I think religiousity is based a biological orientation like homosexuality

[gnosis92]

I think some people have strong biological orientation to feel the need to be loved, and I think that this is expressed in our society through the love of Jesus. Other people, not so much.

[primitivefuture]

Homosexuality is not genetic. Neither is religion.

[general_koffi]

It's possible that there is a very vague biological link, but I'm inclined to believe that nurture is far more influential on one's religiosity than nature.

[gnosis92]

Homosexuality is not genetic. Neither is religion.

I got called a closet homophobe for suggesting there is no evidence homosexuality is genetic in science and skepticism forum.

This site discriminates against txtspk'ers. We are called lazy :(

[Pavlov's Dog]

I think there might be something biological that makes a person more susceptible to becoming religious.

[gnosis92]

I think there might be something biological that makes a person more susceptible to becoming religious.

exactly. A Jesus freak express a psychological-biological desire to be loved, and loved greatly. I think there is a biological orientation to predispose some people to imagination, and to love, and Jesus fills that role as someone who is imaginary and who loves you.

Brittany Mccomb is one hot, beautiful smart young woman, and she loves talking how much Jesus loves her. She'll be happy to tell you how much Jesus loves her, and how she loves the love Jesus loves her.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0qgG6aV1HA - 58k


Hey Brittany if I dress up like Jesus, and grow a beard, and tell you I love you, could you return that love :wave:

Seriously, I think she has a biological orientation that wants to be loved by a stud like Jesus. I have a biological orientation to love people who look like Brittany Mccomb ;)

[wordy]

I think religiousity is based a biological orientation like homosexuality

Maybe homosexuality is a hormonal thing between the mother and the fetus in the womb. Could have genetical bias too but the hormones are more likely to be the cause of it.

Religion could be something that is a kind of byproduct of a biological tendency to be empathic and theory of mind and mirror neurones.

We as a specie are both collective and solitary in our tendencies. Both tendencies create religious constructs. Collective tendencies build tight knit groups who are very keen on that every member submit to the norms of the group. Solitary individuals create shamanistic or carismatic sects that compete with all the big ones. Some get into being monks that behave like eremits.

the biological tendencies are most likely not specific about religion, more like being interested in finding things to group around.

[Vitalstatistix]

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
http://www.csicop.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?q=belief*
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/596b/Schaffer/God-Accident.html

etc etc

[FatherMithras]

I got called a closet homophobe for suggesting there is no evidence homosexuality is genetic in science and skepticism forum.

This site discriminates against txtspk'ers. We are called lazy :(

The first part is unfortunate. Being incorrect isn't a reason to be considered a homophobe.

The second is simply true. The point of "text speak" is too shorten exchanges in order to make them easier. The fact you use them on a message board, where many many people are incapable of deciphering it or take inordinate amounts of time to do so shows that you either don't want anyone to respond, or are too lazy to type out full. Is it really a big deal to write correctly so people can understand?

[Imnotspecial]

I think there is a biological component that predisposes one to religion. My observation is that religious people like rule books or authority from a church.
Christians and Muslims are supposed to be followers and seem to like that. It gives them certitude.

[southernhybrid]

I don't know about that. How do you explain why some cultures are far more religious than others? Why are there more atheists in pools of highly educated people? Perhaps being exposed to more ideas and having more education makes one more likely to become an atheist or very liberal theist. If religiosity were due to a genetic predisposition, wouldn't it be likely that all societies would have a near equal level of religiosity? This is certainly not the case.

I like to be loved, but not by Jesus, so I have no idea why desiring to be loved is something that equates with religiosity. I think the majority of humans want to be loved by others. I have a desire to be loved by my spouse and friends. I think most of us do. Maybe people that have nobody in their life to love them are in more need of the love of Jesus. :Cheeky:

[Fish]

I've always wondered this too. I think it is more than just nurture and environment that causes religiousness. Why is it that some people who grow up in religious families choose to deconvert while others don't? Why is it that intelligent people who have friends and family to love them still feel the need for god's love? Maybe there is no biological reason for religiousness, but one for skepticism instead.

[dettus]

In terms of personality and religiousity IMO nurture plays a much larger role than nature. Same with sexual preferences.

[mirage]

I don't know about that. How do you explain why some cultures are far more religious than others? Why are there more atheists in pools of highly educated people? Perhaps being exposed to more ideas and having more education makes one more likely to become an atheist or very liberal theist. If religiosity were due to a genetic predisposition, wouldn't it be likely that all societies would have a near equal level of religiosity? This is certainly not the case. Um, no. A predisposition is not a predetermination. And why can't the predisposition vary between groups too?

If there was a predisposition to be good at sport, how come some societies are better at some sports? And sporting ability improves with training?

There can't be anything genetic to it!

[wordy]

southernhybrid How do you explain why some cultures are far more religious than others? Why are there more atheists in pools of highly educated people?

Could it not be about how their religiosity are expressed?

suppose that human nature are religious but in different levels. some culture support the expression of it and some channel it to political expression or discourage the expression of having a propensity of being religious.

I find it likely that the propensity is co-variant with other propensities. How one express that propensity could be dependent on nurturing but the propensity is biological. It could also be related to hormonial levels. Like homosex, if your mother has started to build a memory for how many male fetuses she already have given birth to then maybe the level for the next is higher than the first male fetus?

Doesn't most religious people just take over the way religion is expressed in their culture? If one grew up in a society dominated by Lutheran Evangelics then most people are members of that church. Like in Sweden and Norway.

Suppose we have only 5 to 15% of our churchmembers who go once a week or once a month to church. We still have some 85% who are members so despite being among the top ten most secular societies the indentification with church is still very strong. If a Satanist burn down a church here even atheists pay for having it built up again as the original looked. Crazy but true.

So words fool us. They are too ambigious. Don't we have make use of description more than abstract words. How do people really act.

If you pay for rebuilding a church and if you stay as a member of a church and still say your an atheist then words like atheist fails to make things clear.

Participater in cultural traditions that address or identify heritage.
Non-Participater in cultural traditions that address or identify heritage.

Too mouthful but my sloppy attempt to define how they seems to behave.

Only formally they are atheists. In practice they have no faith in the claims the church makes but they identify with the "heritage" of the tradition that gives meaning to society over generations. Some years ago or maybe still, in Norway you had to be a Christian to take care of others children. The Swedish King needs to be a Christian and Lutheran Evangelic too. So it is about heritage more than academic philosophy re if god exists or not.

Very similar to "faith" in Sports. Team spirit and religious spirit seems to have something in common. A way for individuals to form groups that define and give meaning to their lives. They have faith in the team spirit with the difference that religion has elaborated the team spirit to have supernatural origin and being omni this and that.

[Malachi151]

I think some people have strong biological orientation to feel the need to be loved, and I think that this is expressed in our society through the love of Jesus. Other people, not so much.

Well, based on your title I would disagree, based on your post, maybe.

I definately do not agree that there are "genes for" either homosexuality or "god belief".

Certianly there are genetic factors that influence these thingse however, and, and very strong need for social bonding and/or love may well be one of the factors that influences thr likelyhood that someone will embrace the religion of their community.

Obviously, there isn't any "Jesus gene", which is absurd.

One problem with putting too much emphasis on genentics and religion, however, is that we can see huge differences in religiosity based on environment, even among similar genetic populations.

For example white Europeans and white Americans have very different rates of belief. Major changes in belief are recorded over time based on no major genetic changes, for example the Greeks were a relatively unreligious group 2,000 years ago, then, after teh rise of Christianity and its enforcement from the Roman Empire, Greece is now the most religious country in Europe.

So, don't overlook environmental factors and don't get into genetic determinism to the point of saying that "religion is genetically programmed, so we'll never overcome it".

There are certianly genetic tendencies, but that's all they are, tenencies, and just like drug addiction, you can't get addicted to a religion if you are never exposed to it, just liek you aren't going to have a craving for cigarettes if you don't even know what they are.

[wordy]

Malachi151 For example white Europeans and white Americans have very different rates of belief.

Are you sure.

I am not a sociologist but all my experience tells me that they still fail to do reliable research on what it is to be religious.

I thought for more than 20 years that I was not religious but suddenly I knew that I've had been all my life but not in the superficial way that dogma says.

I think it is a kind of side-effect. I don't think we are religious in a mechanistic ways by genetic make up but that being humans we are vulnerable to what our culture care about. Depending on such things as how important it is to follow customs in a group. Take how you pronounce english where you live.

Why do we have such things as accents. Regional ways of using special words for birds and flowers and food and such. We seems as a specie to be very groups oriented and gods used to be a typical tribal thing. Every little tribe having their own god.

Sociologists ask things that are superficial.

One would need long-ranging research of actual behavior. How do people actually relate to local traditions.

I protested very early. I felt bad about me singing the hymns that was obligatory for us in school. We had to learn psalms and hymns by heart. We had obligatory religious education. I opposed it but being a shy boy me kept it all inside. Hating the grown ups for their non-moral ways to force religion on us in name of tradition.

What is it to feel religious but not agreeing with how that is expressed by tradition or modern constructs. Not all people have those needs. They simply fail to get touched by any kind of religious tradition or new construct.

I find it likely that if we knew enough about what is behind the inner drive to be religious. We could make secular versions less harmful if we knew what makes it tic.

To let the fundamentalists to take care if religions are dangerous.

[Anat]

I think certain personality types correlate with certain attitudes and ways of dealing with experiences, such that they influence (among other things) one's approach to religion. This is exemplified with people who convert from one religion to another, or deconvert from religion altogether, while carrying their basic attitudes with them. Thus some people tend to extremes (the one and only truth), others are 'in tune with their spiritual side' yet others (like me) just don't get that spiritual bit etc. The contents of their specific beliefs or lack thereof come from culture, but a big part of the way they respond to them is an inherent aspect of their personality.

[Malachi151]

The number of people who self-identify as non-religious or atheist in Europe, especially the Scandivian countries, is about 40%-80%.

In America it is about 5%-15%.

Depending on the polls, how the questions are asked, etc.

[Anat]

That is why questions about actual acts and specific beliefs can be more telling. IIRC the question posed to the scientists in the surveys about their religious attitudes asked about belief in a God that answers prayers. Asking about whether one prays, believes that prayer influences external reality etc tells more than asking to label one's religious views.

[Zygote]

I think there is a biological component that predisposes one to religion. My observation is that religious people like rule books or authority from a church.
Christians and Muslims are supposed to be followers and seem to like that. It gives them certitude.

Religions tend to work on a deep level, using many behavior modification techniques (repetition, reward, punishment) to guide behaviors. It isn't just about love or authority, but I do think it helps people cope with human nature.

The seven deadly sins are basically instinctive reactions to the environment: anger when threatened, gluttony when given a food source, envy when seeking to climb the pecking order, greed when gathering resources for future use, pride when strutting one's stuff to lure the most ideal mate, sloth to reserve energy when it isn't needed, lust to increase one's presence in the gene pool.

These tendencies tend to interfere with social living when taken to extremes as people are capable of doing. An excessively angry squirrel will get himself pretty beat up initiating a lot of fights. An angry kid with a gun can do a heck of a lot more damage. Likewise with the other "sins" - humans are capable of wretched excesses which need to be checked for the group to thrive.

The other main instincts that aren't "sins" - affection and fear and protection of young, perhaps even tribalism - are used by religion to perpetuate itself. Religion plugs in on a deep level. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." "God is love." "God the father."

Some cultures manage to find other ways to suppress excess and meet deep needs using a more intellectual/logical base. Unfortunately, the deep early programming of religions seems to be more stable. Rational based cultures like ancient Greece seem not to last as well as religious based ones. I hope that modern Europe can prove to be an exception, but it is early days yet.

So, while there is no god "gene" per se, religion taps into some very deep biological reflexes and behavioral structures.

What do you think? Does this ring true for anyone else? Is religion necessary or inevitable in the case of individuals who were programmed into it too young or who can't grasp the more intellectual alternatives?

[While homosexuality hasn't been proven to be genetic or hereditary, meaning based in the genome, it may well be congenital, meaning present at birth,. There is some evidence for a biological basis, perhaps relating to uterine environment. It doesn't correlate well with religion any either case.]

[Malachi151]

Some cultures manage to find other ways to suppress excess and meet deep needs using a more intellectual/logical base. Unfortunately, the deep early programming of religions seems to be more stable. Rational based cultures like ancient Greece seem not to last as well as religious based ones.

I don't think that this is true at all. Ancient cultures were actlaly less religious than modern ones. Societies have become increasingly religious over the past 10,000 years, with the exception of a few examples of where this trend was reversed based on reason, Greece an example, and the modern West being another example, and Asia also being an example.

I don't think that there is any problem with non-religious soceities at all, the issue is just that the religious groups become more aggressive militant, killing off the tolerant people/cultures.

If you look at history, this has been the case almost every single time, from the spread of Christianty, to Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc., all of the "mega religions".

All of the mega religions were pread by war and intolerance, even Buddhism. Its not that non-religious societies have problems of their own, their problems are just created by the religious people who try to take over.

[Zygote]

Perhaps my choice of words was not ideal, but I think we're saying the same thing. I meant stable not in the sense of internally able to last, but in terms of being able to be sustained over time on our planet. I do not argue that secular cultures fell at the hands of more agressive (and religious) neighbors.

We've never had a time in history when relgious/fanatical/aggressive cultures were enough in the minority as not to present a threat to the dominant secular/peaceful culture, so we don't know for sure how that would play out.

Interesting to note that many revered "prophets" like Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha had their messages of peace and cooperation co-opted by religious institutions that used them to gain power and spread their control, often using means that directly contradicted the original prophet's message.

Is that a fault inherent in religion or is it an inevitable part of human nature to use any available tools to gain power? Or both?