The God Gene

[mikemadman]

I posted this same message on the Science and Technology forum, was not sure wich one it would belong to. So, sorry for posting it twice.

For the last month or so I have been pushing around this idea that religion is hard-wired in all of us. I think people are born with a instinctual tendency to believe in religion. I also think these tendencies vary widely from person to person.

Here is my theory, now I have not done much research yet, so forgive me if I come across as uneducated. I am just trying to get feedback from the community.

Religion is a emotion. The strongest emotion a human can experience. I think that what happens is, as a child is developing and learning it makes connections with everything, well what is a child to do with information that it cannot make a connection with? Well it becomes "Magical" to the child, as we grow older we learn that there is no magic and science can explain a lot of the unexplained, but what about the unexplainable? Its need to fit in somewhere in your logical brain, and "Magic" is no longer a viable answer. So religion enters. Religion throughout history has been there to explain the unexplainable, as science has progressed religion has been modified to fit the modern times.

Then there is "nothingness". This is a very hard concept to grasp. What is "nothing"? You cannot visual "nothing", you cannot imagine "nothing". So what happens when you die? Nothing! Your dead! Well what does that mean, where do you go? I dont think anyone can actually grasp "nothingness" in their mind, its impossible. Plus this is a very bleak thing to think about. I would love to think there was a heaven wiating for me, that would give me such a great sense of life and meaning and drive. Most people just refuse to believe in anything else.

I also believe society has a huge role on religion and religion has a huge role in society. They work hand-in-hand. Religion gives society a basis for right and wrong.

I am extremely interested in the devotely religious people. The people that would die for thier religion (Islamic fundamentalist among a few), or that get into almost a trance.

Religion has to be hard-wired otherwise how would it of always been here since the begining of modern man? Also, although there have been hundreds if not thousands of religions throughout history they have always been basically the same belief (a presence of higher beings, moral right and wrong and punishment/reward for how you live your life).

My only obstacle with this theory of mine is: What is the advantage of religion from a evolutionary point of view? I can see that the idea of religion is a good idea, but it seems like religion has been the main cause of homocide throughout world history. What I mean by this is, more people throughout history have died in the name of religion (religious wars, fundelmentalist, etc..) then for anything else. So how has religion helped man, why are we prone to beleive in it?

These questions I still have no answers for, but I am searching.

Just as a side-note, can you imagine the implications on society if religion is ever proven to just be a instinctual reaction to the unexplained.

[Bayou]

Well, I dont know how you would explain Aetheism and Nihilism within such a context of a religious gene.
The way you use the definion is bit confusing, Spirituality is more akin to an emotion then Religion, Religion being defined as the service and or worship of god or the supernatural.
Religion is at it's most dangerous when it is "Organised Religion" which by definition would be the act of organising as the service of god or the supernatural, and because their is only one god, all must follow the rule of one.
Thus nobody thinks about the consequences of their actions, because they are inherently justified to those actions by a higher power.
In the historical context, humanity has had science as very recent developement in understanding of the world, before reality was defined through the filters of religion; thus religion has been the sole vehicle for organising humans into patterns of behavior that would have the most successful outcome in survival for a large # of people, while passing on knowledge to the next generation so that they could organise likewise in the future.
Even this has a wide discrepancy beetween different cultures, look how the Native American/Australian religious entitities were able to integrate human beings seemlessly into the framework of nature for such a long time, while european religions have cultured more and more instability while they progressed.
Yes more work is needed to be done for sure.

[mikemadman]

Sorry, I am not really a verball person. I am more of a visual person. I tend to write the same way I think, which is most of the time confusing and not very understandable to people other then myself.

You bring up some very interesting points. You are right I should say spirituality instead of religion. Although, I think spirituality and religion are one in the same. I think people have varying levels of spirituality and religion is only the category of belief that they feel fits them best. At the core of it all is spirituality.

So you are saying religion has served a purpose throughout history as a way for getting groups of people together? A strength in numbers type of thing? And as a way of passing on information from generation to another? Hmmm, I never thought of it that way, but religion was a great way of passing on cultures/beleifs/ideas from generation to generation.

As far as the Native Americans and Europeans are concerned, the core belief was still the same for both cultures even though the religion itself was drastically different. There is a supreme being and a afterlife.

Thank you for your comments, you have given me food for thought tonight. :-)

[darwinist]

I think that religion is more than just those things you and Bayou mentioned. It is also a form of control, by those in power, over the herd. Plus, you touched on the subjective of 'nothingness'. Some people, have to believe in some 'thing'. Or drive themsevles mad. Condisider the follow:-

The Role of Patriarchal Religions

What makes things even worse is that most people not only see violence as the solution to violence, but that they think they have the right to use violence and coercion to force other people to be "moral." This belief comes squarely from the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" of patriarchal religions such as christianity and islam, both of which have long and bloody histories of murdering and torturing nonbelievers, nonconformists, and heretics. So, it's no surprise that those who adhere to such religions have no hesitation in using violence to force others to submit, or simply use it for the sheer joy of inflicting pain. A couple of quotes from the bible illustrate the religious submit-or-die attitude:

The ironic thing about all this is that many of the religious folk most intent upon using violence and coercion to enforce "morality" are themselves quite fearful of becoming victims of violence. Yet the cruel policies they support produce violence.

A good example of this association of violence with "morality" is the war on drugs. It's painfully obvious that drug prohibition is not only destroying our civil liberties, but is also producing a lot of violence and property crime because of the combination of illegality and high profit margins; this results in turf wars by dealers, and crimes committed by drug addicts to support the high price of their habits. All of this should be, and is, obvious, but there is so much fear, authoritarianism and sadism in the general population, and so little ability to analyze data, that the war on drugs continues. And we all pay the price for it through destruction of our liberties, sky-high taxes, and the creation of what could well become a police state.

This, however, should be no surprise, given that another effect of patriarchal religions is the degradation of human reason. One of the primary messages of patriarchal religions seems to be, "You have a brain, but don't use it. Believe, don't think." Two of the most famous manifestations of this attitude are the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books, which was in force for hundreds of years, and the contract that Iran's fundamentalist government put out on Salman Rushdie's life over a decade ago.

The following quote from Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical, Mirari Vox, provides a good example of the religious attitude toward the human intellect:

From the polluted fountain of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather, raving, which claims and defends liberty of conscience for everyone. From this comes, in a word, the worst plague of all, namely, unrestrained liberty of opinion and freedom of speech.

The available evidence indicates that relations between the sexes in human societies tended to be relatively egalitarian during prehistoric (hunting and gathering) times. But that all changed about 8,000 years ago when human beings began to practice agriculture (large-scale food production). That made it possible, for the first time in human history, for people to create and to accumulate surplus goods on a relatively large scale. There's fairly convincing evidence that almost as soon as this happened inequalities arose (or at least greatly intensified) between the sexes, and that a ruling elite first appeared.

There are various theories to explain this sudden inequality. The one that makes the most sense to me is the theory that during prehistoric times woman's primary economic role was that of gatherer. Once man began to practice agriculture, the primary economic role of woman disappeared, and with it the basis for her equality with man. With that, man began to call the shots.

Since one of the functions of a ruling class is to perpetuate itself - and because the early ruling classes consisted of royal families - female sexual exclusivity soon became mandatory. The ruler wanted to know that his children were, in fact, his. A similar thing happened in the lower classes with the advent of private property. Men who accumulated even small amounts of wealth wanted to pass it on to their heirs. So, the patriarchal family was born.

(At this point it's probably good to mention that, largely because of this enslavement of women, a lot of people tend to romanticize pre-historic societies. This is a mistake. While there were undoubtedly a lot of good aspects to prehistoric societies, there were also a lot of bad ones. The most obvious is the early age of death. The average age of death in prehistoric societies, according to many forensic studies, ranged from about 25 to about 35. As well, women suffered greatly from preventable [in modern times] health problems; due almost certainly to the lack of safe, effective contraception, the life expectancy of women was several years shorter than that of men in prehistoric societies.)

Regardless of the positive and negative aspects of such societies, we know that early historic societies were rigidly hierarchical and authoritarian, and that women in them were degraded and sexually enslaved. Naturally, this inequality, degradation and enslavement needed justification, and patriarchal religions arose to provide it. Judeo-christianity is a good example. In many judeo-christian "holy" texts, women are treated as unclean, as property, as inferior to men, and, as such, subject to rule by men.

[Bayou]

I did imply that religion was a control tool. I just didnt say it in as explicit terms as you. ;)</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
Religion is at it's most dangerous when it is "Organised Religion" which by definition would be the act of organising as the service of god or the supernatural, and because their is only one god, all must follow the rule of one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> an organisation that only follows one word of a a supreme being, that in which the supreme being only speaks through "a select few" is inherently prone to abuse through this absolute power.

That is were most native religions diverge from Western and Middle Eastern religions, spirituality was not seperate from existence(like Heavan and hell in western/ME theology), all laws were for survival purposes.
Though to be fair, you could imagine that many laws and morals from the bibleor Koran could have originaly had useful survival purposes too, but as the doctrine became written in stone and only certain people could interpret gods words, then came the manipulation of the masses on every social scale.
Very efficient yes, Very destructive, indeed.

[castille]

I think religion is a bit like leaders - people need leaders to lead them. And what greater leader than a deity?

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
I think religion is a bit like leaders - people need leaders to lead them. And what greater leader than a deity?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Imaginary beings leading our lives? No thanks...

[Man Against Time]

Typically, everyone here only understands religion in the Judeo-Christian context, and apparently has not yet grasped that other peoples in other times knew the gods and saw causes behind nature without having to take a jewish author's word for it.

[orgaelin]

There were so many interesting points made here already by the time I found the conversation. I'll do my best to come back on as many of them as I can!

First of all you (mikemadman) caught my attention with the discussion of nothingness. Biologically speaking, the human brain is incapable of fully appreciating a concept of nothingness, just like it cannot appreciate infinity. The brain is built so that it can only experience or understand things that it has either seen before or can relate to what it has seen before.

I relate so much to most of what you said about wanting to have something to believe, and the drive it would give you if you could find your beliefs, your truth. I used to take comfort from my inability to conceive of smiply 'not existing', untill I learned that the inability was just a feature of the human brain!

Ah well!

On to the subject of religion being there to explain what science can't... I disagree with that idea. I think religion is there to fill in the gap left by those things which *should not* be explained. Sure the nature of matter and space time is fascinating and observable and all that... but spirituality, faith, etc. should be (and should remain) to the adult as a magician is to a child... magic!

Explaining takes away the joy - and THAT is the real meaning of blind faith. Blind faith is where you don't need proof or evidence or confirmation. If you experience something, cherish it, don't analyse it.

Religion is a bad scar on Humanity's already tarnished reputation. Like most people here said, it has been responsible for more death, suffering, deception, and the invention of some of the most terrible torture methods known in the galaxy!

It's not good for society. It is an old and outdated method of control - the forerunner of today's governments that can't just be forgotten about. It has been a drug for those in fear of death for thousands of years, and those in power have supplied it readily and freely(ish) to the point where it stands now as the foundation of our societies. It serves no purpose now other than as a substitute drug for helping people go clean and start believing in science instead.

I like what someone suggested as an evolutionary benefit of religion, but I personally believe that the religious yearning inside of us is not a part of our evolved nature at all.

We have a 'spiritual side' because we are spiritual entities within physical bodies. We don't have souls... we *are* souls.

[beelers]

Religion is hope for those with no hope -- an emotional crutch for those who need one. Unfortunately, if a fellow cripple uses a different crutch, they beat each other to death.

[orgaelin]

LOL, that's a pretty good way of putting it!

That's the trouble with "truth" - it's relative. There is no final truth, no absolute truth; only what is true for you.

I think.

And I also think that that sucks. I would love for there to be an absolute truth. Religions all offer their 'truths' as absolute, unquestionable, and in this fact is their best definition, as well as the reason they fight. If you had an absolute truth, you might well use extreme measures to spread it... but it should always be asked "what if we're wrong?"

[Man Against Time]

1+1 = what?

[orgaelin]

2...

why?

[orgaelin]

A relevant and interesting quote:

"All Truth passes through Three Stages: First, it is Ridiculed...

Second, it is Violently Opposed...

Third, it is Accepted as being Self-Evident."

[harami]

"My only obstacle with this theory of mine is: What is the advantage of religion from a evolutionary point of view? I can see that the idea of religion is a good idea, but it seems like religion has been the main cause of homocide throughout world history. What I mean by this is, more people throughout history have died in the name of religion (religious wars, fundelmentalist, etc..) then for anything else. So how has religion helped man, why are we prone to beleive in it?"

As I read history, religion has been a part of human society from the beginning. (Of course not everyone in a given society is religious, so it is not innate in all people.) For example, there have always been shamans, priests, priestesses etc. These designated religious people (almost) always had a place of power or respect, and oftern were a special class. My hunch is that they gave some structure and coherence to what was deemed "ethical behavior" by their society. This societal recognition of a common ethic enabled many societies to function with less internal friction, and act in a more coherent way as a group. Obviously there are destructive counter examples, but by and large I think the effect (over the span of history) has been postive in the sense of allowing human societies to function and grow, in a stable way.

Yes, often religions enforce their beliefs on pain of death, and clearly have been used to justify bloody wars between groups and persecutions. But to focus on only these effects denies the good things that have been wrought by religious beliefs. The actions of criminals do not taint everyone.

[orgaelin]

I think yours is a needed balancing point of view here, Harami. We do need to keep in mind that there are benefits to religion. I also think we need to draw a distinction between those who need the direction and sense of belonging that religion affords, and those who would rather not be subtly manipulated and have all forms of truth withheld from them.

Religion is good for some, but not for all.

[fremen03]

I would hesitate to coin the human need for religion as an instinctual or genetic occurence. However, I think it is hard to deny that some kind of social evolution of the the concept has taken place.

Religion seeks, as I think the other posts have touched on, to explain the infinite. Just like a calculus problem (at least for me), there are some things which cannot be concretely understood. To me, these fundamentally include, "How did the universe begin" and "What happens when we die." These are two immediately relevant questions that surely have plagued humans since we first began to acquire sentience. How did our ancestors deal with such problems? Through religion and stories. These serve as stabilizing factors in society.

As time has gone on and humans have become more cognitively advanced, the need for explicit religious belief is fading. Is there still the infinite? Of course. But at least we are beginning to come to terms with it for what it is.