Are humans genetically 'hard-wired' to believe in god?

Actually rufio, it is becoming clear to me that you do not in fact want straight answers, but quick ones.

Rufio you are lying again. I have said what that is several times. And I have cited my source multiple times.

The reason the difference between the coefficients of monozygotic twins vs. dizygotic twins is relevant is because of the greater genetic similarity between monozygotic twins vs. that of dizygotic twins.

Differences between their coefficients suggest that the differences between the two twin types is partly responsible.

So it is therefore suggesting that the genetic differences are influencing factors.

This illustrates that genetics is a influencing factor.

My source for this, once again, is Thomas J. Bouchard's study called "Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart" and that is popularly referred to as the "Minnesota Twins" study.

As you found yourself this study is not comprehensively available on the internet. To compensate for this I gave you the professor's contact information.

Once again, that's (612) 626-8268 bouch001 AT umn.edu

My mother is one of a set of fraternal twins. It always fascinated me that picture taken of them in 1921 (when they were about one year of age) shows them so characteristically, that even someone who had never met them before, meeting them now at the age of 83, could look at the 1921 picture, and say: "Oh, that one is June, and that one is Jean." However, pictures taken from 1923 to 1938 show "two peas in a pod." Even their mother and father could never certainly say which one was which in those photos, and they would argue about it between themselves.

There is much in what Thomas and Craven have said about the extent to which environment is a factor in the differences and the similarities in twins. I would submit, from the evidence of my mother and my aunt, that when still infants, they retained individual characteristics sufficiently that a simple photograph suffied to differentiate them. Thereafter, however, as they were "socialized," they cultivated their similarities to such an extent that they became "identical." After high school, however, my mother entered nursing school, and then went overseas during the second world war. My aunt married, and then gave birth to and raised two girls in the same period. When their paths in life diverged, their differences were reinforced, and they again began to look like sisters perhaps, but not twins. I've always found studies of twins to be fascinating, and often because they seem to be inconclusive in the "nature v. nurture" debate.

Well it was published somewhere right? It's got to be in some database, I'd expect, if not I could hunt it down. I just wanted some actual information about what conclusions were come to on what basis and whether anything with actual genetics has been done as follow up or not.

rufio,
I believe the study is ongoing. I believe it was supposed to conclude in 2001 or 2002 but do not know if it did. But I have provided my source and armed with that you can satisfy your curiosity as to the details.

The main point is that indentical twins showed greater tendency for similarity than fraternal twins. When you ask yourself why you should see greater genetic similarity as the answer.

This does not mean that genetics is an exclusive factor, as Thomas points out rearing apart vs. rearing together is another important thing to look at.

What it does indicate is that genetics does effect things like intelligence for example (as measured by IQ, what we were discussing).

That is one conclusion.

I understand the concept. I want to know what the nature of the similarity was. But as you seem to indicate that there is no source, I'll just wait until there's more information.

I find them fascinating too. And if I remember that Scientific American article correctly, some of the characteristics turned out to be close to identical, others close to decorrelated -- and it wasnt't the ones you'd expect. (I tried to dig up the article on their website, but it must be in the subscribers-only part).

This, in conjunction with Craven's and Thomas' remarks about similarities and diffferences in twins, and in types of twins raises an issue which i think we all recognize, but which has not had much play in this discussion. That is, what quantifiable data, if any, can we apply to the examination of this question. How, for example, does Bouchard determine that there are, or are not, similarities in the beliefs of the twins in question. I'm not trying to quibble about this, but i think it is worthy of examination.

The nature of the similarities were broad. I can only remember some of the more colorful, but anecdotal, details.

Many of the twins were raised in different countries. Yet their tendency for truly uncanny similarities was fascinating.

Some dressed the same or shared habits with their unknown twin (e.g. I remember one case in which both twins were said to sneeze to draw attention).

There were less interesting similarities as well. For example the identical twins were more likely to have similar IQs.

Other studies compared things they hoped would help identify innate ability, with things like reverse mirror drawing, and other things that are unlikely to be learned.

Now as to waiting till it falls in your lap, good luck. I hope if that happens it will help.

Where did you get this from though, if it has been published anywhere?

As I said, I am working off of memory. The findings have been published in articles in many publications, I remember Newsweek covering some of it but do not recall the other publications in which I have read about this.

The study is not well documented online but you can find references to all of these things online (if not the details about control groups, methods etc) if you search.

Here's a link about "twins." Don't know if they answer any of the issues discussed in this forum. http://www.twinsfoundation.com/main/links.htm

Perhaps the only way to discover if genes direct our belief in God would be to have identical twins raised in different religions and regions even countries would be better and see if they both leaned towards the same beliefs and even religion or if they have different views. This would be very interesting. For what it is worth I did see a tv show about 8 identical twins seperated from birth and they danced alike and sat alike thought the same things. But they did not discuss God beliefs.

The main problem, Ruach, with such a study, would be how to quantify and qualify belief.

Ruach, I don't think you're going to find any volunteers for that trial.

Asking them whether they believe in god and testing for membership in a religious community are two quantifiable and objective tests that come to mind. They are not perfect -- but if they are heritable and if the study is statistcally sound, that would be good enough to make a decent case. I'm still skeptical though.

UPDATE:
I searched the Medline database for scientific medical publications and found the abstract of Bouchard's original paper. Two points:

1) In statistical tests, 'significant' doesn't mean what it means in everyday language. It means "the chances of the observation occuring just by coincidence are less then 5 percent. An effect doesn't have to be large to be significant

2) The study examined 37 monozygotic twins, tested against 35 heterozygotic twins in the control group. It's not junk science, but still, the groups are rather small

3) As I read the abstract, the correlation in religiousness reflects a correlation of how submissive people are to authority. It makes sense to me that this submissiveness is inherited. For what it's worth, my everyday experience tells me that heterozygotic dog five-lings (or whatever you call that in English) show very different patterns of submission from too early on to be explained by training.

I can't see, from a logical rather than empirical basis, how denomination would be inherited. If it were genetic, than I doubt that the narrow distinctions that people have made between denomination would cover the full range of whatever controlling genetics there would be. And a lot of the times, denomination doesn't even say anything about a person's personal beliefs - I've met Protestants who like Jewish ideas better and vice versa, and people who claim to be a part of two denominations simultaneously, and people within the same denomination that have radically different interpretations of the rituals, and radically different ideas of God. Plus, the fact that Judaism is almost more of a lifestyle than a religion complicates things further. And then there are atheists who claim not to believe in God as defined by the church, but are spiritual all the same. I suppose these things could be compared... but that would involve a lot of subjective interpretation. And if something is that subjective, how could it be genetic? A genetic trait is usually either "present" or "absent" not somewhere in the middle, at least from what I know of it.

Ahh, just saw your edited post, Thomas....

In terms of submissiveness, it doesn't seem like it would really address the other things I just mentioned, heh. What sorts of differences and similarities was he keeping track of, did it say?

So far, this is the best link I could find to the ongoing Bouchard study of reared-apart twins:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/tjbouc01.html