NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1316752004
Thoughts?

Not too surprising...man has always justified his surroundings, which was probably a clever evolutionary strategy to keep him from going insane.

I tend to believe it from my own personal experience. I just never felt religion played an important role in my life. I just didn't need it, god never really appealed to me.

At the same time I saw people around me who did see religious as an important facet of their lives. I mean, why else would anyone ever become a priest/nun?

Also, before the inevitable flame war ensues, both sides should remeber this proves/disproves nothing. Maybe this gene is a sign of god showing his people a way to find him. Maybe its a way humans cope with the nature of life.

Who knows.

god has nothing to do with genes

its plain and simple

I'm not a Christian, so I would have to consider this as more of a part of evolution. Religion to me has always just been a source of interesting books and movies. I know it's not impossible that I could be wrong because nothing's impossible, but I enjoyed science so much more than I ever enjoyed going to church with my parents, so that's the system of beliefs I've followed for some time now.

I believe in free will, not genetic determinism. People are free to choose their beliefs.

Welll, my belief is that this is further evidence of existence in God. If He made us, wouldn't He hard-wire us to find Him?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041115-044457-1912r.htm

Name is misleading - even if it does exist, all it does is "predisposes those who possess it to believe in spiritual realities."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/07/features/bookmon.html

That article seems to cover several sides of the issue - including what this spirituality gene would mean, it would mean that "there is evidence ... that spirituality is in fact beneficial to our physical as well as mental health."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15458_1.html

That article casts doubt on the finding. Basically, looking at the actual details of his book, it turns out to be pretty darn bad theology; looking from it from a scientific point of view, it turns out to be pretty bad science. (published books, unlike published journal articles, do not have to be peer-reviewed) According to this author, it is quite possible that the connection just won't be replicated and will go the way of many of those other failed links.

....

But those are all secondary sources. It would be nice if I could find primary sources - the published article in which he details his findings, and then read the responses of scientists in the field - the people that actually know the science involved.

But as is, I can only make one conclusion - no matter what the scientific truth behind the study is, it's being way overhyped and overdramatized because it's on a sensitive matter, being blown out of proportion to what it's actually showing. At worst, the study is bunk; at best, it's showing that a certain gene plays a factor in determining whether people have a predisposition to achieving "self-transcendance," which, looking at his definition, does not even necessarily deal with God.

And all in all, as with any scientific study, it is nothing until it is independently replicated.

But maybe it will be. We shall see. It would be very interesting if it were.

I believe in free will, not genetic determinism. People are free to choose their beliefs.

You'd still have free will. Genes determine a person's predisposed preferences, but not their choice.

I belive in free will since gods do not eixst. I feel though that free will dies with beliving in a god.


All gods are is man's attempt to explain the unexplaniable. That's bred into our nature not genes. Science is just the truth while god beleif mixes fact and fiction.


In short: Gods exist in a fantasy world created by men.
So you can say they exist just not in reality and you won't go to hell or heaven.

So?

I believe in free will, not genetic determinism. People are free to choose their beliefs.
What if you have a genetic disposition to believe in free will? ;)

Welll, my belief is that this is further evidence of existence in God. If He made us, wouldn't He hard-wire us to find Him?

We are all wired to meet up with God, through our Instincts. I never really opened a bible but prayed to God on and off, let my good side get the better part of me and found God or God found me(depends on perception). Literally.

Free will is not hindered by God it was created as a gift from God. Gods guidance is not through control or force. Unless you mean the same kind of force that star wars was talking about (force of love,Good which creates peace). Ever hear of that saying "peace be with you"? Well "may the force be with you" is with equal meaning. May peace be with us all.

Now lets have a LOT of fun.

Which god? ;)

Welll, my belief is that this is further evidence of existence in God. If He made us, wouldn't He hard-wire us to find Him?
this isn't "evidence" of your theory, because one could just as easily find an evolutionarily-rooted reason for us to have such a gene. if you want evidence to support your theory you must find data that do not support alternative hypotheses equally well.

that "science" is totally flawed

Now lets have a LOT of fun.

Which god? ;)
i believe the premise is that the gene simply predisposes a person to believe in some God, not that it gears us for a specific God or gods. i might be wrong, though, there wasn't much information on the specifics of the theory.

that "science" is totally flawed

You can no more judge that it is wrong than we can judge that it is right. How do you know it's flawed?

Now, I do suspect it is flawed; but I have no way of knowing one way or the other. When you look at what it's saying past all the hype, it has a quite reasonable basis. Again, the only way to test it is by having some other scientists repeat the study and see. Which I'm sure some are doing.

that "science" is totally flawed
In what way? What evidence do you have to point to flawed science in this study? I am perfectly willing to accept that this study is in error, but simply saying "Your Wrong!" without providing any basis for your claim means nothing. You would be making the same error of which you accuse this research.

Why is a doctor at the National Cancer Institute talking about a "god gene"? Is he implying something about cancer and religous beliefs?

It would help if a link to the research was given, or the journal article. Then the methods could be looked at to see if it really is flawed.

It would help if a link to the research was given, or the journal article. Then the methods could be looked at to see if it really is flawed.

Look at the first post.

i believe the premise is that the gene simply predisposes a person to believe in some God, not that it gears us for a specific God or gods. i might be wrong, though, there wasn't much information on the specifics of the theory.

Oh no, that's what it's saying. And that's my point-if anything this would be an argument AGAINST most forms of organized religion. Afterall, if everone was wired to worship "him," how cme they don't all agree who "he" is?

Oh no, that's what it's saying. And that's my point-if anything this would be an argument AGAINST most forms of organized religion. Afterall, if everone was wired to worship "him," how cme they don't all agree who "he" is?

Humans are stupid? I do believe the limitations on our intelligence have genetic roots...

Look at the first post.

Erm, "The Scotsman" opinion page is not really a scientific journal; it is an opinion, it does not set out the methods used etc. I read the article, it is interesting, however without looking at the results and methods all there is faith in the person carrying out the reserch.

Welll, my belief is that this is further evidence of existence in God. If He made us, wouldn't He hard-wire us to find Him?
but then not everyone is hardwired the same way...

how would you exaplin that?

Oh no, that's what it's saying. And that's my point-if anything this would be an argument AGAINST most forms of organized religion. Afterall, if everone was wired to worship "him," how cme they don't all agree who "he" is?
i don't know anything about this particular theory of the "God gene," but i do know a bit about other research into biological roots of religiosity...

for instance, in the case of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) there is very often a surprising and dramatic increase in religiosity observed after the onset of the seizures; people who were not religious or relatively lax in their faith suddenly become fervent believers who spend the majority of their time concerned with matters of faith. studies suggest that a certain region of the brain is involved in this, and artificial stimulation of that area will cause subjects to report feeling "spiritual" or "like they are not alone." some people generalize this as "feeling close to God," but the God they say they are close to is almost always the God that they grew up being educated about...people who were raised Christian think it's the Christian God, Jews think it is the Jewish God, etc. it seems that the experience of spirituality or religiosity is only generally implanted in our neurophysiology, and we invent artificial abstract concepts to put a face on it.

at least, that's what the science suggests so far.