How do Christians reconcile behavioral changes from brain injuries and disease?

Great Debates
1

There have been lots of evidence over the years that physical injury to the brain causes people’s behavior to change, often for the worse. The classic example of this is Phineas Gage, a railroad worker who had a spike driven through his frontal lobes. Before the accident, he was polite and industrious; after he was crude, irresponsible, and frequently started fights. A cursory web search can find details of this case.

More recently, researchers have found degenerative brain maladies can trigger dramatic changes in personality, including changes in religious belief:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/05/08/science.self.reut/index.html

How do Christians, or members of any religion who believe theirs is the only way to salvation, reconcile the fact that someone may change their behavior, even their religious beliefs, as a result of a physical brain malady or injury they have no control over?

Joe Shmoe is a good Christian, but then through no fault of his own is afflicted with frontotemporal dementia, and becomes a Wiccan. Do Christians believe Joe is damned, even though his change of belief was clearly not via free will?

2

And even more so: will a former Good Christian who suffered brain damage through no fault of his own and has taken up a craving for random killing and maiming people get to go to heaven?

This has bugging me for a while now but never occurred to me to actually ask. Thanks Revtim, hopefully some insightful religious people can answer.

3

xeno’s psychic predictions for this thread:[ul][li]Lib will post very soon to say something about the atoms not being real[]links will be provided to previous threads which dealt with this question[]Polycarp, Triskadecamus and/or tomndebb will treat the question seriously, giving variously learned, gentle, witty or exasperated replies, depending on previous posts[]various aggressive atheists will pile on other scenarioes where behavior modification techniques could coerce conversion away from Christianity[]various fair-minded atheists will point out that such “conversions”, while they may prompt interesting theological debates within a given religion in no way invalidate the basic precepts of said religiona random Wiccan/pagan/neoshamanistic polytheist will take offense at the implied characterization of Wicca as an undesirable alternative to Christianity[/ul][/li]
::waits over in the corner with checklist, phone number in hand for the Amazing Randi::

4

I don’t speak for all Christians… Heck, I probably don’t speak for more than three… Anyway, I’ll put in my two cents.

We are not judged by our brain, but by our spirit. If a man with a good heart suffers a physical malady that renders him incapable of expressing the will of his spirit, he is not accountable for the behavior of his amoral atoms. In the extreme example of the man who goes on a murderous rampage because of brain damage, we do not know but that his spirit is crying out in helpless dispair. We do not know but that he judges his own actions as horrible. That could explain some of the people who commit horrendous acts and then kill themselves.

Actions, per se, are not sin. Actions are merely quantum farts manifesting as electomagnetic waves. Sin is to be found in a cold heart. Therefore, a man with a perfect brain is sinful when he passes by his hungry and homeless neighbor without helping him, whereas the man with a damaged brain who kicks the vagrant in the chest is not necessarily so.

And in deference to Xeno, the atoms are not, um, morally significant. (I think you missed my promise in the Pit, Xeno, to stop saying that the atoms aren’t real. But I hope you do consider this a “serious” treatment.)

5

I am not quite sure why you think this is a problem for any Christian.

  1. It is basic Christian doctrine that what is not your fault is not counted against you. Choice is a basic part of sin. The basic rule of morality is to do the best you can with what you have as standard equipment.

  2. It is a general Christian doctrine (some small sects disagree) that you do not have to be Christian to be saved; the doctrine of the “virtuous Pagan” should be well known by now. The RC church excommunicated a priest who refused the teaching of the Church and continuted to teach that all who were not Catholic were damned.

Most of what I see held up on the boards in anti-Christian arguments continues to seem to me to be strawmen. The mind-body problem may have some theological implications somewhere, but in all the learned discussion I haven’t heard anything that makes me shake a whole lot; the problem of evil seems a lot more telling to me.

(NB: C.S. Lewis had a long essay on just this subject. It is not one of his most interesting reads; he went the long way around to say just what I said in a sentence. I think some of the neurological research was newer then, and the British intelligensia was fascinated by the topic at the time.)

6

Actually, I forgot about that promise, but I like the new and improved version. Score me a 50% on the first prediction (your response was indeed a serious treatment).

I’ll chime in as a fair-minded (I believe) atheist. I think, if an injury or brain disease were to alter the perceptions and thought process of an affected person, they would be equally as likely to retain their religion as to change or abandon it. In any case, such an injury might be considered to be a “spritually incapacitating” injury, and they would be just as blameless***** for their religious decisions as if the injury had destroyed their higher cognitive functions as well.

(Score me 0% so far on the 5th prediction; no self-fulfillments allowed. :slight_smile: )
*****[sub]“blameless” in the sense that a decision to abandon their religion would not be considered an act of free will[/sub]

7

dlb:

Just a brief hijack to let you know how much I enjoy your apologetics. I should have told you before now.

Xeno:

You have the right focus. Morality is a decision making process for which the amoral universe is an amoral context. Personally, I think God was real smart to set things up this way.

8

Thanks for thoughtful replies, folks. I suppose most agree that a person who “sins” as a result of brain injury or affliction is held blameless (within most Christian doctrine), because their actions can be considered not of free will.

But, what about the reverse situation? Suppose someone of “sinful” spirit, who rejected the teachings of Christ, becomes afflicted with frontotemporal dementia, and then becomes a Christian. Totally as a result of this disease, he truly believes in the teachings of Christ and becomes a good Christian.

Since a person is held blameless for sinful acts an beliefs as a result of affliction, does a person who because a Christian as a result of affliction still get “credit” for it? If it was not free will when they became a sinner, then it was not free will to become a Christian either, right?

9

This is a question I’ve had for some time; glad to see someone else is curious about this.

Here’s a problem I have with the answers so far (ignoring for the moment the question as to just what, exactly, a “spirit” is, and how it is different from consciousness):

One mark of insanity seems to be an urge to commit extreme harm to oneself. According to Christian beliefs, those who know Christianity but do not repent their sins will suffer eternal damnation. One might argue that to allow oneself to risk eternal torment is an act of insanity. It seems then that all sinners are insane, thus not responsible for their actions, and thus should be saved.

10

Xeno,

You have no idea how tempting it is to say: “Ah, blow it out yer ass, I got a headache.”

However, I can’t. For reasons I don’t quite understand I have come to a situation where my words and opinions get listened to, even if they don’t always get agreed with. So, I have to speak very carefully when I speak of the nature of my Lord, and his Mercy.

So, a serious, and I hope learned and gentle manner is required. (I shall consider the opening to be my witty rejoinder, or at least half of such.)

So, Saint Everyman, the pillar of the Church, and paragon of the virtues to which every Christian aspires is wounded while fixing his shingles. He becomes a drunk, beats his wife regularly, and begins collecting kiddie porn, planning his evil debut as a child molester. Just how does this differ from the demon Everyjerk, who was raised by cruel selfish parents, never given or allow to give love, and who did these same things all his life? Are you asking if the weight of St. E’s prior good works will be counted in his final judgement?

I can see we have a lot of theology to catch up on. None of us gains salvation because of our worth. Our deeds are not the measure of our value to the Lord. Love is that measure. The love is His love of us. The measure is beyond our understanding. We call this overwhelming eternal love grace. Because He gives us grace, we need not fear judgment. Saint Everyman, and the Demon Everyjerk are no different. Each is a sinner. The value of St. E’s good works was that they created love. It wasn’t for coupons for a get into heaven half off deal. The sins that you and I love so much are sins because they kill that part of us that loves.

But don’t get all that confused with Salvation. Salvation is a miracle, unearned, undeserved, unreasonable, and unlimited in Love. If you want it, there it is. If you will not have it, it cannot be forced on you.

By the way, insanity is far more voluntary than the science of psychology would have us believe. If every thing is as determinate as that view presents, then we are only robots, with chemical programming. I find that unlikely.

11

Ok, well, what if someone accepts salavation, then gets a railroad spike through the head, and after that tramatic brain experience, rejects Christ? Or, on a more feasible level, what if someone in the advanced stages of Alzhiemer’s forgets about Christ and Salvation? The whole Grace/Works debate is really a red herring here, becuase either can be contorted by a tramatic physical injury. (Nor is this a clear cut case of "needing to bone up on your theology. Milton believed works mattered, and if he didn’t count as a Christian, who does? But that is a matter for a different thread)

12

Breathtaking, Tris. All the questions answered in one fell swoop. How do you do it? (Nevermind. I already know. ;))

13

“But Lord, we did not know you!” Or, to misquote Steve Goodman, “Long ago, I used to be a young man, Dear Jesus remembers that for me.”

But perhaps the Grace of God cannot.

Works matter. They are not the source of our Salvation. Milton is a Christian. I don’t follow Christians, I follow Christ.

We need a few good theology threads.

Tris

14

But you do claim that Grace can be rejected, if not contorted? That if a person in good mental health stands up and says “I reject God and all of his teachings, I don’t want his Grace or his Love” that that person is damned to hell, not by God, but by his own rejection? My question is, what if a person says the same thing after a tramatic brain injury that has left them apparently sane but with a radically different personality?

The reverse question is: what if someone accepts Christ only after a tramatic brain injury?

15

I suppose both of my questions, both the one in the OP and the reverse one I proposed later are only interesting when asked of those Christians who believe salvation is dependant upon the beliefs and/or actions of the individual. For others, the questions are moot.

16

Manda JO:

Just curious. Why the assumption that the brain has anything at all to do with the matter at hand? Motor decisions are made by the brain, yes, but moral decisions are not made by the brain, but by the spirit.

17

Once I held a child, wracked with disease, and pain, and writhing from disorientation and misery. He cursed me, and bit me, spit upon me and called me names as vile as his limited vocabulary would allow. I held him as the treatments, which would ultimately fail to save his life, were administered against his will. He no longer remembered the sweet kind child he had been, nor did he know me as the man who helped him learn to eat, or talk. His hatred was real, and reasoned, from his perspective.

But I love him still. I do not hate him for his hatred of me, although it makes me cry, even as I write this. He died cursing me. If I can love him still, although I am only a man, how much more can God love us, to whatever end we might come? It’s love, you see, not judgment that we face. If my sins against God make my Lord weep, as did I, could I say, “Works do not matter?” I think not.

18

If you assume that the actions of the brain/body can never, under any circumstances, be used to infer the will of the spirit than this conversaation is moot: in fact, there is no longer any connection between particular brain/bodies and particular spirits if the actions/will of one has zero coorelation to the actions/will of the other. (except possibly the connection of memory, if you believe hte spirit retains memories of the flesh).

If we assume that the will of the spirit is expressed through the actions of the brain/body when the brain/body are healthy, but not when the brain/body are unhealthy, then the question is raised: how unhealthy does the brain/body have to be before the coorelation of between it and the spirit is severed?

If we assume that the will of the spirit is expressed through the actions of the brain/body regardless of damage, then rejection of Christ after personality-altering damage would negate the gift of Grace.
Really, my whole point was that both the doctrine of grace and the doctrine of works are vunrable to this question because while Grace may be a free gift, virtually every Christian I know holds that it is a gift which may be rejected–that however merciful God is, you (the spirit) can chose to turn your back on him and go to hell–that is the core of free will. So the question remains, do people with damaged brain/bodies have free will? If not, how damaged do they have to be before they don’t? If free will is removed from you, can you still be saved? (I would argue yes to this last one because rejecting Grace is an action, not a failure to act. With no Free Will you can never reject grace, and having never rejected it, you stil have it . . .but that is certainly debatable).

19

Mando JO:

Note the abrupt change. This isn’t a criticism, just trying to help you understand what we’re (or I’m) saying…

Then, suddenly…

It is the will of the spirit (that which you referenced in the first quote), and not the will of the brain (that which you referenced in the second quote) that matters in morality. You cannot judge the essence of the person on the basis of any physical attribute. Imagine judging Stephen Hawking on first sight without having known anything about him.

One thing that might be helpful is if you separate ethics from morality. Ethics would be motor decisions, and morality would be spiritual decisions. The spirit makes a moral decision, and typically the brain will carry out an appropriate ethics action. But just because the brain fails, that does not meant that the spirit did. Consider the child Tris held. Would you say the child was immoral?

I don’t know. This might not help at all, and I might have alienated you unintentionally. But suffice it to say that rejection of God by the brain is irrelevant (witness Gaudere), and rejection of Him by the spirit does not involve the brain (witness JMullaney).

20

And my question remain, do you believe that we can reject that love? Because if we can’t, there is no free will. If you believe in free will you believe people can choose to go to hell. From a works perspective, this means acting in ways to show you reject god, from a Grace perspective this means conciously chosing to reject God, but both things are a choice.

If you don’t believe in free will, this dosne’t matter, but if you do believe in free will, the question the OP asks is legitimate: to what extent does tramatic brain injury effect your ability to chose?