In 2005, Dean Hamer's The God Gene became a bestseller and made the cover of Time Magazine. Some posts on this site seem to accept the thesis that God has a genetic basis, i.e., that humans have a genetic predisposition to believe in God.Do you think it's true?
Not exactly. I don't think it likely that a single gene can account for something as specific as belief in God. In fairness to Hamer, the title of his book was probably his pubisher's doing, and doesn't accurately fit his findings. He actually found a relationship between the genetic marker VMAT2 (affecting monoamine levels in the brain) and a sense of "self-transcendene", which seems better to describe a sense of spirituality than belief in god(s). "Self transcendance" is as consistent with environmentalism or a belief in Bigfoot as it is belief in god(s). And the relationship is pretty small: less than !% of the variance in self-transcendance scores. There seem to be at least two problems with the thesis, as stated: (1) religion in its earliest forms were more about spirits than gods, and in the case of classical Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, don't involve deities at all; and (2) religion from the stone age to the present seems to have been a social phenomenon, in which ritual, norms and the influence of social and political opinion leaders shaped the particulars of belief. It does seem likely to me that our genetic inheritance can lead to various cognitive and neurobiological traits that can strongly predispose us to beliefs that can serve as the foundation for belief in God. Anthropologists like Boyer and Atram attribute religion to the pattern-seeking and intent attributing tendenceies in human perception. Dawkins thinks that the our tendency to believe what we are told by parents and other trusted authorities is also involved. Both have survival value in human evolution. Add to that the role of elders, shamans, and priests--and later the legitimacy needs of kings--in shaping comntent, and we're off and running. What do the rest of you think?
We have a genetic predisposition in the sense that we are born helpless and at the mercy of nature. In other words, if there is no God nature fills the role quite nicely and the rest may be nothing more than splitting semantic hairs.
Sure, there's a spiritual component. The spiritual component is central. But what is that? I think Hamer's sense of self transcendance is a rough approximation: a sense of connection with forces beyond physical reality. A more important question is is there a divine component? Is our sense of the divine "nothing but" a product of genetic and social influences, or is there "something more"?
So is a divine component the innate nature of things and objects about us? They do have a bearing on our mental conscience for progressing and being part of Progress, or Not. THus this is evolving as it were our morals. "Genes" that way are the meaning of Evolution. On the other hand, is evolution something materially separate for All Life?
Adam and Eve are personifications of chemical and electricity (basic building blocks of life). God is a word.
I doubt that's what the Israelites had in mind. We are, inter alia, personifications of chemicals and electricity, but I think we're more than that, and God is more than a word. Your post is a classic illustration of extreme reductionism--the fallacy of "nothing but", and the impoverished understanding of reality that it represents. Water, as we know, consists of hydrogen and oxygen, but an understanding of the constituent parts can't give us an adequate appreciation of the whole. Where humans are concerned, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and where God is concerned, the "word" is a name for the ineffable. Adam, in the Genesis story, was the prototypical man, and Eve the prototypical woman. They are in paradise, but can't get their minds off what they don't have--the forbidden fruit--and are easily manipulated into losing everything in pursuit of this desire. How human! Reducing them to chemicals and electrons misses the point.
It would be interesting to devise a test concerning your question. An equal number of theists, atheists and agnostics would/ could take it and then correlate the results with --maybe DNA tests, parents having faith or not, school grades, job destinations, physical prowess, tolerance for others --etc--etc. It probably would be instructive if it lasted for years and involved thousands of people. Or it might just turn out to be one of those things that don't mean much. There have been studies that lasted for years. I know there was one I read about(or saw somewhere--maybe Public TV) in the UK, I think, that followed some children through their teens and on up into adulthood and how they turned out.
I wonder if most Christians would have the gene. I have my ecstatic tendencies, a trait that I share with charismatics. But the average churchgoer, it seems to me, is often into a routine. How many people are Christians because they were brought up that way? How many carry their enthusiasm beyond one day a week? I think it's more likely that most of us are Christian because we were raised that way and/or grew up in a nominally Christian culture. Acceptance of things we're told by trusted authority figures may be genetically based, but it's not the gene Hamer was dealing with. The theory of the God gene caused an initial stir because it seemed to support the idea that belief in God had a biological and evolutionary basis, instead of a sociological one. But that would mean most humans would have the gene. So far, there's no evidence of that.
I wonder if there is a God gene in me interpreting these developments as ecologically connected to the contradictions of Capitalism. There are explanations for God being the same at the beginning of evolution as at the end of it, per becoming Man.
No, it isn't "reductionism". They're starting points. In order to understand God, one must start with the ultimate basic: God is a word John 1:1 1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. See that? The Word was God (because God is a Word). Christ became, and is called, "the Word in the flesh" which means He had authority to speak (command), and it was done. Ever hear, "the truth is hidden in plain sight" ? That truth is: words. Letter and Number are both languages, but it is the word that shapes and creates the world. Consider the languages of Law and Science and Scripture: none of them are without words, but they are each distinct languages. Even poetry and music lyrics are distinct languages. In regards to "the garden": Apparently, in the garden, "Adam and Eve" created life (became parents) and in doing so, their eyes were opened, where good and evil became apparent, and they were then knowing. And yes, there is a certain death when man and woman become a parent for the first time. The person they were has "died" and a new person is born, in them, being now "father" and "mother", in having become the creator of another life (the fruit, their child). Now, remove the personifications and realize that: chemical and electricity are the basic building blocks of life. Even a hurricane or tornado starts with the conception of a single cell, and becomes a hurricane and becomes a tornado. More about "the garden", original sin is to create life. Parents have become like gods, and it is known that children do see their parents as like gods, until the first awakening (which is kindergarten age). In the garden (of kindergarten), children become aware that their parents are not all-knowing and not all-powerful (and thereby, are not God Most High). Letters are symbols, right? And God is the "alpha" AND "omega". From wiki: The term Alpha and Omega comes from the phrase "I am the alpha and the omega" (Koiné Greek: "ἐγὼ τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω"). Funny language. That brings us to genetic code (which is a distinct language). That God IS Word (in the least of all that can be said about God -- remember, it is a starting point) one would have to conclude that GOD most certainly IS in the genetic code (because of it's elements; letters, language), if it isn't the genetic code itself (in addition to the Periodic Table of Elements). The better question is: which language (of the multitude languages) is the purest form of God? The correct answer is: Scripture. The next best question is: has the genetic code of language been found.
P.S. I'll give a head-start in the next segment of Life: Cain and Abel The anagrams (anagrams don't lie) of Cain and Abel are: I can and able. Some people have disabled minds and disabled bodies. There are those who CAN do certain things that others can't. Human jealousy and competition spills a whole lot of blood... lmao, chemical imbalance! chemical imbalance!! Somebody, arrest Adam the Mad Man of Mars... he's outta control! Poor Eve (electricity), brain zaps really drive people wild. lmao
How do you tell if there's a God gene if you haven't defined what God is? I think it's evident that there is something in our genetics that gives us an idea of perfection, however unobtainable. Everyone seems to have some innate idea of perfection, which could be said to be the same thing as a God gene.
i would say no. at least not in a literal sense. there may be several kinds of things that might be considered gods, but i don't believe any to be of physical origin.
Genetically predispositioned, basically yes. I think it's quite possible that the tendency to believe in God/spirituality/religion has been selectively bred into the masses for hundreds of thousands of years. I also think this trait is strongest in people of Middle Eastern and African heritage.
yes . this you may know as the language you are born with . most often parents will forbid this way of language and demand the child adopt a social language like english . it may survive in art , perhaps in a relgion , and of course you may consult the children who are able to keep it , speak it - and with the most honesty and clarity . listen . it is in the world . it is beyond confusion .
this is an interesting thought. as an infant i studied the sounds made by humans around me before attempting to emulate them. i put a great deal of effort into analizing them because i could observe how much power they gave people. i also made sounds for the shere enjoyment of making them. this was not actually an attempt to communicate, though it may have been immatative of language to a degree. i have never needed words to visualize. only to attempt to communicate ideas verbally.
