiment was a proof of concept to demonstrate that such methods and measurements were possible.
66	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
67	Posted by A Student of Philosophy  on 25 Jun 2017 at 12:34PM
68	I agree with your bottom line.
69	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
70	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 28 Jun 2017 at 1:06AM
71	Your link [to the study] is good from the perspective of those (subjectively) invested in the study and its conclusions, but more details of the original study (from a religious perspective--the focus of this discussion board) are to be found here:	The link to the study is good because it shows what the study actually found.
72	http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3272289/Could-views-God-immigration-changed-using-MAGNETS-Brain-stimulation-alter-beliefs-study-claims.html	This Daily Mail article is much better than the source the Apologist used (see line 8) and it confirms the conclusion I provided on on line 37.
72	"Logical and rational thinking" is to a certain extent an illusion itself, but that's not the issue, Jim. "Logical and rational thinking" is seldom the focus of conversations here--I've been trying to get you to agree to conducting such discussions on an honest, give-and-take basis for ages, and to get you to actually quote me entirely and in context rather than "reinterpret" my actual posits to serve the purposes of your agenda, but so far to no avail.	This is just a rant. Not relevant to the study.
73	But if you'll note my point expressed above, the study suggested that--because atheism as a perspective requires less brain function--it is often a lazy way to avoid addressing the issue of God's existence and to presume that one has a logical basis for doing so even when one does not.	The study made none of these references. Tha Apologist apepars to have confused the opinion piece in "American Vision" with the study.
74	I agree that whenever a wikipedia site provides a warning such as "this article has multiple issues" and/or "this article does not cite any sources," the content cannot be relied upon. Wikipedia will also post warnings--which you did not mention--that a given article may display bias. That at least indicates some monitoring for content and a desire on the part of those who represent Wikipedia to present balanced articles which consider multiple perspectives on an issue.	Wikipedia isn't the issue. The issue the Apologist needs to grasp is his use of biased material without checking the sources.
75	The irony is that your blog is even more one-sided--not surprisingly, whatever is postulated agrees with your opinion 100%, since it consists of only your opinion after all and you are only referencing yourself, usually unsupported by any other source--and while on the one hand you condemn Wikipedia with its multiple sources and references from multiple perspectives, you fail to provide anything of the sort in your blog's entries!	More ranting. Not relevant to the study.
76	So I hope all will understand that while Wikipedia isn't the be-all or end-all on any subject--nor is any single source on any subject whatsoever--I will continue to reference that source or others like it when relevant--thanks for understanding!	Referencing Wikipedia is fine as a starting point - the key is to check the sources and citations
77	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
78	Posted by A Student of Philosophy  on 29 Jun 2017 at 7:56AM
79	I think I see your point, Cat...that that portion of the brain is probably not accessed or utilized by one that holds an atheistic perspective, but the pMFC appears to be the portion that holds ideologies, so they may still access it on a nationalistic level, or communal level. Or maybe not at all, if the individual doesn't have strong ideological views that could be challenged by a perceived threat to those beliefs.	Good point
80	As a footnote, I use Wikipedia often, but take note as you do if I see "this article has multiple issues" and/or "this article does not cite any sources," or if I see "bias". I also look at the sources the article lists.	Good point
81	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
82	Posted by JimC  on 29 Jun 2017 at 9:26AM
83	Regarding your point on people with strong ideological views, note that "those who identified as ‘extremely liberal’ or as non-US citizens were excluded from participating, and four individuals who self-identified as ‘Hispanic/Latino’ after participating were dropped prior to analysis."
84	To widen the discussion, it's interesting to explore anthropological reasons for why some people's brains turn to religion or prejudice when faced with a threat. I think group prejudice makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view. If we go back a million years, it's reasonable to assume that our ancestral tribes of hunter-gatherers survived best if they distrusted outsiders. When individuals within a tribe collaborate unselfishly, the tribe is more successful than those which don't. So it paid to have a distrust of outsiders because it ensured people within the tribe knew each other. Similarly, when confronted with a threat that could not be explained, such as death or natural disasters, a supernatural explanation was the only explanation. Such attitudes are vestigial remnants from a distant past.
85	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
86	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 3 Jul 2017 at 12:12AM
87	Actually, given the "atheists-use-less-brain-power" exposed by the study, the focus ought to be on why some people turn to personal prejudices of any sort to attempt to advance their agenda--and to note who accurately quotes opposing perspectives fearlessly and responds on topic to such, and who does not!*	The study exposed no such thing. Again, the Apologist is confusing the opinions of "American Vision" for the study.
88	To reference "reality," a small tribe consisted of individuals who depended upon other tribe members for their immediate survival--and thus were directly accountable to such! In other words, if an individual acted against the tribe's interests and the tribe recognized such, the transgressing individual would face severe repercussions for having done so. Since humankind evolved for millennia in such an environment, such may have provided a biological basis for cooperation within our genome.	Possibly, but more likely is that such traits existed in our non-human ancestors (as well as many species we observe today).
89	Nonetheless, at the same time, even under such immediately-accountable circumstances, negative proclivities also evolved and became a part of our genome. People within societies in which they were immediately accountable to others nonetheless inherited such proclivities and advanced their personal interests over and above their societies' interests. Imagine how much more motivation would be required for one to act in the common interest over and above personal survival concerns in complex societies which depend on its citizenry to have internalized moral imperatives and constraints to substitute for "immediate accountability" situations in which our genetic proclivities evolved, and you will perhaps begin to understand how atheism completely fails to provide any such motivation and--rather--undermines the very idea of doing so.	Again, "negative proclivities" would have existed in our non-human ancestors (and many other species we observe today). However, hardly anything in this paragraph is factual, or has anything to do with atheism (or the topic)
90	Your selective bias only references errors in which "natural" phenomena were falsely ascribed to supernatural causes.	Ascribed, yes. But falsely? I don't know if there were "falsely ascribed". How can anyone know?
91	Such does not address spiritual insights and experiences which are genuinely beyond the prejudices of the philosophical perspective of "scientific naturalism" and/or "logical positivism", whose inadequacies have long since been exposed. False/erroneous reports of "spiritual" experiences do not undermine genuine ones, and you only further expose the narrowness of your own perspective by refusing to acknowledge such.	More ranting. Not relevant to the study, or the topic.
92	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
93	Posted by JimC  on 3 Jul 2017 at 9:50AM
94	Most of what you've said here is fairly accurate. The only point I am unclear on is your comment regarding "natural phenomena falsely ascribed to supernatural causes". How do you know when they are falsely ascribed and when they are not? My point is it is often impossible to tell and in any case, it doesn't matter. What matters is those beliefs were ascribed and in some people they still are, because such a belief is part of human nature.
95	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
96	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 10 Jul 2017 at 12:31AM
97	I would point out that falsely ascribing a cause to an event--which has sometimes occurred in a religious context--is not in the least bit different from any such error in any field, including scientific hypotheses. Before you rush to note that "science" is superior because it provides conclusions based on falsifiable testing--or at least hopes to do so--when "science" begins with an assumption that its theories have accuracy yet references such even after they have been shown to be inadequate--and furthermore constructs a whole new "theory" on that discredited basis--then rationality and sound reasoning no longer apply. I am referring to what is proffered as the multiverse "theory," of course, as I'm sure you suspected. Perhaps such scientists are rationally impaired and that their their posterior medial frontal cortexes aren't functioning properly.	More ranting. Again, not relevant to the study, or the topic.  Also, doesn't explain how the Apologist can tell if a natural phenomenon is falsely ascribed to a supernatural cause, as opposed to accurately ascribed.
98	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
99	Posted by JimC  on 10 Jul 2017 at 9:21AM
100	You didn't answer the question. To repeat, when you say "natural phenomena falsely ascribed to supernatural causes", how do you know when they are falsely ascribed and when they are not?
101	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
102	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 31 Jul 2017 at 12:37AM
103	One would have to be infallible to make that distinction and I make no such claim. However, one can rationally examine evidence for what the root cause might be and follow the evidence as far as it leads and draw a reasoned conclusion from such. Of course, every cause will have another cause and so on and so forth, until one reaches the ultimate basis of reality, which I posit is most likely theistic. In that sense, everything leads back to God, whether or not there are incidental processes at work along the way.	I'm confused. Tha Apologist began by referring to "natural phenomena falsely ascribed to supernatural causes" but he now says so such claim can be made, and then seems to be implying that God is responsible for everything anyway.
104	You seem to think that the ultimate basis of reality is probably non-theistic, although you have offered no basis for such and have not clarified your own reasoning on the matter in the least. Still waiting for you to present and defend your own reasoning for such matters, on their own terms, not on your "lack of faith" in another model which is irrelevant in this context.	This is compltely off topic, and in any case, my opinions of the nature of reality have been provided to the Apologist in great detail, here… http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/reality-faq.html
105	This segment follows on from line 76
106	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
107	Posted by JimC  on 29 Jun 2017 at 9:11AM
108	You asserted the following: “when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result.” That statement is not true, hence your conclusions based on that premise are false (as was your topic heading). The part of the brain affected in the study is not responsible for logic and reasoning, but for providing solutions to perceived threats. Disrupting that part of the brain reduces the religious nature of those solutions. It also reduces the level of group prejudice (in this case it reduced prejudice towards immigrants).
109	The link I provided wasn’t just about Wikipedia. Here it is again, http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/check-your-sources-part-2.html
110	and the relevant section in this case is #3. If you had applied those principles, I think you would have been less likely to copy and paste opinions from a conservative, evangelical web site without checking the facts. There’s enough fake news out there already!
111	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
112	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 3 Jul 2017 at 12:14AM
113	And--in spite of the reasoned basis in support of such a conclusion in the article I linked to--you would ask us accept your unreferenced, unarticulated, unsupported disagreement in place of such?	There was no reasoned basis in the American Vision article. It specifically ignored most of the findings of the study and misrepresented others.
114	Present evidence and logical reasoning in support of your assertions if you wish to be taken seriously--thanks!	The study provides the evidence and logical reasoning, and I have presented the study.
115	Utterly fascinating! Here I've been calling your attention over and over again to your NOT doing any of the "evaluation recommendations" of anything you reference in quoting your own unsupported opinions in your own blog.	Ranting.
116	You begin with an ad hominem attack asking us to dismiss anything stated in an article our of hand because of what you describe as it stemming from a "conservative evangelical" source (you who frequently quote Dawkins, Hitchens, and other biased sources uncritically when they are in accord with your own agenda) and claim that the "facts" are otherwise without even pretending to offer any justification for that claim! Are you sensing that the pattern of your agenda-driven posits is being exposed for its lack of actual substance, Jim?	More ranting. All I'm saying is to refer to the source rather than second hand opinions from a biased source provided on line 8.
117	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
118	Posted by JimC  on 3 Jul 2017 at 9:42AM
119	I don't know what you mean by unreferenced, unarticulated and unsupported. My reference was the source - the actual study itself, which I provided a link to. Please read that, and also read the thread. To repeat: According to the study, the part of the brain affected is not responsible for logic and reasoning as you claimed, but for providing solutions to perceived threats. The study showed that disrupting that part of the brain reduces the religious nature of those solutions. It also reduces the level of group prejudice (in this case it reduced prejudice towards immigrants).
120	Note that when you read about a conclusion of a study on a website, you are getting that information at least second hand. My approach is to look at the source and form a judgement from objective analysis and evaluation based on what the researchers are actually saying. In other words, apply critical thinking.
121	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
122	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 10 Jul 2017 at 12:30AM
123	No, Jim, it is involved in more than that, as was reported and clarified in the studies/links I provided. Specifically:
124	"The scientists say that whether we’re trying to clamber over a fallen tree that we find in our path, find solace in religion, or resolve issues related to immigration, our brains are using the same basic mental machinery."	Yes - that is the point I made on line 16
	http://www.psypost.org/2015/10/scientists-reduce-belief-in-god-by-shutting-down-the-brains-medial-frontal-cortex-38516	This is the article I provided on line 28.
125	Specifically, the part of the brain referenced in the study was the posterior medial frontal cortex. The function of that part of the brain is explained here, briefly put:	Correct
126	"To prevent repetition of errors, human performance monitoring often triggers adaptations such as general slowing and/or attentional focusing. The posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) is assumed to monitor performance problems and to interact with other brain areas that implement the necessary adaptations...After a person chooses between two items, preference for the chosen item will increase and preference for the unchosen item will decrease because of the choice made. In other words, we tend to justify or rationalize our past behavior by changing our attitude. This phenomenon of choice-induced preference change has been traditionally explained by cognitive dissonance theory. Choosing something that is disliked or not choosing something that is liked are both cognitively inconsistent and, to reduce this inconsistency, people tend to change their subsequently stated preference in accordance with their past choices. Previously, human neuroimaging studies identified posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) as a key brain region involved in cognitive dissonance. However, it remains unknown whether the pMFC plays a causal role in inducing preference change after cognitive dissonance. Here, we demonstrate that 25 min, 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation applied over the pMFC significantly reduces choice-induced preference change compared with sham stimulation or control stimulation over a different brain region, demonstrating a causal role for the pMFC."	This is indeed one function of the pMCF but not the function that was being tested in the study that is the topic of this discussion.
127	http://www.conservapedia.com/Posterior_medial_frontal_cortex	The Conservapedia article is actually referring to material from the Journal of Neuroscience which seems accurate. However, it is referring two different studies analysing different functions of the pMFC rather than the study referred to on line 8 which began this discussion.
128	In other words, it is a part of the brain potentially responsible for either sound reasoning or cognitive dissonance--and/or at least either plays a direct part in that reasoning or else reflects such reasoning having taken place. That was the part of the brain affected by the study and that was the function that was impaired, resulting in an impaired ability to avoid repetition of errors learned from previous choices.	There is no mention of reasoning in the article, let alone sound reasoning.  According to these studies, the pMFC is a key brain region involved in cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is not an example of sound reasoning.
129	Presumably cognitive dissonance would be the likely result. Again, it's all referenced here:	No - cognitive dissonance is one of the functions associated with the pMFC.
130	https://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/	This article from American Vision does not refer to the studies mentioned directly above. This is the article which provided false conclusions based on a different study which looked at different functions of the pMFC (religious belief and prejudice).
131	http://www.psypost.org/2015/10/scientists-reduce-belief-in-god-by-shutting-down-the-brains-medial-frontal-cortex-38516	This is the actual study which American Vision misrpresented, and which I provided on line 15.
132	Jim, as you have demonstrated once again, your 'sources'--usually links to you quoting yourself in your agenda-driven blog, unsubstantiated by anything other than your "assurances" that you are relaying accurate information--are neither "objective" nor objectively analyzed!	Another rant, and somewhat ironic given the above!
133	You need a bit of a refresher course iof what critical thinking is and how it is to be applied--perhaps this will help:
134	http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766	Some good points in there actually.
135	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
136	Posted by JimC  on 10 Jul 2017 at 9:27AM
137	Again, you've provided right wing/evangelical opinion pieces rather than going directly to the source. There are three studies of the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) referred to in your links, and none of those studies support your conclusions:
138	Study A
139	This tests whether the pMFC resolves conflict when the brain is focusing on a task but also being distracted. fMRI was used to monitor the brain under these circumstances. The study concluded that while previous studies suggested pMFC activity was driven in a bottom-up fashion by conflict between task-relevant and distracting inputs, this study showed a top-down influence of pMFC "activity biasing motor and visual cortex function in the service of adaptive control." Here is the actual research paper:
	http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/5/1780.long
140	Study B
141	This tests whether the pMFC is involved in cognitive dissonance and analysed a specific example known as “choice-induced preference”. This is a situation where: “After a person chooses between two items, preference for the chosen item will increase and preference for the unchosen item will decrease because of the choice made. In other words, we tend to justify or rationalize our past behavior by changing our attitude.” Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to disrupt the pMFC and the study concludes that disrupting the brain in this way significantly reduced choice-induced preference change. The researchers suggested a further study to examine direct comparisons among different types of conflict. Here is the actual research paper:
142	http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/8/3598.long
143	Study C
144	This is the study (from Sep 2015) which was the source of your original post, and it follows on from study B (Feb 2015). It tests the function of the pFMC in providing solutions to perceived threats (anything from a fallen tree to a hostile immigrant to death itself). The study showed that disrupting the pFMC with TMS reduced the religious nature of those solutions and reduced the level of group prejudice (in this case it reduced prejudice towards immigrants). Here is the actual research paper:
	https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/3/387/2375059/Neuromodulation-of-group-prejudice-and-religious
145	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
146	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 17 Jul 2017 at 1:19AM
147	No, Jim. The first two studies more closely deal with the original research itself--note that they appear in the Journal of Neuroscience and contain no mention of funding.	They deal with original research, but they examine different functions of the pMFC to the functions in the study which "American Vision" based its conclusions on.
148	The third was a separate study, specifically funded by the groups mentioned at the end of the article.	The third (Study C) is the research that was misrepresented by the "American Vision" article (see line 15)
149	If you are to claim that I was resorting to "right wing opinion pieces rather than going to the original source" whereas actually I referenced a major newspaper which reported the same results, your third study was completely funded by the purposes of those who invested in such and reflect their vested interests in "reinterpreting" the results of the study for such purposes--rather like your blog in that respect.	The Daily Mail article is pretty good, especially because it doesn't include any of the conclusions which "American Vision" provided and which the Apologist used as the basis of his original post (see lines 1 to 11)
150	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
151	Posted by JimC  on 17 Jul 2017 at 9:30AM
152	I don't know what you mean. I've referred to the original, published studies/research in each case. The third study was a consequence of the second and was led by one of the same researchers. I know the research appeared in the journal of neuroscience - that's why I provided the links to the journal of neuroscience. The point is that the conclusions you presented came from right wing/evangelical opinion pieces, not from the actual studies/research, and you believed them without examining the research itself.
153	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
154	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 24 Jul 2017 at 12:21AM
155	I did examine and reference the research itself and provided a link to the actual source study in doing so, remember?	That's not true. The conclusions presented on lines 1 to 11 (and the subject heading) were based on opinions provided by "American Vision" (see link on line 8). The link to the study was provided by me on line 15.
156	That said, I note how you are moving the goalposts yet again. You appeal to prejudice against a Christian critique of the content of such, not on the basis of the content itself, but merely because the source of the critique happened to be Christian.	The source happens to be an extremely biased, Evenglieical creationist source, and should therefore be used with caution.  Examining the actual study shows how the conclusions provided by "American Vision" are false (see lines 14 to 68)
157	You then proffer--in place of such--your own personal prejudices and unsupported opinion!	I haven't provided my opinion. I've provided the results of the study and the conclusions of the researchers.
158	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
159	Posted by JimC  on 24 Jul 2017 at 12:35AM
160	You didn't refer to the original study until after I'd referred to it and after I had provided the link.	See line 15
161	You can tell the third study is a follow on from the second study because in the second study, the researchers suggest the premise of the third study and one of them leads it.
162	I critiqued your right wing Evangelical source (and your false conclusions and false subject heading) based on the conclusions of the actual study.
163	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
164	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 24 Jul 2017 at 1:33AM
165	First you invite prejudice through an ad hominem attack on the source of the first link I proffered by dismissing its content not on the basis of the study it provided, but merely because you labeled it a "right wing Evangelical source!"	I dismissed it's content based on the study.  See line 16 and the discussion from lines 21 to 68.
166	Everything proffered by you or I references the original study and interprets such.	I haven't interpreted the study. I've quoted it.
167	I likewise addressed the content of the original study, as was my point in likewise referring to that link.	Untrue. None of the conclusions provided by the Apologist can be found in the study.
168	I referenced more than what you claimed to be a "right wing evangelical source" by also proffering this link to a mainstream newspaper article on such:	Not until line 72.
169	http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3272289/Could-views-God-immigration-changed-using-MAGNETS-Brain-stimulation-alter-beliefs-study-claims.html	And as I said before,  it's actually quite accurate, unlike the "American Vision" article that the Apologist based his conclusions on.
170	not to mention a psychology/neuroscience news site:
171	http://www.psypost.org/2015/10/scientists-reduce-belief-in-god-by-shutting-down-the-brains-medial-frontal-cortex-38516	That's the article which I provided on line 28
172	as well as further support:
173	http://www.conservapedia.com/Posterior_medial_frontal_cortex	That wasn't introduced until line xxxxxxx and refers to different studies. It's not actually written by conservapedia.
174	You, as usual, offer nothing to back up your unsupported assertions and ask us to "take your word" that the third study has more of an evidential basis than the links I actually provided.
175	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
176	Posted by JimC  on 24 Jul 2017 at 9:39AM
177	Start at the top of the thread and you will see you stated conclusions based on an article from a conservative, evangelical blog, which itself was based on false conclusions. I provided the actual study and the actual conclusions and I pointed out the reasons why the conclusions in your source (and your conclusions) were wrong. Everything else you referred to, you provided after I'd provided you with the actual source and you've provided nothing to support your original conclusions (or rather the wrong conclusions you copied without checking).
178	Alternatively, try and demonstrate the conclusions you provided (and your subject title) by referencing the research directly.
179	Re: Atheism uses less brain function?
180	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 31 Jul 2017 at 12:35AM
181	What of the source of the first reference I linked to? As you know, I reference a wide variety of material from "conservative" to "liberal," from one Christian denomination or another, and from other perspectives ranging from Jewish to Muslim to Agnostic to Atheist. If someone states a particular matter well, I will reference such.	The first reference the Apologist linked to was "American Vision" which provided conclusions unsupported by the actual study. The Apologist copied these conclusions without reading the study itself.
182	Do you have anything logical to say referencing the actual content of the article or are you merely trying to poison the well again?	I can only repeat: The conclusions of the article (and the subject heading of this thread) bear no relation to what the study actually says. See line 16
183	You merely directed attention to peripheral matters contained in the study and other conclusions and insights gained from such, and seeking to have us believe that other studies precluded the one I referred to.	Peripheral matters? How can the conclusions of the study as provided by the researchers be "peripheral"? Also, I made no reference to other studies - they were introduced by the Apologist - not me.
184	I further referenced an article from a psychology magazine which referenced the same conclusion posited in my first link, phrased as "Scientists reduce belief in God by shutting down the brain's medial frontal cortex"--here it is again:	The conclusion provided by the Apologist in his first link are shown on lines 3, 4, 5 and 6. The conclusion that "Scientists reduce belief in God by shutting down the brain's medial frontal cortex" was provided by me on line 28
185	http://www.psypost.org/2015/10/scientists-reduce-belief-in-god-by-shutting-down-the-brains-medial-frontal-cortex-38516
186	When you "assured" us that the medial frontal cortex was not responsible for such thought processes, I provided a link to its actual function:	On line 19 I stated that the pMFC is not responsible for logic and rational thinking, as claimed by the Apologist, based on what he'd read on the "American Vision" website.
187	http://www.conservapedia.com/Posterior_medial_frontal_cortex	This link confirms what I said.
188	Jim, don't you ever get tired of playing the game of "reconstructing" what I actually stated to twist its meaning, followed by your straw man deconstruction of your own creation, and/or your unsupported assurances that you have the "correct" understanding of such matters? Hasn't that tactic gotten more than stale by now?	What the Apologist actually stated is shown on lines 1 to 11. On lines 12 to 19  is what the study actually says, further explored ln lines 20 to 68.
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199