Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society

[Swadius 2.0]

He's being pretty inflammatory in how he presents his argument, but that doesn't mean there's no validity to it. He's not claiming that all organized religion comes from someone's genes, or that the only reason people are religious is because of their genes. What he presents is the argument that genes could have some impact on whether or not someone chooses to belong to an organized religion, or be secular. Then he shows how, if that's the case, the cultural pressure of most organized religions on their followers to produce large quantities of children would make those particular genes that influence people's thoughts on religion, however slightly, to become dominant.

That is quite interesting, but the main problem everyone has been bringing up isn't that he's saying that everyone religious has this gene or the only reason why people are religious is because of the gene, it is that he has no grounds to suppose that it's a genetic cause rather than a personal one, and the personal cause is much more likely than the genetic one.

There's also a problem of knowing where to draw the line between what is a genetic disposition and what isn't. Assuming what he says is true, then the window of what constitutes genetically rooted behaviour expands exponentially, to the point where it's hard to distinguish any personal involvement at all.

What I'm saying is that that's possible.

That's not saying very much when you consider what you can attach to the end of that particular statement.

 

[CJ1145]

honk

HONK HONK

WHAT THE **** WAS IN THOSE BROWNIES.

 

[BattleOfValmy]