Born religious

This op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof in today’s New York Times is well worth reading. He comments on the political implications of our genetic predisposition to religion.

I don’t doubt in the least that mankind is biologically programmed to behave in many irrational ways, and religion is one of them. Nothing but a deep biologically rooted instinct can explain why all cultures have some kind of religion. And even those who claim to be secular often wind up having weird religion-like beliefs. UFOs and astrology are two such examples.

Much of Kristof’s essay is just idle conjecture on a topic he doesn’t know much about, but this thought is pretty interesting:

Genes that promote spirituality may do so in part by stimulating chemical messengers in the brain like dopamine, which can make people optimistic and sociable - and perhaps more likely to have children. (Dopamine is very complex, but it appears linked to both spirituality and promiscuity, possibly explaining some church scandals.)

This may have something to do with why people with children are more likely to vote Republican. You may want to read Steve Sailer’s excellent article about the baby gap.

I hope that, once people understand that their religious beliefs are rooted in brain chemistry and not rationality, they can overcome their primitive instincts and move up to a higher level of rational secular reasoning.

Comments

[penxv]

If the belief in God rooted in brain chemistry, and nature selected for that trait; do believers then have a genetic advantage over the faithless?

[Fred]

Well Libertarian Girl,
Let's say the universe just happened, that there was on intelligence or purpose behind it creation. And if that's the case than life just another lucky grouping of amino acids that managed to evolve itself all the way up the today's human beings.

If that is all the case, can you explain to me why would it be worng for me to come to DC and hunt you down and kill you?

I await your answer.

[kstrna]

Boy is that one poorly written essay, Kristof early on states:
"Instead, modern science is turning up a possible reason why the religious right is flourishing and secular liberals aren't: instinct. It turns out that our DNA may predispose humans toward religious faith."

Then he goes on to talk about Dr. Hamer's research on VMAT2 and the book Dr. Hamer wrote about it (The God Gene). Kristof points out that it is more spirituality that is affected by this particular protein. What he fails to mention is that in Dr. Hamer's book he talks about those with higher levels of spirituality (and who had a particular variant of the VMAT2 gene) tended not to belong to organized religion. The definition of spirituality was interesting as well, basically transcending (which includes athletes getting in the zone, getting lost in the moment basically, loosing track of time). In other words, Dr. Hamer's research does not explain why the increase strength of the religious right.

Also, the selective advantage of such genes is not to make us spiritual, but rather keep our brains working properly. When we are depressed are minds do not function properly, we have trouble with memory, thinking, concentrating. We are less likely to survive in the wild and if something else doesn't kill us, we are more likely to kill ourselves when depressed. When we are depressed we are less sociable as well. We are a sociable species, so it makes sense our genetic background encodes for it.

Of course the complete opposite can be a problem. We see this in people who are bipolar. Their dopamine/serotonin levels are messed up in such a way that their brains are on overdrive in certain respects. Their thoughts are racing, they feel like they have super powers. Interestingly enough they become super-spiritual.

Basically, these genes are not encoding religion. They are encoding genes that regulate certain chemicals in our cells to insure we operate properly living together, facing the world. They were not selected to be "spiritual" per se. Spirituality/religiosity tap into this dynamic. Genes for being tall, strong, agile are not there for certain people to play basketball at a high level. They existed for other reasons before we had civilizations and societies. Basically, we have evolved to feel good and not feel bad, while not feeling too good. Things that tap into this we may favor, such as a religion, sports, art, study, etc. It might be better not to call them religion genes but rather society genes.

[dadahead]

You'd better answer Fred, because it sounds like if you don't he's going to murder you.

Good thing you don't publicize your real name.

[dadahead]

I hope that, once people understand that their religious beliefs are rooted in brain chemistry and not rationality, they can overcome their primitive instincts and move up to a higher level of rational secular reasoning.

Of course, your capacity of reason is also rooted in brain chemistry. As is everything you believe, think, feel, etc. Religion isn't any different in that sense.

But I assume you don't suggest that people overcome their "primitive" instincts to have sex & reproduce?

[L. Ron Hubbard]

"I hope that, once people understand that their religious beliefs are rooted in brain chemistry and not rationality, they can overcome their primitive instincts and move up to a higher level of rational secular reasoning."

I agree.

[mikeca]

Karl Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses."

Is LG agreeing with Karl Marx on this one point?

[dadahead]

Fred's argument is sort of bizarre.

He seems to be trying to logically tie together two propositions: (a) there are moral truths and (b) God exists, such that

let M = there are moral truths
and G = God exists

M if and only if G, or: M <--> G

He is then taking you (LG) to be denying G:

~G

which would entail the falsity of M: ~M

which he seems to take as absurd.

So Fred's argument is:

(M <--> G)
(M <--> G) --> (~G --> ~M)
M
---------
~G --> ~M
G

in english:

Premise 1: moral truths exist if and only if God does
Premise 2: if (premise 1), then if God doesn't exist, moral truths don't exist
Premise 3: moral truths exist
THEREFORE:
Conclusion 1: if God doesn't exist, then moral truths don't exist (by modus ponens on 1 & 2)
THEREFORE:
Conclusion 2: God exists (modus tolens premise 3 & C1)

This is a curious argument, because he takes it as given that moral truths exist. He then says that this belief entails a belief in God.

But even if he's right, the argument isn't over. We can deny his premise: that moral truths exist. This might be a costly premise to deny (i.e., counterintuitive) but it would be perfectly reasonable to prefer to deny M over affirming G.

An atheist could thus say, If I have to believe in God to believe in moral truths, then I don't believe in moral truths, for I find the affirmation of God's existence to be more unreasonable than is a denial of moral truth.

Forced to choose between atheism and moral realism, it's not at all obvious that moral realism wins out.

[austroblogger]

Penxv: Given that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology and therefore meaningless, a far better interpretation is "survival of the least unfit"... the question then becomes : Unfit in respect of which demand? So what would be the environmental factor for which religion is the minimum necessary (most effecient) survival strategy?

L.G. "I hope that, once people understand that their religious beliefs are rooted in brain chemistry and not rationality..."

A Philosophical points here: Do you have any evidence that rationality itself exists outside of brain chemistry? Do you see how nasty that question is? (Reference to the early christian churches pre-occupation with the older greek concept of "Logos")

But Philosophy aside and to take the statement head on:
Belief at its deepest level defies rational analysis, which is why the enlightenment moved us away from law giving based on divine right and enabled the separation of the power of the church from state (in my opinion a GOOD thing).
But.
The fact remains that those chemical messenger reactions may dictate a severe emotional and (dare I say it) spiritual need for "belief". A purely secular-rational interpretation of life would STILL leave a gap in many lives.

Finally, a persuasive argument (to which I dont subscribe, but find very hard to counter rigorously) is that without a concept of Godhead, the concepts of ethical behaviour and morality becomes meaningless. If one were cynical enough, one could maintain that the evidence shows that they are certainly harder to maintain.

[austroblogger]

Dadahead: The argument is actually far far more subtle: It is obviously logically possible to refute the necessity fot the existence of moral truthb but hat is not quite (almost , but not quite) the point. For having refuted the existence of moral truth (to obviate M<-->G) what do we do then?
Cos remember Fred? We'd better come up with an answer, dont you think?