Is the need for "religion" the result of a genetic mutation?

[mystic64]

Do you guys think that there might be a possibility that the need for religion is the result of a genetic mutation? If it is should we be concerned?

 

[Quintessence]

Species evolve due to changes in gene frequency within populations. One mechanism that changes gene frequency is mutation, and there is zero doubt in my mind that mutation has played some role in the evolution of modern humans. As such, human religiosity must have been influenced by mutations in some way. Of course, human religiosity also must have been influenced by all the other evolutionary mechanisms (e.g., genetic drift, mate choice, fitness, etc.), so this isn't really saying much of significance, and definitely is no grounds for concern.

 

[Augustus]

The need for myths to make meaning of existence is the defining character of humans re other animals, and we also evolved to see agency in our surroundings

We needed something to bind us together into groups larger than our immediate genetic family and to encourage people to act altruistically for the greater good of those who are not our immediate kin.

Societies that did this well thrived, and religion was by far the most successful.

Religious type beliefs seem to have performed this task better than others.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The need for myths to make meaning of existence is the defining character of humans re other animals, and we also evolved to see agency in our surroundings

We needed something to bind us together into groups larger than our immediate genetic family and to encourage people to act altruistically for the greater good of those who are not our immediate kin.

Societies that did this well thrived, and religion was by far the most successful.

Religious type beliefs seem to have performed this task better than others.

I generally agree, but I don't see how we could test it or identify genes that specifically caused "religious type beliefs."

 

[Laika]

No. Religion is not down to Genetics. I generally treat anything that says genetics affect behaviour as junk science. This is mainly because it is a politically loaded and ideological way of saying, that inspite of tens of thousands of years of human biological and social evolution, "we're not going to change". Whilst philosophically this sort of arguement is very widespread so far as I know the actual mechanism by which a genetic variation could affect behaviour hasn't really been studied and people are just trying to find a correlation.
it goes back to the belief in "innate ideas" and the soul, when so far as neuroscience is concerned, we are probably a "tablu rasa" or blank slate. That is not the same as saying that the emotional content of religion is not psychologically universal. You coukld probably find a genetic relationship to certian emotional states, certian psychological needs- but the faculty of language and therefore of thought and belief is not innate. I would feel comfortable with someone saying the need for structured patterns of beliefs is more universal feature of human psychology is more plausible but it doesn't necessarily have to be religious. But I don't find it credible that the genetic code, through physological, neurological and psychological processes and then to specific words, behaviours, beliefs, rituals and practices could predetermine that we are "religious".

 

[mystic64]

No. Religion is not down to Genetics. I generally treat anything that says genetics affect behaviour as junk science. This is mainly because it is a politically loaded and ideological way of saying, that inspite of tens of thousands of years of human biological and social evolution, "we're not going to change". Whilst philosophically this sort of arguement is very widespread so far as I know the actual mechanism by which a genetic variation could affect behaviour hasn't really been studied and people are just trying to find a correlation.
it goes back to the belief in "innate ideas" and the soul, when so far as neuroscience is concerned, we are probably a "tablu rasa" or blank slate. That is not the same as saying that the emotional content of religion is not psychologically universal. You coukld probably find a genetic relationship to certian emotional states, certian psychological needs- but the faculty of language and therefore of thought and belief is not innate. I would feel comfortable with someone saying the need for structured patterns of beliefs is more universal feature of human psychology is more plausible but it doesn't necessarily have to be religious. But I don't find it credible that the genetic code, through physological, neurological and psychological processes and then to specific words, behaviours, beliefs, rituals and practices could predetermine that we are "religious".

First I would like thank you guys for posting in this topic. And lets face it most folks do not have any kind of a background in genetics so this topic would be stepping them in over their heads from the beginning.

Well humm? Laika you indicate that your religion is science, mine sort of is also . The reason that I asked the question of this topic is because genetic science is finding a relationship between certain genes and habitual criminal behavior. Originally everybody thought that it was caused by flaws in personality programming and social pressure. But genetic science is beginning to say that there is a link between certain genes and the inclination toward habitual criminal behavior. I have been inclined toward religion since I was five years old and I grew up in a family that was not religious and the churches that I went to durring my life were more into the threat and punishment of not believing than they were a loving relationship with the loving divine. So I was never happy with them and though I am religious I do not go to any church. I have also been inclined toward science my whole life and the relationship between religion and science has been an interest to me for most of my life. So me being religiously inclined would seem to be genetic and not personality programming or social pressure. In fact I have spent most of my life battling the conflict between my inclination toward religion and my personality programming. And probably my genetic inclination toward being a disruptive individual .

So what is religiously inclined? There is something out there that is really big and one is inclined to want to find a way to get along with that something. Genetically speaking I was born extremely empathic (the ability to feel the emotions and surface thoughts of other living things). Because of this ability I am aware of the existance of a profoundly powerful force that has a conscious mind.

From there we have religion as a direct experience (because of genetics) and we have religion as the result of personality programming and social pressure (which could also have a genetic bearing in some way). The second part of the OP question is "Should we be concerned?" Well as far as I am concerned anything that has to do with genetics and genetic manipulation we should be concerned about. The reason for this is that humankind is going to be able to play God with the science of genetics. And those in science, for the most part, that are studing the manipulation of genetics do not carry the genetics for empathy and thus the direct religious experience. A world filled with people like you and no people like me. Pure physical science only. Or a genetic line of extremely empathic folks and no place for normal folks to hide. Junk science? Humm, maybe not.

 

[Laika]

First I would like thank you guys for posting in this topic. And lets face it most folks do not have any kind of a background in genetics so this topic would be stepping them in over their heads from the beginning.

Well humm? Laika you indicate that your religion is science, mine sort of is also . The reason that I asked the question of this topic is because genetic science is finding a relationship between certain genes and habitual criminal behavior. Originally everybody thought that it was caused by flaws in personality programming and social pressure. But genetic science is beginning to say that there is a link between certain genes and the inclination toward habitual criminal behavior. I have been inclined toward religion since I was five years old and I grew up in a family that was not religious and the churches that I went to durring my life were more into the threat and punishment of not believing than they were a loving relationship with the loving divine. So I was never happy with them and though I am religious I do not go to any church. I have also been inclined toward science my whole life and the relationship between religion and science has been an interest to me for most of my life. So me being religiously inclined would seem to be genetic and not personality programming or social pressure. In fact I have spent most of my life battling the conflict between my inclination toward religion and my personality programming. And probably my genetic inclination toward being a disruptive individual .

So what is religiously inclined? There is something out there that is really big and one is inclined to want to find a way to get along with that something. Genetically speaking I was born extremely empathic (the ability to feel the emotions and surface thoughts of other living things). Because of this ability I am aware of the existance of a profoundly powerful force that has a conscious mind.

From there we have religion as a direct experience (because of genetics) and we have religion as the result of personality programming and social pressure (which could also have a genetic bearing in some way). The second part of the OP question is "Should we be concerned?" Well as far as I am concerned anything that has to do with genetics and genetic manipulation we should be concerned about. The reason for this is that humankind is going to be able to play God with the science of genetics. And those in science, for the most part, that are studing the manipulation of genetics do not carry the genetics for empathy and thus the direct religious experience. A world filled with people like you and no people like me. Pure physical science only. Or a genetic line of extremely empathic folks and no place for normal folks to hide. Junk science? Humm, maybe not.

Without a clear mechanism by which genetics influence behaviour I will treat it with sceptism. the precedent of eugenics and scientific racism, as well as how science often reflects dominant moral beliefs comes to mind, so for me correlation is not causation. it is admittedly a bias as well. speaking from the otherside of the coin, as an athiest, I have no doubts that many of our emotional and psychological needs can be satisfied with religious belief. it is however not unique to religion, or a theistic system of beliefs. Athiests can and do have profound experiences of finding meaning in life, the response to death and in needing to structure their lives. whilst certian psychological needs probably have some genetic basis, it does not necessarily follow that the beliefs involved have to be based on the existence of a god or even the supernatural. In all probability it is a combination of "nature" and "nurture" and there will be limits to how far a person's beliefs can change, (e.g. even "time" is a constraint in this sense as no-one switches beliefs overnight.)

But you're right. we probably are going to be able to play god with genetics, so we may find out the answer to this question soon enough.

p.s. this link might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The need for myths to make meaning of existence is the defining character of humans re other animals, and we also evolved to see agency in our surroundings

We needed something to bind us together into groups larger than our immediate genetic family and to encourage people to act altruistically for the greater good of those who are not our immediate kin.

Societies that did this well thrived, and religion was by far the most successful.

Religious type beliefs seem to have performed this task better than others.

deducing agency is the defining character of humans, as it is the defining character of humans to use their unique intelligence and abstract problem solving to deduce many things animals can't.

animals are technically atheists are they not?

 

[Augustus]

deducing agency is the defining character of humans, as it is the defining character of humans to use their unique intelligence and abstract problem solving to deduce many things animals can't.

Animals can deduce agency. A cat starts being really affectionate when it wants food, after it's eaten it can go back to ignoring you.

Animals can also solve problems and use tools.

I still say myths are the defining characteristic of being human.

animals are technically atheists are they not?

This brings back the nightmare of the atheist definitions threads from a few months ago

Long story short, animals are not atheists and neither are rocks.

 

[outhouse]

Do you guys think that there might be a possibility that the need for religion is the result of a genetic mutation? If it is should we be concerned?

No, not at all.

You have dynamic elements involved. Since religion is lived, it has adopted most aspect of ones life if one lets it.

You parental love, and wanting to live for ever to top it off. You had to explain natural events you had no idea how they worked. So god did earthquakes and volcanos breeding and rain. ect ect

 

[MARCELLO]

It is not the need that I am craving for religion. It is the need of connection to God. I want to be friends with the Lord.

 

[Parsimony]

Everything about our behavior has some basis in genetics (like the need to breathe, eat, sleep and so on). Our brains are composed of material transcribed from our genes, after all. Environment can change the way that genes are expressed and the way that the brain develops, but genetic instructions are still a necessary starting point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Animals can deduce agency. A cat starts being really affectionate when it wants food, after it's eaten it can go back to ignoring you.

Animals can also solve problems and use tools.

I still say myths are the defining characteristic of being human.



This brings back the nightmare of the atheist definitions threads from a few months ago

Long story short, animals are not atheists and neither are rocks.

That's Interaction, learned response, not agency in design. A cat cannot discern whether that treat you give it is designed or natural, neither can a young child. That takes more developed powers of critical thought.

Certainly this ability can lead us astray in a big way, as it did with static, eternal, steady state universes, Big Crunch, classical physics.
Especially where we seek to end investigation at the simplest conclusion in order to make God redundant.

Do you think it was complete coincidence that Planck and Lemaitre were notable skeptics of atheism?

Although anytime I mention being skeptical of atheism, I am scolded by being told that atheism is 'simply a lack of belief in God'- which applies perfectly to a rock does it not?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

animals are technically atheists are they not?

The intelligent ones are.

 

[HonestJoe]

Do you guys think that there might be a possibility that the need for religion is the result of a genetic mutation? If it is should we be concerned?

We don’t have a “need” for religion - loads of people get along without it just fine (and some might do better without it). Our development of religion and other similar social structures will be influenced somewhat by our overall genetic mae-up but not “a mutation” in the way I suspect you’re thinking.

 

[outhouse]

which applies perfectly to a rock does it not?

Only if you take the definition out of context often due to desperation, bias and or hate.

 

[outhouse]

Although anytime I mention being skeptical of atheism

Well every time you mention this, your are admitting you have no tolerance for others lives.

Why would you be skeptical because others think different then you?

Why be skeptical of education and academia?


It looks like your own faith is so desperate, you must attack others personal opinions. YOU often attack science and academia and knowledge, are you afraid your faith is on shaky ground because of self imposed definitions you placed on the concepts?


After all it is you who cannot support your faith in theism with any credible evidence.

 

[mystic64]

Well every time you mention this, your are admitting you have no tolerance for others lives.

Why would you be skeptical because others think different then you?

Why be skeptical of education and academia?


It looks like your own faith is so desperate, you must attack others personal opinions. YOU often attack science and academia and knowledge, are you afraid your faith is on shaky ground because of self imposed definitions you placed on the concepts?


After all it is you who cannot support your faith in theism with any credible evidence.

Outhouse mate , Both theism and atheism are beliefs, there is no true evidence for either one of those beliefs. The best a truly rational person can be, if they even contemplate about it, is agnostic. Outhouse there is no difference between you and the person that you are attempting to criticize.

 

[mystic64]

Without a clear mechanism by which genetics influence behaviour I will treat it with sceptism. the precedent of eugenics and scientific racism, as well as how science often reflects dominant moral beliefs comes to mind, so for me correlation is not causation. it is admittedly a bias as well. speaking from the otherside of the coin, as an athiest, I have no doubts that many of our emotional and psychological needs can be satisfied with religious belief. it is however not unique to religion, or a theistic system of beliefs. Athiests can and do have profound experiences of finding meaning in life, the response to death and in needing to structure their lives. whilst certian psychological needs probably have some genetic basis, it does not necessarily follow that the beliefs involved have to be based on the existence of a god or even the supernatural. In all probability it is a combination of "nature" and "nurture" and there will be limits to how far a person's beliefs can change, (e.g. even "time" is a constraint in this sense as no-one switches beliefs overnight.)

But you're right. we probably are going to be able to play god with genetics, so we may find out the answer to this question soon enough.

p.s. this link might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Wikipedia
The God Gene:
The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.
The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level.

Laika , "Too cool!" I am using the same argument and I didn't even know abut the God Gene Hypothesis. And they even have a location for it! Just for the record I like interacting with you because you keep me reality oriented . Humm? "Favored by natural selection" is an interesting concept. And having the God Gene doesn't atually prove that God or the gods are real, it just leads to a higher survival potiential because of the more positive mind state that is creates in one. In my case it hasn't created a more positive mind state because of my crumby personality programming. But because of it there does seem to be other minds out there that are not of this world that one can interact with. And some of those minds are way older than we are and they carry way more knowledge than we do. The problem is that they do not think like we do, so interacting with them requires a learning curve. Proof? The problem is that the average folk, and a bunch of other folk , would be very upset if one proved it. Atheists argue that there is not such a thing as miracles or majic so therefore there is not such a thing as God (the profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind) or the other relatively big lesser entities. And their argument is right because there is no such thing as majic or miracles, everything is physics and obeys physical laws. It is just that today's science hasn't discovered and understood those laws yet. And because of that the Earth is still flat and the Sun still rotates around the Earth, so to speak .

"Should we be concerned?" So Laika, what is going to happen when Homo superior (those carrying the God gene and the gene groups that make it functional) attempts to live with Homo sapian? So far that would be non functional, because those that are religious but not carrying the God gene would string them up .

 

[Laika]

Laika , "Too cool!" I am using the same argument and I didn't even know abut the God Gene Hypothesis. And they even have a location for it! Just for the record I like interacting with you because you keep me reality oriented .

lol. thanks.

Humm? "Favored by natural selection" is an interesting concept. And having the God Gene doesn't atually prove that God or the gods are real, it just leads to a higher survival potiential because of the more positive mind state that is creates in one. In my case it hasn't created a more positive mind state because of my crumby personality programming. But because of it there does seem to be other minds out there that are not of this world that one can interact with. And some of those minds are way older than we are and they carry way more knowledge than we do. The problem is that they do not think like we do, so interacting with them requires a learning curve. Proof? The problem is that the average folk, and a bunch of other folk , would be very upset if one proved it. Atheists argue that there is not such a thing as miracles or majic so therefore there is not such a thing as God (the profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind) or the other relatively big lesser entities. And their argument is right because there is no such thing as majic or miracles, everything is physics and obeys physical laws. It is just that today's science hasn't discovered and understood those laws yet. And because of that the Earth is still flat and the Sun still rotates around the Earth, so to speak .

This depends on the definition of atheism. "weak atheism" is only lack of belief in god's existence. So both God, magic and miracles are accepted as possible (although it is really unlikely that you'd be able to convince someone phenemona "X" is actually proof of that. "strong atheism" is 'there is no god' and relies on assuming that nature is uniformly governed by the same set of laws (so no magic or miracles and no god required).

the counter-argument obviously is that religion can imply blind faith and therefore may act as a hindrance because a person does not react to their environment based on their experiences. e.g. An insistence on absolute ethics, such as pacifism or sexual abstinance, doesn't increase the chances of survival and therefore passing on the genes. You could argue that insisting on hetrosexual sex does increase the chances that such Genes get passed on, irrespective of the actual feelings of the person involved [though thats unimaginably cruel way of looking at it].

There is a more general argument against "natural selection" within a human population, because society is based on co-operation rather than competition. People do not simply adapt to their environment, but adapt their environment by making tools. e.g shifting from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture as a way of producing food. I'd say therefore that the process of "natural selection" is therefore quite weak on human populations because of it, or operates differently.

"Should we be concerned?" So Laika, what is going to happen when Homo superior (those carrying the God gene and the gene groups that make it functional) attempts to live with Homo sapian? So far that would be non functional, because those that are religious but not carrying the God gene would string them up .

I got this covered. A bit of science fiction helps here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthuman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism