Eh, I'm not sure I buy that. Why does everything have to be linked to genes these days? Are we that intent on obliterating the idea of free will? Is it that comforting to believe that everything we do and are has been predetermined? How many questions can I string together in a row?
Nonetheless, I will be watching this develop with interest. I just finished reading Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" (published this year) and one of the things he seems to be certain of is that scientific research will not uncover something like a "God gene" or "religious experience center" in the brain. This is one point on which we agree, and I think I'll need to see more evidence than this cursory treatment of the topic. Maybe I'll pick up the book.
Also, I find it interesting that the article notes that his findings "are being greeted skeptically by many in the religious establishment" but does not mention how others in the scientific community have reacted. I think it is pretty obvious that the religious establishment is going to react negatively--I'm far more interested in seeing what the scientific community thinks about his work.
[Edit: Then again, maybe I won't pick up the book. A review of the book from Scientific American (via Amazon) answers my question about why there has been no reaction from the scientific community (the study hasn't been published in a scientific journal yet). It also elaborates on the "homosexuality gene" mentioned in the Washington Times article (the study was never successfully replicated) and pretty much slams the book from a scientific viewpoint. If the Washington Times article piqued your interest, you should definitely read this review to get the (at least initial) scientific perspective.]
I think it is pretty obvious that the religious establishment is going to react negatively
Why?
Clearly, if there is a 'god gene', God put it there
You can count me, overall, among the skeptics. However, I think part of the problem appears to be simply taking the conclusion too far. That certain types of people are more or less likely to believe certain types of things based on genetics doesn't sound like a stretch to me. Calling it a 'god gene' seems a bit much...
I find this amusing:
quote:
...who challenge the existence of a "God gene" and say the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith...
So because it undermines what you would like to be true, it's wrong? That's a new one
While a case clearly needs to be made much stronger by Hamer in order to get anywhere with this, refutation based on what you want to believe is true needs to stop.
quote: Suho1004 said:
Also, I find it interesting that the article notes that his findings "are being greeted skeptically by many in the religious establishment" but does not mention how others in the scientific community have reacted.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-30-2006 10:12
Interesting, but I think more scientific research needs to be done before even a tentative claim can be made.
quote:I think it is pretty obvious that the religious establishment is going to react negatively--I'm far more interested in seeing what the scientific community thinks about his work.
I have to agree with DL here - why should they react negatively? I don't see anything in the Bible that either agrees or contradicts a "god gene".
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I had thought it would be fairly obvious that the religious establishment would react negatively, but I guess it's not as obvious as I thought.
Nothing in the Bible that contradicts a "God gene"? Well, perhaps not directly, but the conclusion (that certain people are more likely to believe in God than others) does run afoul of the idea that God wants no one to perish, but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Bible indicates that everyone needs God, and that we were created to have God in our lives. But if there is a God gene, and if God put it in us (ala DL's comment), why would he give it to some people and not others? You would think that God would want everyone to have an equal chance, wouldn't you? At best, the existence of a God gene makes God a rather fickle individual who likes to play favorites and then damn those who he arbitrarily decided to deprive of the propensity to believe in him. This is certainly not the message that the religious establishment wants to send, I would think. Whether or not you agree with or believe in the underlying principles, you have to admit that the logical conclusion of a God gene is not good news for religions that purport to be universal.
That's my take on the issue. What I want to hear now is why you think the religious establishment would either be silent on the issue (i.e, not react either way) or react positively. I can't see any way that a God gene would be a boon to the religious establishment (remember that we're talking about a God gene that not everyone has).
[Edit: At this point, of course, this is little more than a philosophical discussion, since there is definitely not enough scientific proof for the idea yet. Honestly, given Hamer's track record, I'm not optimistic about proof being forthcoming, but we'll have to see how it turns out.]
A couple of things:
Does the mentionned churches and religions accept the notion of genes altogether?
Do creationists accept that concept at all? Otherwise, I see a lot of reasons
why they would cringe.
In the event they do accept genes, since they do not believe in evolution,
then there still is matter for them to react (how comes some people are "evolved" or "elected"
as Suho pointed out).
Other than that, and that's maybe the main thing I see: creationists
*would* question anything that questions a frail belief, methinks.
Any new scientific fact carries a potential risk for something these people WANT
to believe in.
As a christian who spontaneously evolved towards other beliefs, I think
creationnists and "extremely firm believers" want to believe and that it serves a purpose
in theyre vision of life.
It gives it a meaning, and gives a meaning to all the hurt and pain and feelings and sorrow one goes through during a lifetime.
I read some about emotional responses and the hormonal system some time ago, and I strongly think this "need to believe" exists in strong believers as a NEED, they wouldn't cope without it.
Therefore, I do "buy" the possibility of a gene that would impact this kind of addiction.
First let me point out that my statement was purely tongue-in-cheek.
I understand very well why religious groups would not like this idea.
secondly -
quote: Suho1004 said:
At best, the existence of a God gene makes God a rather fickle individual who likes to play favorites and then damn those who he arbitrarily decided to deprive of the propensity to believe in him.
Funny. That's the impression of God that I got from reading the bible.
Mr. Hamer seems to jump to the conclusion that the existance of the gene causes (or allows) people to more easily believe in God. Maybe it's the belief in God that causes some people to have the presence of the gene.
quote: hyperbole said:
Maybe it's the belief in God that causes some people to have the presence of the gene..
I don't follow you on that one... Are you suggesting that people who believe in God undergo a genetical mutation during their life?
Or maybe I just can't see the meaning of your sentence... or maybe that you forgot to say something like "Maybe it's the belief in God that causes some people's children to develop the presence of the gene.." which sounds rather fantasist, but then again, so does the whole thread...
DL: Yeah, I knew you were being tongue-in-cheek there (the slimies kind of gave it away) and wasn't going to reply, but WS sounded more serious, so I figured I would explain.
quote:
Funny. That's the impression of God that I got from reading the bible.
And I also knew that that was exactly what you were going to say.
Seriously, though, I tend to agree with you that calling it a "God gene" is going a bit too far. I will grant that genetics probably do play a part in how we react to the world around us, but I believe there is a lot more to it than that. I think Hamer is rather sensationalist, and I wish he would just wait until there was some actual scientific proof (one questionable study does not constitute scientific proof) before he opens his mouth. The same thing happened with his "gay gene" in '93.
kimson: Sorry I wasn't clear. I was being somewhat sarcastic. The "research" Hamer does seems to always be on the fringe and of a somewhat questionable nature.
However, my implication was not that if someone goes and gets "saved" their genetic stricture is immediately, magically altered. I was saying that the research he is doing seems to start with a preconceived idea of where he wants to end up and he misses other possibilities, such as the idea that generations of people following certain beliefs or traditions might lead to altering of the family's genetic code.
In the 1970's a group of scientists took massive amounts of data and fed them into a computer. They then ran correlation analysis on all the data and the computer produced a printout of all the "facts" it could correlate.
One of the facts the computer found was that every time the third moon of Jupiter goes into regression, it rains in Toronto, Canada.
There are times when you can have large amounts of data that seem to point to a fact, but that don't really relate to each other at all.
SUHO and I have intertwined line of thinking. I also do not buy the idea of 'God gene'. For me faith is not in any way related to our physique, genes, hormones or appearance. However, it is something innate. Something innate that can glow outside when you are living it. It is not suppose to stay within, it has to be shared to bloom...
quote:rose_im_schwarz said:i think that jesus was a person, but just that a person so there could be a gene connected to him.I wish I could figure out what it is you're trying to say here......but I just can't.
i dont believe he was a divine being, that he was a normal mortal like everyone else
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-26-2007 21:50
Sooo...what does that have to do with a "God Gene"
I mean, if Jesus was just an ordinary person (meaning that it is entirely possible that he had one or more genes in common with the rest of the human race), then why and how for the love of gawd would that mean that a gene could have survived him and is now propagated in others that makes those who have it inclined to believe in God?
The twisted logic in there is like taking a rubic's cube apart (in pieces) and then fitting them back together to solve it.
Or...something like it.
Maybe.
Now I am confused
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote: rose_im_schwarz said:
i dont believe he was a divine being, that he was a normal mortal like everyone else
Ok, I guess I just don't see what that has to do with anything here.
I'd say if that's something you are interested in pursuing, a seperate thread would be a better way.
Also, if you are interested in our other conversations on such topics, check the faq here: http://www.ozoneasylum.com/24877
posted 05-29-2006 17:41
