Are we evolving away from religion?

[Gottservant]

Y'all are making cle-ver arguments, but even if I don't use my brain a'tall I can remind you that PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHURCH LIVE LONGER.

Y'all are suggesting that religion is unscientific, but the studies have been done, that's why I shouted it fur ya.

 

[sfs]

I'm being a little polemic with those examples but you get my point... It's no secret that some people are more credulous than others and the cause of this must be at least partially genetic.

Why must the cause be at least partially genetic? Could be, certainly, but I like to have evidence before concluding a genetic basis for a trait.

As for your original question, religiosity is very likely being selected for at present, assuming there is a genetic basis for it. More religious societies have much higher fertility rates than non-religious ones, and (at least in the developed world), fertility is correlated with religiosity.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Why must the cause be at least partially genetic? Could be, certainly, but I like to have evidence before concluding a genetic basis for a trait.

I make this assumption because every study we have ever done on animal behavior suggests that traits for performing certain actions are somehow inherited by offspring. (how does a baby cuckoo know to knock the rival eggs out of the nest so it will get more food from the parents?) If not by genetics, what other vehicle exists to propagate this information down the generations?

It's a bit more complicated when you are dealing with animals with very large brains like humans because larger brained mammals seem to have "free will" -that is to say we perform actions that can't be directly linked with a certain genetic phenotype. (we don't think of behavioral phenotypes when we talk about "this person is anger-prone" or "this person is compassion-prone."

But it would be naive to think that just because we have more complex brains than other animals that we are somehow completely free of the genetic influences that created our brains in the first place!

There MUST be certain genes that, all other things being equal, give humans the tendency to act certain ways or perform certain actions over other alternatives.

You may be familiar with the "nature versus nurture" debate; but I don't see it as a debate at all. We are all products of our DNA, plain and simple. Even though there might not be a single gene that programs someone to act a certain way, there is definitely genes that gives people a tendency toward certain behaviors.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Y'all are making cle-ver arguments, but even if I don't use my brain a'tall I can remind you that PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHURCH LIVE LONGER.

Y'all are suggesting that religion is unscientific, but the studies have been done, that's why I shouted it fur ya.

I already addressed this phenomenon in a previous post. So what if going to church makes you live longer?

Does that mean that Jesus is the son of God? How do you draw that conclusion?

Does going to a mosque give you that same benefit as going to a church? Does going to a catholic church give you better benefit than going to a baptist church?

 

[Michael]

I already addressed this phenomenon in a previous post. So what if going to church makes you live longer?

That would in fact be considered a 'tangible effect' of the benefits of religion/belief in God. It's a trait that increases the "odds of survival".

Does that mean that Jesus is the son of God? How do you draw that conclusion?

You could start "small" by noting that in terms of pure statistical (scientific oriented) percentages, "Jesus" is the one human being that is considered by the majority of the planet to be the (or one of the) most spiritually enlightened human being to ever walk this planet. The rest is something you might argue, but Islam and Christianity represent more than 1/2 of all human beings on this planet.

Does going to a mosque give you that same benefit as going to a church?

Probably.

Does going to a catholic church give you better benefit than going to a baptist church?

I suspect that the Catholics have less conflict between their religious viewpoints and their scientific viewpoints, therefore less stress, therefore maybe they live *even longer*? Who knows.

 

[keith99]

Y'all are making cle-ver arguments, but even if I don't use my brain a'tall I can remind you that PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHURCH LIVE LONGER.

Y'all are suggesting that religion is unscientific, but the studies have been done, that's why I shouted it fur ya.

Then give us a study.

Personally I find it very doubtful that any raw data, looking at only Church going vrs. not would yield this as Blacks and poor are more apt to attend Church.

That raises the question what factors are corrected for? Pick the right factors to correct for and the right ones to ignore and you get whatever answer you want.

 

[Clairvoyance]

That would in fact be considered a 'tangible effect' of the benefits of religion/belief in God. It's a trait that increases the "odds of survival".

Oh yeah that's definitely plausible. I don't disagree with Gottservant's comment on a practical level; but it still doesn't offer any explanation on the mechanism by which a phenomenon like that occurs.

Do people who go to church live longer because it's a stress relief or is it because the church community helps the individual with money/food/care when they are sick/needy/etc?

My point in response to Gottservant's comment was to illustrate that even if the claim of longer life was true, it still lends no credence to the truth of the actual claims of the religion.

In any case, we still haven't talked much about whether or not the genes that tend to make people religious will likely continue in the future or not. This is the topic of the OP.

 

[sfs]

I make this assumption because every study we have ever done on animal behavior suggests that traits for performing certain actions are somehow inherited by offspring. (how does a baby cuckoo know to knock the rival eggs out of the nest so it will get more food from the parents?) If not by genetics, what other vehicle exists to propagate this information down the generations?

Yes, certain traits clearly have a genetic basis, but not all traits do. More to the point, variation in a trait need not be genetic; it can also result from environmental or random effects. In technical terms, the question is how heritable the phenotypic variation is. I'm requesting evidence about the heritability of religiosity.

But it would be naive to think that just because we have more complex brains than other animals that we are somehow completely free of the genetic influences that created our brains in the first place!

There MUST be certain genes that, all other things being equal, give humans the tendency to act certain ways or perform certain actions over other alternatives.

You may be familiar with the "nature versus nurture" debate; but I don't see it as a debate at all. We are all products of our DNA, plain and simple. Even though there might not be a single gene that programs someone to act a certain way, there is definitely genes that gives people a tendency toward certain behaviors.

There is no question that human behavior is a product of our genes, since without our genes we wouldn't exist and would have no behaviors. There's also no question (at least for me) that variation in human behavioral phenotypes has a genetic basis. But it's also clear that plenty of variation in human behavior results from non-genetic causes; before concluding that variation in religiosity is caused by genetic variation, I'd like some empirical evidence.

 

[Clairvoyance]

I wanted to go back to this comment for a second:

For that matter it could simply be a 'genetic defect' that keeps some few individuals from tapping into something real that other people can tap into.

Hold on there buddy! First of all I take personal offense that you are implying that unbelievers are "defective" in some way. But I'll put that aside!

My biggest concern with that comment is that it's not scientific! You are classifying "non-belief" as a "defect" when in reality it should just be considered a different behavioral phenotype.

What do you mean by "defect" anyway? By your definition, people with blue eyes are "defective" because in reality every mutation is a "defect".

That's how evolution works! Without these "defects" all life would DIE because it wouldn't adapt to changing environments! Remember: mutations are DNA copy errors.

But anyway, let's say non-belief is a negative mutation... That means that being a nonbeliever would hurt your survival... Ok. At certain points in history that may have been true... (If you weren't religious you were killed by those that were.)

What about today? Do you think the non-belief mutation is likely to spread or shrink in modern societies?

 

[Clairvoyance]

Yes, certain traits clearly have a genetic basis, but not all traits do. More to the point, variation in a trait need not be genetic; it can also result from environmental or random effects. In technical terms, the question is how heritable the phenotypic variation is. I'm requesting evidence about the heritability of religiosity.


There is no question that human behavior is a product of our genes, since without our genes we wouldn't exist and would have no behaviors. There's also no question (at least for me) that variation in human behavioral phenotypes has a genetic basis. But it's also clear that plenty of variation in human behavior results from non-genetic causes; before concluding that variation in religiosity is caused by genetic variation, I'd like some empirical evidence.

Obviously science hasn't gotten that far yet. It's WAY easier to link genetics to behaviors of simpler animals like bees (they have uncovered different strains of bees some being "hygienic" and others being "unhygienic", for instance.) But it's massively more complicated when dealing with animals with bigger brains.

I like to think of it like the butterfly effect. There must be some underlying genes that if present will cause someone to be more likely to be religious than someone who doesn't have that particular gene sequence.

I don't think this is a radical or unscientific assumption. But you are right; it would be nice if we had more studies.

 

[bhsmte]

Obviously science hasn't gotten that far yet. It's WAY easier to link genetics to behaviors of simpler animals like bees (they have uncovered different strains of bees some being "hygienic" and others being "unhygienic", for instance.) But it's massively more complicated when dealing with animals with bigger brains.

I like to think of it like the butterfly effect. There must be some underlying genes that if present will cause someone to be more likely to be religious than someone who doesn't have that particular gene sequence.

I don't think this is a radical or unscientific assumption. But you are right; it would be nice if we had more studies.

In general, your assumption that genes play a role in human behavior makes sense and studies have been done in this area. As we know, studying the brain is not an easy task and involves a lot of variables. Most psychologists belief that both genetics and environment play a role in human behavior/personality etc..

There has been work done on the type of thinkers (analytical or intuitive) play a role in belief in God, but they need to do a lot more work to fill in the gaps.

 

[Michael]

Oh yeah that's definitely plausible. I don't disagree with Gottservant's comment on a practical level; but it still doesn't offer any explanation on the mechanism by which a phenomenon like that occurs.

Do people who go to church live longer because it's a stress relief or is it because the church community helps the individual with money/food/care when they are sick/needy/etc?

All great questions. I was just pointing out that it was a "survival enhancement mechanism".

In any case, we still haven't talked much about whether or not the genes that tend to make people religious will likely continue in the future or not. This is the topic of the OP.

I think you'd first have to isolate the genes that you think makes people religious to even start to answer such a question. Genes that relate to sight aren't likely to disappear from the gene pool simply due to the presence of photon and their ability to enhance the odds of survival. If the genes involved are designed to tap into something 'real', it's unlikely they'll simply "fade away" over time IMO.

 

[Michael]

I wanted to go back to this comment for a second:

Hold on there buddy! First of all I take personal offense that you are implying that unbelievers are "defective" in some way. But I'll put that aside!p

Ok, that was probably not the best or most delicate choice of terms on my part, but atheism is in fact a minority position for whatever reason.

If *you're* going to try to isolate religion to specific genes, then an atheist's gene arrangement could be different in the way that a blind person's genes are different from a sighted person. If you're suggesting that the tendency toward theism relates to specific genes, then there "could be" a genetic cause of atheism as well.

My biggest concern with that comment is that it's not scientific! You are classifying "non-belief" as a "defect" when in reality it should just be considered a different behavioral phenotype.

Well, maybe, sure. Then again, if you're trying to tag theism to genetics, the reverse is also a likely scenario. You can't rule out that scenario entirely.

What do you mean by "defect" anyway? By your definition, people with blue eyes are "defective" because in reality every mutation is a "defect".

Ok, I admit it's a loaded term. It's an ugly suggestion too, but.....

If you're going to suggest that the majority position (theism) is directly related to genetics rather than "cultural factors" (nurture rather than nature), then it is a possibility that the reason atheists are atheists is due to a different genetic arrangement that is 'abnormal' in terms of percentages. Call it whatever you like, but it could be due to a mutation that "cuts them off" from a physical process that other individuals can experience, like sight.

That's how evolution works! Without these "defects" all life would DIE because it wouldn't adapt to changing environments! Remember: mutations are DNA copy errors.

Not all minority genetic variations die out of the gene pool however. The defect may only lead to that genetic arrangement being a 'minority trait', but it may not be so critical to overall survival that it causes that genetic arrangement to "die out".

But anyway, let's say non-belief is a negative mutation... That means that being a nonbeliever would hurt your survival... Ok. At certain points in history that may have been true... (If you weren't religious you were killed by those that were.)

What about today? Do you think the non-belief mutation is likely to spread or shrink in modern societies?

It's hard to say. The percentages between theism/atheism do not seem to be *radically* different today than say 2000 years ago. The fact that humans exist does not mean that every other ape species necessarily goes extinct. Things like dwarfism are passed on genetically in some cases. Some traits end up being a minority in the overall gene pool, but it doesn't necessarily disappear from the gene pool entirely.

I know it's an ugly suggestion, but if you're going to tag theism/atheism to genetics, it is something you need to think about.

Now *of course* it's possible for the 'survival factor' to be a *nurture* issue, and it's also possible for the prevalence of theism to be a nurture issue too.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I should point out that I've been both an atheist and a theists during various stages of my life. I therefore personally *strongly* doubt that the propensity toward theism/atheism is genetic in origin. I don't think it's that simple frankly.

I would say that I do have a propensity for a preference for *empirical tangible physics*, but even that seems to be a 'learned behavior' on my part.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, that was probably not the best or most delicate choice of terms on my part, but atheism is in fact a minority position for whatever reason.

If *you're* going to try to isolate religion to specific genes, then an atheist's gene arrangement could be different in the way that a blind person's genes are different from a sighted person. If you're suggesting that the tendency toward theism relates to specific genes, then there "could be" a genetic cause of atheism as well.

Well, maybe, sure. Then again, if you're trying to tag theism to genetics, the reverse is also a likely scenario. You can't rule out that scenario entirely.

Ok, I admit it's a loaded term. It's an ugly suggestion too, but.....

If you're going to suggest that the majority position (theism) is directly related to genetics rather than "cultural factors" (nurture rather than nature), then it is a possibility that the reason atheists are atheists is due to a different genetic arrangement that is 'abnormal' in terms of percentages. Call it whatever you like, but it could be due to a mutation that "cuts them off" from a physical process that other individuals can experience, like sight.

Not all minority genetic variations die out of the gene pool however. The defect may only lead to that genetic arrangement being a 'minority trait', but it may not be so critical to overall survival that it causes that genetic arrangement to "die out".

It's hard to say. The percentages between theism/atheism do not seem to be *radically* different today than say 2000 years ago. The fact that humans exist does not mean that every other ape species necessarily goes extinct. Things like dwarfism are passed on genetically in some cases. Some traits end up being a minority in the overall gene pool, but it doesn't necessarily disappear from the gene pool entirely.

I know it's an ugly suggestion, but if you're going to tag theism/atheism to genetics, it is something you need to think about.

Now *of course* it's possible for the 'survival factor' to be a *nurture* issue, and it's also possible for the prevalence of theism to be a nurture issue too.

I believe atheism (at least those who go public with their non-belief) is a minority position for obvious cultural reasons. People have been indoctrinated with religion (mostly christianity) since birth. It has permeated society for centuries as the acceptable belief system (depending on where you were born) and going against the same, has had negative consequences for many. Not unlike the fact that homosexuals stayed in the closet (and many still do).

The numbers in the united states is around 75-80% identify as christians, give or take. Is this number a real indicator of how many people really truly believe in the christian story? I would say it is highly over estimated, for the cultural reasons (and also political) reasons I already mentioned. So, it isn't difficult to comprehend, why so many identify as christian, considering the history.

Could anyone imagine a presidential candidate running and having any chance of winning if they stated they were a non-believer? There have only been a handful of senators/congressman that have come out and claimed they were non-believers and that was after they were in office. The pressure to identify as christian in the United States is powerful. The true number of non-believers in the United States or those who really didn't buy the christian story, is much larger than polls show (IMO).

2 years ago in the UK, they did a poll where they asked who identified as christian. The number was about 60% or so. They then asked the 60% whether they believed that Jesus was God, and over half of them indicated no. Now, of that 60%, you can eliminate over half as being true christians, just based on that one response and shows, how people indicate they are christian, out of habit.

 

[sfs]

FYI, I should point out that I've been both an atheist and a theists during various stages of my life. I therefore personally *strongly* doubt that the propensity toward theism/atheism is genetic in origin.

Your personal experience is completely consistent with a genetic propensity for or against theism. Such a propensity means only that the probability of being one or the other depends on your genome, not that your beliefs are solely determined by your genome.

 

[Michael]

Your personal experience is completely consistent with a genetic propensity for or against theism. Such a propensity means only that the probability of being one or the other depends on your genome, not that your beliefs are solely determined by your genome.

You're right that I cannot rule it out. I do however tend to think that bhsmte is correct about the fact that social pressures probably do have a powerful influence in many cases. His explanation doesn't work as well for me today at this age however, but I would say it was quite applicable in my youth.

You're right though, it's impossible to rule out genetic factors.

In my case however, the primary impetuous of change from theism to atheism stemmed from changes in my viewpoints and an awareness of the factors that bhsmte described. My impetuous of change from atheism to theism was similar in that it required a change in viewpoints that came about as a result of various experiences in my life. It's not clear how much 'genetics' every played a role, but *cultural programming/information/experience" certainly did play a role in my positions along the way.

 

[bhsmte]

Your personal experience is completely consistent with a genetic propensity for or against theism. Such a propensity means only that the probability of being one or the other depends on your genome, not that your beliefs are solely determined by your genome.

It is also consistent with a psychological state that may have changed over time and created a psychological need that also changed. Now, we could debate as to whether this psychological change was triggered by a genetic propensity, or it was triggered by environmental experiences that created that change.

I can't rule out some genetic predisposition, but I also realize, that environmental factor and life's experiences, can trigger psychological needs that change over time.

This is not unlike the person who is obese for most of their life and than something triggers a change and they lose 100 pounds and completely change their lifestyle. Is this a genetic predisposition, or is a powerful psychological trigger from the environment and experiences that caused the change and created the potent psychological need to change?

 

[Michael]

It is also consistent with a psychological state that may have changed over time and created a psychological need that also changed.

I think that there is truth to that statement, particularly in my case. Part of my impetuous of change from theism to atheism came about due a psychological need within myself to ask myself the 'tough' questions, both about my cultural programming, and about my religious views.

Likewise the change back to theism was also driven by a psychological need to be 'honest with myself' in a purely scientific sense. I recognized at some point that I simply didn't *honestly* know in a scientific sense how I actually got here, where the universe came from, or if there was an actual "creator". There was always a psychological need there to "ask myself the tough questions" at the level of science and physics.

This self reflection ultimately brought me to a point of what I would call pure "agnosticism/weak atheism" where I really had to admit to myself that all opinions aside, I really didn't have a clue. I ended up at sort of a 'razor's edge' point where honest curiosity persisted.

There was also an 'experiential' aspect that occurred which eventually let me back to theism, but even that wasn't an instant transformation, and I've become quite comfortable with honest scientific doubt.

All things considered however, I can't rationally explain all the experiences within my own life, let alone in the lives of every other human that has ever lived, without embracing theism.

I realize that others have different paths in life, different life experiences, different "points" in the their own lives, and honest differences of opinion too. I'm simply comfortable with with works for me personally. Jesus has become an integral part of my life.

Now, we could debate as to whether this psychological change was triggered by a genetic propensity, or it was triggered by environmental experiences that created that change.

I can't rule out some genetic predisposition, but I also realize, that environmental factor and life's experiences, can trigger psychological needs that change over time.

In my case, "age" certainly played a very important role in my transformation from theism to atheism. I think all teenagers naturally start to question authority, and that certainly played a part in the process for me personally.

I'd say it was the psychological need to be brutally honest with myself at the level of science that also ultimately brought me full circle. I'm not as inclined to believe that age necessarily plays a role in that process however. It's more likely to be an environmental factor, and at this point in time I'm inclined to believe that "God" was that environmental factor in my case.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that there is truth to that statement, particularly in my case. Part of my impetuous of change from theism to atheism came about due a psychological need within myself to ask myself the 'tough' questions, both about my cultural programming, and about my religious views.

Likewise the change back to theism was also driven by a psychological need to be 'honest with myself' in a purely scientific sense. I recognized at some point that I simply didn't *honestly* know in a scientific sense how I actually got here, where the universe came from, or if there was an actual "creator". There was always a psychological need there to "ask myself the tough questions" at the level of science and physics.

This self reflection ultimately brought me to a point of what I would call pure "agnosticism/weak atheism" where I really had to admit to myself that all opinions aside, I really didn't have a clue. I ended up at sort of a 'razor's edge' point where honest curiosity persisted.

There was also an 'experiential' aspect that occurred which eventually let me back to theism, but even that wasn't an instant transformation, and I've become quite comfortable with honest scientific doubt.

All things considered however, I can't rationally explain all the experiences within my own life, let alone in the lives of every other human that has ever lived, without embracing theism.

I realize that others have different paths in life, different life experiences, different "points" in the their own lives, and honest differences of opinion too. I'm simply comfortable with with works for me personally. Jesus has become an integral part of my life.



In my case, "age" certainly played a very important role in my transformation from theism to atheism. I think all teenagers naturally start to question authority, and that certainly played a part in the process for me personally.

I'd say it was the psychological need to be brutally honest with myself at the level of science that also ultimately brought me full circle. I'm not as inclined to believe that age necessarily plays a role in that process however. It's more likely to be an environmental factor, and at this point in time I'm inclined to believe that "God" was that environmental factor in my case.

We all have a path, which is defined by who we are (genetically and from our life's experiences).

For me, it was the opposite of you. In my teen years, I prayed every day and leaned on that support for many years after. It gave me comfort and it was what I needed at that time and I believed, truly.

Much later in life, certain circumstances caused me to dig in deep to the scriptures and by accident, not by plan, I started to learn so much about the historicity of the bible that I obviously never knew and I don't believe the majority of christians know, or I should say want to know.

From that point, it was taking the reality of what a thorough investigation of the bible taught me and comparing that to the reality of what we know about the world we live in and my belief came tumbling down, because it got to a point where I knew the story made absolutely zero sense, didn't line up with reality and was clearly (to me) a man made proposition.

That was my journey when it came to the personal God of the bible and it was actually an experience that was uplifting in the sense, that I knew I was being honest with myself and I couldn't pretend.