Humans genetically predisposed to be religious?

[Stiofán]

...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 1970s 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. 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.

Interesting piece. Maybe we can't help this religious thing.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211985_kristof15.html

[Violet1966]

God gene my butt. I'd think it could be genetic predisposition toward addiction which makes people religious.

[Stiofán]

I don't know about that correlation. Nobody in my family has an addictive personality and we all are somewhat religious. And I know plenty of non-religious people who have their little addictions to caffeine, alcohol, smokes or drugs, I don't see it making a difference one way or the other.

[Coot]

Can we then assume that folks lacking in the VMAT2 gene are more evolved? :P

[Stiofán]

Can we then assume that folks lacking in the VMAT2 gene are more evolved? :P

No. Leon, Steve M. and Shiny tried that argument with hair. I rest my case.

[RetFireCapt]

...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.

The closeness of the recent election was hardly a mandate for this dude's yack.

[ethics]

The gene is not about instinct, nor is this unique to humans. It has nothing to do with human genes and everything to do with how animals are predisposed to superstition and by this I mean to weigh the variables of risk vs. reward.

In Vyse's book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195136349/qid=1108438146/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4276723-7363320?v=glance&s=books">Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition</a> he clearly states how animals, from pigeons to College Students acquire superstitions and cling on to them.

Although we live in a technologically advanced society, superstition is as widespread as it has ever been. Far from limited to athletes and actors, superstitious beliefs are common among people of all occupations and every educational and income level. Here, Stuart Vyse investigates our proclivity towards these irrational beliefs. Superstitions, he writes, are the natural result of several well-understood psychological processes, including our human sensitivity to coincidence, a penchant for developing rituals to fill time (to battle nerves, impatience, or both), our efforts to cope with uncertainty, the need for control, and more. Vyse examines current behavioral research to demonstrate how complex and paradoxical human behavior can be understood through scientific investigation, while he addresses the personality features associated with superstition and the roles of superstitious beliefs in actions. Although superstition is a normal part of human culture, Vyse argues that we must provide alternative methods of coping with life's uncertainties by teaching decision analysis, promoting science education, and challenging ourselves to critically evaluate the sources of our beliefs.

[Stiofán]

True, if you believe in Vyse's theory as fact. I have no idea which one, if either theory, is correct. They do seem at odds.

[ethics]

True, if you believe in Vyse's theory as fact. I have no idea which one, if either theory, is correct. They do seem at odds.


It's really not Vyse's theory but precedes him and the research done prior. For example, they did an experiment with pigeons where at random, they would drop seeds. Then they started doing just a little dropping of seeds when the Pigeon pecked. Then random again. Know what happened? The poor bastards were just pecking the crap out of the experimental equipment because the risk was too low for the reward.

They did the same type of a test of mice, dogs, chimps, and eventually college students. About five years ago a brother-sister Israelis were the first to go against the common theory of <i>Gazelle Jumping.</i> The common sense used to dictate that at a sight of a predator the Gazelles would jump up and down on the same spot to alert their herd. This was nonsense and proved wrong when it was found out that the Gazelles were posturing. Unlike the man about to get in to a fight, the Gazelle would show the predator, "don't wast your energy on me, I am healthy, see?" Keep in mind the Gazelle here is utilizing its OWN energy at the hope that the predator does NOT waste time on them.

With college students instead of reward they used punishment, whereas a student would get a shock intermittently and some started behaving in a pattern. This was done over and over again, creating a theory so strong that it's part of the psychological fact.

Religion stems heavily from the same behavior as superstition. What type of a risk am I taking (not much except devoting some time towards Bible), what's the reward (eternal heaven)? Is the reward favorable with the risk introduced? That's basically human nature in a very primitive form. But it's much more than superstition OR available science. People don't pray for others in order to gain something for themselves. They put all of their souls in to the prayer for others, all of their strength and wanting. That's one aspect that no one can explain today.

I also don't appreciate science (or scientific writing) throwing the politics of red vs. blue states and its inhabitants. I can do a similar write up about how atheists are soulless, cold hearted, immortal people who hide behind good will under the guise of altruism, but I know better than that.

[Coot]

People don't pray for others in order to gain something for themselves. They put all of their souls in to the prayer for others, all of their strength and wanting. That's one aspect that no one can explain today.

I think an arguable case can be made that it's an aberration. Some people pray like that, most don't and the more honest don't even feign the motions.

[Steve]

It's been my experience that the truly devout do, indeed, pray in that fashion. There are plenty of hypocrites emulating them, but that doesn't make the practices of the devout any less selfless.

I was reading Stiofans's post, attempting to place this "theory" into the context of evolutionary theory: what's the reproductive advantage? How would a "religion gene" positively affect the survival rate of the species?

I'm not sure I see the connection, although Leon's explication of other research does address that issue, to some extent. I'm left wondering, though, why more highly-developed animals, such as chimps and bonobos, don't exhibit more ritualized behavior if they are, indeed, capable of "religious" behavior stemming from the situations described by Leon's quote.

[Piobaireachd]

Praying takes many forms. Not everyone does the "on your knees with hands together" schtick.

I'm not particularly religious, and definitely not a fan of organized religion or churches, but I believe I carry on a daily dialog with someone or something bigger or greater than myself.

Addictions? Yup, got a bunch of them.

Once again, I think religion or spirituality is something that science is never going to figure out.

[Steve]

I wasn't referring to the "form" of prayer; I was referring to the intent and purpose.

[Stiofán]

I was reading Stiofans's post, attempting to place this "theory" into the context of evolutionary theory: what's the reproductive advantage? How would a "religion gene" positively affect the survival rate of the species?


From the limited info presented in the article, I gather the advantage was these:

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 also have 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.

Sketchy yes, but without reading the book mentioned it's all I have to go on.

[Steve]

It's an intriguing hypothesis. Science still does not understand the origin and "seat" of consciousness. Electrochemical activity of evolved neurons and brain cells is certainly a large part of it but, really, that we know so little of how the human mind and consciousness work is very humbling.

[Sacchiridites]

Dean Hamer also tried to prove a gay gene factor according to 'Scientific American' (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AD4E7-6290-1150-902F83414B7F4945&sc=I100322) I do not believe in a 'god' gene. I do believe a 'religious' experience could be feigned with electrical/chemical stimulation or deprivation. But I don't think that's the only origin of spiritual connections and experiences.

[ethics]

Dean Hamer also tried to prove a gay gene factor according to 'Scientific American' (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AD4E7-6290-1150-902F83414B7F4945&sc=I100322) I do not believe in a 'god' gene. I do believe a 'religious' experience could be feigned with electrical/chemical stimulation or deprivation. But I don't think that's the only origin of spiritual connections and experiences.


Hmmm, this is an angle I didn't even consider. Thanks for the additional info.

[Stiofán]

A study on twins is saying that there is a 40% genetic component to religion.

The team gave questionnaires to 169 pairs of identical twins - 100% genetically identical - and 104 pairs of fraternal twins - 50% genetically identical - born in Minnesota.

The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings. This was compared with when they were growing up and living with their families. Then, each participant answered the same questions regarding their mother, father, and their twin.

The twins believed that when they were younger, all of their family members - including themselves - shared similar religious behaviour. But in adulthood, however, only the identical twins reported maintaining that similarity. In contrast, fraternal twins were about a third less similar than they were as children.

"That would suggest genetic factors are becoming more important and growing up together less important," says team member Matt McGue, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147