Model predicts ‘religiosity gene’ will dominate society.
“Provided the fertility of religious people remains on average higher than that of secular people, the genes that predispose people towards religion will spread,” Rowthorn told PhysOrg.com. “The bigger the fertility differential between religious and secular people, the faster this genetic transformation will occur.
[…]
Rowthorn acknowledges that he can only speculate on how a genetic predisposition toward religion may manifest itself in a secular context. Previous research has suggested that a genetic predisposition toward religion is tied to a variety of characteristics such as conservatism, obedience to authority, and the inclination to follow rituals. In this instance of evolution, it’s possible that these characteristics may become widespread not for their own fitness but by hitching a ride with a high-fitness cultural practice.
The future belongs to those who show up.
Of course the long term effects of the religious based killing of apostates, heretics, polytheists, adulterers, witches, etc…, may have thinned the gene pool on the non-religious side just a wee bit.
Who among the religious, besides Muslims, are killing the apostates etc., Mitchel?
Why, it’s Mark Steyn’s marxist twin from the bizarro universe.
Saith Kathy Shaidle this morning: “The lesson is: Your Right/Left Decoder Ring is broken beyond repair.
You see: It doesn’t matter what you think or what you do.
To the Establishment, it only matters WHO is doing it.
The Wrong Type of People (that is, us) can never be correct or prescient.”
Incredible. Shows us how inane and stupid the human mind can be. Has anyone thought to ask him the key question?
Dear Eminent Researcher. Kindly show us the exact site of the ‘religious gene’ in the genome of the human species. How is it that some people, who presumably have this gene, are not religious? Oh – and while I’m asking, could I ask another question?
Dear ER: Are there any other genes governing social behaviour that you could tell us about? Is there one for believing in fiction rather than fact?
Oh – and have you ever heard of the discipline of psychology and its focus on behaviour? Do you think that emotions, and, for example, the need for stability could underlie the emergence of faith?
Genetic determinism of thought. Unreal.
This is stupid. My religion inspires/requires me to act contrary to how I am feeling at a specific moment. My feelings, urges and genetic dispositions run very much counter to my religious convictions at times, every allowing for the fact that my beliefs mold my values and therefore affects my desires.
Again, this is stupid. The left can’t imagine why anyone would think differently than them, so we end up with this garbage.
the human condition in ze olde days were 100 percent religous…(or superstittious)
but
practical results(science) paid off in better survival rates..
I’ve never heard anything so stupid in my life. If this makes any sense at all, can someone explain how secularism evolved from our previously very religious societies in the first place? Never should have happened if there was any truth to this theory.
There must be a moron gene too. The last time I saw so much equine dung disguised as a study, I was reading AGW “science”. By any chance, did Rowthorn, the model developer in this religious gene theory, ever work at the IPCC creating climate models?
“…killing of apostates, heretics, polytheists, adulterers, witches, etc…, may have thinned the gene pool on the non-religious side just a wee bit.”
That’s illogical. Why are those groups considered non-religious?
Also this is hardly a left/right or liberal/conservative issue. Obviously many lefties are religious. An opening prayer to Ixchel at the United Nations climate in Mexico? an indian spiritualist opening at the Giffords rally? Kate’s link to the hysterical tree criers…
It seems that everyone who carries the parasite gene has managed to get grants to do useless “research”. No wonder Mc Donalds is importing foreign workers, everyone qualified for the McD jobs in North America has become a University professor.
I was once an atheist, but now I’m a Christian. What does that say about my genes?
embutler science is a religion too. It just has a very limited scope.
Somewhere along the way, someone misread a research paper. Fertility is actually influenced by jeans, not genes. Jeans are much more common in western culture, especially among left-wing protestor types. Religious people wear jeans occasionally, but not so much on Sunday. That gives the gear a chance to function properly, and leads to higher birth rates.
“Who among the religious, besides Muslims, are killing the apostates etc., Mitchel?
Posted by: Kroket at January 30, 2011 9:45 AM”
Know the history of Christianity Kroket?
“When the Roman Empire became Christian, apostates were punished by deprivation of all civil rights. They could not give evidence in a court of law, and could neither bequeath nor inherit property. To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; “Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi” (Bonn, 1840), 1521 – 1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis l. c. 60, 61]. In the Middle Ages, both civil and canon law classed apostates with heretics; so much so that title 9 of the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX, which treats of apostasy, contains only a secondary provision concerning apostasy a Fide [iv, Friedberg, Corpus juris canonici (Leipzig, 1879-81), II, 790-792]. Boniface VIII however, by a provision which was amended in the sixth book of the Decretals [V, title 2, De h£reticis, 13 (Friedberg, II, 1075)], merely classes apostates with heretics in respect of the penalties which they incur.”
“From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. “In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichæans.”
“The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.”
As far as I can determine, the last execution by Christian authorities for heresy was in 1826, after about 800 years or so of killing.
Nice that the Christians wised up a couple of centuries ago, maybe the Muslims aren’t far behind?
I’m still comfortable in saying that the gene pool of non-believers has been decimated by the followers of organized religion.
No matter what trait we’re talking about, someone will postulate a gene for it, because now that the genome is mapped, it’s just a matter of seeking and finding all the little discrete bits that make up a man. It’s like the human is composed only of individual letters and no words. So far, from prestigious publications like the G & M among others, I have learned of the selfishness gene, the language gene, the shyness gene, the rage gene, and the writer-of-idiotic-articles gene. The article is fascinating in how it invents a model to support a theory and to project events into the future. (The Amish will be several million strong soon.) It creates evidence from observation and draws conclusions from correlations.
The parallels with climate science are frighteningly similar.
And in other genetic science news, blondes will be extinct in 200 years.
“blondes will be extinct in 200 years.”
As long as peroxide isn’t blacklisted like CO2 that’s unlikely. 😉
“Nice that the Christians wised up a couple of centuries ago, maybe the Muslims aren’t far behind?”
Not a chance. You have to look at the foundations of a religion. Buddhists follow one set of rules, Christians another, and muslims yet another. Mohamed founded his cult with the intention of conquering, and robbing the more motivated and productive cultures. When children are born into this culture, they’re in it for life. So long as they follow the teachings of a conqueror, they will live by his rules.
Is there also a gene for the mentality of those who write incoherent, totally implausible BS and attempt to call it “science”?
Funny how the leftist nutbars are obsessed with Christianity. Seems to go hand and hand with the hallowed place they have in their canon for their musings about the origin of life, and of the species. They never bother to notice the fatal flaw in their world view – they have no explantion of how the universe formed.
Mitchel44, wouldn’t you agree that Christianity presently, and for the last 2 centuries has gone to great lengths to provide food, medicine, and other necessities to non-Christians?
Christianity ended slavery, preventing millions of future deaths due to neglect in the predominantly non-Christian areas of Africa, and has saved the physical lives of millions upon millions more across the world through charity given to those in distress, and continues to do so, in their own societies, and abroad. Who responded to the plight of the Muslims in Aceh? The predominatly Christian US, and Australia. The aid given by Christians is given regardless of the religious beliefs of the recipient, so huge numbers of non-Christians benefit from this charitable giving.
By the way, remember that notable Christian George W. Bush – his provision of anti-AIDS drugs to India and Africa have saved millions of lives, and helped to prevent population collapses in those predominantly non-Christian regions.
In light of this, your blanket statement ” I’m still comfortable in saying that the gene pool of non-believers has been decimated by the followers of organized religion. ” is a slander on Christians.
This is junk genetic science.
Posted by: mitchel44 at January 30, 2011 12:11 PM
Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s; render unto God what is God’s.
Apparently, those in political power you cite forgot this particular lesson about the separation of realms.
Apparently, these Ceasar’s put on a false cloak of legitimacy to perpetrate their barbaric acts.
Oh Set You Free don’t worry about Michael44. He is an atheist secular humanist who denies that atheistic secular humanism has brought about more death and destruction in the 20th century than all the religious wars that took place prior. Unfortunately it is the ways of mankind that we can not allow the other to hold a variant view to our own. Those in power use their power to destroy the apostates to their orthodoxy. We Christians are called to heed Christ’s words in John 10:16 that the Other is not always wrong but our base human nature too often overcomes our most noble intent.
This isn’t funny guys, the Amish killed my family
“This isn’t funny guys, the Amish killed my family”
What the Amish gave your family too much good home made food? I’ve heard of it happening to others as well.
Dave in Pa 12:49
Yes there is and my model predicts that it’s on the rise.
Kindly show us the exact site of the ‘religious gene’ ~ ET
It’s at the end of the ‘recessional chromosome’
Posted by: Joe at January 30, 2011 1:56 PM
Yep. It always is the Ceasars who do the most damage to humanity.
Today’s Godless Ceasars are no better than those who pretended to represent God in the past.
Much of their argument is like a person making loud noises and they saying ‘I can’t hear you.’
Their ignorance may give them bliss, but is no subsitute for those who understand the distinction between the two realms.
Joe
They killed my family with kindness! What else can you expect out of a bunch of monsters? I could probably go and shoot up one of their schoolhouses and they’d probably just plain forgive me for it oh wait…
Set You Free
Your accusations about christian repression of apostates and heresy are largely irrelevant.
The Inquisition has been largely explained by social deviants harnessing religion as an excuse to practice their own perversions.
Much like the Imperial Roman edicts about adultery……an offense only applicable to female citizens. Punished at times by public execution in the arena by the condemned being tied naked to a wooden frame and then sexual assaulted by trained animals such as donkeys, bull even elephants. A perverse form of entertainment not so much a valid lesson of morality to be sure.
(Johnny 100 Pesos at January 30, 2011 11:32 AM)
they’re evolving.
And all this time I thought religious feeling was learned or acquired.
I don’t believe genes control every aspect of humanity. This article strikes me as silly to say the very least. If genes are a concern, worry about inbreeding. Start asking the crowd that whips women for wearing slacks.
Killing of apostates is not taught in the New Testament, upon which Christianity is based, unlike The Qu’ran where it is taught.
My question was: “Who among the religious, besides Muslims, are killing the apostates etc.” I am not aware of any at the present time.
So, basically, nothing will change?
There’s no genetic predisposition towards religiosity per-say. Religious belief are no different than any other strong mystical, superstitious, or pseudo-scientific beliefs, so it’s silly to talk about a genetic predisposition to an artificially selected subset of a broad category. There IS a genetic predisposition towards credulousness and acceptance of authority, and it’s rather widespread because it does have certain evolutionary advantages. People who are born able to distinguish fantasy from reality are few and far between, so this guy is essentially predicting something which has been true for millions of years.
Religious belief are no different than any other strong mystical, superstitious, or scientific beliefs,
There fixed it for you Alex. Science is every bit as speculative and involves just as much faith in myth as any other recognized belief system. You can’t accept that so of course in true troll fashion you are going to try shout down any contrary opinion. Yawn.
Stop being such a retarded leftist joe.
Using the inimitable words of Mac & Tosh, “After you Alex, I insist”.
Using the ageless words of Lil’ Timmy, “I know you are, but what am I?”
The sort of thinking in Rowthorn’s theory is what has led to some governments in the 20th century instituting mas executions of people in order to purify races or create a new Soviet man. It is for the good of the people of course. I suspect that at least two people commenting above subscribe to those methods.
It’s true. That commie Joe would like nothing better than to commit genocide. Everyone knows what those leftists are like.
The meme of declaring religious adherents as “superstitious” or “stupid” goes back to grade school. One would think adults would be above that.
Many people can hold science and religion at some measure. And not everyone who claims to believe only in science really has a handle on the subject.
The topic at hand is whether there is a “religious gene” or not.
I say no. People don’t have revelations because it is coded in their DNA. It comes through thought, prayer and action.
Or people don’t have revelations at all.
At any rate, there is nothing physically innate about it.
Just my thoughts.
Gotta be a way to reduce the moslem birthrate.
I know! Bring back sex with sheep!!
Or at least work towards reducing the stigma we westerners have against the practice.
And thats what the whole thing is about ,right…PRACTICE. Preparing for sex with a human partner, technical drill sort of.
Maybe theres a reality show there somewhere. Broadcast right after “Best Little Mosque, in Texas” or whatever that CBC waste of time is called.
“The topic at hand is whether there is a “religious gene” or not.”
True and for the materialist atheist there can be no other explanation since all things are material not spiritual.
‘The meme of declaring religious adherents as “superstitious” or “stupid” goes back to grade school. One would think adults would be above that.’
It’s a sad state of affairs when adults are expected to be dishonest or delusional.
‘The topic at hand is whether there is a “religious gene” or not.’
Already answered. Our genetic coding encourages blind acceptance of authority in childhood, and credulous acceptance of unsupported claims throughout our lifespan. Guys in robes and funny hats do the rest. The same genes that are responsible for your mothers interest in astrology, your brothers involvement with acupuncture and homeopathy, and your cousins purchase of a bridge in London, are also responsible for your religiosity. So no, they’re not “religious genes”, they’re just genes which lead you away from critical thinking.
It is perfectly safe to ignore Alex as he believes he is nothing more than a bunch of amino acids bumping together.
That’s some atheist communist eeevolution talk there, Joe. Cut it out! We can’t possibly be a bunch of amino acids, since everyone knows that God miracled people out of dirt.
ET, you’re wrong about genetic influences on social behavior — surprising that you’re espousing the blank slate theory of mind which is the bedrock of leftist thought.
The best data we have on genetic influences on personality are from identical twins and the similarities are uncanny. People like to maintain the illusion that they are in total control of what they do and get quite upset when their genetic heritage is pointed out to them.
In the area of mood disorders, heritability is extremely high when one does a family psychiatric history (when they live in families that acknowledge depression or hypomania). Attention deficit disorder has a heritability of 80%. Eating disorders are also to a large part genetic.
What never ceases to amaze me is how people are quite willing to accept the heritability of hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, etc but are under the delusion that the brain is immune from genetic influences. Migraine is heritable and, interestingly, migraine and bipolar disorder coexist very frequently (80-90% of bipolars have migraine).
I very much doubt there is a “religiosity gene”; what is more likely is that there are a number of genes that are more common in religious populations. In the hutterites of Alberta, fertility will be limited in the near future by the very high level of genetic disorders that occur through inbreeding — the Calgary Childrens Hospital was full of Hutterite kids which made for a rather limited pediatrics experience — I thought that methylmalonic acidemia was a common childhood disorder.
Traits such as conformity are heritable and have been tentatively assigned to serotonin receptor subtypes. The traits get renamed every decade or so and 30 years ago such people would be classified as low on the sensation-seeking scale. It’s possible to study effects of neurotransmitter receptor variants in mice by knocking out certain genes or inserting other ones and reliably enhancing or eliminating certain behaviors.
The best we can say in humans is that the split between genetics and environment is probably around 50:50 but to deny the genetic influence on behavior is the height of folly.
“What never ceases to amaze me is how people are quite willing to accept the heritability of hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, etc but are under the delusion that the brain is immune from genetic influences”
It’s a good deal less amazing when you consider the fact that people like to think that their “soul” is something wholly disconnected from the body, which can exist on it’s own after death, and therefore doesn’t depend on the underlying hardware. Can’t have dem crazy scienticians throwing our bronze-age superstitions into doubt, now can we?
It should be noted that the guy’s an economist, not a geneticist.
But it should also be noted that the article says quite clearly that the “Religiosity gene” in question is openly and admittedly a convention of the model, not literally an actual gene.
He’s assuming (not entirely unreasonably) that some of the tendency towards religious belief or its absence is heritable, and seeing what the resulting model leads to.
He is not saying there there really is some specific gene that does that.
(It might be so, but he’s reasonably not asserting it, since he hasn’t demonstrated it and isn’t even trying to.
The PhysOrg headline is deeply misleading – but then the quality of output from PhysOrg is low, in my experience.)