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

"a constellation of genes linked with belief"

This to me seems more accurate and plausible than the phrase "god gene." We do all believe in something, and even the non-religious are inclined to defend their beliefs with religious-type fervor. Hmm?

Dear God, ............by XTC
Hope you got the letter,
And I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer,
But all the people that you made in your image,
See them starving on their feet,
'Cause they don't get enough to eat
From God,
I can't believe in you.
Dear God,
sorry to disturb you,
but I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,
And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
'Cause they can't make opinions meet,
About God,
I can't believe in you.
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!
Dear God,
Don't know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it ain't and so do you,
Dear God,
I can't believe in,
I don't believe in,
I won't believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners,
No Devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
You're always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And it's the same the whole world 'round.
The hurt I see helps to compound,
that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
Is just somebody's unholy hoax,
And if you're up there you'll perceive,
That my heart's here upon my sleeve.
If there's one thing I don't believe in...

It's you,
Dear God.

Frank, what happens on these threads is I post something and people throw insults or purposefully misinterpret what I say. Interestingly enough, this is the only place that that happens.

Rufi, while I disagree that anyone here is purposefully misinterpreting what you say, I was being needlessly snide towards you & for that I apologize.


As for this thread's premise, if we are in fact "hard-wired" to believe in god I wonder how much of that is actually just human curiosity. Like rufio suggested earlier, people have always wondered where they came from. That's of course one reason people have invented gods.

Sorry for jumping in on this, but generally speaking, one reason they might be throwing insults is because they see the particular post from you as being dishonest, purposefully misinterpreting them, et cetera. Usually their belief will be mistaken, but given that this is how they see it, the insult seems justified -- to them. Moreover, their misinterpreting of what you see may well be an honest mistake, and your assumption of purpose may well be false. This makes a bad situation worse, and can, in extreme cases, degenerate into a vicious circle of mutual abuse.

The trick is to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt, and to make clear to your opponents that giving you the benefit of the doubt is a good idea. It's not an easy principle to follow even for experienced people on the net. For example, Frank and I had a rather bitter fight a few months ago in which he saw me as weaseling out after a dishonesty, I saw him as gratuitously abusing me for a minor, honest mistake, and neither of us was willing to give the other the benefit of the doubt. So most people here have experiences similar to yours, and presuming the other side's innocence is never easy when another experience strikes. Nevertheless, it is still the best way to deal with this in my experience.

Just my 2 cents.

Thomas, I'm sure they justify it to themselves. That's not good enough. I have repeatedly said that craven's interpretations of my posts on the language thread must be mistakes, but he denies that he or I could ever make mistakes, so I must conclude that it was intentional.

Rufio,

You have grossly distorted my comments.

Nowhere did I imply that you could not make a mistake. I'd be less likely to assert this than the converse.

I cannot comment on the specifics because I don't know them. Speaking generally again, when I notice that there's no point in trying to make myself understood by the other side of the conversation, I stop conversing. Then I leave a note telling the other side why I stop conversing, and move on to conversations where the sides do understand each other, or at least try. It saves me a lot of hazzle, and I can warmly recommend it.

But this is getting pretty far off-topic. If you wish to discuss this further, maybe it would be a good idea to do it in a thread of its own?

I kept insisting that I had made a mistake and you denied it and insisted that I must be purposefully lying.

I'm sorry, but no matter what I post or where I post it, they keep coming after me like some beehive that I've disturbed. Please go on with the discussion as normally. Maybe they will leave me alone someday.

When you case to misrepresent me I will case to defend myself against said misrepresentation.

If you want to be "left alone" then do not state falshoods. I will challenge them. Quit playing the "innocence abused" role. You are in another thread addrssing me, you are here misrepresenting me. You are not trying to avoid the contention but are proactively seeking it by engaging and misrepresenting.

You have done so again, in the thread you mentioned I admitted that it was very unlikely that it was intentional.

And when did you edit that into your post?

I did not edit it into my post. The subsequent post by dduck (who was defending you) referenced this statement by saying you should say something nice as well.

You are again misrepresenting me.

Well I'm sorry, I must have missed it. You could just post a simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong". That would have been fine.

I preferred in that situation to make a truthful statement.

You were wrong in your insistance that I lied. Which I told you many times. I never denied that I probably made a mistake. In fact, I insisted on it.

I was wrong to use the term "lie" as it was unneccessarily polemic.

"Lie" can mean both to intentionally mislead or to simply mislead. Stating a falsehood is a "lie".

In that most people attach more value to it than mere factual inaccuracy I was wrong to use it when a less inflammatory remark could have sufficed.

But there is a difference, I still maintain the qualm with revisionism. The distinction is one of the level of awareness and couching my qualm in rhetoric that could imply a different level of consciousness in regard to the act I took issue with.

You probably want to hear it simply stated:

I was wrong (imprudent) to use the term "lie". And said as much then.

I maintain that the predicted revisionism occured but not that you maliciously did so.

Now are we going to argue about what you meant by the word "lie"? Next we're going to get into what the word "is" is, ala Clinton.

A mistake in word choice is not revisionism, nor is it consciously malicious.

The objection raised by Twyvel, that one could make the case that there is a counter-evolutionary character to organized religion inherent in its often murderous dogmaticism applies as well to Cav's description of a constellation of genes. I would note, however, that on an experiential basis across human history, a pragmatic definition of religion would be just that character of the fervent that will lead them into extremes, even murderous extremes, in defense of their beliefs. This is reflected in our language usage as well, at least in English (i'm not a philologist like Freddy Neitzsche, so i won't suggest that i have evidence from other languages)--it is not at all uncommon to hear or read that "so and so makes a religion of . . . " and then to fill the blank with the belief about which the subject is passionate.

Which could lead us into contentions (silly contentions, in my view) about said constellation of genes linked with belief and putative value for breeding opportunity for the individual. It has been quite common throughout human history for conquerors, either in the mass, or in individual cases, to extirpate, or attempt to extirpate, the line of descent of those whom they defeat. Immediately, the case of the Emperor Giaus leaps to my mind (Caligula, for the less well-informed). Immediately upon his assassination, Sejanus sent Praetorians to murder his son and daughter.

And this provides an example of where contentions about genetic impulses get murky. A sufficiently self-aware person, devoid of what we value as a moral attitude, is simply attempting to secure themselves from the possibility of retribution in such a circumstance. Which leads me, finally, to my present overall objection to the thesis. At some point after we came down from the trees, language developed, with wide and profound implications for the explosive development of and the perpetuation of ideas, especially those deriving from "self-cognition." It will be forever an area for lively debate to what extent human behavior is attributable to evolutionary and genetic factors, as opposed to the perpetuated perceptions of individuals, interacting en masse.

Setanta, I don't think this is "genetic" in any way, but if it were I would say that it would be a positive trait rather than a negative one - whatever it is that allows us to believe unfalteringly in our religions is surely what allows us to believe unfalteringly in social beleifs and constructions as they amount to basically the same thing. And having a transmitting culture, custom, and ritual has promoted the longevity of not only humans, but many types of animals as well.

Of course, if it weren't intuitively positive, it wouldn't be the first - walking upright and the switch to agriculture are still puzzling people today.

I've asked you to have the courtesy not to respond to my posts--and you've illustrated precisely why in this foray of yours. You've restated what i've just posited (and done so poorly), you've ignored that i proceeded from someone else's assertion about a "negative" evolutionary "value" for religion, as opposed to having posited this myself, and you've ascribed to animals, without a single referential example, the transmission of culture, custom and ritual--asserting that it promotes longevity in said animals. Without necessarily disputing the point, i'd point out that you provide not a syllable of support for your contention that culture, custom and ritual promotes longevity. Absent even an inferential assertion that this is self-evident you present a feeble argument from authority. You then assert that walking upright and "the switch to agriculture" puzzle people. Are you puzzled? I doubt that others who give consideration to such developments are. Without bipedal behavior, our hands are not free to disdain one another's ideas in these fora. Without agriculture, i haven't the time to point out to you just how annoyingly meaningless most of what you post seems to be.

For the record, this is a criticism of what you wrote, and not of you personally, and therefore does not constitute flaming. It attacks your ideas and the expression thereof, and not you. It cannot, therefore, justifiably be characterized as "flaming." I suspect you will, however, assert that i have willfully misunderstood you.

I assert that you either willfully misunderstood my request that you not respond to my posts, or that you haven't the good manners to honor the request.