The following question (although edited slightly here) was posed on the HubPages "religion" forum:

"Assuming the evolutionists stance for a moment, why the "religion gene"?
If there is no God, and we all evolved, why is it that the majority of humanity has a bent toward God, religion, spirituality etc. If we evolved with it, why do animals NOT display any of these traits too?"

I thought I'd ponder this question and put my "ponderings" into a Hub. I'm neither a scientist nor a member of any clergy or church; so I like to think these ponderings, while perhaps incomplete or incorrect in some (or many ways) are objective:


I'm going to take a shot at answering this question, and I think it's not about any "religion gene". It's about brain development, and human beings happened to be the first species to have their brains reach the type of development it has. Yes, genes are at the root of the programming with regard to which species developed in which direction; but I'm not getting into that here. It isn't the point.

It is said that "highly intelligent" people often have a sense of a "higher calling" or spirituality. "Highly intelligent" people have more "intelligence" than "plain, old, smart" or "average" people. So, assuming their "high intelligence" is well rounded (rather than just being gifted in one area, like math or music), highly intelligent people would be good frames-of-reference with regard to where man's intellectual is headed. A sense of spirituality and/or sense of higher calling aren't about religion but obviously don't rule out belief in "something bigger". Having evolved to the point of having speech and a more complex society, man's brain has most likely been given an edge in further development (whether or not the overall human body/brain have dramatically slowed or even been mostly halted with regard to major evolutionary changes still to come).

As it happens, other species have taken a different direction in evolution, with some having abilities or senses that are superior to man's (but not in the area of intellect) and others seeming to be "stuck" closer to their way-back origins/form of life. In other words, when it comes to what we know as "intellect" other species have not advanced the way man has. That may not mean, however, that many of the species (particularly mammals) would not have the potential of eventually developing more developed brains, given the massive amount of time and conditions needed for that to happen.

This will sound silly and frivolous, but it's the only first-hand observations I have to go by (and it has been enough to cause me and family members to think about the brain development of animals): I've seen for myself how, when we have a cat or dog past the first few years of their life, and particularly past five or seven years; and if we have a certain way of talking and attempting to communicate with them (about day-to-day things, not having "big, serious, discussions") those pets will become "more human" in seeming to understand language and other ways their "friend" communicates with them. Without all the ways an older pet we've been with for a long time can show amazing ability to understand things (to the point where it can seem mind boggling to their people), it is clear to me that animals have far more potential to understand things and communication, and even attempt to communicate themselves, than a lot of people realize or give them credit for. That to me would indicate that, there is far more potential of development in animals than most people see. Their species didn't happen to evolve with as much focus on the brain as man's evolution happened to; so, yes, other species could be considered, "developmentally delayed", compared to humans (at least in the intellect department).

With people, the role that genes play in how well a newborn child's brain will development is only partial. A baby's brain must develop a vast portion of its synapses in the first three years of life, and nurturing plays a role in how well those brain connections are formed. Perfectly healthy children left in cribs and isolation in orphanages have eventually developed serious mental and physical developmental delays, with the mental delays being considered "mental retardation". The point is that for even those of the more fortunate, human, species born into the world with whatever genes they have; it is the post-birth conditions that play a dramatic role in brain development.

The point is that (regardless of whether there is or isn't a Creator), all species took different directions at different rates of change, and it happens that human beings were the first to get to where they did with regard to intellect. Since high intelligence has been associated with a sense of higher calling or spirituality, some may believe that God designed the potential for higher intellect as a way of moving whatever species got that closer toward spiritual awareness, even within the limits of being physical beings. The part of the brain associated with empathy (which is associated with higher morality and less inclination toward crime and victimizing others) appears to be heavily influenced by nurturing, although brain damage before birth is always a possibility for any fetus. Also, it is not for me to guess about whether genes make one child need more and better nurturing than another.

Some people may believe that there is no "Great Creator" and that man's intellectual development has been nothing more than an accident of evolution. Some see the potential intellect, reason, and empathy have in bringing peace to an otherwise violent world. Some see man's intellect as being what separates man from other species, assuming that human beings have intellects developed at least enough to make them behave in a civilized way (not all human beings do, even at this late state in man's existence). Some might care children's tendency to "act wildly" or want to "just do what they feel like doing" to an earlier stage in man's evolutionary process, before well developed reason and empathy became the guide of a good number of fully mature human beings.

Other people may believe that a Creator is behind the process of evolution, itself, and that that Creator may have given man his "edge" in intellect, perhaps, as a way of doing "God's work" on a planet where no other species thinks in those terms. Although this saying is usually used in reference to people who are wealthy, "to whom much is given, from whom much is expected" could apply, with regard to why one species was pushed in the direction of higher intellectual development. Some who believe in a Creator may even wonder if the original plan wasn't necessarily that man would shoulder the responsibilities of the most highly intellectually developed species; but more that God may have had the plan, "The first of you living things to reach a higher intellect will be held responsible for aiming to further the rest of my Creation."

Some people may believe that at the root of all life could be a drive "toward infinity", which might include something like evolving toward a longer life span for the most "potentially life-nurturing/preserving" of species and eventually that move beyond the physical body and into a spiritual realm.

There is also the possibility that spiritual leaders throughout history may have been among the highly intelligent (and therefore had that "sense of higher calling") in a time when the world was even more violent and less inclined toward "higher thinking" than it is today. Such seemingly rare, peace-loving, individuals may not have been alone, but in their ability or drive to become leaders may have become just that. They would, of course, have been seen as "specially connected" by virtue of their seemingly rare, peace-loving, natures and teachings. In the case of any such human beings, their teachings would, in fact, contribute to the further intellectual development of others; which would mean that, in fact, they were doing "God's work" (or, for people who believe "God" is more a force than an invisible person, "Nature's work").

If we consider the greatest literary classics we usually see that those works contain observations of, or lessons about, humanity and life. Some authors may have aimed to include those observations or lessons. Others, by telling a story, may have simply "re-created life" in their stories and, by default, presented observations and lessons. Creativity in any form is often a way (consciously or not) to "capture life" or "re-create life" in an art form. This goes right along with the idea that with well developed intellectual capabilities comes a natural tendency/drive to want to preserve/promote life "for eternity". While history may be full of "dark art", all that indicates is that some artists don't want "eternity" to lose their darker version of what life, as a human being, sometimes is.

In ancient times man did know "how the sun worked". It was known that life needed the sun's light in order not to die of starvation or cold, but the sun was believed to be a spirit that could be cajoled into shining its light longer and brighter (in Winter) by dances and rituals. Science came along and explained what the sun is but never refuted the necessity of its light and warmth for life on Earth.

Although some people (often the young or the non-scientifically "tuned in") see that there is order to all of Nature. It is also, usually, man's instinct to attempt to put order to what can look like a chaotic world. Whether it's in the present day or a few thousand years ago, when there have been seeminly chaotic winds of storms or else the senseless violence of man it has usually been human nature to attempt to find a way to make some sense/order of things. While our instinct to see or create order would seem to be very much in keeping with Nature, it can seem as if Nature is chaotic when we can't see or understand the order that causes things like storms or illness to occur. It's there. It's just that many people are not able to see it, as a result of either inadequate education in science or else because science, itself, has not identified the true root of what appears chaotic.

Some people believe that the teachings of some religions come from man's attempts to explain (put order to) life. Then, too, some can see how the practices of many religions, actually serve some purpose even if they appear, on the surface, to be "religious voodoo". For example, telling people to save on day a week as a day of worship/reflection/prayer can be an indication of simply being aware that people do need to take a certain amount of time for introspection and pondering the meaning of life or else what they believe. Religions have served the purpose of making man aware that he does not "live by bread alone". Religions also have often served the purpose of bringing communities together and/or having a common aim. They also offer moral guidance to people who may feel the need for moral guidance. Some religions are destructive, or at least have destructive elements to them, when it comes to what would most contribute to a peaceful world or preserving life. As with any other leaders in life, some religious leaders have messages that are positive and that will contribute to life and humanity. Some have messages that are destructive. In general, most mainstream religions share the belief in a Creator and differ in small ways or else in which "original leader" they have chosen to follow. Still, religion remains a social construct; while ability to comprehend the concept of a Creator and/or choice to believe what any religion teachers remain functions of the intellect.

All species have different abilities, needless to say. Some animals are far superior to human beings in strength and speed. Some have amazing abilities to sense one thing or another. In general, most species have their own version of "being programmed to be preserved" or getting a "special gift" from Nature/God. One might even ask if the fact that birds can fly, besides lifting them away from danger, may be Nature's way having just a hint of being closer to the Heavens. The power of a tiger, the close-to-indestructible nature of the cock roach, or the ability of cats and dogs to be domesticated are all signs that each species generally has something that will contribute to its preservation and/or development. Then again, it has been said, "The meek shall inherit the Earth." It doesn't take being a member of the clergy or being a genius to realize that if we can figure a way to preserve our species (which is superior in brain development but inferior in many other ways) in a world where "the law of the jungle" still so often applies, it may be that the aim of Nature/God has been to point human beings in the direction of intellect so that they may one day be peaceful, intelligent, benevolent keepers of the rest of his Creation.

Whether or not our individual mix of genes play some role in the direction our own, individual, brains have been developed isn't really the point. We do know the importance of nurturing the human mind, a sense of empathy, and a sense of morality; regardless of the means by which we learn those traits, which is never through ignorance and violence. We do know that it is a well developed ability to reason combined with a strong sense of empathy that offer man the best chance of bringing peace and overall understanding of life to this world.

There are people who believe only what science shows them and refuse to consider that science has not yet seen, and may never be able to see, a whole lot more of the larger picture. These are often people with one type of cognitive ability more developed than some others. Then there are people who are open to accepting the answers of others (in religion), rather than having faith in their own ability to find their own way through life, either with belief in God or without. Such people often share the same close-mindedness that "science-only" people do. Both groups may be fine, caring, moral people; but they have come to their morality in different ways and believe different things. Then there are people who set about their journey through this life, believing that neither science nor religion has all the answers (although both may/do have their valid points).

While there's the chance we may be genetically programmed to have a particularly well developed sense of empathy or ability to reason (the jury is never really in when it comes to what science knows in many instances), the role of genes would seem to be more limited to predisposing us to a sense of spirituality, rather than religion. The term, "doctrine", is often used when referring to religious teachings. While it isn't the aim here to imply that some religious people have not also used their own sense of empathy and spirituality to come to their personal beliefs or even doubts, there are times when it is "doctrine" (indoctrination) that can separate spiritual-minded people (believers in any one religion's God or not) from the blind followers of religious beliefs that do not leave room for one universal truth.