A gene for religion?

I heard they were on the verge of isolating the gene associated with writing dopey cod-science.

Dopamine is also suspected of involvement in schizophrenia. I’m prepared to consider the prospect that religious tendencies might be greater in those who think they can hear the voice of God (or demons) than in the larger population. But it’s a pretty big leap from there to thinking that borderline schizophrenia was an evolutionary advantage and therefore became widespread enough to engender mass religion. This is armchair adaptationism at cheeziest – no better than explaining the Republican party by claiming that people have a gene for screwing over minorities.

Wilson provides half of a far better explanation himself:

“Although religion might be useful in developing a solid moral framework – and enforcing it – we can quite easily develop moral intuitions without relying on religion. Psychologist Eliot Turiel observed that even three- and four-year-olds could distinguish between moral rules (for example, not hitting someone) and conventional rules (such as not talking when the teacher is talking).”

Indeed, we can develop moral intuitions without religion, but we can’t easily agree on the details without more explicit learned codes. People develop a sense of morality on their own quickly enough but, contra C.S.Lewis in The Abolition of Man, they disagree quite easily in even the simplest cases of applied morality. Social machinery for the consideration and justification of moral principles and their application to real circumstances is not dispensable.

Developing a moral code that fits the bill requires something that resembles a notion of spirituality. It can certainly be quite far from religious in the deistic sense, but some conception of human value and distinctiveness is really necessary. Various kinds of religious belief have regularly managed to meet this need.

I doubt very much that their genetic stock has changed that much.

Why do you doubt this? (I’m not saying that their genetic “stock” has changed rapidly, but I am asking a serious question.) Are you saying that, no organism, anywhere suffers from rapid (adaptive) changes in its genetic stock? So why not (in some cases) humans, too?

Foo, as far as I understand it, it would seem highly unlikely that such a change could occur in two or three generations in a population the size of a village, let alone countrywide in one of several million. That’s with appropriate selective pressure – which would not appear to be present in the countries under discussion.

Do you have such a something as an example?

In a limited sense, of course. I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t, right?

Look, I’m not arguing that something like a “religion gene” exists, or that religious feelings are under selective pressure, etc. I’m not seriously putting forward the hypothesis that these mass religious awakenings are caused by genetic changes. So let’s be clear on that.

But there are instances of rapid changes in the “genetic stock” of an organism, changes which are under selective pressure, and which occur within the span of a few generations (of cells).

I’m thinking here, in particular, of some cell-wall proteins in yeast — fr’instance, go look at this paper:

“Intragenic tandem repeats generate functional variability”

More background here and here.

Genetic changes (along with some other epigenetic changes, and point mutations elsewhere) cause the insertion of deletion of these large repeats in a few genes in yeast which code for cell-wall proteins. It’s suggested that rapid changes in these genes let the cells search the space of cell-wall “coverings,” and let them adhere and survive in hostile environments.

I’ve spent some time with the yeast stuff — I’m much less familiar with human biology, but my rudimentary understanding is that there are some genes that are suspected to operate in similar ways in humans… and maybe this is a model for parts of the immune system too, I’m not sure. Anyway.

My point is, these rapid changes aren’t mass, indiscriminate changes to the genome — so we’re not necessarily talking about things which have to lead to infertility and death. On the other hand, I don’t see how this could spread throughout an entire village in a few (human) generations, so yeah: I’m not putting it forward as an explanation for religiosity. Just trying to make a point about rapid, functional changes in genomes: they *do* exist.

Look genetics and development are a weird thing. If you think for a second we understand completely how your genome, or mine, is changing across generations — well, “orthodox accounts of evolutionary genepool dynamics” are going to explain a lot (that’s why they’re orthodox). But you can bet there will be (significant) exceptions too.

I’m just saying, keep your mind open to new mechanisms, that’s all.

Hmmm… typed too quickly. Shouldn’t have written “Genetic changes … cause,” etc. Should read something more like, “Genetic changes … such as,” and so on.

What I mean to say is, their are rapid genetic changes to a few genes (insertion and deletion of these repeat sequences), and that the changed genes might be under selective pressure.

Yeah.

With regard to the Irish and Italian examples, I would like to point out that the *practise* of religion does not necessarily indicate the *presence* of religion. In other words, spiritualism and ceremony are worlds apart.

“In other words, spiritualism and ceremony are worlds apart.”

No they are not.

I wasn’t surprised to see stupidity this profound on the NYT op-ed page, but I guess I just don’t read the Guardian enough to know they’d waste ink and tree on this.

I can at least shed some light on a subsidiary question which appears to be troubling many of our readers, though not on the main one of spirituality:

Why does anyone listen to this fraudulent fool?

Because he was Lady Di’s gynaecologist.

“The Irish and Italians, to [sic] name but two, don’t seem especially religious at the moment, but go back a generation or three …. I doubt very much that their genetic stock has changed that much.”

Their genes may not have changed, but perhaps the external situations that prompt them to fall back on their religious beliefs have, analogous to “there are no atheists in the foxhole,” if you will.

That does not entirely explain why we Americans are so obsessed with religion. Of course, it is inculcated into the upbringing of so many American children. Our Catholic and Lutheran schools are everywhere. Our own brand of Christian madrassas have proliferated in the last 20+ years, as nearly every town or city of 10-20,000 has at least one Christian Academy.

Could the fact we haven’t had a war on our soil since the Civil War have an effect? After all, the senseless deaths of millions of innocent people that WWI and WWII brought about clearly shook the faith of Europeans, to say nothing of the fact that the necessity to rebuild one’s life and economy required a good deal more action than contemplation.

I am no believer, but I was brought up to be one. I still get what others may call religious or spiritual feelings, whatever the brain chemicals involved may be. If I had to be Christian to listen to Verdi’s Requiem, I might indeed convert.

Just to play devil’s advoacate:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/press/pressitem.asp?ref=288

“The Irish and Italians, two name but two, don’t seem especially religious at the moment, but go back a generation or three …. I doubt very much that their genetic stock has changed that much.”

Well, no, genetic change is obviously not responsible, but does that then rule out the possibility that there are genes that tend to produce religiousity? Might such genes not be expressed in other ways? Perhaps in an intolerance for ambiguity? A tendency toward conformism? A preference for comprehensive orthodoxies? People with such tendencies tend to find ways to express them even in secular societies, no?

Could I just point out that a very quick websearch indicates that Laura B. Koenig has co-written a number of papers with the aforementioned Professor Bouchard. Presumably, therefore, she holds to the unique standards of scholarship that characterise the Minnesota studies, that have led to their very special reputation in the world of psychology.

Well, no, genetic change is obviously not responsible, but does that then rule out the possibility that there are genes that tend to produce religiousity? Might such genes not be expressed in other ways? Perhaps in an intolerance for ambiguity? A tendency toward conformism? A preference for comprehensive orthodoxies? People with such tendencies tend to find ways to express them even in secular societies, no?

I agree with the above, though I would put it differently. Maybe (I’m no expert and am agnostic, ha ha, on the question) there’s a gene that compels humans to seek meaning, to believe in an unseen power, an afterlife, etc. Surely there’s not a gene that compels us to go to Catholic mass. Religious institutions don’t exactly change quickly, but I bet they change faster than our DNA.

Irish and Italians – as opposed to other Europeans – have a tendency toward conformism?

Sigh, no. I think genetic approach is pretty much a useless tool for looking at differences between societies. And I would suggest that membership in formal religious groups is not a very good proxy for religiosity. It strikes me that the cognitive tendencies underlying religious faith have a great deal of overlap with those underlying ‘devout’ environmentalism and ‘devout’ socialism.

ah, but is there a gene for susceptibility for pseudo-science?

Andrew Brown: “is there a gene for susceptibility for pseudo-science?”

Sometimes I think there is! But more likely it’s in our wiring to (A) impose patterns where there are none, and (B) to come up with simplistic just-so stories to account for things that are actually the result of extremely complex systems. I think we are all wired to be greedy reductionists ;-)

–Beo