jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (56 posts)

"Science" Model "Predicts" "Religious" Gene To Dominate Society?!

  1. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Robert Rowthorn,
    well noted professor of economics at Cambridge University has developed a model that shows the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently hitchhiking on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates. Even if some of the people who are born to religious parents defect from religion and become secular, the religious genes they carry (which encompass other personality traits, such as obedience and conservatism) will still spread throughout society, according to the models numerical simulations...

    Here is the Full Article

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4545929_f248.jpg

    Comments?

    1. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hmmm, it sounds like God puts a knowledge of Himself in all men. Of course I could be wrong. I'm sure you'll get oodles of different opinions.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Mmm, oodles (of noodles). Now I am hungry. big_smile

        1. profile image0
          just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Man I needed to laugh. That was funny.

          1. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            wink

      2. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Works for me.

    2. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We knew that decades ago.

    3. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This article brings to mind how some of the Europeans tried to breed with the aboriginies of Australia in an effort to make the race a more perfect species. In their perception more like to that of their own.

      I doubt very much that fertility rates have anything to do with the religious gene. Perhaps it is more to do with lack of contraceptives. Perhaps too these amish people prefer to allow nature to take its "natural course".

      1. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        the fundamentalist mormons FLDS have a high birth rate too - they are also extremely in-bred, and have a high incidence of a rare birth defect

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That would upset Richard Dawkins considering he is an atheist and is concerned about over population. Isn't he the one that theorized the religious meme or gene? If his natural selection works the way it does then the selfish gene is reproducing theists. Survival of the fittest didn't he say.

          On the other hand

          If the birth defect is present then according to natural selection the gene might delete itself or cease to duplicate itself in future generations and therefore their birth rate may dwindle or eventually depopulate the world of mormons.

          1. Beelzedad profile image62
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Are you saying believers are not concerned with over population? What other things are believers not concerned about?



            Nope, that's what Darwin said. smile

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know if they are concerned? Do you?

              I stand corrected Darwin.

              1. Beelzedad profile image62
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Go forth and multiply" - God.

                I suspect not. smile

                1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                  pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Whether they are concerned or not. According to the selfish gene we probably do not need to worry about over population.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image62
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I have no idea how you made that connection. smile

          2. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I haven't read any of Dawkin's theories.

            I'd say the breeding is not from a gene, but rather from their religious expectations - the girls 'marry' as young as 12, and then are baby factories, producing a child each year - many of the women have at least 10 children each.  No birth control allowed

            1. Beelzedad profile image62
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No worries, none of the believers here have, either. What they have done is doctored videos of Dawkins with dubbed in voices and then they put them out on the internet as fact. Very sad, indeed. smile

              1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I saw that video. Sad I agree.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You should see the clip of him saying the universe is "stranger than any god"

                  Here: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkin … verse.html

                  then listen to this speaker Jeff Hawkins:

                  He says,

                  if you don't "have a framework, we are in the pre-paradigm days.."
                  atleast he understand that you have to have a working theory on SOMETHING before making sense of it.

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                    pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Haha will go look and see that one. Sounds intriguing.

            2. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Haha Baby factories made me laugh. Although I do know your serious. Could be too I don't know?

              1. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                there's plenty of religious beliefs that make the girls/young women into baby factories, whether or not it's healthy for the mother or whether or not the family can afford it etc. 

                A christian example is the quiverfull group.

                I've mentioned the mormon fundies in some hubs

    4. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm...

      Kinda like the concept of the "elect"?

      That is, if "religious" is to mean Godly, not just rituals.

    5. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Since when is a professor of economics a professional in genetic?

    6. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      would it not be more like indoctrination, and mind re-afermation than genetic.

      from what I have experienced its more like brain washing from a very young age I would say.

      been there done that,

  2. Hugh Williamson profile image88
    Hugh Williamsonposted 6 years ago

    It's an interesting read.

    Did you notice the first comment to the article? The fellow said, "Atheists!! Get breeding now..."  lol

    1. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I've come back on here everyday day, for five days, assuming I'd find hilarious jokes spun from this comment. Still, nothing. I don't get it. It's so ripe for humor.

  3. Beelzedad profile image62
    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago

    It sure is funny when believers turn to "noted professors" when it suits their purpose. The rest of time they dismiss them out of hand. smile

    1. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Beelze,

      I again submit my request as to WHAT you define as a believer regarding me (since I am the one who posted the OP). Surely you do not conclude I am either "sensationalist" or "equationist", do you? If so you are sadly, sadly self deluded. You all look the same to me -science/theist. One prides, the other one swears to it. LOL

      Any-who,

      What "purpose" is it you are chirping about?
      And what do you mean by "out of hand" .

      smile

      James.

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It sure is funny that atheists favor to ignore experts when it suits them, without even providing a single "expert" to prove their arguments in all arguments. Or disprove an argument. They result to posturing and nitpicking.

      Oh that would not be all atheists, that would be just you.

      Some atheists are actually pretty on the money with their science (albiet clueless about other things)

      1. Beelzedad profile image62
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but it is often taken for granted by the scientific community those accepted theories boasting mountains of evidence need not be put forth time and again to those who are supposed to understand them, considering their failed attempts to refute them with an "expert". smile

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          you obviously have not seen a real scientific discussion

          1. Beelzedad profile image62
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Certainly not from you, anyways. smile

  4. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Numbers as we all know can be may to read whatever we like.

    1. Beelzedad profile image62
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So, if I showed you the number 2, will you read it as anything but the number 2? Or, something else? smile

  5. profile image0
    Neville Walkposted 6 years ago

    Is there any evidence for this so-called "god gene?"  I expect the real reason people of a strong religious faith have more children is because their faith requires them to do so.  Most religions have expected their followers to produce offspring to continue the faith.  Roman Catholics used to have large families, as do many muslim families, because that is what those religions expect.  Atheists however do not have such a motivation, and are more likely to use family planning methods.  So the result is obviously going to be that more people will be born to religious parents. How this has been interpreted as evidence of the existence of a god gene, I fail to understand.

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this
      1. secularist10 profile image88
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Haha! Funny stuff. Although the gay scientists should have been wearing pink lab coats.

  6. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    So, one of the funny things about this thread was the title, which no one picked up on...

    "Science"  "Predicts"  "Religion".
    The key word is predicts.
    It further 'proves' a case that science is religion and after all these years of trying to prove it isn't, has proven exactly what was suspected --it is big_smile

    Religion spelled backward equals science lol

    1. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Very clever.

    2. superwags profile image80
      superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What on earth are you talking about?

    3. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      gosh. Does that mean we're going to have to argue on a thread titled 'I Can Prove There Is No Science'. That's going to be a strange one.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not strange if science 'predicts'.... Unless science gives itself a whole new definition of predict like it does for theory.

        1. profile image0
          just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LOL. That's true.

      2. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually Just_Curious, i can prove there is no science. Hmmm.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You might like to start a thread. Be interesting to see how it evolves.

        2. profile image0
          just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, just make sure you're sure before you post a thread on it. Don't want you to kill yourself  running back and forth trying to defend it like some have recently. LOL (man, I have got to learn how to use emoticons on this thing)

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            what he means is science is an invented word for something we've actually doing for a long time, even before the scientific method was invented.

            1. profile image0
              just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ok but, by that definition, aren't all words invented?

            2. profile image0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well said, love, well said.
              I think I'll will leave it at this:

              The term science has existed since man engaged a single property of himself and disregarded the other properties. This indulgence became a "morphic resonance" and sent him on a quest of knowledge. As science, the word is translated, means knowledge. The term and by all historical applications of the term/practices, suggest --highly-- man once knew and lost that knowing. The result -- 'in search of..."

              James.

          2. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Click formatting when you type your reply (located below the reply screen) scroll down and it shows you the keys to type to get a magic emoticon  smile

            1. profile image0
              just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are so helpful. Thanks. cool

              1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You're very welcome wink

  7. secularist10 profile image88
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    The article references the Amish. One of the key characteristics of the Amish is their isolation from the rest of modern civilization. So if the Amish population ever does reach into the millions, it seems likely that a fair number of Amish will indeed "defect." After all, who can resist iPods, velcro and the occasional trip to the topless bar?

    In any case, it's certainly an interesting idea, but nothing more. The "model" is simply an assumption layered upon a hypothesis wrapped in a hunch. (This gets back to the fact which someone mentioned above that this professor is an economist--which, if anyone is familiar with economists, explains a few things smile )

    "The model predicts that the religious fraction of the population will eventually stabilize at less than 100%... Overall, nearly all of the population will have a genetic predisposition toward religion, although some or many of these individuals will lead secular lives, Rowthorn concluded."

    The big deception of this model is that the headline doesn't reflect the actual substance. That is, the headline is all about "religion" and "secular" but in reality the model deals simply with a set of traits and qualities (like obedience, subservience, respect for authority, orientation toward tradition, etc) which, in the context of culture and society, tend to support religion. But the model does not actually claim the existence of a "religion" gene per se.

    Accordingly, the model authors make a second error by assuming this whole process of religious expansion begins today. What about the countless generations of humans that have come before us? Hasn't the same process been occurring for thousands of years? Of course it has, and this is why the aforementioned types of traits are extremely common throughout humanity.

    And that, in turn, helps to explain why religion has become so powerful and widespread over time in human cultures. But obviously these qualities of traditionalism, obedience, etc can be manifested very well in a purely secular sociocultural framework, too.

    One last thing. The second comment to the article says

    "Religionists will continue to fight and kill each other off by Design... This has been the Formula for the last few millenia, and the world has gradually gotten saner as a result."

    This is a great point, and it is a huge factor the model's authors fail to consider. Religion's general assumptions of absolute and exclusive truth almost guarantee that it ultimately has only one of two options in human society: (1) violence and oppression, or (2) peaceful tolerance and acquiescence.

    The former ensures its indefinite survival (as it did for thousands of years), and the latter ensures its eventual demise and secularization.

 
working