The Genetic Basis of "Finding God"

Could we substitute Mantis for Monkey? Less of a supply problem.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Heh. Kind of suspicious that it wasn't published in anything more peer-reviewed than Time Magazine, no? Allegedly, the study is in pre-publication somewhere. {Q puts on his swami hat} I predict about a week after publication before someone shows it's unrepeatable. This is a good point (even the part about the monkeys). I think you can reductio the basis of any behavior ultimately to genetics, but in most cases of complex behavior it's more (as Ehrlich puts it) "genes whisper suggestions - they don't shout commands". Not to mention the unlikelihood of a single gene being responsible. OTOH, I think a good case can be made that the faculty for "belief" in the broadest sense is/was adaptive at some point, and religion or belief in a deity is simply an outgrowth of that. (OT, maybe, for this thread).Interestingly, in ref to your monkey thing, I remember a study (which I'll have to dig out if you're interested) of a troop of bonobos where a non-dominant male - it's a matriarchal society - found he could gain at least temporary status through scaring the bejeezus out of the rest of the troop by banging on a tin pot, and then comforting them. The troop quickly learned that the scary noise could be stopped by the male and everything made all better. Obviously, they weren't "smart" enough to realize the male was causing the problem in the first place. Creation of fear response + alleviation of fear = dominance. Hmmm, sounds a lot like how a hereditary priesthood might have developed, doesn't it?

We can look for shared deletions in monkeys and creationists and maybe find a cure
More seriously, I think evolutionary biology (or psychology) will have something to say about organized religion among other group structure related behaviors. Bonobos are not the first primates to use tin cans to scare the hell out of their troop mates to gain dominance. P. troglodytes have used the trick as well under Jane Goodall's watch.Trying to do a linkage study would be a nightmare however since how people define religiosity is probably variable and influenced by social environment. And without a fairly tightly defined phenotype, it is really hard to do quantitative genetics. I think the "gay gene" work of Hamer stumbled for this reason as well.

They already have. Although I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions, I recommend Steven Mithen's "The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art and Science" (Thames and Hudson, NY, 1996) or Paul Ehrlich's "Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect" (Island Press, Wash DC, 2000). Yepper. That's one of the things Zimmer mentioned in his critique: the "self transcendence" thingy that Hamer was measuring is pretty vague and subjective. (Remind me again why I'm trying to discuss a book I haven't read??? Shades of Syamasu...)Anyhoo, I think that religion/religiosity (or maybe better said, religious thinking) likely exists as an outgrowth of the way our preceptual and memory system adapted and developed - an expressed need to explain the mistakes in the processes. IOW, an adaptive response quantitatively but not really qualitatively different from an amygdala-based fight or flight response. The modern version we call religion evolved later when the "cheaters" in game theory terms realized they could obtain personal advantage from fulfilling a need. Since humans are a gregarious and hierarchical species it seems fairly easy to substitute the high priest for the high male. As evolved members of a social species, IMO we're genetically pre-disposed (although I'm not going to claim pre-determined) to seek solace and comfort - and also for obedience. If the high priest can relieve our anxiety, we're gonna look for it.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-28-2004 09:55 AM

I still have a problem with how you would define the "phenotype". Is the person a fundamentalist? What kind? When they say what they believe in a questionare, are they telling the truth or trying to say what they think the person wants to hear? Is a Buddhist "religious" per se even though Buddha is not a diety?
Is the person poorly educated? Well educated? Fundamentalism and poor education correlate so how much will this skew the results and obscure the genetic background of "belief"? I think there are other behaviors that would be a lot easier to map the genetic contribution for than religiosity.

I agree. I also personally find Longeran's entire concept of "self-transcendence" that Hamer was measuring to be utterly opaque. There are some PUBMED articles I skimmed that purport to use this as a measure, however, so it's probably simply that my brain can't wrap around it. Evidently there are a number of psychological tests that are claimed to provide objective measures of this concept. However, linking it to specific genotype seems, hmmm, sort of New-Agey post-modern psychobabble. OTOH, it might be a question that CAN be asked and answered at some point if they can really operationally identify what they're trying to measure. Beyond me, in any case.