Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society 729
Hugh Pickens writes writes "PhysOrg reports on a study by Robert Rowthorn, emeritus professor at Cambridge University, that predicts that the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently "hitchhiking" on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates and that provided the fertility of religious people remains on average higher than that of secular people, the genes that predispose people towards religion will spread. For example, in the past 20 years, the Amish population in the US has doubled, increasing from 123,000 in 1991 to 249,000 in 2010. The huge growth stems almost entirely from the religious culture's high fertility rate, which is about 6 children per woman, on average. Rowthorn says that while fertility is determined by culture, an individual's predisposition toward religion is likely to be influenced by genetics, in addition to their upbringing. In the model, Rowthorn uses a "religiosity gene" to represent the various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion, whether remaining religious from youth or converting to religion from a secular upbringing. Rowthorn's model predicts that the religious fraction of the population will eventually stabilize at less than 100%, and there will remain a possibly large percentage of secular individuals. But nearly all of the secular population will still carry the religious allele, since high defection rates will spread the religious allele to secular society when defectors have children with a secular partner."
Perhaps a study of regression (Score:4, Interesting)
Might prove useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean#History [wikipedia.org]
Anyway, it seems that such a trend is eventually self correcting; we will have a religious war in which all those extra children will exterminate each other.
Wanna sign up for the next Crusade, anyone?
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong terminology... (Score:2, Interesting)
It isn't a religiosity gene, it's more like a gullibility gene or a genetically caused weakness of the mind. I have found that those who devoutly believe in fairy stores and invisible people can be easily convinced of the most absurd things as long as you talk to them in that level, convincing tone that Obi-won pulled off so well in Star Wars.
Also, some people can be hypnotized, others can't. Difference: strength of mind.
Re:Religiosity gene? (Score:5, Interesting)
The funny thing is that I thought academics would lean towards the free will argument, but I guess sometimes they take "there must be an explanation for everything" too far and convince themselves that human behaviour is easily explained with statistical models with ridiculously weak premises.
So... how would you detect free will, if it does exist?
Sagan on religiosity gene (Score:5, Interesting)
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.
Re:Where is there proof of a "religious" gene? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm assuming the gene doesn't actually make you "religious", it just predisposes you to being suggestible and superstitious, which is pretty much the foundation of any religion. ie: People with that gene are less skeptical in general. Just my take on it.
Re:Religiosity gene? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It is probably a pro-social gene if any (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
Because things have changed in the developed world over the last couple of hundred years since the industrial revolution. Now infant mortality has been conquered, we have enough to eat and a welfare state to look after us when we are old we don't have to have as many children as possible. - Unless that is we belong to a Religion which knows it can just outgrow the opposition in tons of flesh by breeding beyond the replacement rate - though whether this is due to wilful hostility towards unbelievers or just ignorance, or small c conservatism and a 200 year lag in changing social rules to suit the conditions is an open question.
Given that the main reason for environmental destruction and social decay is an expanding population it seems incredible that so many religions instruct their followers to carry on breeding untill they are waist deep in their own shit. Religions are so irresponsible over population growth that they quite clearly represent the greatest actual threat to humanity of any of our political systems.
Whether or not there is a god it will be the churches who bring abut the downfall of mankind.if they carry on with business as usual. Remember all a Religion needs is followers, it has no interest in whether they live healthy fulfilled lives or live like battery hens just so long as they are infected with the meme. I am sure that many church leaders aspire to something better but at the root of the thing it's just membership that counts.
Re:Perhaps a study of regression (Score:4, Interesting)
While religious motivations have been used as an excuse to start wars, I'd like to see any "proof" that the religion itself has been the root cause of the war and not some megalomaniac who got into a position to convince his co-believers into action.
Wars are started by people, often for a political motive. The medieval crusades that you are implying here were all started mainly for political reasons (gaining access to trade routes, finding things for 3rd & 4th sons of nobility to do besides assassinating their older brothers, "expanding realms", and other factors) and the religious component was mostly a minor issue. The sacking of Constantinople, the capital of a "Christian nation", was one of the major accomplishments of the ancient crusades too.
Besides, when was the last "legitimate" crusade? Arguably the "reconquista" of the Iberian peninsula in the late 15th Century was one of the last of them, and even that was not really a "proper" crusade other than it did pit the "Christian" Spanish king against the "Muslim" Moors. So you are complaining about something which ended over 500 years ago as a general tendency of Christianity?
I'd even say that the current "war on terror" is mostly a bunch of idiots who are trying to use the trappings of religion for political purposes, and it isn't the religion itself that is the motivating factor. If anything, religious tendencies might arguably be a tempering force and usually it is religious leaders who are crying for peace and patience. Yes, exceptions can be found, but for every "religious nut" trying to stir up a hornet's nest of problems to start a war I'm sure I can find a dozen or more others with strong religious tendencies to be actively involved with trying to stop war from happening and even going so far as taking punches or risking their own lives in an attempt to stop the war from happening.
Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, both professed atheists, can account for far more death, misery, wars, and famine than almost all religious leaders or even religiously inclined political leaders in the entire history of humanity combined.
no, not parenting (Score:4, Interesting)
Parenting greatly influences the choice of religion, but not the strength of belief. Studies of adopted children show that there is a very strong tendency to become more like the biological parents during early adulthood. A child of atheists raised in a young-earth household is likely to become less of a believer once out of that environment, while a child of young-earthers raised by atheists is likely to convert to some religion.
Re:Where is there proof of a "religious" gene? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, according to the article and some related ones [springerlink.com], religiosity is highly correlated with conservatism and authoritarianism. This isn't my field, but I think attitudes like Social Dominance Orientation [wikipedia.org] are also related. The basic idea is that people will normally settle on a worldview that fits their personality, right or wrong. Conservatives and authoritarians will naturally gravitate to a stable, hierarchical system, and organized religions (and governments?) frequently embody those characteristics.
Re:It is probably a pro-social gene if any (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple, it's individuality and rationalism went wrong. Religion not only breeds conformity, it breeds ignorance, even an individualist person who deflects from the mainstream will run bumbling in the dark because they literally don't know any better.
That and, I'm sorry to be condescending, but besides group solidarity, religiosity is related to an ability to believe contradictory statements -mental compartmentalization- they call it, and I'm pretty sure being dumb enough to not even find the contradiction helps a lot. So a radically individualist person can still be religious, but I think the ignorance aspect plays the major part. I mean, I've personally known people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's wrong and requires monkeys giving birth to humans, it really is that awful.
I wonder how far into science education are those Daoists and Indian Yogis and what their IQs are. I mean seriously it would be an interesting thing to know, I could of course be completely wrong.
Re:Religiosity gene? (Score:4, Interesting)
>>"Free will" just means we cannot see the mechanism that produced it.
Out of curiosity, why are you so convinced that determinism is true?
Re:It is probably a pro-social gene if any (Score:4, Interesting)
Simple, it's individuality and rationalism went wrong. Religion not only breeds conformity, it breeds ignorance, even an individualist person who deflects from the mainstream will run bumbling in the dark because they literally don't know any better.
Unfortunately the majority of science in history was carried out by religious institutions. Astronomy came out of astrology, the university system was founded by catholic monks, and it was Muslim scholars who introduced the world to Al-gebra.
That and, I'm sorry to be condescending, but besides group solidarity, religiosity is related to an ability to believe contradictory statements -mental compartmentalization- they call it, and I'm pretty sure being dumb enough to not even find the contradiction helps a lot. So a radically individualist person can still be religious, but I think the ignorance aspect plays the major part. I mean, I've personally known people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's wrong and requires monkeys giving birth to humans, it really is that awful.
And on the flip-side I've met people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's what happens and requires monkeys giving birth to humans. Ignorance is not the sole preserve of religion. And neither is compartmentalisation. Most sciences suffer from compartmentalisation in their practitioners' thinking. Take for example (oh irony of ironies) evolution. The model of divergent evolution became widely accepted quite some time ago... for most animals. But up until a few decades ago, the model of parallel evolution lived on for one particular animal: the human being. The prevaling belief was that Africans evolved from Cro Magnon, and Europeans evolved from Neaderthal. I believe paleontologist were still looking for "the ancestor" of the Chinese. This is why "racism" is called what it is -- because they genuinely believed we were completely different animals.
HAL.
I wonder how far into science education are those Daoists and Indian Yogis and what their IQs are. I mean seriously it would be an interesting thing to know, I could of course be completely wrong.
Re:Religiosity gene? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think he's suggesting that many pro-choice people find it hard to identify with a fetus as being fully human. Thus they are reluctant to use the law (which is force) to defend the fetus against the mother's decision to kill it.
But if you start to realize the fetuses could be killed because of a human quality - a quality they share with you - that may change your perspective. Imagine the reaction on Slashdot if scientists found a "geek" gene and non-geek parents started aborting such fetuses because they didn't want their kids to turn out "like that". That's the situation gays are going to face once we discover which genes predispose one to homosexuality (I say "predispose" because genes aren't a guarantee - identical twins are not always the same orientation, just more likely to be).
It's not pro-lifers that are going to abort the gay kids. It's the moderate, middle-class pro-choice folks who don't want their kids to have certain "undesirable" traits - whether it's mental retardation, being gay, having whatever gender the parents don't want, etc.