Ace of Spades HQ

« Shock: House Leaders Cave to Conservatives' Demands For Spending Reform | Main | The Ace Effect: Lileks Disses Willis Without Either Linking Him Or Naming Him »

March 17, 2005

Genes Contribute Strongly To One's Religiosity

That being the case -- it now seeming that being religious is a "natural" orienation, and one the afflicted "cannot change" or "be cured" of -- do you think Frank Rich will stop maligning Christians?

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.
Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.

...

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.

posted by Ace at 04:16 PM

Comments

We prefer to think of them as "midichlorians".

Seriously, though, I'm going to call BS on this. It makes zero sense. How would genes control beliefs, as distinct from behavior?

One more thing--assuming this is true: I'm a gung ho Jesus freak here. Let's say that we can test for the religiosity gene in our unborn child. If it's absent, is it okay with NARAL and Planned Parenthood if I abort a fetal atheist?

I wouldn't, of course, but couldn't I?

Posted by: See-dubya on March 17, 2005 05:00 PM

Hmmm... I don't know how it would work, exactly.

But look -- different people have brains attuned in different ways. Some people are artistic, others logical. It is not impossible that some people's brains are inherently driven towards seeking out larger truths and directed towards mysterious spirituality.

If I said pragmatism/materialism was genetically influenced, you probably wouldn't bat an eye; why not spirituality/quixoticism?

Posted by: ace on March 17, 2005 05:17 PM

Junk science no doubt. Read the article, they have no definable causation mechanism except the generic "genetics". Look at sample size, 169 pairs of twins. The entire study is BULLSHIT. I can imagine where the secular progressive movement would like to go with this, religion is a mental disease. Fundamentalists are insane, etc.

Posted by: Big E on March 17, 2005 05:17 PM

Religious orientations...violent orientations...fat orientations...perverse sexual orientations...stupid orientations...

Wow, some scientist discovered that people are made up of genes, and genes can influence people. So what else is new? I'm still waiting for them to discover my conservative and common sense gene, so I can claim I'm a victim of liberal oppression and bigotry.

What ever happened to the good old days of sin, free will, and self determination?

Posted by: Dr. Dooalot on March 17, 2005 05:18 PM

And so anothre nail is driven into the coffin of free will.

Hey, nothing's anyone's fault. No one actually makes a decision. We're all unthinking robots whose every move is determined by our own genetic makeup: religious beliefs, eating habits, sexual orientation, attention span, and so on and so on.

It sure smells like we're setting up genetic manipulation and the whole "master race" thing as a no-brainer decision in ten years. Hell, by then, we'll probably have a study that suggests that eugenics is a genetic thing, too.

Posted by: Jimmie on March 17, 2005 05:31 PM

Well of course someone with your breeding would say that, Jimmie.

Posted by: lauraw on March 17, 2005 05:33 PM

Who says there's no free will? Just because you might have an innate talent at painting doesn't mean you have to choose to paint.

Posted by: ace on March 17, 2005 05:37 PM

I already did bat an eye at pragmatism being genetically influenced. It's sort of the alternative here--if you lack or have a certian gene you have either a secular/pragmatic or a spiritual orientation.

I think 'genes' are pretty much like 'phlogiston' or 'dark matter' in this explanation. There's an effect; we don't know what causes it, therefore it must be magic or genetics or one of those screwy things Freud invented.

There are a few overlooked variables in here as well: first, although they hint at it at first, when you read down farther they don't say the identical twins were raised in separate families. (Are there 169 pairs of male twins in their early thirties who were born in Minnesota and raised by separate families? Doesn't sound right.) That would seem to be a better test.

Second, if they look a certain way, it's likely they'll be treated similarly and that may influence their attitude toward religion--and maybe there's something about the experience of living as a twin that predisposes people toward religion.

Third, if they are separated twins,and adopted, well maybe the experience of adoption, and the religious disposition of the adoptive or foster family is the more significant factor.

If you show me a genetic basis for this argument--ie religious believers are much more likely to have a particular combination of DNA --then I'll start paying attention to this...

Posted by: See-Dubya on March 17, 2005 05:41 PM

*chuckle*

And the metaphysical questions this raises are boggling, too. If religious belief of some sort is the way to a blissful Heavenly afterlife, then doesn't this study imply that some people are damned from birth to eternal torment. Further, doesn't it imply that God's a right bastard not only for putting people on the planet who are predestined for an afterlife in eternal torment but also to allowing them to know it in advance?

If religious beliefs are genetic, then what's the point of having outreach programs at church (oooh..now there's a question that someone with an agenda can run with for a while)?

Gah.

Posted by: Jimmie on March 17, 2005 05:43 PM

Jimmie, ask a Calvinist. They do the whole predestination thing. Me, I'm a free-will kinda guy.

Posted by: See-dub on March 17, 2005 05:45 PM

Bunk.

Grad students should not be allowed to publish.

Posted by: TheShadow on March 17, 2005 06:07 PM

Don't buck this - RIDE IT FOR ALL ITS WORTH. It'll drive the liberals NUTS if they have to cut religious people the same slack they cut gays.

Posted by: on March 17, 2005 06:16 PM

It's not there is a genetic genie in peoples subconcious that influences their religiosity, it's just that among our ancestors the people who were not inclined to believe in things greater than themselves were less likely to fight for or defend their community. As a result they filtered themselves out of the gene pool. The remaining people (our ancestors) were just more naturally inclined to believe in and defend their way of life, and to the extent such inclination is inheritable, it show's up in seperated twin studies.

No subconcious genie, just a filter function that weeded out non believers from the ancestors club.

Posted by: boris on March 17, 2005 06:34 PM

Boris--

"among our ancestors the people who were not inclined to believe in things greater than themselves were less likely to fight for or defend their community. As a result they filtered themselves out of the gene pool. "

Sounds like a survival mechanism to me. "You guys die for Crom. I'll stay here and hold your horses."

Now--this could explain the religiosity of America today, given that much of the colonial settlement was done by people who felt so strongly about their religious beliefs that they left England or Holland or, um, Huguenottingham for here.

But I still don't buy it.

Posted by: See-Dubya on March 17, 2005 06:48 PM

I agree with my distant relatives Jimmie and See-Dubya here. First, genes just don't work like this; it's junk science, on the same level as people in the 1920s who swallowed radium powder to make their teeth whiter, or dissolved their kidney stones with electric belts. (FWIW, I'll cheerfully argue against the "gay gene" notion at tedious length.)

Several posters have already shown the ridiculous consequences of taking this idea seriously. What about the possibility that political activity is also genetically determined? Should we encourage people to vote if they don't have the inborn capacity to drag themselves to the polls? I don't doubt that someone could concoct a study showing that left/right political affiliation had a clear genetic component, and wouldn't that make for some interesting policy arguments?

Posted by: utron on March 17, 2005 07:02 PM

Sounds like a survival mechanism to me. "You guys die for Crom. I'll stay here and hold your horses."

That only works if there are those willing to defend on your behalf. If your gene pool doesn't include enough of such, your female relatives become breeders for those who do.

Don't make the survival of individuals mistake. Cowards don't get to breed.

Posted by: boris on March 17, 2005 07:19 PM

For the record, my parents and grandparents aren't/weren't religious. I am the only born again Christian in my entire line that I know of. My father believed in duty and honor more than God. I on the other hand am a firm believer in all 3 and I do my very best to instill the same values in my children.

Posted by: michael dennis on March 17, 2005 08:38 PM

Glad to see some one else is aware of the Gay Gene fraud. TIME magazine published a front page headline back in 1994 announcing the discovery of a Gay Gene, which all the liberal biased newspapers parroted without any scrutiny. The only problem is there is No Such Thing as A Gay Gene.

Turns out the report was immediately criticized by genetists and scientists as being sloppy, completely false, and not adhering to scientific methodology or standards (i.e., the control group sample consisted of volunteers from gay magazines and excluded the general population at large creating biased results). The researching professor (who just coincidentally was a homosexual and did not disclose his conflict of interest and bias to the public) also got into academic trouble for the incident.

Did TIME magazine correct the misinformation and fraud to the public? Of course not. Did the liberal biased newspapers correct the misinformation and fraud to the public? Of course not.

What we do know is that a popular best selling book within the homosexual movement in 1989 (called “After The Ball”) advocated that activists should do whatever it takes to advance their agenda including lying and frauding the public of medical and health information by “making it seem to the general public that they are born that way, despite all the evidence and proof to the contrary” for the simple reason that they get more sympathy from gullible people to advance their agenda. It has been a very effective strategy (because there are a lot of well meaning but gullible people in society), even though they are deliberately misleading and frauding the public from accurate medical and health information.

As an astute reader pointed out, when it comes to these types of gene studies there are many factors that have to be considered, like a properly represented control groups/samples, and the need to isolate influencing factors and environmental conditions.

When scientific methodology and standards are applied to the subject, the results are like the 1992 study by British medical researchers (McDonald et.al.) who discovered that 90% of all homosexuals where one had an identical twin (with identical genetic makeup) that the other was completely not homosexual. Furthermore, in a similar study when environmental conditions were isolated, independent scientists identified four identical female twins who were separated at birth where one was homosexual and the other was completely not (implying that homosexuality is highly influenced by environmental conditions after birth, acknowledging that the sample size was too small to publish critical findings other than exposing the gay gene fraud).

Other scientific and medical facts exposing the gay gene fraud are:

1) Scientists discovering that human fertilization requires both male and female genes in order to have any chance of fertilization at all (gene manipulation of two females is not possible);
2) Homosexuals cannot procreate and therefore there is no possibility of passing along the genes (according to Darwin and evolutionary theory)
3) The existence of a Gay Gene would extinct the species eventually;
4) The biological design of humans is based on natural procreation between males and females (through intercourse through complementary design) and division of labor based on biological differences (i.e., men do not breast feed babies);
5) The existence of a Gay gene would imply that there should be other biological characteristics exclusive to homosexuals (but there are not…remember they also claim to be just like everyone else)
6) The existence of 10,000 ex-Gays through reparation therapy (where damaged neural nets are reconditioned through healing therapy);
7) The implied logic that if there was a Gay gene then there must also be genes to explain other unnatural sexual attractions (i.e., bestiality gene, necrophilia gene, pedophilia gene).
8) Explanation of homosexual subgroups (i.e., Gay bug chasers, sadomasochists, pedophiles, depression & high suicidal rates, etc.)
9) Etc., Etc., Etc.

My scrutiny for the existence of a religious gene is just as stringent, as the fraudulent Gay Gene. Science has standards that must be followed, and the public is not served by sloppy research, propaganda and fraud by biased groups with agendas.

For example, one cannot help but wonder if the 250,000 homosexuals who have died from lethal STDs (60% of all HIV/AIDs cases in the US are homosexual males…See US Center for Disease & Prevention) could have been prevented if they were not told they were born that way by the gay activists who are more concerned with generating propaganda rather than pursuing the truth?

Dr. Marcus Wellby

Posted by: drWellby on March 18, 2005 12:08 PM

A big difference:

Whatever the percentage of homosexuals in the general population, the percentage of our ancestors who were homosexual is much closer to zero.

Therefore likelyhood of a gay gene is even closer to zero.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the percentage of religious believers among our ancestors was likely greater than the general population. A filter function which overrepresents any human trait among ancestors of the current population is a candidate for natural selection.

Posted by: Boris on March 18, 2005 03:26 PM

Posted by: on June 6, 2005 09:13 PM

Posted by: on June 6, 2005 09:34 PM