• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

God and Evolution

DaWhim

Lifer
February 12, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
God and Evolution
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

An "analysis" of Democrats and Republicans from the Ladies' Home Journal in 1962 concluded: "Republicans sleep in twin beds - some even in separate rooms. That is why there are more Democrats."

That biological analysis turns out - surprise! - to have been superficial. Instead, modern science is turning up a possible reason why the religious right is flourishing and secular liberals aren't: instinct. It turns out that our DNA may predispose humans toward religious faith.

Granted, that's not very encouraging news for the secular left. Imagine if many of us are hard-wired to be religious. Imagine if, as a cosmic joke, humans have gradually evolved to leave many of us doubting evolution.

The notion of a genetic inclination toward religion is not new. Edward Wilson, the founder of the field of sociobiology, argued in the 1970's that a predisposition to religion may have had evolutionary advantages.

In recent years evidence has mounted that there may be something to this, and the evidence is explored in "The God Gene," a fascinating book published recently by Dean Hamer, a prominent American geneticist. Dr. Hamer even identifies a particular gene, VMAT2, that he says may be involved. People with one variant of that gene tend to be more spiritual, he found, and those with another variant to be less so.

There's still plenty of reason to be skeptical because Dr. Hamer's work hasn't been replicated, and much of his analysis is speculative. Moreover, any genetic predisposition isn't for becoming an evangelical, but for an openness to spirituality at a much broader level. In Alabama, it may express itself in Pentecostalism; in California, in astrology or pyramids.

Still, it's striking how faith is almost irrepressible. While I was living in China in the early 1990's, after religion had been suppressed for decades, drivers suddenly began dangling pictures of Chairman Mao from their rear-view mirrors. The word had spread that Mao's spirit could protect them from car crashes or even bring them sons and wealth. It was a miracle: ordinary Chinese had transformed the great atheist into a god.

One bit of evidence supporting a genetic basis for spirituality is that twins separated at birth tend to have similar levels of spirituality, despite their different upbringings. And identical twins, who have the same DNA, are about twice as likely to share similar levels of spirituality as fraternal twins.

It's not surprising that nature would favor genes that promote an inclination to faith. Many recent studies suggest that religious people may live longer than the less religious. A study of nearly 4,000 people in North Carolina, for example, found that frequent churchgoers had a 46 percent lower risk of dying in a six-year period than those who attended less often. Another study involving nearly 126,000 participants suggested that a 20-year-old churchgoer might live seven years longer than a similar person who does not attend religious services.

Partly that's because the religious seem to adopt healthier lifestyles - they are less likely to smoke, for example. And faith may give people strength to overcome illness - after all, if faith in placebo sugar pills works, why not faith in God?

Another possibility involves brain chemistry. Genes that promote spirituality may do so in part by stimulating chemical messengers in the brain like dopamine, which can make people optimistic and sociable - and perhaps more likely to have children. (Dopamine is very complex, but it appears linked to both spirituality and promiscuity, possibly explaining some church scandals.)

Evolutionary biologists have also suggested that an inclination to spirituality may have made ancient humans more willing to follow witch doctors or other leaders who claimed divine support. The result would have been more cohesive bands of cave men, better able to survive - and to kill off rival cave men.

Of course, none of that answers the question of whether God exists. The faithful can believe that God wired us to appreciate divinity. And atheists can argue that God may simply be a figment of our VMAT2 gene.

But what the research does suggest is that postindustrial society will not easily leave religion behind. Faith may be quiescent in many circles these days, or directed toward meditation or yoga, but it is not something that humans can easily cast off.

A propensity to faith in some form appears to be embedded within us as a profound part of human existence, as inextricable and perhaps inexplicable as the way we love and laugh.

good stuff.
link to the article
 
Good way to say that atheists and our ilk are genetically "defective" kind of like the argument that gays are equally "defective" when it suits someone's political ambitions. I would go all "P & N" on this article, but this is neither the right forum or the right way to start a civil discussion on it. However, I will point out that there are many fallacies and outright biases presented in the article with little or no evidence to back them up.

Exhibit A - the twins fallacy: Notice there is no mention of the household environment that the separated twins grew up in. They'd like you to draw a conclusion that one twin grew up in a religious household while the other grew up in a secular household and yet, the secular twin went straight to religion when given the chance. Second, how many twins were actually separated at birth, but into separate households with entirely different environment and upbringings and are nearly identical in their actions, choices, beliefs, etc? Are these the same three sets of twins they always talk about? I can't imagine there's a good sampling of twins meeting those guidelines in the US (ie.- 1000+ sets) to give accurate results.
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
Good way to say that atheists and our ilk are genetically "defective" kind of like the argument that gays are equally "defective" when it suits someone's political ambitions. I would go all "P & N" on this article, but this is neither the right forum or the right way to start a civil discussion on it. However, I will point out that there are many fallacies and outright biases presented in the article with little or no evidence to back them up.

Exhibit A - the twins fallacy: Notice there is no mention of the household environment that the separated twins grew up in. They'd like you to draw a conclusion that one twin grew up in a religious household while the other grew up in a secular household and yet, the secular twin went straight to religion when given the chance. Second, how many twins were actually separated at birth, but into separate households with entirely different environment and upbringings and are nearly identical in their actions, choices, beliefs, etc? Are these the same three sets of twins they always talk about? I can't imagine there's a good sampling of twins meeting those guidelines in the US (ie.- 1000+ sets) to give accurate results.
Sociologially and Psychologically the example of identical twins is strongly supported and is an example of the power of genetics in any freshman Psych textbook.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
Good way to say that atheists and our ilk are genetically "defective" kind of like the argument that gays are equally "defective" when it suits someone's political ambitions.

Nobody wants to be called defective, and I'm sure everyone will argue that they're not defective, but the chance of everyone coming out 100% perfect is very small. I think that some people are born with defects.

The genetic code doesn't always copy itself with 100% fidelity. Chains will be broken and abnormalities will occur.
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Rogue
Good way to say that atheists and our ilk are genetically "defective" kind of like the argument that gays are equally "defective" when it suits someone's political ambitions. I would go all "P & N" on this article, but this is neither the right forum or the right way to start a civil discussion on it. However, I will point out that there are many fallacies and outright biases presented in the article with little or no evidence to back them up.

Exhibit A - the twins fallacy: Notice there is no mention of the household environment that the separated twins grew up in. They'd like you to draw a conclusion that one twin grew up in a religious household while the other grew up in a secular household and yet, the secular twin went straight to religion when given the chance. Second, how many twins were actually separated at birth, but into separate households with entirely different environment and upbringings and are nearly identical in their actions, choices, beliefs, etc? Are these the same three sets of twins they always talk about? I can't imagine there's a good sampling of twins meeting those guidelines in the US (ie.- 1000+ sets) to give accurate results.
Sociologially and Psychologically the example of identical twins is strongly supported and is an example of the power of genetics in any freshman Psych textbook.

ZV

You must have stopped your studies in that book then, because it's just as easy to prove that a lot of that is simply not founded on good science. Hell, my Psych 101 professor would tell you that it's easy to pick out the similarities and easy to popularize them, but it's far more difficult to actually accept that the differences are there and that they are glaring differences at that. It's called confirmation bias, another one of those "freshman text book" things you probably overlooked.

I think it far more likely that twins separated at birth are going to be adopted into religious households than not. First off, far more people in this country are religious than not. Second, religion tends to favor those that take in children in need (or maybe the other way around). Many orphanages, etc. are actually run by religious entities. I know when my wife and I adopted her niece last year that our religion was part of the line of questioning. They were taken aback by my lack of belief. I think it's pretty hard to find a set of twins, one secular, one religious in their upbringing who end up believing exactly the same way later in life. It strikes me as a statistical improbability. Finally, as I stated, it's easy to see the similarities when you think they should be the same.

Don't take any of the above as a blanket renunciation of genetic and behavioral similarities between twins, however, in this particular study, I find the evidence to be questionable at best. I'm well aware of the tendencies of identical twins to be very similar.
 
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
:thumbsdown::thumbsup:

:thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup:
:thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup:
:thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup::thumbsdown::thumbsup:
 
So he starts off his column by refuting a 43 year old "study" from "Ladies' Home Journal"... right... I think I'll stop reading right there.
 
There has been some publications recently about humans being genetically hard-wired for religion. I think the thousands and thousands years worth of civilization and the countless religions thru those years should be proof enough that we as a species tend to favor religion as opposed to the lack of religion.
 
Back
Top