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

Hmm...that's a good point there, twyvel.

twyvel, I have a small disagreement with your thesis. I think culture has more influence than whatever "gene that provides a capacity for faith." That's the reason why there's a majority that believes in the same religion in the countries of this world.

Thanks Cav... "context" and "rufio" remind me of Woody Allen's comment on "Swan Lake" and "The Mafia" (They "fixed" the ballet - the swan lived)

PS's context only affects the opinion of the speaker, and fresco's was accompanied by something else but not affected by it. Not that I would surprised if the people in this forum chose who treated with respect based on who agreed with them and who did not....

You can have all the master's degrees in the world and never know a thing. In themsevles they say nothing. I know that context matters but it doesn't always matter in the same way, depending on the context. But if you think the statements are different in meaning, than tell me how YOU read them.

Yes, cicerone, my response was to the cav's OP, I think a gene for 'faith' or the capacity to believe, in general, is at the root of the theory, not specifically a 'god gene'.

Re; culture influences.

If a human was raised by a pack of wolves or baboons ( number of years ?) do you think s/he would develop beliefs in a god or transcendence of some kind?

If no, the gene (god) theory is out.

Though I do think that said human would harbor 'beliefs', though esoteric to ours. The gene (belief) theory is in.

Would the 'wolf pack culture" be the primary influence on behavior?

There was a boy who was found at about age eight or nine to have been "living wild" long enough that he apparently had no language. This was in France, late in the 19th century. I'm sorry not to have any details. Should anyone stumble on a reference, it might be an area of interest for such questions as this, and the cognitive development theme in the though and languages thread.

twyvel's quote, "If a human was raised by a pack of wolves or baboons ( number of years ?) do you think s/he would develop beliefs in a god or transcendence of some kind?" Interesting question. Might survive with some "wolf pack culture."

Well, wherever they were raised, they'd certainly wonder where thing came from. That might not result in a God, but certainly in some sort of theory.

I don't know if this is what you are referring to Setanta:

****
Romania's Wild Boy Reclaimed By His Mother
A youngster found living like a wild animal in Romania has been reunited with his mother - but will have to learn to be a little boy again before being allowed to go back to her.

Romanian authorities confirmed yesterday that the seven-year-old, nicknamed Mowgli after the boy raised by wolves in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, had been identified and his mother had been found.

Lina Caldarar was reunited with her son, who she had named Traian, at the hospital in Brasov in Romania. She said he was lost more than three years ago and she wanted to care for him again.

She said: "I loved my son but I had a violent partner, and he was always beating me. When I lost Traian I was distraught but there was nothing I could do. I hoped he had perhaps been adopted by another family ... but I had no idea he had been living wild."

The boy was being kept under observation in hospital but doctors said they would place him in an orphanage. Police are trying to find the boy's father and warn charges might be brought.

Traian was only the size of a three-year-old, could not speak and was naked and living in a box. He suffers from severe rickets, has infected injuries and his circulation is poor, possibly because of frostbite.

Doctors say it would have been impossible for him to survive alone and speculate he might have been looked after by some of the many wild dogs in the Transylvanian countryside, central Romania. He was near the body of a dog that he had apparently been eating.

He was found after the car of a shepherd, Manolescu Ioan, broke down. Mr Ioan had to walk from his pastures and at 6am stumbled on the filthy, wild-eyed child living in a cardboard box and covered only with a plastic sheet. Mr Ioan reported his find to police, who later captured the boy.

When the boy was brought in to the small provincial hospital at Fagaras, nurses concluded he might have been living alone in the moors and eating dead animals for years. He walked with the bandy gait of a chimpanzee and tried to sleep under his bed rather than on it.

Dr Mircea Florea said: "He was found in an animal position and his movements are animalistic. The facts show that he was not brought up in a social environment. He becomes very agitated when he does not have food. He is looking for something to eat all the time. He sleeps after he eats. It is his best sleeping pill."

Dr Florea added: "He has started to learn how to behave himself. With proper care he can learn more and he will go to a child institution."

•Story originally published by:
The Scotsman, Edinburgh / Scotland - Feb 22.02
****
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/nwild.htm

No Boss, it's not the incident to which i was referring, which occurred more than a century ago. However, i would suggest that it would hold as much interest as the earlier incident, if it is genuine. There are those who suggested at the time, in France, that that incident was manufactured, although i believe if has been widely accepted within the community of those who study human behavior. No time now, but perhaps i'll see if i can find a reference later.

"You can have all the master's degrees in the world and never know a thing." -rufio

Good luck with your studies.

Nor can I make any sense of it, rufio, but I'm sure Setanta won't give me an explanation either.

Really? The unspoken premise is that by assigning ultimate responsibility to an omniscient being -- being fatalistic and saying, "It's God's will" -- one shirks one's own responsibility. Essentially, it is positing that by adopting a supernatural father-figure, we can effectively remain children. How much this actually happens is debatable, of course, but I don't think the point is at all obtuse. (Q: what is confession, after all? And what is samsara?)

Jeez...Setanta is simply saying that a whole lot of theists hide behind their 'gods' rather than take true humanistic responsibility for themselves, and their role in the world they live in. It is moral cowardice to need religion to justify 'good deeds', especially when said 'good deeds' may not be so good for those subjected to them, and it is moral cowardice to perform horrid acts in the name of god. If Setanta wants to elaborate further, I'm sure he will.

Thanks patiodog and cavfancier: those explanations clear it up for me, and they were certainly better than anything that was offered to rufio.

Joe, please don't be paranoid, i'm not out to get you, or to snub you. Please accept that i don't appreciate everything you write, just as i'm sure you have objections to much of what i write.

Cav and PD have amply explained my meaning, which gives me reason to believe that what i wrote was not obscure. As for Rufio, i find what she writes to be often incomprehensible, or disingenuous. Please, Joe, never, never consider that Rufio has any business explaining anything i've written. As for Rufio's opinions of what i write, that is a matter of complete indifference to me.

I got no gripes with you, Setanta: you're the one who, in another forum, suggested that there's "no love lost between us" (rest assured, I love you just as much now as I ever have). Furthermore, you can be sure that I hold no personal grudges against you or anyone else who has an honest disagreement with me.

As for my paranoia, there's nothing that I can do about it. I've seen all the best specialists, and THEY'RE ALL AGAINST ME!


I have a different take on rufio and her contributions, but I'm not going to tell you how to handle your business.

Being a theist doesn't imply that you are religious, or hold those personal beliefs. Theist only means: someone who believes in a g-d or g-ds.

I believe Setana is drawing conclusions from what he/she knows about -some- theists, but that is surely not representative of all theists across time and place, or the general concept of theism. This gives a negativist sentiment to the statement, and it would have been better left as an observation - "Some theists use ___ as a mental crutch..." Than an all-encompassing derogatory statement towards theists in general.

To be rounded out, here are some loosely formed counter-examples: It could be argued the Egyptian Pharos were theist because it helped them exert control over the masses.
There are accomplished theists in the subject of philosophy, whose attitudes towards the existance of a g-d or g-ds don't hinder their brain in any way.
There are people who believe in a g-d or g-ds who don't attribute anything to them.
Just as the cell is unaware of being part of a greater whole, someone could observe us on this planet as being unaware of a greater whole, and calling that greater whole g-d as thought it were a being, as we are a being in which the cell functions, and in the cell the atom, and so on.
Still, no conflict. So, if you are going to make assumptions about certain theists, be more specific.

Well, if the topic was actually about theists, or even theism, I am sure we could be more specific, but it's not, and that's why this thread is not in the Spirituality and Religion forum. Also, note I used the colloquialism "a whole lot of theists" thereby clearly not referring to "all theists". Let's all play nice and stay on topic. Cheers.

i've had a injunction brought against me to prevent me shooting theists on sight--so, sadly, i don't mean all theists either, just the unwary ones.

I'll stick by my statement that theism represents a form of moral cowardice. Suppose there were a god (silly supposition, but i'm willing to posit as much for sake of discussion)--one is still responsible for the quality of the world which one inhabits. I particularly appreciated PD's: ". . . by adopting a supernatural father-figure, we can effectively remain children."--as those are exactly the terms which i have often used in such discussions with others. I further appreciated Cav's statement to the effect: "It is moral cowardice to need religion to justify 'good deeds', especially when said 'good deeds' may not be so good for those subjected to them, and it is moral cowardice to perform horrid acts in the name of god."--as that is precisely what i meant by moral cowardice.

In fact, it is a little spooky just how well these two understood me.