The religious gene

Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by Incredulicide, Jan 29, 2011.

  1. Incredulicide Member

    "The genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently "hitchhiking" on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates and that provided the fertility of religious people remains on average higher than that of secular people, the genes that predispose people towards religions will spread."
  2. Unanimouse Member

    Interesting, but I fail to see what this has to do with Scientology.
  3. Anonymous Member

    "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion
    in it."

    John Adams
  4. touche

    unless it might also be thought of a a gullibility gene
  5. Herro Member

    So is this religiosity gene identified?
  6. Anonymous Member

    No. This is the paper's weakest point and I'm impressed you found it. Perhaps I have underestimated you (or perhaps you started taking your meds?)
  7. thefatman Member

    He didn't identify it, he's merely taking certain religious groups (like the Amish) and saying that because they have lots of kids (what else are they going to do, it's not like they have TV) therefore religious people have a gene that makes them make more babbies.

    But really, I smelt bullshit when it said he was a professor of economics.
  8. LocalSP Member

  9. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  10. Maybe this is how the dinosaurs became extinct ... the dinosaurs with a high fertility rate were stuck with the sucker gene too.
  11. Yeah. It was found right next to the genes that predispose unfortunate people to emo behavior and faggotry. Think "Twilight of the Golds" with extreme eye makeup, cutting, and people nailing spikes through their hands and feet while marrying 9 year old girls named Aisha, y'know, just like Christ and Muhammad, respectively. But to be fair, I'm sure he thought she was 10.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. none given Member

    I promised myself long ago I would stop giving lectures in my field because that makes me an internet expert in the worse sense: a qualified person unwilling to provide those credentials. So lemme just say: this persona has claimed to be a trained biologist since the beginning of Chanology and does so again.
    A gene or even a complex of genes does not in and of itself lead to a behavior. Certain birds at certain times are predisposed to actions that often lead to the construction of a nest and that’s about the strongest, most definitive statement you can make on the subject. When a female blue jay is gravid she plays with straw; twisting it together; the fact that a nest results is probably a total surprise to her.
    Human infants go through a stage where they “babble” just spit out random sounds. Even deaf babies do this and even the babies of deaf parents do this. However some sounds like “mama” and “dada” usually get reinforced by smiles and hugs. So they are repeated. This does not mean that “language” is inherited. It only means that the baby babbles.
    The same is almost certainly true of the “religion” gene. It may be the tendency to seek a smaller subculture within a larger culture.
    I suspect: it is the tendency to look for an abstract Alpha beyond the physically present pack/clan leader.
    This would be (in recent human history) advantageous because it would lead one toward a religion or an Emperor (an idealized portrait stamped on a metal coin) rather than the big brute running your particular family. Being part of a larger network than an extended family is all the rage these last 12, 15 thousand years.
    I once knew a 5 year old brought up in an atheist household. After introducing me to her dolls she swore me to secrecy and showed me a shrine she had built: an upside-down pine cone surrounded by tiny toys. “This is for Santa Clause” she whispered very seriously. She showed me this in midsummer. Like a blue-eyed child of brown eyed parents she expressed the gene Mom and Dad did not. The li’l monkey had invented a religion!
    I do not believe it is a “gullibility” gene; the faithful do not believe because they are told to, they believe because they want to.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Anonymous Member

    Next you'll be saying all mammals just have sex for pleasure, and the fact that offspring result is probably a total surprise to them us.
  14. none given Member

    My point exactly. If it was not already tl;dr I would have added a "look at your own instincts"
    Paragraph; no one ever told you to seek food, sleep or sex.
    Also a religion "gene" (gene complex probably) gives the local, low level alpha some abstract ideal to "lean on" too. Let's face it: those poor bastards have high stress jobs and, at their best, give all the best resources to the women and kids.

    You know among lowland Gorillas alpha males do not live as long as females.
    Oh wait, humans too!
    The idea of a super-ego role model seems as practical as it is abuseable.
  15. Anonymous Member

    There is no gene complex for religion any more than there is a gene complex for being an author or an electrician.
  16. thefatman Member

    This. There is as much evidence for a religious gene as their is for a criminality gene.
  17. In the case of Scientology, it might be the very same gene
  18. none given Member

    If they do exist it they would be some tendency or specific behavior that only results in "crime" or "faith" in specific circumstances. Just like babies babbling only results in language if parents or others lead it that way.
  19. Anonymous Member

    So if the authors didn't make an effort to specify a religious gene or at least specify some deterministic mechanism leading from genetic expression to religious behavior, then how did this even get published? Because at that point you're basically saying that genes specific to populations with high birth rates will be more prevalent overall in the population. It's like publishing a paper claiming that the sky is blue.
  20. Anonymous Member

    I suppose that if a gene complex for religion were ever actually discovered, their result would in fact be meaningful.
  21. I'm more than a bit uncomfortable with looking for genes that do not code for diseases, like Huntington's, Cri du chat, Marfan syndrome, Niemann-Pick disease, and achondroplasia. As for the child who had built religious beliefs around Santa Claus, I wouldn't be surprised if this were analogous to children having imaginary friends. After all, Jesus is an imaginary friend to hundreds of millions of adults around the world.
  22. none given Member

    Good point. In fact that child also had a few imaginary friends including a pot bellied pig.
  23. im leaning towards taking meds!
  24. Anonymous Member

    Isn't it cool when someone accepts or rejects a hypothesis by extrapolating their own interpretation of their own personal experience to be that of all normal, i.e., right-thinking, members of the human race? That is so helpful.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    It would really make no difference, since fundamentally religious and political beliefs are the same exact thing.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

    Stupid people have more kids. Duh.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  27. This thread needs moar traps and raep.
  28. Anonymous Member

    "A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country
    with his religion and destroy them under color of law."

    Benjamin Franklin

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins