The God gene

[lukeman]

Some people believe there is a God gene built in humans to make them believe in or feel a God. A gene or a part in the brain that becomes active when they pray or think about God. The temporal lobe part of the brain i think it is or something else? Even if this is true it doesn't worry me. This gene would make atheists think that they are right about God being just an imaginary thing but I have a way to refute this:
I think that maybe God gave us this gene to help us feel him more easily and believe in his existence and not loose the faith because there is a God and we need that help.


I'm still up for debating my theory since it's just my idea.

 

[Penumbra]

Well, from reading about the hypothesized god gene in the past, it doesn't quite work like you say.

The gene doesn't make people believe in God. Belief in religions and deities and doctrines is far more complex than that. Instead, the proposed gene is hypothesized to affect monoamine levels in the brain which would pre-dispose some people toward having spiritual experiences and some to not have them. It is not religion-specific. Throughout many cultures, those whose gene is wired one way would be more likely (though not guaranteed) to have what they consider spiritual experiences, whereas those whose gene is different would be less likely to have what they consider to be spiritual experiences, because different levels of chemicals are in their brain. Some people, when they pray to various gods or meditate from various religions, claim to feel mystical experiences, but those whose gene is different would be less likely to experience such things.

A ramification from the hypothesis is that religion is partially hereditary.

 

[dewaddict84]

Well if it's a gene that makes people predisposed to believe in god, then it'd still be subject to mutations. That is, some people wouldn't be born with it and others would be born with an overactive gene. That might explain the diversity in our population (Although it's more likely their upbringing, but that's the nature vs. nurture debate).

But if it's all part of god's plan, then you shouldn't have any objections to the "god made me an atheist" argument. Right?

 

[BarelyBreathing]

The idea of the God center in our brain came about, in part, because of the work/ research done by Dr. V.S Ramachandran, although he later said that what he said was misinterpreted. The work of V.S. Ramchandran is absolutely fabulous if anyone enjoys that sort of stuff. His website: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran MD, PhD

There has been quite a bit of research on the brain and religious phenomena. M. Persinger has some interesting research as well. He is the guy who puts a helmet on people and then stimulates parts of their brain with magnetic fields, and people report feeling a presence when certain areas are stimulated.

 

[lukeman]

The idea of the God center in our brain came about, in part, because of the work/ research done by Dr. V.S Ramachandran, although he later said that what he said was misinterpreted. The work of V.S. Ramchandran is absolutely fabulous if anyone enjoys that sort of stuff. His website: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran MD, PhD

There has been quite a bit of research on the brain and religious phenomena. M. Persinger has some interesting research as well. He is the guy who puts a helmet on people and then stimulates parts of their brain with magnetic fields, and people report feeling a presence when certain areas are stimulated.

yeah i think i've seen him before on tv where he can make people have fear or some other feelings through these magnetic fields, even some home electronics can give off these fields like an alarm clock.
Ramachandran also has worked with the guy who has a special ability to solve complex math problems in his head and he pictures numbers in shapes in his head.

 

[Wedjat]

I watched a documentary once about a man who had temporal seizures. During his seizures he didn't feel closer to god, the thought he was god. Everything he saw had deep meaning and significance to him in this state, and so he was convinced he was omniscient, and therefore god.

I'm still up for debating my theory since it's just my idea.

That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Find empirical evidence to back up your hypothesis that a god put the gene there to make it easier to feel him/her/it/them or whomever it might be and then we'll talk.

In the mean-time, things happening in your head is generally referred to as imagination.

 

[lukeman]

I watched a documentary once about a man who had temporal seizures. During his seizures he didn't feel closer to god, the thought he was god. Everything he saw had deep meaning and significance to him in this state, and so he was convinced he was omniscient, and therefore god.



That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Find empirical evidence to back up your hypothesis that a god put the gene there to make it easier to feel him/her/it/them or whomever it might be and then we'll talk.

In the mean-time, things happening in your head is generally referred to as imagination.

what is your point?
who cares what it is hypothesis/idea/theory it's by me!

 

[Wedjat]

what is your point?
who cares what it is hypothesis/idea/theory it's by me!

Are you serious?
What gives you such great authority that you can completely forgo evidence?
Furthermore I assure you, you are not the first person to come up with this idea.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Some people believe there is a God gene built in humans to make them believe in or feel a God. A gene or a part in the brain that becomes active when they pray or think about God. The temporal lobe part of the brain i think it is or something else? Even if this is true it doesn't worry me. This gene would make atheists think that they are right about God being just an imaginary thing but I have a way to refute this:
I think that maybe God gave us this gene to help us feel him more easily and believe in his existence and not loose the faith because there is a God and we need that help.


I'm still up for debating my theory since it's just my idea.

A common misconception among creationists, is that having an idea is somehow on the level of a theory. A theory is established over time, and is the best way of explaining that which is tested and observed.

What you have is an idea. Next you need to develop a working hypothesis.

Example: There is a god that gave us a "god" gene.

Next: You would need to prove that there is in fact a god. Furthermore, that he is the god that you believe in.

Second: Identify "god" gene.

Lastly: Connect the first two in the most parsimonious way.

State your conclusion. When enough information comes in over time, develop said theory.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

If God directed evolution to place such a gene in us, whether that be simply by knowing the outcome and creating everything in a way that would achieve such, or by directly guiding it, I don't think that idea would be testable. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but its just not testable.

That said, I wouldn't exactly relegate religious experience to genetics, nor would I say that heredity has that much of a noticable impact in religion. It seems to me to be more influenced by culture.

 

[Wedjat]

If God directed evolution to place such a gene in us, whether that be simply by knowing the outcome and creating everything in a way that would achieve such, or by directly guiding it, I don't think that idea would be testable. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but its just not testable.

That said, I wouldn't exactly relegate religious experience to genetics, nor would I say that heredity has that much of a noticable impact in religion. It seems to me to be more influenced by culture.

Your right, the idea isn't testable, it is therefore not falsifiable. All theories must be falsifiable (ie, rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would falsify (or at least seriously put a dent in) the theory of evolution. Large celestial bodies jumping through solar systems without affecting other planets orbits would do the same for the theory of gravity)
God is not testable, therefore not falsifiable, therefore not science.

You are also right in that religion is more to do with society than genetics. However genetics are to blame for an individuals ability to experience spirituality. Religion and spirituality often get mixed up.

 

[Penumbra]

God is not testable, therefore not falsifiable, therefore not science.

This is true to some extent. As far as the purpose of your post goes, this is correct, but you've phrased it in a rather sweepingly large and general way that I slightly disagree with.

Some small aspects of deities can be tested, which can play a role in shaping a larger understanding of that being. For instance, prayer can be analyzed to see if it has objective effects on reality while eliminating variables such as the placebo affect. Of course this only works on those religions that claim that prayer has an objective affect on reality, but it's still a window for testing.

So basically, while it's not possible to test what exists outside of reality, if something supposedly affects the universe, it enters partially into the realm of testability.

-Lyn

 

[Wedjat]

True enough, but keep in mind, Christians are rather famous for claiming that God is untestable.
Remember Jesus on the mountain, and Satan told him to jump off because his dad would send some angels to save him, Jesus responded by saying, do not test the lord.

A christian could argue that every time you try to test God, he jumps out of the way so you can't see him. Probably something about faith having to come on faith and not through evidence, otherwise it negates the definition of faith, which is somehow a bad thing.

In this way, God is untestable.
Of course whenever any bit of evidence comes up that seems to point to God, people will jump in claiming it's proof of his existence, and then if someone else refutes it, they claim the untestable God.

So perhaps I should clarify. God is only untestable if the results would be or are negative.

 

[David Gould]

I suspect that feeling awe at the universe is a consequence of the universe being awe-inspiring. Attributing intention to the universe must at least in part arise from the increased survivability that attributing intention to things in our environment gave us - if we suspect that the stealthy sound we hear in the night is a lion intent on our death we will likely do better than if we never suspect that the stealthy sound we hear is a lion intent on our death.

The specifics of any particular religion arise from culture. I think that the generalities at the core of religious experience stem directly from our biology.

 

[29apples]

If one's genetics predisposed them to believe in a God, it would be much more complex than a single gene. We often assume a gene is a simple switch, on or off. This is a gross oversimplification. Genes have a gradient of expression of their products that interact with different proteins dependent upon concentration.

There is a reason biocomputional tools are severely lacking in predicting protein interactions. It is too complex for our algorithms to handle. We can't even predict promoter sites without a high rate of false positives.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

True enough, but keep in mind, Christians are rather famous for claiming that God is untestable.
Remember Jesus on the mountain, and Satan told him to jump off because his dad would send some angels to save him, Jesus responded by saying, do not test the lord.

A christian could argue that every time you try to test God, he jumps out of the way so you can't see him. Probably something about faith having to come on faith and not through evidence, otherwise it negates the definition of faith, which is somehow a bad thing.

In this way, God is untestable.
Of course whenever any bit of evidence comes up that seems to point to God, people will jump in claiming it's proof of his existence, and then if someone else refutes it, they claim the untestable God.

So perhaps I should clarify. God is only untestable if the results would be or are negative.

lol, I don't view faith like that, and I am sure a lot of people would say the same. I think you are confusing faith with credulity. As for your verse about testing, it isn't saying that you cannot have rational basis for your belief. The issue is that Jesus leaping from the temple would have resulted in a disobedience to God's authority, (forcing God to cause angels to catch him). God is untestable in some sense, but there is imo an evidential basis for his existence, and part of this does deal with his work in the natural world. Also, I would point out that simply because something is not scientific (as strictly defined), does not necessarily mean it should be discounted as evidence. After all, there is evidence that science dismisses on a philosophical basis. Vis a vis methodological naturalism.

 

[Wedjat]

First off I'm surprised that God could be "forced" to do anything. Why couldn't Jesus have died for our sins jumping off a mountain? (although to be fair, a lump of rock wouldn't make a very good necklace)
And no I am not confusing faith with credulity, although I might argue that faith is caused my an increased disposition to be credulous.

I should further clarify

If some point of "evidence" is come by through non-scientific non-empirical means, then it cannot be used in science. Science deals with the natural world as it is.
Lets say there is a handkerchief on my desk. Let me also mention that said handkerchief is invisible, insubstantial, and otherwise immune to observation. What is the difference between that handkerchief being there, and not being there? For all practical purposes I live my life assuming that the handkerchief is not there, because whether it actually is, or is not there makes little difference in the fact that it has no impact on the real world.
Science does the same thing with god. There is no objective evidence in the natural world for his existence, so for all practical purposes his non-existence is simply assumed. When practical evidence arises, or when the outcome of a particular test relies on the existence or non-existence of god, then the idea will be given consideration.

Also to 29apples, no one here really thinks its a single gene, we know that the human body's complex interactions with itself could never be defined so simply. We call it "the God gene" for simplicities sake, despite the fact that the name tends to oversimplify the situation and include aspects that really have nothing to do with it. It is a common, and perhaps ill fitting name, but for consistency we use it nonetheless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lets say there is a handkerchief on my desk. Let me also mention that said handkerchief is invisible, insubstantial, and otherwise immune to observation. What is the difference between that handkerchief being there, and not being there?

The difference is:

1. If you claimed there was a handkerchief there, you would be right.
   
2. If you claimed there was no handkerchief there, you would be wrong.

 

[Wedjat]

The difference is:

1. If you claimed there was a handkerchief there, you would be right.
   
2. If you claimed there was no handkerchief there, you would be wrong.

No one makes a positive assertion that the handkerchief is not there by discounting the fact that it could possibly be there. I say, for all practical purposes, the handkerchief is not there, meaning when it comes to how it affects the real world, it might as well not be there, not that it is impossible for it not to be there.
However, if someone made a positive assertion that the handkerchief was there, they would need to provide some pretty convincing objective, reproducible, empirical evidence to support their claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, if someone made a positive assertion that the handkerchief was there, they would need to provide some pretty convincing objective, reproducible, empirical evidence to support their claim.

And again --- (since you asked the difference) --- if Person A said it was there, and Person B demanded 'pretty convincing objective, reproducible, empirical evidence' --- and Person A walked away w/o saying anything --- and Person B then concluded that there was no handkerchief there --- Person B would be wrong.

It's that simple.

Ignorance [of evidence] is no excuse of the facts.

If you sat on that corner of the desk, you just sat on a handkerchief --- no matter how you try and explain it away.

And it would be your fault.