Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not think there is any genes for belief in god at all. But what I think you are getting at is something I do believe and perhaps I can articulate it a little better.
Moderator cut: delete
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Rather there are entirely different functions in the human make up that leave us susceptible to infection from memetic viruses like religion.
Okay, you lost me there. This is "articulating things better"? What are you basing your theory that religion is a "virus" on? Studies/links? I am always interested in learning more. This sort of thing fascinates me.
As for the rest: interesting, thank you!
Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-01-2014 at 07:09 AM..
Reason: sarcasm
Hamer studied 2,000 DNA samples. He interviewed 2,000 people extensively (226 questions in each interview). The questions, among other things, looked at how spiritual a person is and what their level of faith in God is.
He found that the VMAT2 Gene was significantly more common among people who believed in a higher spiritual being. According to his research, whether or not your upbringing is religious has no bearing on how religious you turn out to be - but the presence of the VMAT2 Gene version does.
Now, he could be the one who is wrong. But to put down an entire theory that has been scientifically tested based on what "you think" isn't good science...IMO.
But interesting food for thought anyway, so as always, thank you. I'm not trying to put your idea down; it could be correct. Just pointing out that I didn't pull this one out of my hat, I'm more basing this on studies than what I personally think/believe could/might be true. When it comes down to that, anything might be true. And we could all be off the mark. JMO.
What are you basing your theory that religion is a "virus" on?
It is not a theory, it is an analogy. And I am far from the first to make it. Susanne Blakemore does it at some length in many of her works. And it is a core idea behind Daniel Dennets book " Breaking the spell". The point of the analogy is to highlight that things that have nothing to do with infection leave us prone to infection.... in much the same way as things that have evolved for good reason that have nothing to do with religion or "god thought" actually leave us prone to that kind of thinking.
The link you have given is to the second hand reporting of one persons _opinion_ on the matter. An opinion that was expressed in a book, not a peer reviewed scientific paper, and it is an opinion about the existence of a "gene" that he has neither identified nor located. Hamer is simply a controversy producer and he is also known for expressing the _opinion_ in a gene for homosexuality too.
So if you are going to tell me "some scientists feel differently" it might be better to cite some _actual science_ and not opinion pieces.
At best his study was a correlative one too. He is... at best.... simply showing a correlation between religious beleif and the active presence of a gene structure. Correlation is not causation and he would have a lot more work to do to validate his opinion.
A correlation would actually strongly support what I am saying here. In that I do think we have genes "for" other things and the more active those genes are the more prone to religious thought we are. So Hamer et al would not be supporting the case using correlation alone that there is a "god gene" but rather that there are genes that when active or hyper active leave us prone to religious thinking.
The analogy to disease is pertinent again here. There are genes that are not "for" catching a certain disease for example..... but people with those genes are more prone to a given infection. That does not mean the gene is "for" catching that infection.... just that people with said genes are more prone to that infection.
I would expect similar conclusions from Hamers thinking on the matter.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-01-2014 at 07:10 AM..
No, it is not pure opinion. Yes, it is only one study. But it is just that, a study...not an opinion.
Yes, it's correlation and not causation. Technically, he has "proven" nothing (and I never said he has). But it's a start into investigating a very interesting theory. If anything were actually proven at this point, we would not be having this discussion at all...n'ecst ce pas?
But pure, pull-it-out-of-your-hat opinion? Give this guy some credit. He's done a bit of work on all of this. No, he hasn't isolated "the" gene under peer review...as I stated originally. Just wanted to clarify that.
No, it is not pure opinion. Yes, it is only one study. But it is just that, a study...not an opinion.
It was not even a study it seems. Your link says the guy wrote a book. I am all for reading cited studies and papers. But when someone bypasses that and goes directly to writing a book then I tend to be more suspicious. There is a reason people bypass the scientific method and go directly to a publishing house. And that reason is not a good one.
If there is a working scientific hypothesis that there is a specific gene for god belief than I am more than happy to read peer reviewed scientific literature on the matter if you wish to cite any. To repeat the point however the link at best is talking about a correlation and as I said a correlation is more supportive of what I am saying than what you think he is saying.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-01-2014 at 07:12 AM..
The analogy to disease is pertinent again here. There are genes that are not "for" catching a certain disease for example..... but people with those genes are more prone to a given infection. That does not mean the gene is "for" catching that infection.... just that people with said genes are more prone to that infection.
hmmm..'infection' kind of sounds pejorative, no? I'd think if there is a 'god-belief' gene that one could entertain the thought that if it does exist in the course of human evolution there could be a positive reason why it crops in the genetic makeup of man. Also, one's environment would probably be key in the interaction with genetic function across the millenia. A very intriguing and interesting but complicated topic.
That is not the intention, but if that is the subjective emotional response you wish to assign to it then so be it. It certainly would not bother me. The analogy has a purpose, and that purpose is not diluted by negative emotional reactions to it.
Think of the meme of elevator music for example. You go into an elevator and you come out humming the tune. And you spend the rest of the day with this "Ohrwurm" (as they call it in germany) in your head unable to shake it off. I would call that a minor memetic infection too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
there could be a positive reason why it crops in the genetic makeup of man.
Or there could be no positive reason at all, just like there is no positive reason we are susceptible to infection by disease. It is merely an attribute of the human condition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
