TBD

TBD on Ning

Food for thought.....

Is religiosity a "heritable" factor within the naked human ape?

 

The writer here, who is an atheist seems to think so.


It is only in recent human history that the species has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations. Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, not as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological terms. Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes of phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science abandons occult for material causes. The same methods of inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were extended to biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues to make progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry.

Yet there still remained a residue of unanswered questions, and it is here in the swamp of the unknowable that the transcendental temptation festers. This beguiling temptation reaches beyond the natural world by sheer force of habit and passion, and it resists all efforts to contain it. Rather than suspend judgments about those questions for which there is no evidence either way, it leaps in to fill the void and comfort the aching soul. It is the most frequent salve used to calm existential fear and trembling. Why is this so? Because I think that the temptation has its roots in a tendency, and this in a disposition. In other words, there is most likely within the human species a genetic component, which is stronger than temptation and weaker than instinct. The hypothesis that I wish to offer is that the belief in the efficacy of prayer and the submission to divine power persists because it has had some survival value in the infancy of the race; powerful psycho-socio-biological factors are thus at work, predisposing humans to submit to the temptation.

The cognitive explanation for its persistence is that there is cognitive dissonance or misinformation that is the root cause for the fixation on the transcendental and that this can be overcome by rational inquiry. Socrates thought that faith persisted only because of ignorance, and that knowledge would disabuse us of religious myths. This surely continues to play a powerful role in regard to the content of our beliefs. Yet I submit that there is another factor present, which explains the persistence of religiosity, and this is an evolutionary explanation; that is, belief in the transcendental had adaptive value, and those tribes or clans which believed in unseen myths and forces to whom they propitiated by ritual and prayer had a tendency to survive and to pass on this genetic predisposition to their offspring. Thus religiosity is a "heritable" factor within the naked human ape.

What are some of the data in support of a transcendental predisposition? There are the University of Minnesota studies of identical twins, which showed that a significant number of infants who were separated at birth and reared apart under different environmental conditions, nonetheless exhibited similar tastes and preferences, and in this case exhibited a tendency to be religious. This predisposition is not necessarily deterministic in a strict sense, and it is absent in a number of cases. The heritable factor is estimated to be fifty percent. E. O. Wilson also maintains that there is some biological basis for religiosity, though one cannot locate this in a specific gene, there are a multiplicity of genetic factors and epigenetic rules. He argues that theological overbeliefs offer consolation in the face of adversity, and that these religious overbeliefs—whether true or false—provide a functional means of adaptation. Those tribes or clans which possessed a safety net of such beliefs/practices may have been better able to cope with the fear of death, and they were also able to pass along to future generations the tendency to be religious. This proclivity may have had some survival value and thus it was transmitted to future generations. E. O. Wilson maintains that "there is a hereditary selective advantage to members in a powerful group united by devout belief and purpose….Much if not all religious behavior could have arisen from evolution by natural selection."

There is a growing body of scientific research which supports this socio-biological explanation: this includes two components: (a) psycho-biological, which has some genetic basis, and (b) sociological, which has roots in cultural memes and habits. This would involve a coeval gene-meme hypothesis. Evolution is a function of both our genes on the one hand and memes transmitted by culture and inculcated in the young on the other. Thus, both hereditary and environmental factors have an influence on the behavior of individuals. Though there may be a predisposition toward belief in the transcendental, how it is expressed, and the content of the beliefs depends on the culture.

If we are to answer the question, Why do people believe?, we need also to ask, Why do some humans disbelieve?—for there is a minority of people who remain unbelievers, agnostics, or atheists. There are number of important research projects that I think should be undertaken. To ascertain if there is a genetic tendency—or lack of it—we should study the family trees of both believers and unbelievers. Much the same as we can trace the physical characteristics, such as eye or hair color, short or tall stature, and even genetic diseases in some family stocks, so we should be able to trace the religiosity factor, especially in twins and/or siblings who are reared apart. If we can measure musical talent (MQ) or intelligence (IQ), then perhaps we can also measure the religious quotient (RQ). Similarly, we need to trace the family trees of unbelievers and ask, Is the genetic factor absent and if so to what extent and why?

http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/kurtz.html

 


Tags: heritable religiosity

Views: 10

Replies to This Discussion

Some scientists (From Rutgers, I believe) put out a paper on this 3 or 4 years ago, in which they laid out the idea of a genetic predispositions towards "spiritual"and "non-spiritual" thinking.

 

Boiling it all down, they hypothesized that proto-hominids, scouring the savannah for whatever food they could find, saw a nearby bush rustle.

Depending on it's "genetic predisposition", the proto-hominid figured either: A) "There's something in that bush that's going to eat me. Better safe than sorry. Gonna haul ass now." and left, never learning whether or not there actually was something in that bush, but believing that there was something there - Which led to that "genetic predisposition" being handed down through it's offspring.

 

The other proto-hominid, B)  Saw the bush rustle, decided it was worth the gamble and checked it out. It may have just been the wind or something else harmless and benign. It may have even been a startled bird fleeing it's nest,leaving it filled with nutricious eggs. The proto-hominid that conquered it's fear thus went forward and survived, and passed it's "genetic predisposition" down to it's offspring. 

 

This scenario happened THOUSANDS of times, essentially allowing both sets of proto's to survive and flourish -  Except that one repeatedly inherited a predisposition towards superstitious and irrational thought, and the other...didn't. They could intermingle with each other, creating offspring with relative degrees of both predispositions and influencing the emerging cultures' outlines and base concepts, but those genetic forces remained intact - With both sides benefiting from the other's attitudes. A necessary but uneasy alliance, and it wasn't until the advent of "modern" civilization, and the more favorable odds for survival, that either side started thinking that they could do just as well without the other.

 

Sounds a bit simplistic, but it still makes considerable sense.


Why do Americans still dislike atheists?



Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a group that lots of Americans just don’t like much: atheists. Those who don’t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry. They can’t join the Boy Scouts. Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently “spiritual” in military psychological evaluations. Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for nontheists; in other words, nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.

Rarely denounced by the mainstream, this stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently — and uncivilly — declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering nonbelievers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens.





Is this knee-jerk dislike of atheists warranted? Not even close.

A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.

As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. They tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought.

While many studies show that secular Americans don’t fare as well as the religious when it comes to certain indicators of mental health or subjective well-being, new scholarship is showing that the relationships among atheism, theism, and mental health and well-being are complex. After all, Denmark, which is among the least religious countries in the history of the world, consistently rates as the happiest of nations. And studies of apostates — people who were religious but later rejected their religion — report feeling happier, better and liberated in their post-religious lives.

Nontheism isn’t all balloons and ice cream. Some studies suggest that suicide rates are higher among the non-religious. But surveys indicating that religious Americans are better off can be misleading because they include among the non-religious fence-sitters who are as likely to believe in God, whereas atheists who are more convinced are doing about as well as devout believers. On numerous respected measures of societal success — rates of poverty, teenage pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, obesity, drug use and crime, as well as economics — high levels of secularity are consistently correlated with positive outcomes in first-world nations. None of the secular advanced democracies suffers from the combined social ills seen here in Christian America.

More than 2,000 years ago, whoever wrote Psalm 14 claimed that atheists were foolish and corrupt, incapable of doing any good. These put-downs have had sticking power. Negative stereotypes of atheists are alive and well. Yet like all stereotypes, they aren’t true — and perhaps they tell us more about those who harbor them than those who are maligned by them. So when the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Newt Gingrich engage in the politics of division and destruction by maligning atheists, they do so in disregard of reality.

As with other national minority groups, atheism is enjoying rapid growth. Despite the bigotry, the number of American nontheists has tripled as a proportion of the general population since the 1960s. Younger generations’ tolerance for the endless disputes of religion is waning fast. Surveys designed to overcome the understandable reluctance to admit atheism have found that as many as 60 million Americans — a fifth of the population — are not believers. Our nonreligious compatriots should be accorded the same respect as other minorities.

Gregory Paul is an independent researcher in sociology and evolution. Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College, is the author of “Society Without God.”


RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service