Why Religion?

[Copernicus]

...
It is obvious that we are born with different cognitive abilities, yet do those genetically inherited abilities make a difference when it comes to the acquisition and maintenance of religious faith?

You are saying we're different but still all the same. Alright then.

That isn't even remotely what I said, but nice try.

You've said exactly that just not using the same words. It's as if you think the brain isn't something physical like the rest of the body, that it's some kind of magic organ that determines its own path. If you've ever coached kids you know that kids vary tremendously in their physical abilities. Why exactly do you think the brains in those kids are any different? Some will have a natural gift for math and languages or something else. Some will have difficulties concentrating. You maintain that all these differences are primarily external to the brain. Are you afraid of the truth?

No, that was purely you trying to put words in my mouth to change what I actually have been saying, and I don't understand why you are doing that. Surely, you have been reading my posts, haven't you? I've been very clear that the brain is a physical object, that minds are the product of physical brain activity, and that cognitive development is influenced by genetic predispositions. I have never maintained that "all of these differences are primarily external to the brain". Never. Not once in any post. What I have been very careful to maintain is that we cannot attribute general behaviors, attitudes, and belief systems to a genetic predisposition without some reasonable evidence to support such a conclusion. It strikes me as particularly unlikely that a propensity for deep religious faith is attributable to genetic inheritance, but I'm willing to consider evidence to the contrary.

 

[Copernicus]

Nobody is denying that there are genetic predispositions. That's how evolution works. It selects for the predispositions that lead to more offspring over the long run. However, it is still an unwarranted leap to go from the observation of different behaviors to the conclusion that those behaviors were entirely or partially because of genetic predispositions. To validate an empirical claim of that sort, one needs to have confirmable evidence.

If religious faith is a genetic predisposition in humans, then why has secularism spread so widely throughout Europe and North America in just a few generations? A rapidly spreading genetic change? One can go to absurd lengths to try to attribute behavior to genetic predispositions, and it has never worked out well in the past when people have let their imaginations run in that direction. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are plenty of good environmental conditions that promote the spread of religious faith. I think that the Darwinian apostle, Richard Dawkins, was closer to the mark when he suggested that the propensity for faith in God had more to do with an evolutionary misfire than a God gene.

Likewise nobody is arguing that ipso facto religious belief is a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition is what makes some people likely to take up religious belief. Those aren't the same statements. Genetics aren't destiny with regards to beliefs. On that we seem to be on the same page. You keep asking me for evidence of this and I've pointed you to Google Scholar where that evidence is.

I'm quite happy to address arguments or evidence that you use here, but I'm not going to go off on a general Google Scholar expedition to prove your conclusions. Please--no homework assignments. If you think I've missed your point or some evidence that I haven't already addressed, then it might be a good idea just to remind me of it.

Moreover, if you are claiming that a genetic predisposition "is what makes people likely to take up a religious belief", then you need to support your claim with something specific. Otherwise, it just sounds like an unsupported conjecture on your part. There are other possible explanations, including the fact that people usually learn about religion from exposure to family and society. I can think of no good reason to exclude the possibility that the same general cognitive properties leading people to religious faith are the ones leading them to reject it. If religion has anything directly to do with a propensity for religion, then there should be some good empirical argument to support that conclusion.

To go along with the 'brains are the same' analogy, it is very likely that many of us have a propensity for religiosity, but it exists in varying degrees. Some are easily swayed by ridiculous Christian arguments while others are more savvy but still give undue reverence to something like science. The pattern is similar but exists at different degrees.

Why does that strike you as "very likely"??? I think I've addressed all of the arguments you've made on this subject before, although you seem to think I haven't. When asked for specifics, you direct me to go looking for evidence with Google Scholar, under the assumption that what you have read somewhere on the internet will be equally convincing to me. I don't think that I carry the burden of disproving your speculation regarding a genetic predisposition to adopt religion.

 

[rousseau]

Nobody is denying that there are genetic predispositions. That's how evolution works. It selects for the predispositions that lead to more offspring over the long run. However, it is still an unwarranted leap to go from the observation of different behaviors to the conclusion that those behaviors were entirely or partially because of genetic predispositions. To validate an empirical claim of that sort, one needs to have confirmable evidence.

If religious faith is a genetic predisposition in humans, then why has secularism spread so widely throughout Europe and North America in just a few generations? A rapidly spreading genetic change? One can go to absurd lengths to try to attribute behavior to genetic predispositions, and it has never worked out well in the past when people have let their imaginations run in that direction. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are plenty of good environmental conditions that promote the spread of religious faith. I think that the Darwinian apostle, Richard Dawkins, was closer to the mark when he suggested that the propensity for faith in God had more to do with an evolutionary misfire than a God gene.

Likewise nobody is arguing that ipso facto religious belief is a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition is what makes some people likely to take up religious belief. Those aren't the same statements. Genetics aren't destiny with regards to beliefs. On that we seem to be on the same page. You keep asking me for evidence of this and I've pointed you to Google Scholar where that evidence is.

I'm quite happy to address arguments or evidence that you use here, but I'm not going to go off on a general Google Scholar expedition to prove your conclusions. Please--no homework assignments. If you think I've missed your point or some evidence that I haven't already addressed, then it might be a good idea just to remind me of it.

Moreover, if you are claiming that a genetic predisposition "is what makes people likely to take up a religious belief", then you need to support your claim with something specific. Otherwise, it just sounds like an unsupported conjecture on your part. There are other possible explanations, including the fact that people usually learn about religion from exposure to family and society. I can think of no good reason to exclude the possibility that the same general cognitive properties leading people to religious faith are the ones leading them to reject it. If religion has anything directly to do with a propensity for religion, then there should be some good empirical argument to support that conclusion.

To go along with the 'brains are the same' analogy, it is very likely that many of us have a propensity for religiosity, but it exists in varying degrees. Some are easily swayed by ridiculous Christian arguments while others are more savvy but still give undue reverence to something like science. The pattern is similar but exists at different degrees.

Why does that strike you as "very likely"??? I think I've addressed all of the arguments you've made on this subject before, although you seem to think I haven't. When asked for specifics, you direct me to go looking for evidence with Google Scholar, under the assumption that what you have read somewhere on the internet will be equally convincing to me. I don't think that I carry the burden of disproving your speculation regarding a genetic predisposition to adopt religion.

The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

 

[Copernicus]

Nobody is denying that there are genetic predispositions. That's how evolution works. It selects for the predispositions that lead to more offspring over the long run. However, it is still an unwarranted leap to go from the observation of different behaviors to the conclusion that those behaviors were entirely or partially because of genetic predispositions. To validate an empirical claim of that sort, one needs to have confirmable evidence.

If religious faith is a genetic predisposition in humans, then why has secularism spread so widely throughout Europe and North America in just a few generations? A rapidly spreading genetic change? One can go to absurd lengths to try to attribute behavior to genetic predispositions, and it has never worked out well in the past when people have let their imaginations run in that direction. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are plenty of good environmental conditions that promote the spread of religious faith. I think that the Darwinian apostle, Richard Dawkins, was closer to the mark when he suggested that the propensity for faith in God had more to do with an evolutionary misfire than a God gene.

Likewise nobody is arguing that ipso facto religious belief is a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition is what makes some people likely to take up religious belief. Those aren't the same statements. Genetics aren't destiny with regards to beliefs. On that we seem to be on the same page. You keep asking me for evidence of this and I've pointed you to Google Scholar where that evidence is.

I'm quite happy to address arguments or evidence that you use here, but I'm not going to go off on a general Google Scholar expedition to prove your conclusions. Please--no homework assignments. If you think I've missed your point or some evidence that I haven't already addressed, then it might be a good idea just to remind me of it.

Moreover, if you are claiming that a genetic predisposition "is what makes people likely to take up a religious belief", then you need to support your claim with something specific. Otherwise, it just sounds like an unsupported conjecture on your part. There are other possible explanations, including the fact that people usually learn about religion from exposure to family and society. I can think of no good reason to exclude the possibility that the same general cognitive properties leading people to religious faith are the ones leading them to reject it. If religion has anything directly to do with a propensity for religion, then there should be some good empirical argument to support that conclusion.

To go along with the 'brains are the same' analogy, it is very likely that many of us have a propensity for religiosity, but it exists in varying degrees. Some are easily swayed by ridiculous Christian arguments while others are more savvy but still give undue reverence to something like science. The pattern is similar but exists at different degrees.

Why does that strike you as "very likely"??? I think I've addressed all of the arguments you've made on this subject before, although you seem to think I haven't. When asked for specifics, you direct me to go looking for evidence with Google Scholar, under the assumption that what you have read somewhere on the internet will be equally convincing to me. I don't think that I carry the burden of disproving your speculation regarding a genetic predisposition to adopt religion.

The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

If you think that we are saying the same thing, then why are you urging me to go on a Google fishing expedition to prove your conjecture about religion and genetic predisposition right? I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to me in support of your conclusions. In the absence of that, I continue to believe that genetic predispositions have very little direct influence on whether people end up being deeply committed to religion or rejection of religion. Just because people are born with genetic predispositions that affect cognitive development, that does not lead automatically to the conclusion that people are genetically more predisposed than atheists to end up praying to a god. In my opinion, that has more to do with the environment that they grow up in.

 

[rousseau]

Nobody is denying that there are genetic predispositions. That's how evolution works. It selects for the predispositions that lead to more offspring over the long run. However, it is still an unwarranted leap to go from the observation of different behaviors to the conclusion that those behaviors were entirely or partially because of genetic predispositions. To validate an empirical claim of that sort, one needs to have confirmable evidence.

If religious faith is a genetic predisposition in humans, then why has secularism spread so widely throughout Europe and North America in just a few generations? A rapidly spreading genetic change? One can go to absurd lengths to try to attribute behavior to genetic predispositions, and it has never worked out well in the past when people have let their imaginations run in that direction. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are plenty of good environmental conditions that promote the spread of religious faith. I think that the Darwinian apostle, Richard Dawkins, was closer to the mark when he suggested that the propensity for faith in God had more to do with an evolutionary misfire than a God gene.

Likewise nobody is arguing that ipso facto religious belief is a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition is what makes some people likely to take up religious belief. Those aren't the same statements. Genetics aren't destiny with regards to beliefs. On that we seem to be on the same page. You keep asking me for evidence of this and I've pointed you to Google Scholar where that evidence is.

I'm quite happy to address arguments or evidence that you use here, but I'm not going to go off on a general Google Scholar expedition to prove your conclusions. Please--no homework assignments. If you think I've missed your point or some evidence that I haven't already addressed, then it might be a good idea just to remind me of it.

Moreover, if you are claiming that a genetic predisposition "is what makes people likely to take up a religious belief", then you need to support your claim with something specific. Otherwise, it just sounds like an unsupported conjecture on your part. There are other possible explanations, including the fact that people usually learn about religion from exposure to family and society. I can think of no good reason to exclude the possibility that the same general cognitive properties leading people to religious faith are the ones leading them to reject it. If religion has anything directly to do with a propensity for religion, then there should be some good empirical argument to support that conclusion.

To go along with the 'brains are the same' analogy, it is very likely that many of us have a propensity for religiosity, but it exists in varying degrees. Some are easily swayed by ridiculous Christian arguments while others are more savvy but still give undue reverence to something like science. The pattern is similar but exists at different degrees.

Why does that strike you as "very likely"??? I think I've addressed all of the arguments you've made on this subject before, although you seem to think I haven't. When asked for specifics, you direct me to go looking for evidence with Google Scholar, under the assumption that what you have read somewhere on the internet will be equally convincing to me. I don't think that I carry the burden of disproving your speculation regarding a genetic predisposition to adopt religion.

The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

If you think that we are saying the same thing, then why are you urging me to go on a Google fishing expedition to prove your conjecture about religion and genetic predisposition right? I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to me in support of your conclusions. In the absence of that, I continue to believe that genetic predispositions have very little direct influence on whether people end up being deeply committed to religion or rejection of religion. Just because people are born with genetic predispositions that affect cognitive development, that does not lead automatically to the conclusion that people are genetically more predisposed than atheists to end up praying to a god. In my opinion, that has more to do with the environment that they grow up in.

I haven't presented an argument contrasting genetics/environment in this regard, I've only stated that genetic predisposition does have an influence. If you agree that genetic predisposition exists, then whether you conclude it or not it follows that people will experience/engage with the world differently, and what beliefs they hold on to will differ. I don't disagree that environment has a major influence as well, I'm basically just stating that the structure of the brain also has influence. The structure of the brain influences a plethora of different life outcomes, why would affinity to different belief systems be any different?

Likewise, I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to support your conclusions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nobody is denying that there are genetic predispositions. That's how evolution works. It selects for the predispositions that lead to more offspring over the long run. However, it is still an unwarranted leap to go from the observation of different behaviors to the conclusion that those behaviors were entirely or partially because of genetic predispositions. To validate an empirical claim of that sort, one needs to have confirmable evidence.

If religious faith is a genetic predisposition in humans, then why has secularism spread so widely throughout Europe and North America in just a few generations? A rapidly spreading genetic change? One can go to absurd lengths to try to attribute behavior to genetic predispositions, and it has never worked out well in the past when people have let their imaginations run in that direction. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are plenty of good environmental conditions that promote the spread of religious faith. I think that the Darwinian apostle, Richard Dawkins, was closer to the mark when he suggested that the propensity for faith in God had more to do with an evolutionary misfire than a God gene.

Likewise nobody is arguing that ipso facto religious belief is a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition is what makes some people likely to take up religious belief. Those aren't the same statements. Genetics aren't destiny with regards to beliefs. On that we seem to be on the same page. You keep asking me for evidence of this and I've pointed you to Google Scholar where that evidence is.

I'm quite happy to address arguments or evidence that you use here, but I'm not going to go off on a general Google Scholar expedition to prove your conclusions. Please--no homework assignments. If you think I've missed your point or some evidence that I haven't already addressed, then it might be a good idea just to remind me of it.

Moreover, if you are claiming that a genetic predisposition "is what makes people likely to take up a religious belief", then you need to support your claim with something specific. Otherwise, it just sounds like an unsupported conjecture on your part. There are other possible explanations, including the fact that people usually learn about religion from exposure to family and society. I can think of no good reason to exclude the possibility that the same general cognitive properties leading people to religious faith are the ones leading them to reject it. If religion has anything directly to do with a propensity for religion, then there should be some good empirical argument to support that conclusion.

To go along with the 'brains are the same' analogy, it is very likely that many of us have a propensity for religiosity, but it exists in varying degrees. Some are easily swayed by ridiculous Christian arguments while others are more savvy but still give undue reverence to something like science. The pattern is similar but exists at different degrees.

Why does that strike you as "very likely"??? I think I've addressed all of the arguments you've made on this subject before, although you seem to think I haven't. When asked for specifics, you direct me to go looking for evidence with Google Scholar, under the assumption that what you have read somewhere on the internet will be equally convincing to me. I don't think that I carry the burden of disproving your speculation regarding a genetic predisposition to adopt religion.

The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

If you think that we are saying the same thing, then why are you urging me to go on a Google fishing expedition to prove your conjecture about religion and genetic predisposition right? I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to me in support of your conclusions. In the absence of that, I continue to believe that genetic predispositions have very little direct influence on whether people end up being deeply committed to religion or rejection of religion. Just because people are born with genetic predispositions that affect cognitive development, that does not lead automatically to the conclusion that people are genetically more predisposed than atheists to end up praying to a god. In my opinion, that has more to do with the environment that they grow up in.

Not just praying to a god, but engaging in all manner of woo behavior. Right now, however, my basal ganglia are asserting their primitive dominance over my prefontal cortex. My brain is just trying to save me - and itself. I understand.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nobody is denying that there are genetic predispositions. That's how evolution works. It selects for the predispositions that lead to more offspring over the long run. However, it is still an unwarranted leap to go from the observation of different behaviors to the conclusion that those behaviors were entirely or partially because of genetic predispositions. To validate an empirical claim of that sort, one needs to have confirmable evidence.

If religious faith is a genetic predisposition in humans, then why has secularism spread so widely throughout Europe and North America in just a few generations? A rapidly spreading genetic change? One can go to absurd lengths to try to attribute behavior to genetic predispositions, and it has never worked out well in the past when people have let their imaginations run in that direction. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are plenty of good environmental conditions that promote the spread of religious faith. I think that the Darwinian apostle, Richard Dawkins, was closer to the mark when he suggested that the propensity for faith in God had more to do with an evolutionary misfire than a God gene.

Likewise nobody is arguing that ipso facto religious belief is a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition is what makes some people likely to take up religious belief. Those aren't the same statements. Genetics aren't destiny with regards to beliefs. On that we seem to be on the same page. You keep asking me for evidence of this and I've pointed you to Google Scholar where that evidence is.

I'm quite happy to address arguments or evidence that you use here, but I'm not going to go off on a general Google Scholar expedition to prove your conclusions. Please--no homework assignments. If you think I've missed your point or some evidence that I haven't already addressed, then it might be a good idea just to remind me of it.

Moreover, if you are claiming that a genetic predisposition "is what makes people likely to take up a religious belief", then you need to support your claim with something specific. Otherwise, it just sounds like an unsupported conjecture on your part. There are other possible explanations, including the fact that people usually learn about religion from exposure to family and society. I can think of no good reason to exclude the possibility that the same general cognitive properties leading people to religious faith are the ones leading them to reject it. If religion has anything directly to do with a propensity for religion, then there should be some good empirical argument to support that conclusion.

To go along with the 'brains are the same' analogy, it is very likely that many of us have a propensity for religiosity, but it exists in varying degrees. Some are easily swayed by ridiculous Christian arguments while others are more savvy but still give undue reverence to something like science. The pattern is similar but exists at different degrees.

Why does that strike you as "very likely"??? I think I've addressed all of the arguments you've made on this subject before, although you seem to think I haven't. When asked for specifics, you direct me to go looking for evidence with Google Scholar, under the assumption that what you have read somewhere on the internet will be equally convincing to me. I don't think that I carry the burden of disproving your speculation regarding a genetic predisposition to adopt religion.

The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

We're all saying the same thing to a degree. Copernicus takes a position that is closer to brains being identical, that given the right environments we're all Einsteins or Ted Bundys or Wilt Chamberlains, and that culture is the deciding factor when it comes to woo.

My personal experience with the subject, the fact that members of my family and extended family have brain conditions labelled as "illness," according to scientific medicine, and which affects their behavior and interests greatly, and which is traceable to the architecture in their prefontal cortices, screams at me that brain architecture, genetic cognitive inheritance, is the major determining factor in our lives, no different than physical architecture outside the brain is equally determining in its own right.

Evidence? Someone please explain how the brain is physically different than other parts of my body. I'm no brain worshipper, an act of woo in itself. I just want to know more about how the thing works. We already know a lot. Does smoking really cause cancer and is human activity heating the planet? I demand that someone place the evidence in front of me on a golden platter before I can really know.

 

[rousseau]

Nobody is denying that there are genetic predispositions. That's how evolution works. It selects for the predispositions that lead to more offspring over the long run. However, it is still an unwarranted leap to go from the observation of different behaviors to the conclusion that those behaviors were entirely or partially because of genetic predispositions. To validate an empirical claim of that sort, one needs to have confirmable evidence.

If religious faith is a genetic predisposition in humans, then why has secularism spread so widely throughout Europe and North America in just a few generations? A rapidly spreading genetic change? One can go to absurd lengths to try to attribute behavior to genetic predispositions, and it has never worked out well in the past when people have let their imaginations run in that direction. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are plenty of good environmental conditions that promote the spread of religious faith. I think that the Darwinian apostle, Richard Dawkins, was closer to the mark when he suggested that the propensity for faith in God had more to do with an evolutionary misfire than a God gene.

Likewise nobody is arguing that ipso facto religious belief is a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition is what makes some people likely to take up religious belief. Those aren't the same statements. Genetics aren't destiny with regards to beliefs. On that we seem to be on the same page. You keep asking me for evidence of this and I've pointed you to Google Scholar where that evidence is.

I'm quite happy to address arguments or evidence that you use here, but I'm not going to go off on a general Google Scholar expedition to prove your conclusions. Please--no homework assignments. If you think I've missed your point or some evidence that I haven't already addressed, then it might be a good idea just to remind me of it.

Moreover, if you are claiming that a genetic predisposition "is what makes people likely to take up a religious belief", then you need to support your claim with something specific. Otherwise, it just sounds like an unsupported conjecture on your part. There are other possible explanations, including the fact that people usually learn about religion from exposure to family and society. I can think of no good reason to exclude the possibility that the same general cognitive properties leading people to religious faith are the ones leading them to reject it. If religion has anything directly to do with a propensity for religion, then there should be some good empirical argument to support that conclusion.

To go along with the 'brains are the same' analogy, it is very likely that many of us have a propensity for religiosity, but it exists in varying degrees. Some are easily swayed by ridiculous Christian arguments while others are more savvy but still give undue reverence to something like science. The pattern is similar but exists at different degrees.

Why does that strike you as "very likely"??? I think I've addressed all of the arguments you've made on this subject before, although you seem to think I haven't. When asked for specifics, you direct me to go looking for evidence with Google Scholar, under the assumption that what you have read somewhere on the internet will be equally convincing to me. I don't think that I carry the burden of disproving your speculation regarding a genetic predisposition to adopt religion.

The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

We're all saying the same thing to a degree. Copernicus takes a position that is closer to brains being identical, that given the right environments we're all Einsteins or Ted Bundys or Wilt Chamberlains, and that culture is the deciding factor when it comes to woo.

My personal experience with the subject, the fact that members of my family and extended family have brain conditions labelled as "illness," according to scientific medicine, and which affects their behavior and interests greatly, and which is traceable to the architecture in their prefontal cortices, screams at me that brain architecture, genetic cognitive inheritance, is the major determining factor in our lives, no different than physical architecture outside the brain is equally determining in its own right.

Evidence? Someone please explain how the brain is physically different than other parts of my body. I'm no brain worshipper, an act of woo in itself. I just want to know more about how the thing works. We already know a lot. Does smoking really cause cancer and is human activity heating the planet? I demand that someone place the evidence in front of me on a golden platter before I can really know.

The one addendum I'd make is that there is a subtle difference between inheritance and predisposition. Genetic recombination will assert that there is a range of possibilities when two people mate, which are constrained by the genetics of those two people. So in a set of 5 kids we can see a range of predispositions and traits that aren't so much inherited but present due to the recombination of parent genes.

This is an important point because I think it speaks to Copernicus' point that religious belief isn't inherited. IOW, there isn't a one to one mapping between parents/children, and there isn't really a religion gene, or set of genes. But as a result of recombination children may be more or less likely to find religion attractive.

Granted, if two parents exhibit a clear trait it's more likely that their children will exhibit that trait too.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When I use he word "inherited" I mean the behavior is genetic, not that we're clones of our parents. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Copernicus]

...
If you think that we are saying the same thing, then why are you urging me to go on a Google fishing expedition to prove your conjecture about religion and genetic predisposition right? I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to me in support of your conclusions. In the absence of that, I continue to believe that genetic predispositions have very little direct influence on whether people end up being deeply committed to religion or rejection of religion. Just because people are born with genetic predispositions that affect cognitive development, that does not lead automatically to the conclusion that people are genetically more predisposed than atheists to end up praying to a god. In my opinion, that has more to do with the environment that they grow up in.

I haven't presented an argument contrasting genetics/environment in this regard, I've only stated that genetic predisposition does have an influence. If you agree that genetic predisposition exists, then whether you conclude it or not it follows that people will experience/engage with the world differently, and what beliefs they hold on to will differ. I don't disagree that environment has a major influence as well, I'm basically just stating that the structure of the brain also has influence. The structure of the brain influences a plethora of different life outcomes, why would affinity to different belief systems be any different?

I think that the argument was never that "genetic predisposition does have an influence". You've been taking great pains to disagree with my position that there is no reasonable evidence to support the idea that people of faith are genetically predisposed to be religious. After all, that is the only issue germane to the thread topic. I have explicitly and repeatedly taken the position that genetic predispositions are real and have an influence on behavior. So this looks like a lot of goalpost relocation. I wish that you would not keep restating that my position is different from what I've said it is. OTOH, if you've convinced yourself that I am arguing against the idea that genetic predispositions are real, then I can understand why you've spent all of this time arguing with me. I would also argue with myself pretty vehemently, if that were the case.

Likewise, I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to support your conclusions.

....lengthy images of google search deleted...

That was really quite unnecessary. If you read my comment in the post you were responding to, I already explained that I'm not going to do a Google expedition to try to find evidence for your position. Frankly, even if you yourself had read all of those online articles--which I doubt--you are just flat out wrong to assume that I would interpret their content the same way or arrive at the same conclusion you have. You aren't going to win your argument by waving your hand at a mountain of material and giving me the homework assignment of "look it up". If you've got specific arguments or specific evidence, present it. Otherwise, skip the attempts to overwhelm me with reading assignments. If you insist on keeping up that approach, I've got a couple of Google search lists to prove your Google search lists wrong.

 

[Copernicus]

...
The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

We're all saying the same thing to a degree. Copernicus takes a position that is closer to brains being identical, that given the right environments we're all Einsteins or Ted Bundys or Wilt Chamberlains, and that culture is the deciding factor when it comes to woo.

In reality I never came close to implying that we would all be "Einsteins or Ted Bundys or Wilt Chamerlains" but for environmental influences. This is about the extent to which religious people are genetically, as opposed to environmentally, programmed to be religious. We aren't talking about prodigies, serial killers, or basketball players. This is about a claim that something in our DNA causes some people to be more prone to religious belief than others. My argument is that there is no reasonable evidence to support such a conjecture and that there are more reasons to believe that people are predisposed to adopt religion from environmental influences. Our brains develop on the basis of instructions encoded in our DNA, but is there any evidence to suggest that there are significant differences in the DNA of deeply religious people as opposed to people deeply skeptical of religion? If so, I am unaware of it.

My personal experience with the subject, the fact that members of my family and extended family have brain conditions labelled as "illness," according to scientific medicine, and which affects their behavior and interests greatly, and which is traceable to the architecture in their prefontal cortices, screams at me that brain architecture, genetic cognitive inheritance, is the major determining factor in our lives, no different than physical architecture outside the brain is equally determining in its own right.

But we aren't really debating that issue. At least, I'm not. It isn't about whether our genetic makeup can make us more prone to certain mental illnesses. Religion is normal behavior across all human societies, so we aren't talking about mental illness. People with deep religious convictions can be perfectly healthy and well-adjusted. People with deep skepticism toward religion can be ill and poorly adjusted. And lots of people change their opinions about religion all the time. Why jump to the conclusion that there is some kind of genetic predisposition one way or the other? There is certainly a lot of reason to believe that environmental factors can predispose people one way or the other.

 

[Copernicus]

...
The one addendum I'd make is that there is a subtle difference between inheritance and predisposition. Genetic recombination will assert that there is a range of possibilities when two people mate, which are constrained by the genetics of those two people. So in a set of 5 kids we can see a range of predispositions and traits that aren't so much inherited but present due to the recombination of parent genes.

This is an important point because I think it speaks to Copernicus' point that religious belief isn't inherited. IOW, there isn't a one to one mapping between parents/children, and there isn't really a religion gene, or set of genes. But as a result of recombination children may be more or less likely to find religion attractive.

Granted, if two parents exhibit a clear trait it's more likely that their children will exhibit that trait too.

This gets you much closer to my position. A predisposition can be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, whereas inheritance is all about genetic factors. And we can agree that there is no apparent "religion gene" or set of genes. That is not to rule out the logical possibility of such a gene or set of genes, but there is no good reason I can think of to merely assume them to exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...
The reason I'm not presenting evidence directly to you is because I don't have the energy to do your homework for you. If you're genuinely curious about this subject I've told you where to look and even what to search for.

But yes we seem to be going in circles and our arguments actually aren't that divergent. If you agree that genetic predispositions exist in the brain then we are essentially saying the same thing.

We're all saying the same thing to a degree. Copernicus takes a position that is closer to brains being identical, that given the right environments we're all Einsteins or Ted Bundys or Wilt Chamberlains, and that culture is the deciding factor when it comes to woo.

In reality I never came close to implying that we would all be "Einsteins or Ted Bundys or Wilt Chamerlains" but for environmental influences. This is about the extent to which religious people are genetically, as opposed to environmentally, programmed to be religious. We aren't talking about prodigies, serial killers, or basketball players. This is about a claim that something in our DNA causes some people to be more prone to religious belief than others. My argument is that there is no reasonable evidence to support such a conjecture and that there are more reasons to believe that people are predisposed to adopt religion from environmental influences. Our brains develop on the basis of instructions encoded in our DNA, but is there any evidence to suggest that there are significant differences in the DNA of deeply religious people as opposed to people deeply skeptical of religion? If so, I am unaware of it.

My personal experience with the subject, the fact that members of my family and extended family have brain conditions labelled as "illness," according to scientific medicine, and which affects their behavior and interests greatly, and which is traceable to the architecture in their prefontal cortices, screams at me that brain architecture, genetic cognitive inheritance, is the major determining factor in our lives, no different than physical architecture outside the brain is equally determining in its own right.

But we aren't really debating that issue. At least, I'm not. It isn't about whether our genetic makeup can make us more prone to certain mental illnesses.

I was only using that as an example of how brain architecture affects behavior. We obviously agree that it does. Now if you are claiming that brain architecture isn't primarily genetically determined maybe we disagree.

 

[Copernicus]

...

My personal experience with the subject, the fact that members of my family and extended family have brain conditions labelled as "illness," according to scientific medicine, and which affects their behavior and interests greatly, and which is traceable to the architecture in their prefontal cortices, screams at me that brain architecture, genetic cognitive inheritance, is the major determining factor in our lives, no different than physical architecture outside the brain is equally determining in its own right.

But we aren't really debating that issue. At least, I'm not. It isn't about whether our genetic makeup can make us more prone to certain mental illnesses.

I was only using that as an example of how brain architecture affects behavior. We obviously agree that it does. Now if you are claiming that brain architecture isn't primarily genetically determined maybe we disagree.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "primarily genetically determined", but I suspect that the hedge word "primarily" may be concealing some of the issues we disagreed over.

 

[rousseau]

...
If you think that we are saying the same thing, then why are you urging me to go on a Google fishing expedition to prove your conjecture about religion and genetic predisposition right? I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to me in support of your conclusions. In the absence of that, I continue to believe that genetic predispositions have very little direct influence on whether people end up being deeply committed to religion or rejection of religion. Just because people are born with genetic predispositions that affect cognitive development, that does not lead automatically to the conclusion that people are genetically more predisposed than atheists to end up praying to a god. In my opinion, that has more to do with the environment that they grow up in.

I haven't presented an argument contrasting genetics/environment in this regard, I've only stated that genetic predisposition does have an influence. If you agree that genetic predisposition exists, then whether you conclude it or not it follows that people will experience/engage with the world differently, and what beliefs they hold on to will differ. I don't disagree that environment has a major influence as well, I'm basically just stating that the structure of the brain also has influence. The structure of the brain influences a plethora of different life outcomes, why would affinity to different belief systems be any different?

I think that the argument was never that "genetic predisposition does have an influence". You've been taking great pains to disagree with my position that there is no reasonable evidence to support the idea that people of faith are genetically predisposed to be religious. After all, that is the only issue germane to the thread topic. I have explicitly and repeatedly taken the position that genetic predispositions are real and have an influence on behavior. So this looks like a lot of goalpost relocation. I wish that you would not keep restating that my position is different from what I've said it is. OTOH, if you've convinced yourself that I am arguing against the idea that genetic predispositions are real, then I can understand why you've spent all of this time arguing with me. I would also argue with myself pretty vehemently, if that were the case.

Likewise, I am happy to consider any arguments and evidence that you present to support your conclusions.

....lengthy images of google search deleted...

That was really quite unnecessary. If you read my comment in the post you were responding to, I already explained that I'm not going to do a Google expedition to try to find evidence for your position. Frankly, even if you yourself had read all of those online articles--which I doubt--you are just flat out wrong to assume that I would interpret their content the same way or arrive at the same conclusion you have. You aren't going to win your argument by waving your hand at a mountain of material and giving me the homework assignment of "look it up". If you've got specific arguments or specific evidence, present it. Otherwise, skip the attempts to overwhelm me with reading assignments. If you insist on keeping up that approach, I've got a couple of Google search lists to prove your Google search lists wrong.

I'm not trying to be snarky with you, I just really don't want to read through thirty articles and carefully craft a post with them. My life is busy as it is. I'm not trying to prove my point to you, to me it's just a discussion and I'm doing my best to relay information without exhausting myself any more than I already am.

I'm sincerely open to considering your position as well, in addition to evidence, but to date we both seem to be at the point of conjecture.

From what I can gather our positions are similar but you give more weight to cultural forces. To be frank, I'm not even sure that I disagree with you, my position is essentially that cognitive disposition is a significant force without reference to degree. I think if someone was born into a culture where religion was an overwhelming force, obviously that culture has a lot of power. But if the culture is more moderate there is likely more freedom for dispositions to come into play.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

It's a method of social control. Like political correctness of any type, it's a way for the rulers to control the subjects.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's a method of social control. Like political correctness of any type, it's a way for the rulers to control the subjects.

Eldarion Lathria

But what is it about some brains that allow the stupidity and subjugation to occur?

'Cult' leaders in Kansas engaged in child labor, beatings and other abuse, indictment says

The group was founded in the 1970s by Royall Jenkins. Jenkins, a former truck driver, convinced his followers that he was "taken through the galaxy by aliens on a spaceship" and shown the proper way to rule Earth, according to the indictment. The group amassed hundreds of followers at one point.

 

[abaddon]

... what is it about some brains that allow the stupidity...?

The OP said religious behavior gives some people "support".

If you got an answer about the brain, how would it matter to the OP's point?

It's like someone mentioning there are people take long drives to see a park, and then someone wants to explain it in terms of fuel combustion.

If the brain's a little or a lot behind ALL behaviors, then how's it explanatory about the good or bad in people's choices? Mixed into the braintalk are comments about how mistaken that theist belief/behavior is and how atheists behave more intelligently... but they don't say why that's true. Instead they quickly turn to "conjecture" about brains instead. It looks to me like moralizers trying to make their moralizing seem "objective".

So I'm wondering how a "god gene" or "brain architecture" can support the belief that theist beliefs are a problem. Let's say a fellow believes in God and looking in his head reveals there's only half a brain there. LOL. I wonder, so what? Does that say ANYTHING AT ALL about the rightness or wrongness, or utility, of his god-belief? Even if he's brain damaged and possibly less capable in some way or other than atheists, it doesn't mean his belief is incorrect.

 

[Copernicus]

...
That was really quite unnecessary. If you read my comment in the post you were responding to, I already explained that I'm not going to do a Google expedition to try to find evidence for your position. Frankly, even if you yourself had read all of those online articles--which I doubt--you are just flat out wrong to assume that I would interpret their content the same way or arrive at the same conclusion you have. You aren't going to win your argument by waving your hand at a mountain of material and giving me the homework assignment of "look it up". If you've got specific arguments or specific evidence, present it. Otherwise, skip the attempts to overwhelm me with reading assignments. If you insist on keeping up that approach, I've got a couple of Google search lists to prove your Google search lists wrong.

I'm not trying to be snarky with you, I just really don't want to read through thirty articles and carefully craft a post with them. My life is busy as it is. I'm not trying to prove my point to you, to me it's just a discussion and I'm doing my best to relay information without exhausting myself any more than I already am.

And I wasn't intending to make you do that. It's just that it looked a lot to me like you were expecting me to do all that work for you in order to refute myself. Then I would need to do even more work to refute the refutation of myself. All that just so you can selfishly indulge yourself by taking care of your kids.

I'm sincerely open to considering your position as well, in addition to evidence, but to date we both seem to be at the point of conjecture.

From what I can gather our positions are similar but you give more weight to cultural forces. To be frank, I'm not even sure that I disagree with you, my position is essentially that cognitive disposition is a significant force without reference to degree. I think if someone was born into a culture where religion was an overwhelming force, obviously that culture has a lot of power. But if the culture is more moderate there is likely more freedom for dispositions to come into play.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't say that my position is speculative. I don't claim to know whether or not there is a God gene or combination of genes, but we both know that culture, family, and friends do have a huge impact on religious belief. You have to be exposed to a religion in the first place in order to acquire religious faith. There has to be some genetic influence even to have a brain and a set of beliefs, but there appears to be no good reason to start claiming that theists and atheists fall into their categories because of some special genetic difference in their brain development. Anyone who believes that actually carries the burden of proof, not those who reject the claim for lack of evidence.

 

[rousseau]

...
That was really quite unnecessary. If you read my comment in the post you were responding to, I already explained that I'm not going to do a Google expedition to try to find evidence for your position. Frankly, even if you yourself had read all of those online articles--which I doubt--you are just flat out wrong to assume that I would interpret their content the same way or arrive at the same conclusion you have. You aren't going to win your argument by waving your hand at a mountain of material and giving me the homework assignment of "look it up". If you've got specific arguments or specific evidence, present it. Otherwise, skip the attempts to overwhelm me with reading assignments. If you insist on keeping up that approach, I've got a couple of Google search lists to prove your Google search lists wrong.

I'm not trying to be snarky with you, I just really don't want to read through thirty articles and carefully craft a post with them. My life is busy as it is. I'm not trying to prove my point to you, to me it's just a discussion and I'm doing my best to relay information without exhausting myself any more than I already am.

And I wasn't intending to make you do that. It's just that it looked a lot to me like you were expecting me to do all that work for you in order to refute myself. Then I would need to do even more work to refute the refutation of myself. All that just so you can selfishly indulge yourself by taking care of your kids.

I'm sincerely open to considering your position as well, in addition to evidence, but to date we both seem to be at the point of conjecture.

From what I can gather our positions are similar but you give more weight to cultural forces. To be frank, I'm not even sure that I disagree with you, my position is essentially that cognitive disposition is a significant force without reference to degree. I think if someone was born into a culture where religion was an overwhelming force, obviously that culture has a lot of power. But if the culture is more moderate there is likely more freedom for dispositions to come into play.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't say that my position is speculative. I don't claim to know whether or not there is a God gene or combination of genes, but we both know that culture, family, and friends do have a huge impact on religious belief. You have to be exposed to a religion in the first place in order to acquire religious faith. There has to be some genetic influence even to have a brain and a set of beliefs, but there appears to be no good reason to start claiming that theists and atheists fall into their categories because of some special genetic difference in their brain development. Anyone who believes that actually carries the burden of proof, not those who reject the claim for lack of evidence.

My argument is that brain development has an influence, not that it's deterministic. I don't see how there is any less burden of proof in stating that the brain has no influence, and in my case I have presented or alluded to considerable evidence to state my case, just short of directly quoting the many existing research papers that show clear cognitive associations with belief/non-belief. If you don't understand how that evidence correlates, or don't trust me when I state that this is the case, I can't do much about that. On the other hand, if your argument is strictly that brain development isn't deterministic with regards to culture, then I agree with you. Culture is a huge force and has a huge influence, and brains are built to be plastic and adaptable.

To put my argument another way, if you have thirty kids in a math class what is it that makes some of them better at math then others? Is this cultural influence? Some have been exposed to others who taught them math? Or is it stronger innate language and analytical skills? Similarly if you put thirty kids in a class that are being taught to believe in Christianity, what would make some students better at seeing through falsehoods, what factors would cause some students to be more drawn to the arguments? What would cause some to question their beliefs over time? Are the students brains completely arbitrary and only able to internalize and accept what is presented to them? Or would analytical skills and other factors play a role in what the students would accept/reject.

And when we actually measure the cognitive qualities of people with different belief systems we see that belief is more commonly associated with people whose cognitive function has specific characteristics (again, evidenced by many research papers, some of which I posted above), which suggests that there are innate factors that play a role in who will internalize and hold onto belief. Those factors don't guarantee belief, or imply that a person's beliefs will never change, they just make it more likely that this will be the case.

And to get more anecdotal, my analytical skills have been second to none throughout my life. I conquered school, was labelled gifted in elementary school, have read and reviewed books by world class scholars. With regards to religion I don't even remember when I rejected it. I think even at a very early age, despite going to Church, I realized that I was hearing some nice fairy-tales. And now, at thirty-five, I've studied the religion of pretty much every culture in the world, and even integrated my own unique spiritual beliefs into my life. Contrast this to one of my Aunts who cognitively is at the opposite extreme and in her sixties still literally believes that heaven exists. To attribute either of these cases solely to culture just doesn't make sense. Culture will have had an influence yes, but it's also not deterministic. If someone can go decades of their life without seriously questioning or reflecting on something like heaven belief, there are going to be other factors at play then culture.