Posted on 11/13/2004 7:47:12 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Religious belief is determined by a person's genetic make-up according to a study by a leading scientist.
After comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist has concluded that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.
His findings were criticised last night by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a "god gene" and say that the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith - that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain's electrical impulses.
Dr Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in America, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe. The higher their score, the greater a person's ability to believe in a greater spiritual force and, Dr Hamer found, the more likely they were to share the gene, VMAT2.
Studies on twins showed that those with this gene, a vesicular monoamine transporter that regulates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, were more likely to develop a spiritual belief.
Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect on belief. Dr Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the "god gene" explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality than others.
"Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic make-up. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation - it's like intelligence."
His findings, published in a book, The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes, were greeted sceptically by many in the religious establishment.
The Rev Dr John Polkinghorne, a fellow of the Royal Society and a Canon Theologian at Liverpool Cathedral, said: "The idea of a god gene goes against all my personal theological convictions. You can't cut faith down to the lowest common denominator of genetic survival. It shows the poverty of reductionist thinking."
The Rev Dr Walter Houston, the chaplain of Mansfield College, Oxford, and a fellow in theology, said: "Religious belief is not just related to a person's constitution; it's related to society, tradition, character - everything's involved. Having a gene that could do all that seems pretty unlikely to me."
Dr Hamer insisted, however, that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God. He pointed out: "Religious believers can point to the existence of god genes as one more sign of the creator's ingenuity - a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence."
13 October 2004: Homosexual link to fertility genes
Look, speaking as a straight guy -- I've had some hideous dates. I've been in some nightmare relationships. And I've encountered women that Rod Serling couldn't imagine. But the gay thing was never an option for me.
If one is a Calvinist, one might say that God gives the "brain chemicals" necessary for belief to his elect. And many classical Christians, who are not Calivinists, view belief to be an act of God on man (regeneration) rather than a voluntary act of man, himself.
"The guy publishes a paper about god genes or gay genes and some other guy reads the paper and does his own research."
I get it. You want more and more people to read homo stuff in the hope that more will be brainwashed and turn homos. And, in turn more and more homos will disseminate homosexuality in the hope that it poisons the minds and spirits of more abonormal young men. And so it continues, ad infinitum.
Maybe they just discovered the genetic source of spiritualist wackoism. I have never met a Christian who described their faith as being "spiritually connected to the universe." Puh-LEEEZE.
Of course it means that. It also throws out any idea of objective truth. If I believe in God because my genes force me to do so, and some scientist does not believe in God because his genes force him NOT to do so, then there's no way to question or change our conclusions; it's all a matter of "my genes" vs. "his genes." This scientist probably thinks that his so-called research is a positive step in the direction of tolerance and mutual understanding; it's not. It's a step in the direction of stifling any sort of rational debate on important issues.
If you were really straight as a board you would not disseminate this homo trash or make inappropriate use of the word "gay."
You have given yourself away by your own words.
Unbelievable. This is crap.
I'd say -- if I had to guess -- there are probably under 5,000 people on the planet who read neurological studies at that level. The number of people who are active players in the field is probably under 500.
Yes, I can tell you why. We are unable to read people's minds, therefore, we cannot say that a specific gene is responsible for a way of thinking. Do you really believe that we have such a technology? Can you look at a chemical formula, and tell me what my zodiac sign is? This is modern science at it's most religious, and is total nonsense. A God gene. Riiiight. I suppose you can try to break down every behavior, every preference, every conviction, into a formula. I'd like to see the study, who, how many, methodology, etc. I'm willing to bet it's as bogus as a Jackalope's antlers.
Well put, rhetor. Just another way of evading responsibility for our decisions. Liberals always seem to come up with them.
Well, in that case there must be a gene that causes not only idiocy but the need to proselytize the idiocy.
Maybe I'll ping the list. Thanks!
Any time anyone has sex they can choose to do it or not do it.
And if someone feels homosexual urges, they can choose to stay that way or they can choose to change. There are thousands of ex-"gays".
Just as some people feel strong urges to cheat on their spouse - such people can choose to give in to their desires, or they can control them, and learn to overcome such desires.
Desires are funny things - the more you give in to them and express them, the more hold they have over you. The more you let them know that you are the master, and they must to do your bidding, the tamer they get. And another funny thing, that's the key to happiness.
Desires make very bad masters.
You've caught the meme meme, and now you're spreading it.
You shouldn't be so preachy about things you don't understand. And just to make sure you spread it correctly in the future, the "parasitical" adjective is inappropriate as part of the definition, since a meme might be quite beneficial to its host.
You're also wrong about that which you attempt to imply regarding "gayness." It's safe for the rest of us to assume that your own gayness and the urge to facillitate the propagation that meme have corrupted your thinking with respect to many such loosely related concepts.
Do you see what I'm doing here?
Yes, you're lying and spewing sophistry in a effort to aggrandize yourself in your own eyes and in the eyes your gay friends by toying with "conservatives" on an internet forum.
Cute screen name, btw.
Here, read this. Promising research on brain function and behavior...
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect05.htm
My suspicion is that it's social propaganda. If certain people with certain prejudices get positions of influence at respected journals a lot of public policy will end up being based on bad science.
See global warming and the Kyoto Treaty as one example. The claims of the gay gene have been found to be way overblown, too but many accept them without question.
I'm guessing that more than 500 people have read this article, and that if it is given credence by the MSM, even greater numbers will be exposed to this eugenics propoganda (dysgenics?). It looks more to me like a political ploy, than a scientific discovery. No shouts of eureka from a great discovery, more like someone forcing the results to match his preconceived idea, for a purpose that has little to do with science.
The trouble is -- this research leaks out into the mainstream press and they choose the most sensational angle. They treat initial research as definitive. And they ignore all notes of caution the researchers usually provide.
I have only one objection to the idea of predestination: it eliminates totally the need for a Savior and makes the death of Christ a cruel joke. If certain people are "programmed" to believe and therefore receive salvation, God would have not needed to send His Son here for "us men and our salvation."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.