|
|
|
|
I am surprised that no one has yet introduced into our discussions in this forum Dean Hamer's contention that we human beings have a gene that gives us a propensity to belief in God.
This is how the prestigious UK newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, reported the matter:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html
Wikipedia seems to be a little more reserved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
Personally, I am not at all convinced. But, I do think that all the hot air being generated by various (Christian) theologians is a grotesque exaggeration. As Hamer himself says: surely it would be rather peculiar if a Cretor God had not wired his creatures up to recognize him.
J F R (neither a Christian nor a skeptic)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention also that this same Dr Dean Hamer is the esteemed geneticist who claims that there is also a gene that affects homosexuality. I just thought you'd like to know that! ;-D
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would rather doubt whether there was a single gene that significantly determined one's spiritual experiences. It may, of course, be simplistic reporting of Dr Hamer, but the available evidence suggests that nearly all such character traits are not determined by a single gene (I include homosexuality in this).
The factors that make it a complicated area include:
polygenetic characters : several different genes may contribute to the development of a character. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenetic ). Skin colour is the classic excellent example of a polygenetic character.
penetrance : a highly-penetrant character will show up almost regardless of environmental conditions, whereas a characteristic of low penetrance may or may not show up (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrance ). If you have a collection of genes all tending to make you tall, poor childhood nutrition may nevertheless mean that as an adult you are not particularly tall. the same is NOT true of eg blood type.
expressivity : a measure of how much a particular gene deterimines a particular expressed characteristic. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivity ).
There are lots of other factors as well - mitochondial DNA (inhertited only from the mother) may affect the expression of other genes, for example.
I'm afraid that it seems likely to me that either Dr Hamer has a deficient understanding of the slipshod way that science is reported in the mass media, or is allowing his prejudices to let him be complicit in such over-simplification. Either of these should render him unfit to hold the position of "Director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in America"
Sorry for the slightly technical nature of this, but as genetics is a subject that crops up pretty frequently here, I thought it useful to give a couple of links that might help people understand a bit about the relationship between genes and everyday life!
minor edits for sense & punctuation
[Updated on: Tue, 28 November 2006 14:57]
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I think the idea of such a gene is really kind of rediculous. Furthermore it would go against the idea that we have been given free will; something that I feel explains a lot of things for someone that believes in God like I do.
(forgive me as sentence structure is not my stong point)
I believe in God and before I came to realize the implication of free will, I was having a hard time reconcilling God with everything that was happening in the world, since most religions seem to teach that God ordains everything to happen. The idea that God makes all happen, both bad and good, was hard for me to stomach; If God means love, then how can he allow all the bad to happen or even "make it happen" as some believe?
The idea that all men have free will to choose what to do does explain a lot to me and makes the idea of a gene that takes some of that choice away from me as being a violation of that concept.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While my own thoughts in this matter tend more in the direction outlined by NW in another post in this thread, I hope that Electroken will explain why he thinks that having a gene that encourages spirituality would deprive him of his free will.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
.... to read 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins, one of the United Kingdom's foremost geneticists.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well if you define free will it will have to be that any decision you make is not going to be directed by anything other than your thoughts. If you have a gene that causes your thoughts to be directed towards sprituality,(which in my simplistic mind would a tendency to make you believe in a God) then the gene would circumvent your free will to decide to believe or not to believe.
I dont know if that explains what I am trying to say, but maybe we simply dont have the same definition of what it means to have totally free will.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely you would only lose your free will if the effect of that gene was to make it impossible for you to think or act otherwise. Since we know that is not the case we must assume that we have free will. If that gene exists we certainly have the power to disregard its promptings. Therefore free will is unimpaired. Some people have a natural tendency to put on weight; that does not mean that they have to be fat or that they could not control their weight. On the contrary: if you have a 'built-in' tendency to act in one way but you do the opposite, that surely is the exercise of free will. N'est-ce pas?
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's not easy here to get hold of 'foreign' books at short notice, so I read up on the Internet about the book, its contents and what has been said about it. I did this because if Cossie recommends something it must be worth my while to act on the recommendation. (Amazon US takes about 15 days and Amazon UK is ridiculously expensive.)
There is a saying in my country: "Never argue about taste or smell" - because the topics are so subjective. I think that the same applies to religion and irreligion. One cannot prove the existence of the Deity any more than one can prove the Deity's non-existence. That's why we use terms such as 'believe' and not 'know' in this regard. An atheist like Dawkins would think that it is ridiculous to doubt the arguments he puts forward for extreme skepticism; for the believer his contentions are like water off a duck's back and of no consequence to his belief.
Belief and disbelief per se are not subject to proofs. That is why it is so ridiculous (and so pernicious) for one set of believers to tell another set of believers that "my God is better than your god" or for an atheist to tell non-atheists that "my disbelief is better than your belief".
I am among the believers, but I cannot prove that my God exists and would not try. I am satisfied that my belief is founded on reasonable grounds, but I quite accept that what seems reasonable to me might seem unreasonable to someone else. That's why all missionary activity is, to my mind, unholy, odious and pernicious - and fundamentalist propaganda is the most odious of all because it cannot, or will not, recognize the difference between belief and knowledge.
Here endeth today's lesson - with hugs for all, believers and non-believers alike.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I've toured the net looking for reviews if Dawkin's book, and I can't find a single review that does not have a biased pitch.
I'm not suggesting that Dawkins is infallible - there are parts of the book I find myself unable to swallow - but genuine scientific research is quoted to underpin many of his conclusions. The experiment involving Israeli schoolchildren, to which I referred in another thread, is a very persuasive example.
Put simply, if you wish to discredit Dawkins, you need to demonstrate why the scientific research is irrelevant - and, in most instances, no-one has yet succeeded in doing so.
I have no doubt that, as a modern and logical thinker, you regard the traditional story of the Battle of Jericho as allegorical - but Dawkins presents evidence to suggest that the prevalent standards of education in Israel are presenting the event in a literal sense which is distorting moral perceptions.
I hope you buy the book and consider Dawkins' arguments, even if you don't accept them; it's certainly an intellectual adventure! But I hope also that you appreciate that my comments are wholly academic, and do not in the smallest degree detract from the respect and friendship I feel towards you.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
... I've toured the net looking for reviews if Dawkin's book, and I can't find a single review that does not have a biased pitch.
Hi Cossie. Will this do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
I have no doubt that, as a modern and logical thinker, you regard the traditional story of the Battle of Jericho as allegorical - but Dawkins presents evidence to suggest that the prevalent standards of education in Israel are presenting the event in a literal sense which is distorting moral perceptions.
This sounds as if it comes from someone (Dawkins' source maybe?) who does not understand the complexities of the Israeli educational system. If the schools selected were from the ultra-orthodox fundamentalist stream then the results are hardly surprising. Such results would be unobtainable in the State educational system. Believe me, I taught in it for years. Does the book give details of the source of that information?
But I hope also that you appreciate that my comments are wholly academic, and do not in the smallest degree detract from the respect and friendship I feel towards you.
Cossie, that goes without saying. I never doubted it for one moment. My remarks, too, were general and certainly not personal.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I still think you need to read, mark and inwardly digest what Dawkins actually has to say - and then to decide whether to accept or reject his hypotheses.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
... I still think you need to read, mark and inwardly digest what Dawkins actually has to say - and then to decide whether to accept or reject his hypotheses.
As I said, it's going to take 2 weeks for the book to arrive, so don't hold your breath.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said JFR!
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can’t help but agree with JFR as far as subjectivity goes. No matter how much we know we’ll never know everything. We will always have our subjective filters no matter what.
“People can tell you where they’ve been and they can tell where to go but you won’t know till you get there yourself, and where some find paradise some only come to harm.”
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you mean but perhaps in the statement I made: "If you have a gene that causes your thoughts to be directed towards sprituality," I should have been more specific about what that would mean.
To me it would mean that I would have no control over whether or not my thoughts would cause me to be directed towards the idea of a diety whereas if I did not have that gene I might not ever think of it. I guess that by free will I mean to say that it would preclude having God influence me in any way towards whether I believed one thing or another. If God built a gene into me that made me direct my thinking towards the idea that He exists, then I dont think I have free will.
Sometimes, too, us engineering types tend to think a bit too much about a subject and make more out of it than it deserves. Logic can get in the way of thinking sometimes.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
