God of the Genes?

[clarsct]

I was browsing my new edition of PopSci, and ran across a little tidbit from the National Cancer Institute, which has isolated a gene called VMAT2. It seems that this gene controls, or is involved in, the transportation of monoamine. People with a variation of this gene are more likely to report having had a trancendental experience.

Wow.

So this provoked some thoughts. Does religion have a evolutionary value? Is it possible that by 'being frutiful and multiplying', that this gene is getting more expression in the gene pool? Can fundys just not help themselves, as some of this behavior is genetic? Did religion come about as a side effect of evolution?

The other implication I got was that a pill could be made to make people believe in God. Huh. But I'll create a new thread for that discussion.

In the meantime, what do you think? Is God in our genes? What does that mean for ID vs Evolution? Or am I missing a bigger question, here?

[Kiless]

First thought? People are going to sell it illegally in nightclubs.

[clarsct]

No no, that's for the OTHER thread...;)


Anyway, are we just the folks who aren't mutated enough to beleive in god(or conversely, mutated beyond belief in god)?

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by clarsct
I was browsing my new edition of PopSci, and ran across a little tidbit from the National Cancer Institute, which has isolated a gene called VMAT2. It seems that this gene controls, or is involved in, the transportation of monoamine. People with a variation of this gene are more likely to report having had a trancendental experience.

Wow.

That is certainly interesting, but its significance to religion is tricky. Transcendental experience is certainly a part of the lives of many mystics and certain saints, monks, and enthusiasts, but not necessarily a part of the average religious layperson. It is also not certain what role such experiences make in forming the various mythologies. Does one really need to be prone to a sense of the numinous to tell a tale at the campfire about the first man and the first woman in a garden, or to relate a story about how the adventures of certain gods started the cold and warm seasons? On the other hand, Buddhism was supposedly started when its founder had an experience of enlightenment. The role of religious experience in a religion depends on its content and focus.

Originally posted by clarsct
What does that mean for ID vs Evolution?

Hardly anything, I would think. ID is about trying to find biological features that evolution cannot explain, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with the biochemisty of religious experience.

[clarsct]

First off,I would like to say: Good thoughts!

NOw on with the show:

Originally posted by jjramsey
That is certainly interesting, but its significance to religion is tricky. Transcendental experience is certainly a part of the lives of many mystics and certain saints, monks, and enthusiasts, but not necessarily a part of the average religious layperson. It is also not certain what role such experiences make in forming the various mythologies. Does one really need to be prone to a sense of the numinous to tell a tale at the campfire about the first man and the first woman in a garden, or to relate a story about how the adventures of certain gods started the cold and warm seasons? On the other hand, Buddhism was supposedly started when its founder had an experience of enlightenment. The role of religious experience in a religion depends on its content and focus.

True. But would people believe without that trancendence? Or would they be just a collection of stories, like Grimm's fairy tales?




Hardly anything, I would think. ID is about trying to find biological features that evolution cannot explain, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with the biochemisty of religious experience. [/B]

Ah, but if we were 'created' with a gene that functions only to let us believe in god, wouldn't that point to an intelligent creator?
Or one could say that the belief in god is due to a mutation in a certain gene or set of genes, which would seem to bolster the more materialist viewpoint.

I found it very interesting, and thought provoking.
Thank you for your comments.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by clarsct
In the meantime, what do you think? Is God in our genes?

I started this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31152) a couple of years ago about this subject. I think some pretty nice points concerning the evolutionary advantages of religion were made.

[clarsct]

Interesting, plindboe. Now we have evidence of a genetic link for trancendence. Question: Did this come about too recently to count in evolution, or was it passed on because it has survival value for us?

Having the evidence makes the question all the more important.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by clarsct
But would people believe without that trancendence?

Most people don't feel that transcendence, yet they certainly did believe, probably because they trusted their ancestors and leaders.

Originally posted by clarsct
Ah, but if we were 'created' with a gene that functions only to let us believe in god, wouldn't that point to an intelligent creator?

If that's what the gene really did, it might, but that's not what's going on. The gene only facilitates feelings of transcendence, and that on its own doesn't get one a belief in God.

Originally posted by clarsct
Now we have evidence of a genetic link for trancendence. Question: Did this come about too recently to count in evolution, or was it passed on because it has survival value for us?

I think it is probably more neutral than adaptive. It simply wasn't fatal enough to kill most of those who had it, or to kill enough of those affected by those who had the gene.

[clarsct]

jjramsey:

I am tempted to agree, but will withold until we get some more comments, maybe.

For anyone interested, the other thread is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=61612

I'm crunched for time, or would write more. Thank you for your thoughts.

[Dogdoctor]

I don't think there is a gene per se which encourages us to believe in god, however if you look at the history of the human race, we have been a bunch of religious believers. Why would we have that constant companion of religion throughout our history? I think it is in the genes. There is something about religion which is desirable to the average person. Perhaps it's just an easier way to look at the world. Perhaps religions help people deal with things in a less stressful manner. I mean just imagine if there was a powerful being who was looking over you and making sure you got what you deserved? No worries right? (except for you and you know who I mean) I really don't know why but it seems like religion must have some benefit to the human race to keep it around for so long.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Dogdoctor
Perhaps religions help people deal with things in a less stressful manner. I mean just imagine if there was a powerful being who was looking over you and making sure you got what you deserved?

That doesn't apply to polytheistic religions where the gods act in arbitrary and even petty ways, often at the expense of human beings. Belief in malicious spirits is common, but that doesn't bring comfort. Also, even in monotheism, if you have a God that supposedly delivers benefits if you do the right things, and you do the right things and the benefits still don't happen, that causes anxiety, not comfort. Take a look as Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Psalms. That appears to have happened quite often. What about the Mesoamerican religions with their human sacrifices? How comforting are those?

Originally posted by Dogdoctor
I really don't know why but it seems like religion must have some benefit to the human race to keep it around for so long.

Not necessarily. Things that aren't that beneficial may be kept around because they are mistakenly thought to be beneficial, so long as they aren't so bad as to kill most of us.

[Dogdoctor]

Well perhaps a bad thing has been handed down through the entire existence of man, so the problem is to provide unquestionable proof that religion is bad. I doubt you will convince any religious people otherwise. Atheism has no shining example to show for itself so it would be near impossible to document how atheism is better for the human race.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Dogdoctor
Well perhaps a bad thing has been handed down through the entire existence of man, so the problem is to provide unquestionable proof that religion is bad. I doubt you will convince any religious people otherwise. Atheism has no shining example to show for itself so it would be near impossible to document how atheism is better for the human race.

I'm wondering about that.

Is it possible to indicate through what happens to a non-atheist, that atheism is preferable?

And what about (unrelated, admittedly - I refuse to get into the 'skepticism means no religious beliefs' debate) skepticism?
Can one demonstrate the benefits of skepticism as a world-view?

[Dogdoctor]

Originally posted by Kiless

Can one demonstrate the benefits of skepticism as a world-view?
I think the way to do that would be to develope theories and test them, then show the rest of the world how it works somehow.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Dogdoctor
Well perhaps a bad thing has been handed down through the entire existence of man, so the problem is to provide unquestionable proof that religion is bad.

I wouldn't even try to contend that religion is always bad. That's just too simplistic. What I would challenge is the idea that religion must be doing something right because humanity has kept it for so long.

[Dogdoctor]

Originally posted by jjramsey
I wouldn't even try to contend that religion is always bad. That's just too simplistic. What I would challenge is the idea that religion must be doing something right because humanity has kept it for so long.

Let me rephrase my statement. You need to develop data showing that skepticism can replace religion in society and that society will function equally as good or better.

[Dagny]

The whole "god gene" idea is the fault of Dean Hamer who is somehow associated with the National Cancer Institute in a big way. As far as I've found, he hasn't published this "study"; just a sketchy book which involves no peer review.

And from what I recall, it was based on a survey with 1000 patients who were all smokers. Not exactly what I would consider a good sample.

Hamer is also the same guy who claims to have found the "gay gene".

And he went to Harvard. Yeech.