The God Gene

[CJK]

Leaning more towards Nature...

Scientists sift evidence for a 'God gene'
By Roger Higfield
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH

The idea of genes linked with beliefs does not look far-fetched, given the influence of genetics on the developing brain.
Thomas Bouchard, a professor at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, conducted a study of twins reared apart and concluded that there was "a modest degree of genetic influence" in two measures of religiousness.
There are many suggestions as to why a "God gene" — or a constellation of genes linked with belief — may thrive.
John Burn, medical director of the Institute of Human Genetics at England's University of Newcastle, said: "Survival of our species has demanded a capacity to work together, to form societies. A willingness to live, and if necessary die, for a belief is a powerful selective advantage. I think there is a genetic propensity for us to believe."
Professor Edward O. Wilson, a sociobiologist at Harvard University, points out that religious leaders often help perpetuate their followers' genes by encouraging them to have big families and by including prohibitions against incest and other risky activities.
Those who were more inclined to believe also might have survived better than those who did not have such beliefs. A wide-ranging survey of scientific evidence of the "faith factor" in disease has been conducted by Mayo Clinic researchers. They concluded that a majority of 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health.
Belief can help people to cope with stress, and religious people might be more compliant and less likely to overindulge, or they might be able to draw on a bigger support network, such as a congregation. If religious belief does boost an individual's chances of survival, any genes linked with a propensity to believe would survive in future generations.
Michel Raymond of the Institute of Evolutionary Science in Montpellier, France, and Dutch researcher Frans Roes have published research in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior that purports to show it is possible to predict how religious a society is, and the kind of religion to which it subscribes, by the evolutionary benefits.
For example, the survival of social groups in a desert would be promoted by a supreme deity's legitimization of moral codes that protect natural resources. When cultures around the world are compared, there is an association between belief in gods strong on such moral codes and societies where water is scarce.
They conclude that because larger societies tend to have more conflicts, they are more likely to have a belief in God, to provide "moral glue" and social cohesiveness. When there are recurring threats, moral rules should be imposed with authority. They conclude: "How better than by a moralizing god?"

[Rincewind]

Greetings,
I joined the forum quite recently and the "God gene" argument took my interest.
I personally believe that it boils down to the fact that it's not about a "gene" as such but instead, it's about a perticular msg driven into our heads from the begenning.
humans being highly imaginative creatures have always attempted to explain wierd and unusual phenomenon by some means. And this is where God comes into play. The more baffling and complex an issue becomes the harder we try to explain it. the answeres to question like "why?, how?' are put fwd thru The concept of "God". when in reality it's all just a state of mind. Insted of intelligent investigation and reasoning we resort to blaming it on or explainin it via God. When what we really need to do is to step out of this pre programmed state of mind, and take a look around.Consider it from a different point of view. it's not about a gene, it depends on your upbringing and influences.
Isn't the whole concept of God just an easy way out ? ? ?

Leaning more towards Nature...

Scientists sift evidence for a 'God gene'
By Roger Higfield
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH

The idea of genes linked with beliefs does not look far-fetched, given the influence of genetics on the developing brain.
Thomas Bouchard, a professor at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, conducted a study of twins reared apart and concluded that there was "a modest degree of genetic influence" in two measures of religiousness.
There are many suggestions as to why a "God gene" — or a constellation of genes linked with belief — may thrive.
John Burn, medical director of the Institute of Human Genetics at England's University of Newcastle, said: "Survival of our species has demanded a capacity to work together, to form societies. A willingness to live, and if necessary die, for a belief is a powerful selective advantage. I think there is a genetic propensity for us to believe."
Professor Edward O. Wilson, a sociobiologist at Harvard University, points out that religious leaders often help perpetuate their followers' genes by encouraging them to have big families and by including prohibitions against incest and other risky activities.
Those who were more inclined to believe also might have survived better than those who did not have such beliefs. A wide-ranging survey of scientific evidence of the "faith factor" in disease has been conducted by Mayo Clinic researchers. They concluded that a majority of 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health.
Belief can help people to cope with stress, and religious people might be more compliant and less likely to overindulge, or they might be able to draw on a bigger support network, such as a congregation. If religious belief does boost an individual's chances of survival, any genes linked with a propensity to believe would survive in future generations.
Michel Raymond of the Institute of Evolutionary Science in Montpellier, France, and Dutch researcher Frans Roes have published research in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior that purports to show it is possible to predict how religious a society is, and the kind of religion to which it subscribes, by the evolutionary benefits.
For example, the survival of social groups in a desert would be promoted by a supreme deity's legitimization of moral codes that protect natural resources. When cultures around the world are compared, there is an association between belief in gods strong on such moral codes and societies where water is scarce.
They conclude that because larger societies tend to have more conflicts, they are more likely to have a belief in God, to provide "moral glue" and social cohesiveness. When there are recurring threats, moral rules should be imposed with authority. They conclude: "How better than by a moralizing god?"

[Chimp]

so.....what's the debate topic? EDIT....Never mind

[juliod]

I brought up a related question in a thread called "evolution of intelligence", subtitled "evolution of stupidity".

The question is not "do we have a predisposition to religion" but "do we have a predisposition to idiocy?" Humans believe and have believed in the past all manner of absurd things. Witches, astrology, palmistry, and infinity of mystical beliefs, polygraphs, reaganomics, etc...

We, as a species, are constantly getting it wrong. And then wrong again. Even if one religion were to be true, that would still mean that 9 out of 10 theists are wrong.

In order to achieve rational objectivity we must struggle against our natures. It's as if we are trying to live a technology-base, urban, structured lifestyle with a brain evolved for hunting and gathering in a mixed forest/grassland environment. Hmmm.....

DanZ