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

Possibly CI, with globalisation - not just economic globalisation, but cultural. It's already possible for people with totally different backgrounds and cultures to talk over the net for free, over the phone, and there's already some sort of internatinal "net culture" thing happening. What with there being a world market now to break language barriers, it's only a matter of time.

rufio, I think we have a start, but don't forget that most of humanity don't have or even know what a computer is. Many (the majority on this planet) are barely on this side of starving to death. The spread of HIV/AIDS is uncontrolled, and those contracting this disease will only increase. Got a long ways to go.

Yes, but now there are internet cafes all over Europe, and when capitalism in the global market evens out the wage gap between America and the rest of the world, anything is possible.

Man is cross-breeding and not going much of anywhere in evolutionary standards except the mixture of race and culture. I suppose that we'll all be pretty much the same in a few thousand years...or die from some disease that effects the weak genes we get from not letting the 'weak' fall prey to animals with bigger teeth.

There are no "breeds" to cross in human beings. We will not fall prey to animals with bigger teeth because we have guns and walls. As you can see, we have already conquered this problem.

Sheep, what do you mean by 'man is cross-breeding'? We're all one species. There is no sub-species (except, perhaps, the extinct Neanderthalers) with which we could 'cross-breed.'

Yeah, explain 'cross-breeding' there, sheep. If you are indeed a real sheep, I understand your concerns, should you be Scottish.

That's the funniest thing I've read today cav, thanks. I do hope he simply meant the mixing of people of different races and colors. Once we're all mutts, we'll have a hard time feeling prejudice against races. And, I do hope we evolve into a single culture, because I fear the only alternative is extinction.

How so, bill? Are you equating culture to race here?

Thanks Bill. I hear ya. I think that's what sheep was getting at, but I can't speak for him/her personally.

No rufio, not at all. If my terminology was inappropriate, feel free to correct it. I hope my meaning was clear. If not, I'll be happy to elaborate, but I can hardly imagine how that could be necessary.

Bill, I can agree with you only in part. I do agree that eliminating the concept of race (Whether through intermarriage or otherwise) would be a very good thing for mankind. 'Culture' is something else, though. I think that the creation of a homogeneous uniculture would be stultifying. If everyone spoke the same language, listened to the same music, preferred the same kind of food etc. etc., it would be a boring world, indeed.

Unfortunately, it's already happening to some extent. Every major city in the world has a MacDonald's. Shopping malls everywhere are like military encmpments -- uniform. And there isn't a corner left in this world where English is not spoken by somebody. Everything has been painted a battleship grey.

Let us be one people. But let us retain our cultural differences to add a little spice to the mix.

No worries Merry. I have no doubt that even if we did evolve into a single "culture"; there would remain sub-cultures. Even if these were miraculously vaporized, humans would create new sub-cultures to replace them. We are not all the same and likeminded people will always unite.

Ahh, I just asked because you mentioned the mixing of "races" along with the mixing of cultures. Not that that has much relevance anyway - most human variation is within races not between them.

Culture will never be homogenous - even cultures that are designated as singular in themselves rarely are.

truth
Cav, was it you who asked if we might not have, instead of a "God gene" a "belief gene?" That's an interesting twist on the matter. I don't think we have nearly enough knowledge of the nuerological and genetic systems to argue the question--yet. But let me suggest that one does not need to resort to genetics to have some understanding for the world-wide prevalence of religion itself. But remember that not all religions have Gods. Some have spirit beings, some ancestors with supernatural powers, some are polytheistic, others pantheistic, and Buddhism is even "atheistic" in a sense. But I think that we all have to have beliefs, opinions, working hypotheses, theories, etc. just to get along in the world pragmatically and psychologically. I would not argue for a psychological need to have religion since too many INDIVIDUALS do quite well without it. Yet it seems that virtually all SOCIETIES need some kind of religious system from which its leaders, administrators or elders gain absolute moral authority over the behavior of members who are disruptive and threaten the survival and/or well being of the society.

Re: truth


I live in a country where there is a legal separation between church and state. I'll grant you that that line of separation is a rather fluid one, but the law remains the same.
As I pointed out before; I believe the human propensity to believe in an afterlife stems from our natural instinct to survive. Being self aware enough to fear our certain death, a belief in an afterlife helps to satisfy this instinct. I also believe that for many; this is "an offer you can't refuse." I suspect that, as often as not, the leaders of various religions exploit this fear in their followers to garner as much loyalty as possible. Often, this elevates their own power and wealth. For this reason; I've always questioned their motives.

i feel the need to 'add' a personal caviat to your thesis Cav;

whether humans are 'hard wired' for 'belief' (a broadening of the topic that is virtually a 'sure thing' for me), at this stage in evolution, we have reached the point supported by the 'information age', and the general availability of knowledge to the extent that each creature should now consider it their 'responsibility' to override whatever inate programming seems to suggest, and make the effort to wade through the information available, coming up with their own personal take on the structure of the universe.

what i am saying is that if there is a genetic, physiological mindset, favouring belief in influences beyond our control, we can no longer blame this for our failure to deal with the reality of this planet and its inhabitants; we now have the tools to 'create' our own world, and make it work.

truth
Good points, OCCOM Bill. I didn't go into the existential anxieties (mortality) that contribute to individual beliefs in an afterlife, one strong reason for individuals to accept Pascal's Wager. Our society is, as you note, a secular one, even though leaders never, or VERY rarely, base their claims to authority on religions values. Their authority derives from law, the legal strength of our Constitution. This is why I said that "VIRTUALLY all societies need some kind of religious system...." In industrial and post-industrial, post enlightenment modern societies, Nietzsche famous pronouncement that "God is Dead" refers to the fact that societies no longer need sacred authority; leadership is now based on secular authority. Nevertheless, as you indicate, for people cursed with the knowledge of inevitable death, religion serves to mitigate (if it does) fear.

The hell with philosophy. Check out the animals, I think they have the last word on hard-wired since they know exactly what to do, where to go. Yet, they learn love from us. I've never thought of "God" as anything more than that part of us, wherever it is, that we can (only) choose to live from.

JL, yes, twas me who postulated there about a 'belief' gene. Bo! Yes, good points indeed, I concur on everything. Tex-Star, you may be no fan of philosophy, but I have to say, I learn new things from my dog every day.