• 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.

Religious belief is partially determined by a person's genetic make-up

gopunk

Lifer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A46793-2004Nov12.html

What he found was that the brain chemicals associated with anxiety and other emotions, including joy and sadness, appeared to be in play in the deep meditative states of Zen practitioners and the prayerful repose of Roman Catholic nuns -- not to mention the mystical trances brought on by users of peyote and other mind-altering drugs.

At least one gene, which goes by the name VMAT2, controls the flow to the brain of chemicals that play a key role in emotions and consciousness. This is the "God gene" of the book's title, and Hamer acknowledges that it's a misnomer. There probably are dozens or hundreds more genes, yet to be identified, involved in the universal propensity for transcendence, he said.

Furthermore, the scientific linkage of a gene with chemicals that affect happiness or sadness does not answer the question "Is there a God?" but rather "Why do we believe in God?"

"Our genes can predispose us to believe. But they don't tell us what to believe in," said Hamer, whose current research involves HIV/AIDS.

...

Organized religion can become so codified, so caught up with learned rituals, that the focus on spirituality gets lost, Hamer said. The resurgence of Pentecostalism and other emotion-based religions is one sign of the staying power of inherited spirituality, he said.

Megachurches, too, are part of this phenomenon and have widespread appeal because of the emotional aspects of worship, he said. "They have lots of music, video screens, the whole multimedia thing going on," he said. "They're tapping into that [innate spirituality]. It's fun and allows people to get into that spiritual frame of mind."


sounds reasonable to me!

edit: weird... the washington post link doesn't ask you to register if you click from news.google, but it does if you copy and paste it.

here's another site:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...4/11/14/ixnewstop.html
 
If it's hereditary, it would make sense that religious families have that gene, and since a family tends to share the same religious view...
 
Originally posted by: Howard
If it's hereditary, it would make sense that religious families have that gene, and since a family tends to share the same religious view...

:music: Nature verseeeeees nurture :music:
 
I think that if it were a gene, it would be selected to stay in the population, as faith (other than the strap-me-with-C4 kind) offers a host of benefits when coping with life. If anything it might have an influence on a predispostion to look for faith, but I still feel that faith is a personal choice we all make on how we view the world, this is just jumping on the bandwagon that "genes determine everything" this type of research is disturbing in that it attempts to tie biological processes with psychologial behavior, I feel that it might lead to a situation where people will be shifting blame to genes for everything that happens in their lives.
 
Originally posted by: Slappy00
I think that if it were a gene, it would be selected to stay in the population, as faith (other than the strap-me-with-C4 kind) offers a host of benefits when coping with life. If anything it might have an influence on a predispostion to look for faith, but I still feel that faith is a personal choice we all make on how we view the world, this is just jumping on the bandwagon that "genes determine everything" this type of research is disturbing in that it attempts to tie biological processes with psychologial behavior, I feel that it might lead to a situation where people will be shifting blame to genes for everything that happens in their lives.

not sure if you saw it before or after my edits... the wash post article addresses that issue a lot.

it makes intuitive sense if you ask me... his explanation about how the emotions experienced by some people are different totally explains why my religious friends talk about how happy they are in church and i'm just like "ok...".
 
ROFLMAO! What crock of crap and what a crackpot to put forth such an insipid theory. It is interesting to see that some of you teenyboppers buy into it, though. 😛
 
My entire family is very religious. I'm not.

I didn't read the entire article, but I'm just going to say that I think nurture would be more involved than nature.
 
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
ROFLMAO! What crock of crap and what a crackpot to put forth such an insipid theory. It is interesting to see that some of you teenyboppers buy into it, though. 😛

uh, do you have any sort of scientific evidence refuting his hypothesis?
 
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
My entire family is very religious. I'm not.

I didn't read the entire article, but I'm just going to say that I think nurture would be more involved than nature.

DNA does change, but usally has the same feel to it, but you seem to be a special one.
 
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
ROFLMAO! What crock of crap and what a crackpot to put forth such an insipid theory. It is interesting to see that some of you teenyboppers buy into it, though. 😛

uh, do you have any sort of scientific evidence refuting his hypothesis?

:thumbsup:

Well put
 
Originally posted by: gopunk
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A46793-2004Nov12.html

What he found was that the brain chemicals associated with anxiety and other emotions, including joy and sadness, appeared to be in play in the deep meditative states of Zen practitioners and the prayerful repose of Roman Catholic nuns -- not to mention the mystical trances brought on by users of peyote and other mind-altering drugs.

At least one gene, which goes by the name VMAT2, controls the flow to the brain of chemicals that play a key role in emotions and consciousness. This is the "God gene" of the book's title, and Hamer acknowledges that it's a misnomer. There probably are dozens or hundreds more genes, yet to be identified, involved in the universal propensity for transcendence, he said.

Furthermore, the scientific linkage of a gene with chemicals that affect happiness or sadness does not answer the question "Is there a God?" but rather "Why do we believe in God?"

"Our genes can predispose us to believe. But they don't tell us what to believe in," said Hamer, whose current research involves HIV/AIDS.

...

Organized religion can become so codified, so caught up with learned rituals, that the focus on spirituality gets lost, Hamer said. The resurgence of Pentecostalism and other emotion-based religions is one sign of the staying power of inherited spirituality, he said.

Megachurches, too, are part of this phenomenon and have widespread appeal because of the emotional aspects of worship, he said. "They have lots of music, video screens, the whole multimedia thing going on," he said. "They're tapping into that [innate spirituality]. It's fun and allows people to get into that spiritual frame of mind."


sounds reasonable to me!

edit: weird... the washington post link doesn't ask you to register if you click from news.google, but it does if you copy and paste it.

here's another site:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...4/11/14/ixnewstop.html


Yeah, just heard about this from a friend last week...
 
Originally posted by: Gooose
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
My entire family is very religious. I'm not.

I didn't read the entire article, but I'm just going to say that I think nurture would be more involved than nature.

DNA does change, but usally has the same feel to it, but you seem to be a special one.

Assuming this man's theory is correct

"Similarly, genetic makeup urges people to believe in a Creator or find spiritual fulfillment,"

I would say my genome is pretty fscked up.

Though considering that such an untrustable idea (invisible man in the sky made everything) has lasted for millenia, I wouldn't doubt it if it were proven true.
 
I think that this is an unremarkable study. I'd like to see statistics and methodology. Its not my job to refute his claims its HIS job to prove them tell me what scientific journal was this published in? If it wasn't publised in a peer-reviewed journal then ts pure conjecture and rubbish.
 
Back
Top