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
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.
Mmm, oodles (of noodles). Now I am hungry.
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".
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
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.
Are you saying believers are not concerned with over population? What other things are believers not concerned about?
Nope, that's what Darwin said.
I don't know if they are concerned? Do you?
I stand corrected Darwin.
"Go forth and multiply" - God.
I suspect not.
Whether they are concerned or not. According to the selfish gene we probably do not need to worry about over population.
I have no idea how you made that connection.
Apparently the gene will only choose those traits that ensure its survival. When it eliminates those traits that are not useful in the next generation the gene will have adapted. So over time if the traits have replaced itself in a non inherited way that are not useful it will eliminate them too. Therefore diminishing ones ability to procreate or have longevity. This is how different species have become extinct.
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
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.
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:
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.
Haha Baby factories made me laugh. Although I do know your serious. Could be too I don't know?
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
Kinda like the concept of the "elect"?
That is, if "religious" is to mean Godly, not just rituals.
Since when is a professor of economics a professional in genetic?
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,
It's an interesting read.
Did you notice the first comment to the article? The fellow said, "Atheists!! Get breeding now..."
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.
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
What "purpose" is it you are chirping about?
And what do you mean by "out of hand" .
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)
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".
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.
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
Religion spelled backward equals science
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.
Not strange if science 'predicts'.... Unless science gives itself a whole new definition of predict like it does for theory.
Actually Just_Curious, i can prove there is no science. Hmmm.
You might like to start a thread. Be interesting to see how it evolves.
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)
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.
Ok but, by that definition, aren't all words invented?
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..."
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
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 )
"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.
by TahoeDoc 9 years ago
Do you believe religion is needed for morality? Is the bible the only guide to morality?If you believe these things, do you really think you would go around commiting crimes and immoral acts if the bible didn't tell you not to? I actually give (most) people more credit than that, don't you? If this...
by Eric Dierker 7 years ago
A fine fellow posed a very interesting discussion today. You should visit his pages at http://zelkiiro.hubpages.com/ But I speak to something that came up there. Should religion interfere with straightforward empirical science and the logic and actions dictated therein. In my studies I read...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society. Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively. Religions have been the source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind. Religions have also been the source of...
by Mikeydoes 9 years ago
This is not whether or not God exists or your religion is correct, because all that matters when it comes to religion is your opinion and how you cope with life. Every time I go to the forums there is a new religion thread and to me it just becomes more and more pointless. I got involved in those...
by Joshua Zerbini 8 years ago
Should the church be more concerned for the unbelievers outside the church or for the believers inside the church? Or should there be a proper balance?
by M. T. Dremer 6 years ago
Atheists, would you say religion has had a positive impact on society, or negative?I'm going to exclude extremists in this question, since both the religious and non-religious agree that they are bad. So, it more so concerns your everyday follower who generally doesn't provoke any hostility. As a...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|