From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 23:34:24 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> There may not be a "religion" gene, but there may be a
"rationalization" gene.
> Some rationalizations turn into religions.
Exactly.
I see this question through the prism of evolutionary psychology, just I
did the question of altruism that arose in the recent thread on that
subject and which generated no small amount of controversy. In my view
there is no question that our genetics predispose us to develop and
embrace religious beliefs.
Underlying the idea that religion is *not* derived from genetics is the
unspoken belief in the dichotomy of "nature vs nature." Those who might
claim that religious belief is a phenomenon not encoded in our genetic
material have no recourse but to argue that religious belief comes about
as a result of nurture rather than nature. I'm convinced however that
there is no real distinction between nurture and nature; society and
culture are the expressions of our genetic material no less than are our
eyes and hair.
Those who like to entertain the existence of "memes" might say that
religious beliefs are memes, all of which are expressions of genes. All
memes are the expressions of genes. This is to say that it is a mistake
in my view to think religious memes evolved separately from genes. A
given religious-belief is perhaps best considered as a phenotype of the
religious-belief genotype.
We have a genetic predisposition to make every possible attempt to
formulate and utilize theories of the world that would predict or
explain events in the world; this predilection is the very evidence of
our intelligence and the primary reason our species has succeeded. This
same genetic predisposition that gives us intelligence leads us also to
formulate theories about the world that are rational or idealistic as
opposed to empirical. In the modern age these non-empirical theories
about the world are called "religion," at least by non-empiricists.
Recall that prior to the enlightenment there was no real distinction
between science and philosophy/religion.
Paul Ehrlich made an interesting observation in his book _HUMAN NATURES:
Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect_. To paraphrase his view on this
subject: to say that a given human personality trait (e.g., religious
belief) is a product of nurture rather than nature is as absurd as
saying that the area of a rectangle is a product of its width rather
than its length. Obviously the area of a rectangle is the product of
both its width and its length.
The expressions of our genes inluence our culture no less than our
culture influences the expressions of our genes. The nature/nurture
debate is thus a waste of intellectual effort.
-gts
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 5:39 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Genes & Religion [was: We are all Jews]
>
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 Artillo5@cs.com, in response to
> loreetg@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Come now, don't start confusing genetics with religious
> beliefs! As far as I
> > know, there has been no "religion" gene identified...
>
> Actually, E. O. Wilson might disagree -- I think it was the Atlantic
> article on Consilience (I think Anders posted the URL) that convinced
> me that humans have a need to "believe" in explanations for unknown
> phenomena. There may not be a "religion" gene, but there may be
> a "rationalization" gene. Some rationalizations turn into religions.
> As soon as you have a rationalization for why bad things happen (e.g.
> people get sick because the gods cast a spell on them) then you soon
> have a religion because people want to influence the gods.
>
> And of course religion is used to promote the power of specific
> individuals -- in which case we have at its roots "Alpha male" genes.
>
> One way to "win" the game is to change the rules of the game being
> played. I once did this in a very powerful way where 99 people
> who had voted me into the position of the least "popular" person
> in the group found a way to turn me into the most popular in spite
> of the fact that the "rules of the game" should have prevented that.
>
> I would agree that the genes may not have been identified.
> Yet!
>
> Robert
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:52 MST