Say what?
It's not a particularly new idea: archaeologists, anthropologists, and other varieties of social scientists have observed for some time that religion of some sort has developed in just about every known civilization, and at various stages of cultural development. Evolutionary theory would assume the near-universal existence of religion implies that natural selection favors it.It's not hard to imagine why: religion has the potential of promoting social cohesion, a moral order, self-restraint, and altruistic behavior. Those who are (genetically?) inclined to adopt their culture's religious tenets might be more likely to fit in and be successful in passing on their genes.
Many religious folk are likely to take offense at the notion that natural selection could have anything to do with the development of religion. But, I have heard Christian apologists argue for the existence of God by saying that humans have an innate longing for God, ergo, God must exist (and have put the longing in our hearts). I've always thought that logic was a bit lame, but one could apply the "God gene theory" in the same way: if humans have a gene that predisposes them to a belief in God, does that imply that God put it there?
I can't answer that question, though it's an intriguing thought. A primary objection to the idea is to ask why some people would have the "seek the divine" gene and some people wouldn't, though a firm Calvinist might contend that's evidence of predestination.
These days, perhaps the most troublesome aspect of the God gene theory is the underlying assumption that religion functions to promote moral order and "patch up the social fabric." In the past three decades or so, we've been more likely to see religion used in divisive ways. Whether it's a division within a denominational family, within a country (e.g., the religious right and left in America), or between global cultures, each thinking their religion should reign supreme, humans are quite capable of using religion to rip the social fabric apart.
Does that mean we also have an "evil gene"?
That one's easier to defend: we call it "original sin."
[Image from www.lifespan.org]
3 comments:
It never ceases to amaze me what lengths Man (Human) will go to when making efforts to explain every little detail of existence.
After all, that is our perogative, and our heavenly Father did give us curiosity to learn so many things.
Tony you named some faults of religion. Another one is if it doesn't prepare us for Christ's return, then it is not much of a religion.
One can view the Bible as God's letter to His children. It is also the story of one man's family, Adam's, and what became of his descendants.
When the Bible teaches us that Satan will return as the anti-christ during the generation of the fig tree, it is right on the mark.
Satan's return will be at the sixth seal, the sixth vial, and the sixth trumph. And shortly thereafter, 5 months to be exact, Jesus will return to mark the beginning of the Lord's day, the Millennium.
ALL knees will bow before Jesus.
star
I always found basic genetics fascinating in high school and have thought about human responsibility and "genetic programing." To say that positive and negative behavior traits can be traced to our genetics further validates the Hebrew belief that body and soul are more interconnected than, let's say, Greek and Roman philosopers thought.
It would follow to suggest that creation's fall would effect our genetics. It would also follow to suggest that Sin is not necessarily something we choose objectively, but something that chooses us subtly.
Thank you for this post.
I read this article some time ago:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-neural-correlates-of-religious-and-nonreligious-belief/
Additionally, my interest in genetic genealogy has led me to investigate genetics in general. Unrelated to any predisposition for a God oriented belief system, the rate of discovery in the field in general is mind-boggling. While some geneticists are not constrained by a belief in God nor biblical suggested time-frames for mankind's existence, some are some flavor of Christian. Interestingly, geneticists refer to the the earliest male and female as 'Adam' and 'Eve' though they don't yet have them at the same place in Africa nor at the same time :-)
Post a Comment