Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society

[BattleOfValmy]

"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."

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/29/2350217/Model-Says-Religiosity-Gene-Will-Dominate-Society

Very interesting. I wasn't aware that there are "various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion."

Also, some interesting comments from slashdot's users:

We have religious conservatives arguing that homosexuality is a choice, and we have university academics arguing that religious leanings are genetic.

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.

Nonsense. Nobody is saying that Catholicism is a Mendellian trait.
Just that there are inheritable personality aspects that make on more likely to stay in a religion if you are born into it, or even to join a religious group in the right circumstances.
Homosexuality is complex too. It would not be shocking to suggest that effeminate men are more likely to be gay and vice versa. This can be related to hormone levels in the womb during brain development. Which is far more inheritable than a matter of "choice".
Anyway, what is choice but a product of our genes and environment? "Free will" just means we cannot see the mechanism that produced it.

So there's an evolutionary advantage to not believing in evolution? Whoda thunk it?

[Papa Lazarou]

There are genetic predispositions for everything. Some people are genetically predisposed to be horses, for example.

[Shatari]

Someday there will be a cure.

[BattleOfValmy]

Someday gene therapy could probably deactivate those, yes

[Ilex]

WE WILL CURE THIS TAINT WITH FIRE AND SWORD! WITH ME BROTHERS!

[Selothi]

Everything can be explained by genes ! Soon we'll have the "Favourite food" gene, or the "Fondness for sappy rom-coms" gene, and much much more !

I think this is getting a little too far. Believing that every behavioural trait of an individual can be determined through genetics rather than the social environment they're born in and such, seems a tad off. I'll believe it if he can pinpoint the chain of nucleic acids on the DNA strand, but not before.

[BattleOfValmy]

Well, he never said it was a single gene that makes people religious. He said an allele causes them to be predisposed to it.

But 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. On the flip side, the nonreligiosity allele of this “gene” makes a person more likely to remain or become secular. If both parents have the religiosity allele, their children are also more likely to have the religiosity allele than if one or both parents did not have it. However, children born to religious parents may have the nonreligiosity allele, while children born to secular parents may have the religiosity allele. Having the religiosity allele does not make a person religious, but it makes a person more likely to have characteristics that make them religiously inclined; the converse is also true.

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Very interesting. I wasn't aware that there are "various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion."

Of course there are. It's called "intelligence".

[Seff]

Or "gullibility".

[Fooshie]

Everything can be explained by genes ! Soon we'll have the "Favourite food" gene, or the "Fondness for sappy rom-coms" gene, and much much more !

I think this is getting a little too far. Believing that every behavioural trait of an individual can be determined through genetics rather than the social environment they're born in and such, seems a tad off. I'll believe it if he can pinpoint the chain of nucleic acids on the DNA strand, but not before.

Completely failed to understand the article, I see.

[Tuckles]

Of course there are. It's called "intelligence".

That's not very fair. Trevty and Catholic are fairly smart blokes. Aside from all that religion stuff that is.

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I never claimed to be fair...

[Seff]

Read Llandy's post again. She claimed that intelligence is a trait that dispositions you towards religion.

[Archonsod]

"PhysOrg reports on a study by Robert Rowthorn, emeritus professor at Cambridge University"

Note he's an Emeritus professor of economics, not any scientific discipline. Note also he's a former editor of Black Dwarf and a self confessed radical Marxist who enjoys controversy.

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.

Think about this. In plain English, he's saying the number of children an individual has is influenced by culture rather than genetics, while religion is a genetic rather than cultural phenomena.

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.

In other words, he's taking cultural ideas and treating them like gene's. There's no actual genetic influences which would make one susceptible to religion, beyond perhaps an over-active imagination.


tl;dr - You got troll'd.

[Vorstadtkid]

Right here, the muslims are breeding like rabbits..
Just throwin that out there.