Let's put together several strands of research.

STRAND 1

There is no "religion gene" any more than there is a single gene that determines eye colour or intelligence. However there is growing evidence that some people have a genetically inherited pre-disposition to become religious. I found several online links to this topic. Here is one.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp806845.pdf

STRAND 2

There is growing evidence that participation in organised religion offers real benefits. Here are two links.

http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101740

http://journals.lww.com/jaacap/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2002&issue=02000&article=00015&type=abstract

STRAND 3

General "spirituality" may offer even greater benefits than attendance at religious services. Here is one link out of many.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/tu-spa102308.php

STRAND 4

Religious people tend to have more babies. This is well covered in "God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World" by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge.

Here are two online links I found:

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/1/2/6/2/pages312625/p312625-1.php

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/11/breedingforgod/

And here is an article in the Guardian by an atheist pundit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/18/children-philosophy-childless

Quote:

"I have one, and only one, firm and sincere desire about what quality my grandchildren should possess: non-existence…"

The London Times has an article titled:

"A nightmare for Richard Dawkins: statistics show that atheists are a dying breed"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100010450/a-nightmare-for-richard-dawkins-statistics-show-that-atheists-are-a-dying-breed/

Quote:

"Austria is the only country which records the religious belief of parents but their figure, of 0.85 children per atheist woman, is far below replacement rate (2.1) and below even the most barren European country’s average rate, which is about 1.2…"

This is how evolution happens. The human race seems to be splitting into two distinct populations – those that are religious and those that are not.

Since the former have more offspring and since they seem able to PASS ON THEIR PROPENSITY TO RELIGION TO THEIR DESCENDANTS it is they who are likely to dominate.

Why is this happening now?

Probably because until recently having no kids was not a serious option unless you were willing to be celibate.

Do pundits here - especially those belonging to the seemingly doomed atheist sub-species - have any thoughts?

dont sweat on it stevie
many believers have little faith

and fall for the dorkins evolution spiel

little knowing that nature is god's reflection

they dont know their genous from their genious,thus suck up the dorkinsscience god heads...buy into their eugenics adgendas...are the sheeple...following the new age god free messiah...but in thus failing to see what we collectivly are...is ..but faint reflection of all the greatness god is

we can seek to know him by study of his creation,,,intimatly...see even the beast reflect his love...his mercy..that gives even the least of life... their lives..he dont judge...the vile in this life is from freewill...that good of god wispers our con-science from within...god within...look into someone.. eye ball into eyeball

just as other elites are selling the global warning franchise..so too the dork and his kin's...its all designed to switch us off good/god..chose the clight/love or reject the light love...frewill ...aint it grand

Your unstated assertion that the offspring of "believers" will grow up to become the same as their parents is false.

50 years ago almost everyone was religious but since then there has been a big fall in church going and godbothering. If godbotherers have, as you put it, an ability to "PASS ON THEIR PROPENSITY TO RELIGION TO THEIR DESCENDANTS" then how come there has been such a falloff of churchgoing etc? Obviously some of them didnt manage to pass on their delusions to their offspring.

Athiests are far from a dying breed and your idiotic reference to evolution just shows how ridiculous and badly thought out your article is. Atheism is driven by knowledge and logic and is far better placed to progress than any superstition or ancient belief in fairy stories.

As for those weird articles you referenced
1. If there is a genetic predisposition to believe then where does that leave your gods notion of free will and choice?
2. Is there no other way to get such benefits other than being a believer? Could it have anything to do with lifestyle and environment? Not dependent on religion are they. There are plenty of communities that live long lives and dont believe. An example look at the so called "Mediterranean diet" and its beneficial health effects. Common to Italians (godbotherers)and the French(hardly godbotherers at all).
3. So any "spirituality" is better for us than atheism? Wickans are pretty spiritual, as are yogis, astrologists and those weird crystal people. Does the religious industry accept these forms of "spirituality"? I think not.
4. It is also a known fact that poor people have more babies. Does this mean that the majority of godbotherers are poor. I could make an inference from that that godbothering makes you poor. Since it is the wealthy that control society it seems that godbotherers are unlikely to hold that much influence no matter how many children they have.

Another delusional post by the forces of ignorance and superstition.

Your 4th point is particularly apposite, mikk.

Poor, uneducated people of all persuasions have more children than the middle class, and are more susceptible to religion. StevenImeyer would do well to brush up on the difference between correlation and causation.

Agreed Sancho.

Steven would (or should) be aware that the better educated a society, the smaller the family unit.

I wonder where this thread is REALLY headed?

LOL mikk

You appear to think I am a "believer". I am not.

To answer the various points raised by mikk, sancho and fractelle.

Religiosity is not the ONLY factor that determines fertility. Good studies correct for other demographic factors such as socio-economic status. Here is a link to one such study.

http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol18/8/18-8.pdf

A religious middle-class woman may have fewer babies than a non-religious poor woman; but she is more likely to marry and likely to have more babies than non-religious women of the same socio-economic class.

The link between socio-economic class and fertility may be more complicated than people think. There is evidence that above a certain level of wealth people have more babies. The "birth dearth" is most pronounced among the middle-classes.

I am aware of the difference between correlation and causation. That is why I referred to "evidence" rather than "proof". What we have is epidemiological studies that point to a heritable link to religiosity. We won’t know for certain whether a propensity for religiosity is heritable until we identify the gene networks that control religiosity – assuming such networks exist.

Why don't we see an uptick in church attendance? That is the weak point in my argument. My guess is that it's because large differentials between the fertility of religious and non-religious people is a relatively recent phenomenon. It hasn't worked its way through the system.

That being said, about 75% of Australians self-identify as "Christians" but most do not attend church. I am told that many self-identified Muslims in Australia do not attend mosque.

It appears that in America quite a few children raised as atheists "defect" to religion. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinion/02blow.html?em

Quote:

"…most children raised unaffiliated with a religion later chose to join one. ….only 14 percent of those raised Catholic and 13 percent of those raised Protestant later became unaffiliated."

Note that in the US religious service attendance for all faiths is much higher than in Europe and Australia. In Africa and Asia both Christianity and Islam appear to be growing rapidly.

Fractelle, LOL

Where do you think this thread is REALLY headed?

Hmm. Is StevenImeyer a KMB sock-puppet, or is he having us on with the same schtick?

Sure. He's a non-religious secularist who's just massively impressed with Catholicism and viciously hateful of Islam.

Perhaps there's a bridge in Sydney he'd like to sell us, too!

How compelling can a religion be if its members feel they need to lie in order for anyone to take them seriously?

Can't possibly be a "gene" for religiosity, lets look further.

Unlike speculative "gods", parents actually do exist. Young of many species benefit greatly from cleaving close to their parents (and similar caring/authoritarian figures). It is reasonable to assume there are genes which collectively contribute to this behaviour, and that these genes have some variability within the population.

What happens when possessors of strong forms of these behaviours grow up? We don't *need* bellybuttons after birth, yet they linger. Similarly, the desire for a greater parent can clearly linger past the age at which, historically, parents may be dead. I believe this is part of the biological basis of why religion exists.

It gets exploited by all sorts. Governments who want us to trust totally and obey unquestioningly, controlling personalities who look for/marry/mulct the gullible, churches wanting pretty much what governments do, military training. Almost all of these can not only to some extent control reward and punishment but (often irrationally) get to define what is desirable. There is usually a present authority figure (constable/priest/mother/teacher/Sargeant) who is a little amenable to persuasion, and a bigger usually absent one that isn't (judge/principal/father/officer/"god").

All invoke father figures and all attempt to impart the impression that this father figure can fix your problem if they want, or punish if you are overreaching.

Religion just carries this to extremes and couches it it in absolutes. We are expected to react to religious bogeymen as if "daddy" really will come home *this time*. For instance: the Second Book of Kings, verses 23 and 24 are a classic revenge fantasy. Clearly written by a disgruntled priest who *had* been mocked. The sicko who wrote it just wishes the bears *had* killed the kids and hopes his next sermon will "teach them a lesson". It is a childish conception of a childish god, anyone who *isn't* above it isn't worth discussing the topic with, they are a sheep to be shorn, and pastor will, have no doubt.

The thing to look for is genes for hierarchical behavior.

Rusty

Steven

<< Fractelle, LOL

Where do you think this thread is REALLY headed? >>

Somehow you are going to 'show' that Muslims are breeding faster than Christians and we all should be afraid, very afraid.

I don't get involved in religion, usually, but with a title like this one, I just had to put my two bobs worth in.

Now there is also growing evidence of men becomming weaker beings, in general', often growing up to be whimps, rather than young men and leaders and, this may well be a cause as to why so many are turning to religion as they are incapable of making a mark within society and they ultimately are being over ruled by their FEMALE partners.

Much of this may have to do with the fact that so many today are influenced by females as they are from 'mum only' families.

By all means, believe what you wish and follow whoever, or should I say, whatever mythical being you like. But as long as our future men continue to turn to their partners for strength, then what else can one expect.

Now before all you feminists get up on your high horse, no I don't hate women, nor do I regard them as weaker. It's just that todays man is not the man of yesteryear and as a result has found himself in a non authoritive role within society.

Imagine where we would be today if our forefathers had grown up like the men of today, then set off to do battle for the saviour of our nation.

Look out if we ever have a world war 3!

Sancho,

KMB?

Sorry old son, you'll have to help me out there. I looked in acronymfinder.com. The closest I came to finding anything relevant was "Keep Mecklenburg Beautiful".

If you truly believe I'm "massively impressed with Catholicism" then I'd like a bit of whatever it is you're smoking.

Is being "viciously hateful" of Islam worse than being "viciously hateful" of Christianity?

Truth is I'm not too fond of either.

Fractelle,

They are and perhaps we should be. However that is NOT what I had in mind when I started this thread. I'm simply pointing out that demography seems to be moving against secularists like me.

Most secularists believe that history is moving in our direction. I used to believe that too. But the facts MAY be saying otherwise. Religions may yet triumph.

Or, perhaps we can find a modus vivendi though, looking at past history, I'm not too hopeful.

Rusty,

All you say about religions is true. But somehow more and more people seem to be believing the myths. And not just in Western societies. Go figure.

Rehctub

Consider that religion may have conferred an evolutionary advantage under primitive conditions. After all, who is likely to fight more fiercely for the best hunting grounds? A tribe of atheists? Or a tribe with warriors that believe that when they die they get a reward in the after life?

Perhaps religion is a consequence of brains better adapted to the Pleistocene than the 21st Century.

All,

Consider that maybe, just maybe, the comfortable beliefs you have been harbouring about the direction in which society is moving are not entirely accurate. Maybe, just maybe, history is going to discomfit us

I always love bit of junk science...

A dog has 4 legs. My cat has 4 legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.

Without adjusting for contributing factors this sort of data is misleading at the best of times.
Put twins - an atheist and a believer into a carefully controlled environment where all contibuting factors are exactly the same and when you have some results, I'll happily listen. Otherwise there are just too many other factors to consider.

But, here's a story that's sure to get some replies. And for those devoutly religious I don't intend any offence, just humour.
Think back to a simple lady named Mary and her husband Joseph. One day a very cute and charming suitor paid Mary a visit while Joseph was out of town on business.
When Joseph came back, imagine his surprise at his wife, with child. Mary thought quickly and came up with the best story she could think of before Joseph got too suspicious. Immaculate conception. And well, from that point you know the rest...........

Steven,
You and Yabby should get together your apparent belief in simplistic electo/chemical determinism i.e. we are the sum total of our genes.
When in reality there are so many possible combinations/variation it is effectively impossible to state there is a gene for religiosity.
I would submit to you that the best we can and probably will be able to say for the long foreseeable future is we will find varying degrees of potential for certain groups of behaviour. However within those parameters there will be an extraordinary range variations/triggers and other such causative factors that heighten various possibilities in the area of 'causing' religiosity.
Then we need to examine what the exactly the researchers meant by religiosity. From there one needs to understand if there isn't another more base explanation for the 'susceptibility to religiosity'.
Does this really mean that some who are so inclined all have the same reasoning, motivation etc or are they responding to different parts of what religiosity encompassed.

Having intelligently assessed the science, we now turn our attention to the stats and if the statistician were testing for the same factors. Let's not delve into the credibility of news paper articles particularly when it comes to the nuances of science.

In short Steven, Burbs accusation of inductive reasoning appear apt.
As Fractelle and others said more thought need on the topic. I too given your obvious smarts question your real motives.
I suspect Sancho is on the right track....As an Aussie and atheist I then wonder why then your almost one eyed support fora nation based or a religious notion. One that is dominated by default by extremist religiously motivated individuals. One that seems to refuse to acknowledge that Palestinians are a nationality rather than just a zealotic religious grouping

Aaah examinator

I was wondering whether you would appear, nefarious Zionist plot detector turned up to maximum sensitivity.

I have never claimed there is such a thing as a "gene for religiosity".

I have cited evidence, mostly based on the study of twins, supporting the notion of an INHERITABLE DISPOSITION TOWARDS RELIGIOSITY. It does not mean that if you have a particular genome you are doomed to be religious. It simply means you are more likely to be religious. AMONG GENETICISTS THIS IS NOT EVEN CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT.

It is also not controversial among population demographers to state that, on the whole, religious couples have more babies. This appears to be true even when we correct for confounding factors such as socio-economic status.

Finally there is some evidence that in the US people born in atheist households tend to become affiliated with a religious organizations while movements in the opposite direction are relatively rare.

Putting these strands together has led me to question the conventional wisdom – conventional at least among secularists – that societies will continue to evolve in an ever more secular direction.

Increasing secularisation has certainly been the trend in Western societies TILL NOW.

I suspect that trend is about to "bend".

And that is all I intended for this thread. A discussion on whether the trend will bend.

There is no nefarious Zionist plot here. Your plot detector has, once again, produced a false positive.

There is no hidden agenda. What you see is what you get.

I am not talking about any particular religion. I am talking about all of them.

Is my thesis correct? Will the trend of increasing secularisation bend? That's what I'd like to discuss.

To quote Cairncross:

A trend is a trend is a trend,
But the question is, will it bend?
Will it alter its course
Through some unforeseen force
And come to a premature end?

mikk<<Atheism..driven by..knowledge..and logic>>..thats feel good spin...a huge feel-good generalisation...to prove..please reveal your knowledge..by answering 3 small questions...

what was the first life..from not life?

plesase provide proof...and..as science..the means to replicate it...[as i know none has been done so...i will simply ask you..how the first living membrane...formed its first intact living cell?

but..question number two...

you claim that species evolved..from a common ancestor...meaning that there have been hundreds of evolutions..of one genus..into another genus...

please validate/proove..just one proven evolution of genus..into new genus..science fails to report EVEN..one faulsifyable..neo..[new genus..from old genus...via/mutation...but please provide your knowlewdge of..any..recorded genus/evoltion..out of or into..other genus

ok third question..do you claim evolution..as fact...then state your beliefs...unexpresable belief..is faith...DISprove..most of your athiest agnostic mates..simply follow their faith..metal dullards

<<...and is far better..placed to progress>>cause its so fsar from any faulsifyasble truths<<..than any superstition or ancient belief in fairy stories.>>..historical evidence is ignored..at our own peril..no doudt you disregard..shakspear and the other authers..of human writing's..as of same brush..stuff..plato/stuff pythogoris..right..dude?

<<If there is..a genetic predisposition..to believe..then where does that leave your gods/notion..of free will..and choice?>>...quite simply before begining life..we are given a pre-life/revieuw..of our whole life mission...

we chose our lives for its teaching...evolution is valid..on the spritual level...not the material level..

<<Is there no other way..to get such benefits..other than being a believer?>>>..what benifits...god dosnt need an intermediatry...any can look upon his face...living/loving/grace/mercy..

there is no wrathfull/vengefull..god...get over our humanistic belief.. in a lie of..judgment day...get over god judging anyone


<<any.."spirituality"..is better for..us..than atheism?>>...the first step in realising..who we really are..is by knowing our creation is of love...

heaven egsists..in the light/god..to go..to the darkness..we need to reject god/light/love/logic....the light is living loving grace mercy...

the darkness love..vile hurt pain..spiritual darkness...depending on the absence noted within..of their..own..inner..true living light

<<Wickans are pretty spiritual,..as are yogis,astrologists..and those weird crystal/people.>>>..all life has gods animous within..sustaining..it..to egsist...but for god..all is darkness..

where god is light/life is....where god is logic reigns..
where god is love is

stevenlmeyer,

I wouldn't be bold enough to doubt the connections in your research are there. But is religion the cause of the connections you are making:

Is the inheritable disposition related to religion itself, or related to the saturation of offspring to parents religious beliefs.
You could probably link that german children of the 20's and 30's had an inheritable disposition to hating jews, but I don't think you could link that with genetics.

Is the increase in babies to religious households related to their religion, or related to a higher proportion of religious believers in south american, asian and african countries where education about contraception is lower.

I think unless you can establish why religion is increasing, you can't really speculate on whether the trend will continue based on "evidence".

But I'll have a non-evidence based, speculative opinion. I think in the short term, secularisation will increase in Western socities due to hard financial times.
Longer term, I think there will be a move away from the church, as the church struggles to keep pace with modern ethics and technology.

Another narcissistic thread, stevenlmeyer. Nice going.

Carry on at this rate and you'll be in the running for leader of the Opposition.

I for one don't buy into the injured-innocence bit. Your agenda has always been anti-Islamic, while your disguise has been a threadbare deceit of middle-of-the-road agnosticism.

But that's OK. We all like to keep our secrets. Myself, I'm actually a highly-evolved gerbil with a receding hairline and buck teeth, so the only place I, too, can really exist is here on the Internet.

Be that as it may, with this particular parade of nonsense you have managed to tie even your good self in knots.

>>Increasing secularisation has certainly been the trend in Western societies TILL NOW. I suspect that trend is about to "bend". And that is all I intended for this thread. A discussion on whether the trend will bend.<<

This is a far, far cry from your original position, I'm afraid, which was replete with genetic dispositions, selective breeding and "the seemingly doomed atheist sub-species".

Check back for yourself. Note, particularly, those really, really annoying capital letters.

Oh, by the way, your own arguments are transparently self-defeating:

>Consider that religion may have conferred an evolutionary advantage under primitive conditions. After all, who is likely to fight more fiercely for the best hunting grounds? A tribe of atheists? Or a tribe with warriors that believe that when they die they get a reward in the after life?<<

The obvious answer is of course, the atheists. The religionists couldn't care less, because their God will surely provide.

In this life, or in the next.

So much for the "evolutionary advantage". The godly would be the first to die off. Willingly, too.

What puzzles me is that if we gerbils can see it, why can't you?

Burbs wrote:

"You could probably link that german children of the 20's and 30's had an inheritable disposition to hating jews, but I don't think you could link that with genetics."

Were you to read up on the research methodology that geneticists who study twins use you would see that it would preclude them concluding that German children had a heritable – meaning heritable through the genome – disposition to hate Jews. Scientists who are that methodologically sloppy would not get their research into respectable SCIENTIFIC journals. (I am not counting medical journals as scientific any more because of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and the corporate medical establishment)

As I said in my previous post, burbs, none of the points I've made about heritable dispositions to religiosity and propensity to have children are controversial among geneticists and demographers.

You wrote:

"…I think there will be a move away from the church, as the church struggles to keep pace with modern ethics and technology."

I think you under-estimate the adaptiveness of religion – note religion, not Christianity hence your use of the word "church" is inappropriate.

In the end I am making a forecast burbs. Time will tell whether my forecast is correct.

Pericles,

Most religious people through the ages have not relied on "God providing". They have tended to fight.

It is a mystery to me how religion could have survived all these millennia unless it conferred some evolutionary advantage. A recent New Scientist article discusses the issue.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html

It follows that if religiosity confers an advantage there is MAY be a genetic component to it – which is not the same as saying there is a "religiosity gene".

However note that a society made up entirely of religios would go extinct. Ancient societies probably needed BOTH.

But I guess you cannot expect mere gerbils to understand that there is a real question here that needs to be answered. Gerbils, after all, do not homo sapiens style brains.

Steven,
An argument should stand on it's own and not include such red herring distractions of name calling . I respect your intellect why not respect mine. Nefarious Zionist plots be damned, just yours.

Observations.
Being an atheist doesn't naturally infer that you're always objective.
You are clearly now as always trying to logically justify the irrational.

So you emotionally support Israel so what! That's your right but as has been well stated, your intellectual gymnastics to hide this fool only those who want to be 'fooled'.

Your obvious agenda by linking all religiosity to increasing birth rates has two fatuous conclusions .

Muslims are out breeding the rest of the world therefore we're in some risk of being taken over.

The other conclusion is that this justifies Israel's need (sic) for its paranoiac need (defence) for more land and belligerent militaristic posture.

BTW I think you'll find that most geneticists would be concerned with the emphasis the emphasis you are placing on the points.

Either way my critique still stand.
if you weren't meaning to place undue emphasis on this possible predisposition (given all other factors trigger that predisposition) then it is simply a wooden paddle to muddy the water.

I too have read those studies and also their criticisms. All I would say is that they are interesting, as all other factors were not eliminated or isolated.

Steven,

I'm confused now whether you want a discussion or to make a forecast?

Well picked up. I used church. God will smite me for that. Oh wait.....I'm doing it again. Jesus !!

I love broad statements that can't be disproven - "none of the points I've made about heritable dispositions to religiosity and propensity to have children are controversial among geneticists and demographers."

Well, all the geneticists and demographers I know........oh never mind.

Perhaps all the geneticists and demographers in the audience can explain to me how it is they seperate the influence of genetics and the influence of environment (in this case, only being offered the same religion as your parents, socialising with people of the same religion, going to church (or other) regularly and hearing the same religious beliefs parroted again and again) when both twins in those studies are exposed to the same genetics and the same environment?

As I said, split them at birth, raise one with religious indoctrination and one with atheism. Or, another idea, avoid any religious input to children until they are 18, not even a mention, then see how genetics sends them rushing to religion in the absence of any environmental influences. Then I'll listen to the results.

I may well be underestimating the power of the church to keep up with modern ethics. But that's my opinion which you asked for discussion on, and as you said, time will tell.

We gerbils ain't as dumb as you think, stevenlmeyer.

Let's try this again, shall we?

>>Consider that religion may have conferred an evolutionary advantage under primitive conditions. After all, who is likely to fight more fiercely for the best hunting grounds? A tribe of atheists? Or a tribe with warriors that believe that when they die they get a reward in the after life?<<

Explain please, on what basis you suspect those who believe in an afterlife have a disposition to fight earthly battles more fiercely, than those who believe that "this is all there is".

Which group is more likely to cling more tightly to life?

Those who are not looking forward to the company of seventy-two virgins when they pop their clogs, or those that are?

Admit it. This example you chose, sucks. Move on.

The New Scientist article is a touch sloppy as well.

"To simplify matters, Dow picked a defining trait of religion: the desire to proclaim religious information to others, such as a belief in the afterlife. He assumed that this trait was genetic."

In the scheme of things, this would be a pretty substantial assumption, wouldn't you think?

After all, if you i) first declare that proclaiming religious information is a defining trait, then ii) take as your base assumption that this trait is genetically transmitted, haven't you already precluded any result, other than that religion is inherited?

What other possible outcome could there be?

I can certainly see how this would "simplify matters".

>>However note that a society made up entirely of religios would go extinct. Ancient societies probably needed BOTH.<<

Two utterly disconnected, and equally vague statements.

Who says the "religios" would die out. Why would they? According to your own testimony, "They have tended to fight."

And on what basis is it "probable" that societies need both?

By my gerbilly whiskers, stevenlmeyer, I swear you simply make up this stuff as you go along, don't you.

Steven if you really are an atheist and you fear the godbotherers taking over then i am sure you can come up with better arguments and reasoned debate than you have shown so far in this thread.

I think all atheists will agree that over recent years there has been a resurgence of religiosity mainly in the televangelist mold and also in the muslim world. This does not mean they are taking over or making atheists into a minority.

You only have to look at the majority of peoples actions to see the real truth of their religiosity. Overall church attendance is falling, piousness is virtually unheard of and the world is infested with the sort of selfish and greedy scum that god would smite in a millisecond, if he really existed.

Your fears of godbotherers outbreeding the nonbelievers ignores so many issues I dont know where to start. The simple fact that churches act as parasites taking tithes and other offerings off their followers makes secularists 10% or so better off from the start.

Please use your time and the space provided for us here to fight the ignorance and superstition that you say you dislike and maybe one day you will convince someone that their beliefs are nothing but fantasy and fairy stories. Good luck
Mikk

Under one god
You ask me for proof but you refuse to provide any for your own beliefs. You rant about proving this and that as if it would change your mind if I could provide proof. We all know no amount of "proof" will satisfy you and that runners of this world.

You say we were given a preview of our lives. WTF are you just making this up? No judgement day? The rest of your post is just gobbledygook and I have no answer for your delusions.

I hope the voices in your head keep you company and provide you comfort but to me "faith" is nothing more than a codeword for a closed mind, ignorance, bigotry and elitism.

the simple fact is mikk your believing evolution on faith...there are many holes in your theory...your either smart enough to see that and rejected the con-cept...or taken in by the sharlitans who say its a done deal...

not one of you dorkins followers ...understand the concept or would soon rtealise the facts arnt there..and most have never undertaken..to test the theory...

wheras those with faith in god..clearly have their faith...see thats all you muggins evolutional athiests..have as well..though in your case..clearly there is a huge eliment of fear mixed in with your delusioned faith...in evolution...

a theory..because its not got the science..to validate their theory into fact....you dorkins-ians are just as much decieved as any with blind trust in any of mans theories propounded by men to befuddle mankind...into blind faith in charletans seeking their funds..

each book promising something..but never actually..delivering any real proof...why should the dorkins waste..so much time..rebutting a thing he claims dont egsist...he is a godless nutter..a prophet to the godless

ignorance is not knowledge...you claimed knowledge ...well reveal it

I have to say that this is one of stevenlmeyer's funniest threads yet.

Keep 'em coming, steven :D

Mikk

I made a forecast. I was hoping for a discussion.

OVERSIMPLIFIED explanation of twin studies within 350 word limit.

Compare adult MZ (identical) twins with adult DZ (fraternal) twins. MZ twins are almost genetically identical. DZ twins are similar but not identical. It is found that on average DZ adult twins' scores on various personality tests are more closely related than those of MZ twins. Among the personality traits for which this is true is religiosity. This points to a genetic component of religiosity. Usually there is a detailed analysis of results using statistical techniques such as principal components analysis. For more detailed information consult any introductory textbook on experimental design.

These support earlier studies of twins separated at birth

As pointed out in OP such studies are indicative. We shall not know for certain until we identify the gene networks, if any, that bring about a propensity to religiosity.

Pericles,

The question of the evolutionary role of religion is not something I made up. In any case I do note have the power to get New Scientist to put articles on their website retrospectively.

My reference to a tribe run by religios dying out was a reference to the article I linked.

The early religions would not have been anything like the major religions we see in the world today. They would have been more like the tribal religions I learned about in my youth in South Africa. These often promised brave warriors and hunters a place in a post-life paradise like the "happy hunting grounds" of the Native American religions.

Your attempt to equate Islam with early religions is ridiculous.

One theory is that religions fostered a spirit of cooperation and self-sacrifice among primitive tribes who had to defend their territory against other tribes. That could have been the evolutionary advantage religions conferred.

CJ Morgan,

Glad you are enjoying the thread.

What evolutionary role do you think religion played? And if your answer is none why did it evolve? Evidence rather than a regurgitation of conventional thinking would be welcome.

If atheism is doomed because they don't have as many children, then why are there so many of them in the first place?

The answer is blindingly obvious, religion is not genetic. It's a lifestyle choice. Perhaps the American Psychological Association could issue a statement like:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Hindu orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on religious orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that religious orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their religious orientation."

While there may be genetic predispositions in the amplitude of certain emotions, and that there may be correlations with how people respond to questionnaires on how they feel about certain topics, religion may have been invented as crappy way of explaining (and exploiting) those feelings.

The funny thing is of course is that while arguing that religion would outlast the alternatives better because it makes people more aggressive (or defensive depending on one's viewpoint), it's supposed to have 'evolved' because it fosters a spirit of cooperation that offers a survival advantage? These contradictory arguments just show this farce of an idea for what it is.

stevenlmeyer,

I am not sure what this thread is really about, but I'll address it as if the question you posed is the one you actually want to discuss.

I have travelled over the same ground as you, and agree all your supporting points are sound. However, this conclusion, doesn't follow:

"the seemingly doomed atheist sub-species"

The current conditions (unlimited food, working medicine, unlimited energy), have been in place for about 4 generations (a human generation is 25..30 years). 4 generations in evolutionary terms is a very short time - almost insignificant.

Yes, if these conditions continued forever we atheists would be in real trouble. But they won't. They will end in a generation or so. When it ends, it will happen the same way it does for every other species on the planet that has undergone exponential growth. We will go into exponential overshoot, followed by population collapse.

It isn't at all obvious who will come out of that worst, or what the atheist population will look like after the dust settles. The only thing I am sure of is that is someone says know what the outcome will be - they are either lying or delusional.

Rstuart

I think you are probably right. My own feeling is that the human ecological niche is headed for a systems crash within a century. How the world will look after that is anybody's guess.

All religions teach good things. But the problems of the world remains!Why? Because the people who practice the religions do not adhere to the tenets of the religions properly.It is as simple as that.If people follow the religious dictums then there can be no war on religious grounds. But what is the reality? Perpetual wars are being fought between Jews and Christians, Hindus and Muslims! and between many other religious groups.This happens in spite of the fact that those religions preach "love".If a religion cannot persuade people to behave then what is its role?
Let us have only one religion for all-"Humanism"

I think it is true the majority of theists 'inherit' their religion, or religiosity from their parents, but I would suggest this is more a matter of memetics, than genetics.
I have always believed this statistic is the pragmatic reason for the continuing Papal injunctions against birth control. Those religions which support birth control are non breeding themselves out of existence.
I find it conceivable that there should be some revival of religiosity, as ongoing financial crises, gross inequality and rampant consumerism fail to satisfy many.
However, so long as schools push the scientific method, and encourage children to think and question for themselves, I am confident secularism and agnosticism if not atheism will win out.

Grim wrote: “I am confident secularism and agnosticism if not atheism will win out.”

I’m confident of that too, and this may be a little off topic, but why on Earth, Grim, have you separated Secularism and Atheism? Why is it that Agnosticism and Atheism are portrayed as being mutually exclusive?

For centuries the label of “Atheist” has had ugly connotations. Heck, as a former Christian, the word still sounds ugly to me. But I think it’s time that we all grew out of that way of thinking and accepted that being an “Atheist” is not a negative thing. It is simply the lack of belief in any of the God claims around the world.

We are all agnostic because none of us KNOW if God(s) exists. Although most Theists would like to think they do actually ‘Know’ (deliberate cheeky insertion of a capital ‘K’ there).

Some non-believers are just brave enough to announce what they actually ‘believe’, I guess.

Grim wrote:

"I think it is true the majority of theists 'inherit' their religion, or religiosity from their parents, but I would suggest this is more a matter of memetics, than genetics."

Grim and AJ Philips:

I used to believe that too. However the weight of evidence suggests there is a genetic component to religiosity.

Quote from Opening paragraphs of article in New Scientist, 16 March 2005:

GENES CONTRIBUTE TO RELIGIOUS INCLINATION

"Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.

"Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest GENES CONTRIBUTE ABOUT 40% OF THE VARIABILITY IN A PERSON'S RELIGIOUSNESS." (Capitalisation added)

See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147

However, we shall not know for sure until we identify the actual gene networks, if any, involved in religiosity.

The CHILDISH temper tantrums of some of the posters here remind me of the behavior of Christian fundamentalists who are having some of their favourite dogmas challenged by science.

The essence of a rational mindset is to be open to the fact that some of your most cherished beliefs may turn out to be wrong.

But Steven, your forays into the wonderful world of evolutionary genetics are terribly flawed I'm afraid.

In the original research paper, the authors discuss the limitations of their study and what assumptions were made. I wouldn't make too much of the figure of genes being responsible for 40% of the variance of the trait, if you even understand what that really means.

One thing the authors do not discuss, and rightly so as it is outside the scope their research, is how these genetic factors may influence the mating of individuals without the same genetic factors. My suspicion is not a jot, and therein lies your problem. There is no atheist "sub-species", nor is it ever likely to occur, let alone be "doomed". We are all afloat in a sea of complex genetic alleles that interact in an almost infinite variety of ways within a highly complex and often chaotic environment. We will continue in the future in the same manner, it is highly doubtful that the human race will become distinct genetic subspecies as you seem to be suggesting.

I would like to ask to to refrain from wild speculation into future of humans using pop-evolutionary biology. It is not helpful to anyone, least of all evolutionary biologists and geneticists because what you talk about provides a grotesque caricature of what it is they actually do.

Hi Bugsy,

There have been a number of papers on the effects of "assortative mating" on twins studies in genetics. Your "suspicion" that it does not occur in the relevant cases is just that, a suspicion. My "suspicion" is the opposite but I have only anecdotal evidence.

Yes I do know what "40% of the variability in a person's religiousness" means. To the extent that assortative mating MAY occur it would lead to an UNDERSTATEMENT of the strength of genetic factors driving religiosity.

Of course I know there is no "atheist subspecies". I was speaking hyperbolically.

And yes I am well aware that genetic factors are not the only ones affecting religiosity.

Since religiosity is widespread what evolutionary role do you think it plays?

For your convenience I'll repost the link to a New Scientist article on the topic.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html

And here is another link, also from New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126981.000-natural-born-belief.html

Assortative mating may occur and be quite widespread, however non-random mating really only occurs at the individual level. Once one looks at population level humans, along with many animals, effectively mate randomly (genetically speaking of course). You also realise that the only data they gathered was through a questionnaire? And did you get a chance to look at their 95% CIs for the variance estimates?

There are many traits in evolution that get carried along merely because there is no negative selection pressure against them in the environments in which they are found. That is, they don't get selected against. Very few genes are actually selected FOR. This is why men have nipples and we occasionally have to go to hospital to get our appendices removed.

At one time I may have thought that religiousity may have conveyed a survival advantage, but I have actually been able to really think about it and now believe that it may be a byproduct of another actual evolutionary adaptation, being able to recognise patterns in the environment with very little information. Human beings are fantastic pattern recognisers, however our operating systems systems are heuristic in nature and are inevitably prone to false positives and thus ascribing causes and patterns to phenomena that just don't exist, this is why we invented statistics. I think that religion is just a false positive (a symptom not a cause) and does not convey all that much of a survival advantage and many other cultural frameworks can be at least as useful, however historically it does provide a structural framework in which actual useful information is passed along. When information is put into a story it is easier to remember.

I think while it is a very interesting paper, the chances that the authors are measuring genetic factors for something are reasonable. The chances that they are measuring genetic factors for "religiosity" are pretty low. That being said, even if they were 100% correct, they couldn't be used to support your fantasies on the future of humankind. Honestly, I don't know why you keep writing this stuff.

AJ,
I listed 'secular' 'agnostic' and 'atheist' separately, because they are separate words, each having a distinct meaning, -even if those meanings are sometimes slippery to define.
I was merely trying to be thorough,-if not pedantic.
As I recall, even Dawkins didn't give himself a '10' for atheism, as to do so would be unscientific; it is (currently) impossible to disprove the existence of a God, or Gods, and probably always will be.
I am not sure I would describe agnosticism and atheism as 'mutually exclusive', although I think there are what could be described as fundamentalist atheists, who are as irrationally certain of the non existence of God, as the fundamentalist theists are certain of it's existence.
Are we all agnostic? This is to entertain the 'game of threes'; we think we know, we know we know, we think we know that we know...
Millions are secure in their belief in a God or Gods, and would strongly object to be called agnostic.
I think an encouraging sign is the slow emergence of the 'doubting Christian'(I don't know for sure, but I believe); also the 'gambling Christian' (maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but I got everything to gain, and nuthin to lose).
Thin end of the wedge?
As to the New Scientist article, the research is certainly interesting, but at this stage hardly conclusive or even compelling.

Bugsy,

I haven't understood the line of reasoning you are trying to lay out, and I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of the NS articles stevenlmeyer gave links to. However, as I understand it spirituality does have a genetic component and is thus heritable, and right now it definitely the case the religious people do have more kids. stevenlmeyer did give links to supporting both assertions, and I don't think either is particuarly contentious.

Those conditions are sufficient to take us down the evolutionary path stevenlmeyer spells out. If they were sustained for long enough atheism would disappear.

It may be unscientific, but it sure works for me.

>>As I recall, even Dawkins didn't give himself a '10' for atheism, as to do so would be unscientific; it is (currently) impossible to disprove the existence of a God, or Gods, and probably always will be.<<

In the same category, we can place Bigfoot, the Yeti, dragons, the unicorn, UFOs, aliens from other worlds living amongst us...

It is currently impossible to disprove the existence of any of the above, but I'm afraid that I am completely convinced that none of them has ever existed, and will continue to not-exist in the future.

So, call me "unscientific" in my unequivocal acceptance of the historic and future absence of all of these mythological beings, but it is entirely consistent with my atheism. For which I would award myself a '10'.

The way I see it is that humans prefer to have a simple explanation for everything. If it is beyond our imaginative capacity to cope with the vastness of the universe, it helps a little if we convince ourselves that "we are not alone". To accept the alternative scenario - that our collective brief span of existence is unlikely to coincide with a similarly brief span elsewhere in the universe - needs a level of confidence and self-sufficiency that some folks simply do not have.

So they invent concepts such as UFOs and Area 51. They fantasize over unexplained footprints in the snow, and create theories that fit their fears, as well as their need for certainty.

Religion is part of human nature, as is the need for security and certainty. To me, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing in a God or Gods, so long as those beliefs are not used as a weapon.

My atheism is not reliant on science to disprove anything, since I know that by its own terms, it is unable to do so. But it continues to be sustained by the lack of supportable alternate positions.

rstuart, it situation is much more complex than it appears. Every now and then there appears in the paper some sort of 'research' that proclaims that blondes or redheads will be virtually extinct in several hundred years because of the recessiveness of those traits. Similar arguments are seen with skin colour and it has been predicted from as early as before 1900 and reiterated in various forms that the human race will eventually all end up being coffee coloured, or that black people will outbreed white people or whatever sort of racial or ethnic groupings you wish to compare. This is of course, to borrow Pericles' word, twaddle.

The fact is that being religious or not is not the same thing as an index derived from a questionnaire put to Minnesotan men. "Religiousity" is a complex social phenomenon, with what appears may have a genetic component that makes you more susceptible to it. Having more children is also likely a byproduct of the social/cultural aspect and support and directives that religious people get to have children. It is doubtful that these "genes for religiousity" convey any sort of propensity towards greater fecundity.
Also, there does not appear to be any great selection pressure against not being religious. If there were, I'd be willing to bet those of us that aren't religious would find ourselves going to church, if only to either survive or get laid.

And then there is also another genetic phenomenon that has not been mentioned, recombination. The genetic alleles are always reshuffled through each generation, thus ensuring that populations don't become genetically homogenous. It's very difficult to select against these sort of complex traits and not weaken the gene pool as a whole, ask any crop breeder.

Religion is not genetic, perhaps feelings of being spiritual are (and are exploited by religion and thus correlative), but religion is not.

Bugsy: "Religion is not genetic, perhaps feelings of being spiritual are (and are exploited by religion and thus correlative), but religion is not."

So, to summarise your point: it does look like that at this point in history religion is correlated with higher birth rates, and it also looks like spirituality is heritable, however this does not mean spirituality is associated with higher birth rates and we have no evidence of this. Do I have it right?

If so, you might be correct. I don't have the time to check. But it seem to me like you are stretching a fairly long bow.

All this hand waving about "recessiveness of those traits", "recombination" seems irrelevant to me. The math behind it is very simple. If spirituality it is heritable then the proportion of spiritual versus not spiritual will stabilise at the point where reproduction rates of both groups equalise. There are a few complicating factors - like the spirituality being a gradient rather than an black/white thing, the genes for spirituality effecting other things, and the conditions having to remain stable for many generations. But none of this has much to do with the issues you were raising.

By the way, you'll notice I did not at any time mention religion. It was deliberate, and in that I agree with you that they are very different things. However, they aren't unrelated. I suspect religion is a political organisation or social grouping that arises because some of us are spiritual. In fact, I'd say in evolutionary terms, they are the only meaningful outcome. The fact that these spiritual people believe in a imaginary person doesn't matter much, but they regularly gather themselves into hordes to annihilate other groups does. We have found other ways to do that now of course, and I suspect they are more efficient, so perhaps the evolutionary pressure to be spiritual will wane.

There are more than just a few confounding factors rstuart.

I could summarise yours and stevens argument thus: If we put humans in a big jar and treat them like bacteria, the faster breeders will dominate or the birth rates of the imaginary separate population groups will stabilise.

Sorry, but humans are far more complex than that I'm afraid.

Population genetics relies on dominance and recessiveness, selection pressures, recombination, gene interactions and environmental interactions. This isn't just 'handwaving', it's what scientists actually study. I mentioned them so that you could at least begin to understand the complexity of the subject. Thank you for calling them irrelevant, I now have a much better idea of where you stand in the science continuum.

Many factors are correlated with birth rates: socio-economic status, education levels, nutritional levels, GDP of the country you live in just to name a few. Selecting one relatively minor influence on these birth rates and calling it a major selection pressure and making science fiction predictions based on that is not science, and doesn't come close to reality.

The complexity of the world ensures that the fantasies that steven dishes up to us are exceptionally unlikely, and quite frankly far more tedious than the realities we are discovering bit by bit every day

Hi Bugsy,

As I've pointed the article I linked is but one of many. They all point in the same direction. In the UK Professor Tim Spector or Kings College London heads up a twins study unit which has had similar results.

To quote Prof. Spector:

"The last 15 years has really been sorting out the nature/nurture debate… The default position now is that everything is partly genetic until proven otherwise. It seems that nothing is off-limits to what can be genetically programmed: from political views to religion…you feel like nothing is sacrosanct."

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2008/Features/WTX052565.htm

Spector expressed similar sentiments on an SBS insight program about twins broadcast in 2008.

As I have been at pains to point out, such studies are merely indicative. To repeat ad infinitum, we won’t know for certain until we identify the gene networks, if any, that govern an inclination to religiosity.

However right now the weight of evidence points to a genetic link to an inclination towards religiosity.

If you are so certain that religiosity conferred (past tense) no evolutionary advantage you may want to share your cogitations with the scientists who are working on this topic. Perhaps you can stop them wasting their time.

Of course religion MAY simply be a by products, a "spandrel" to use Gould's terminology, of our ability to recognise patterns. But, then again, it may not. It is an open question.

You may also wish to share your insights on the non-existence of assortative mating with population geneticists. I think they would be fascinated - especially by your discovery that "Once one looks at population level humans, along with many animals, effectively mate randomly (genetically speaking of course)"

Come to think of it, I think population geneticists would be interested in your "discovery" that:

"Very few genes are actually selected FOR"

BTW turns out that human appendixes may not be as useless as was long thought:

See:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/dumc-aiu100807.php

That's what I LOVE about science. It overturns cherished notions daily.

Maybe we'll discover a use for male nipples!

Rstuart,

I doubt we shall see atheists vanishing for two reasons:

--At most we inherit a tendency towards religiosity. You are not born religious in the sense that you are born destined, like me, to go bald.

--I think groups which include some "free thinkers" will always have a competitive advantage vis a vis those that that are governed entirely be religion.

What I think you will find is a greatly expanded role for religion in Western society. To some extent it is already happening. I would never have believed you if you had told me back in the 1960s that in the 21st century something like embryonic stem cell research would be curtailed in the US on religious grounds.

The idea of a highly secular country like the UK tolerating a sort of shariah court system with the public blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury would have seemed bizarre.

I really thought that by now gay marriage would have been as uncontroversial as an evening at the cinema.

And I NEVER would have believed we would be fighting the evolution wars in the 21st Century.

That's a pretty long bow, stevenlmeyer.

>>BTW turns out that human appendixes may not be as useless as was long thought<<

Did you actually read the article you pointed out to us?

It states, quite clearly, that:

"In industrialized societies with modern medical care and sanitation practices, the maintenance of a reserve of beneficial bacteria may not be necessary. This is consistent with the observation that removing the appendix in modern societies has no discernable negative effects."

This states, unequivocally, that in modern society the appendix is completely useless.

I suppose it is just possible that we might regress into a non-industrial society. But I wouldn't bet on it if I were you.

Your tenuous relationship with logic is also evident here:

>>As I've pointed the article I linked is but one of many. They all point in the same direction... right now the weight of evidence points to a genetic link to an inclination towards religiosity<<

I would humbly draw your attention to the fact that the reason all the articles point in the same direction, is that you have selected them specifically to support your point.

Therefore the only "weight of evidence" is that which you have created for this article.

And I still don't understand why your godly warriors would fight harder.

>>Consider that religion may have conferred an evolutionary advantage under primitive conditions. After all, who is likely to fight more fiercely for the best hunting grounds? A tribe of atheists? Or a tribe with warriors that believe that when they die they get a reward in the after life?<<

Especially as you now add that...

>>tribal religions... often promised brave warriors and hunters a place in a post-life paradise like the "happy hunting grounds" of the Native American religions.<<

Surely, the logic here clearly favours that they would be far less inclined than the godless to fight hard, given their anticipation of such afterlife benefits.

In fact, all things considered, we may be witnessing the emergence of a whole new approach to logic, stevenlmeyerism.

One that relies entirely on counterinformed conclusions.

Not to mention, stevenlmeyer, that you also blur the boundaries of speculation to suit yourself.

>>I would never have believed you if you had told me back in the 1960s that in the 21st century something like embryonic stem cell research would be curtailed in the US on religious grounds.<<

But surely you must have worked out that the US has always been the bastion of religious extremism? Surely, had you known about embryonic stem cell research in the 60s, you would have pretty quickly latched onto its potential for "different" religious interpretations amongst US godbotherers?

In any event, many countries, ours included, consider it an ethical minefield, and that even disregarding totally the religious angle, it is far from being a cut-and-dried issue.

http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/ethicssc.html

>>The idea of a highly secular country like the UK tolerating a sort of shariah court system with the public blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury would have seemed bizarre.<<

Again, you would only come to this conclusion i) if you had been ignorant of the basic underlying religious tolerance of the English, ii) if you had been unaware that Beth Din "courts" had been operating there for generations of Jews and iii) if you had not understood the relationship of sharia "courts" to the English legal system.

>>I really thought that by now gay marriage would have been as uncontroversial as an evening at the cinema.<<

You would have thought that, back in the 60s?

Wow, what optimism.

Does the name Harvey Milk mean anything to you?

>>And I NEVER would have believed we would be fighting the evolution wars in the 21st Century.<<

Possibly because you would not have foreseen the lengths to which the religious would go, in their attempts to defend the indefensible.

Because it isn't atheists who are "fighting the evolution wars".

Just those religious folk who have a vested interest in perpetuating their mythology. Everyone else is totally cool with it.

Bugsy: "Population genetics relies on dominance and recessiveness, selection pressures, recombination, gene interactions and environmental interactions."

Forgive me my scepticism Bugsy, but you have so far not provided me with more than you word, which I gather you seem to I should accept as the final authority on the matter. If you provided some support I'd find it easier to accept it. But, as far as I am aware the relationship I gave above about the expression of phenotype reflecting breeding success is a pretty good model of reality. I don't doubt the frequency of genes that gives rise to that phenotype depends on recessive/dominance and a whole host of other things. But that isn't relevant to the discussion here, which is about the dominance of the spirituality phenotype.

Perhaps you have links that could improve my lay understanding of the science? If so I would like to see them.

I for one would hate to see atheists and rationalist post-modern thinkers disappear completely. They play a very important part in the world.They force us to evaluate our ideas about God.They are a natural braking action to the proliferation of rotten theistic thinkers who debase all us human beings to the level of utter morons steeped in superstitious and outmoded balderdash.
We DO NOT WANT to hand over our brains to the religious fundamentalists in every religion who are to be found all over the world as they propel us all towards sectarian-based armageddon.

Pericles, while I'm inclined to agree with 99% of your previous post, (it pretty much works for me too) you do give me an excuse to be pedantic again, concerning precise definitions.
How do you not believe in Unidentified Flying Objects? By definition, these could be weather balloons, or marsh gas or the planet Venus... or any of the other classical explanations for sightings.
I can well understand you not believing in flying saucers, but is it reasonable (or even logically possible) to disbelieve something that hasn't been identified?

Steven, no pursuit of knowledge conducted in a scientific manner is a waste of time.

Of course they should find out, my issue is not with the scientists, it is with popular science fiction predictions and simplistic explanations that are erroneous and promote misinformation about evolution and science generally.

I also did not say that assortive mating does not occur, it clearly does, but at the level of individuals and smaller sub-population groupings.
This is because assortive mating happens under the influence of so many factors, like attractiveness, intelligence , social status, economic status, geopgraphical location, and possibly even the Major Histocompatbility Complex (MHC)in some sub populations (just to name a few). Some are genetically controlled and some are not and many pull in different directions.
For instance, exoticness or wealth can increase a persons attractiveness, and this promotes outbreeding, even if these people are ugly. Even rich ugly people can get laid by attractive partners (although not necessarily intelligent ones).

This means that when one looks at the cumulative effects of all these influences at the larger population level, mating within the population is effectively random and assortive mating effects are quite small. This is not controversial or breaking news.

Also not breaking news is that genes are most often under negative selection within populations and thus are selected AGAINST, there are many examples of where this occurs, genetic diseases being an obvious one.

The number of examples where genes are under positive selection and can be said to be selected FOR (i.e. under positive selection) are far fewer. This is because negative genes tend to get weeded out quickly, positive selection acts much more slowly.

Of course male nipples have a purpose- they're for tweaking, although I'm not sure how that might affect breeding success.

rstuart, you shouldn’t take my word for anything, there are many websites that explain clearly the terms and concepts I have talked about, wikipedia is a reasonable place to start.

I’m glad you are interested in the subject, so please don’t let me put you off merely because I completely disagree with you.

Grim,

I don’t think ‘Secular’, ‘Agnostic’ and ‘Atheist’ are slippery to define at all.

I’ll put it another way.

How is your statement, “I am confident secularism and agnosticism if not atheism will win out”, any different from the following...

“I am confident that the rejection of religious considerations, together with the admission that the existence of a God is unknowable - if not the lack of belief in any of the God claims - will win out.”

Because of an apparent misunderstanding of the relationship between ‘Atheism’ and ‘Agnosticism’, your statement was purely tautological.

AJ, there is no difference in our statements, because you have used the same 'tautology', in distinguishing between:
"the existence of a God is unknowable" and "the lack of belief in any of the God claims".
I have already admitted a tendency to being pedantic on definitions; what's the fuss?

LOL Pericles,

"modern medical care and sanitation practices,…" is, in evolutionary terms, a recent innovation. It has existed for a few hundred years at most. We now know that evolution works much faster than we thought. But it does not work THAT fast.

I speculated on the "how" of how religion may have conferred an evolutionary advantage in the past. If, like Bugsy, you just KNOW this is not the case, write to these scientists, who are working on the problem, and tell them they are wasting their time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126981.000-natural-born-belief.html

I have heard of Harvey Milk. I freely confess I was over-optimistic about the speed at which religion-driven oppression of gays would disappear.

Your write:

"..you must have worked out that the US has always been the bastion of religious extremism.."

I used to think that. Now I wonder whether Europe & Australia are bastions of secularism while much of the rest of the work is more like the US. In the past few decades we have seen the rise of a Hindu nationalist party in India and the rapid spread of both Christianity and Islam in China. In fact, according to Micklethwait & Wooldridge*, on current demographic trends, by 2050, China will have BOTH the largest Christian and largest Muslim populations in the world. Now THAT will make for an interesting combination.

*See God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Back-Global-Revival-Changing/dp/B002KAORUW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254173310&sr=1-1

Both Christianity and Islam also appear to be spreading rapidly in Africa.

I am sorry that current recent research and trends are throwing doubt on your, and my, cherished beliefs. But dem's de breaks.

Actually steven, I think it's just you I think who is wasting their time on useless predictions and fantasy stories. I have no problem with what these researchers are actually doing, I think it's interesting, it just isn't what you think it is. You asked for my opinion on what was going on and I gave it and backed it up with good reasons. Interesting to note the maturity of your response to that, especially since you opined about the general lack of it in a previous posting.

By the way, if I am ever in a position to talk personally to any of these scientists, I would like to discuss what they think is behind their research, as I think it's fascinating. I don't think it would be very helpful to write a letter directly telling them what I think is going on. Since you have suggested that course of action more than once on this forum, do you do that sort of thing often? What sort of responses do you get back?

Another odd observation, stevenlmeyer.

>>"modern medical care and sanitation practices,…" is, in evolutionary terms, a recent innovation. It has existed for a few hundred years at most. We now know that evolution works much faster than we thought. But it does not work THAT fast.<<

Our previous lack of understanding of the function of the appendix has nothing to do with evolution,

While in former times it had a valuable function to perform, it is no longer required to perform that function.

The chances are that the appendix, absent a reason for existence, will ultimately disappear from the human body.

In the meantime, it is still there, but for no apparent reason. That's why it took so long to work out what, in our less sanitary past, it did.

Evolution will continue to work at its own pace.

>>In the past few decades we have seen the rise of a Hindu nationalist party in India and the rapid spread of both Christianity and Islam in China.<<

The politicization of religion comes and goes. The "rise" of a Hindu nationalist party is akin to the militarization of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland in the Sixties. Religious affiliations didn't actually change, they became more visible.

As for the "spread" of religion in China, that is to be expected - at least, in my understanding of why people are attracted to it. There will always be a percentage of the population who feel the need to believe in the existence of a God or Gods, and are consequently attracted to the formalization of such beliefs.

In a country where it has previously been dangerous to express such feelings, it is hardly a surprise that those emotions will now come to the surface.

Interestingly, it would appear that both mainstream religions are growing at the same pace. That indicates to me that it is not the external "message" that is creating the conversions; it's simply a matter of who gets to your vulnerability first, and fills you with the necessary amount of fear.

Steven,

An interesting thread.

Yes, MZ and DZ twin studies provide a good comparison to how to start to understand religiosity. Extracting factors from a principal components analysis would seem a good intermediate step. However, a structural equation model drawing upon nature and nurture components might prove more beneficial. Using path diagram software interrelationships should emerge. Of course, one would need to know a sufficient about potential genetic (or genetically-based neurological consequences) and social memes to build the model.

On the side of genetically-based neurological components, we have the Limbic System,which is part of the older brain and necessary for the survival instinct and; we have the Neo-cortex, which is responsible for higher thought. Religiosity built on spirituality could be a result of higher brain rationalising more primitive instincts: e.g., the rationalised notion (new/high brain) of an after-life as a response to survival instincts (old/low brain).

On the side of social memes, the basic model is that culture is a product of ecology (Triandis) and people are a product of their (cultural) environment (Skinner).

In sum, our genetically determined multilayered-brain might produce spirituality engrams along the lines of the above-stated. Also, we, live in environments which shapes spirituality predisposition to religiosity.

The above does not address brain chemistry. Susan Greenfield et al. note, many psycho-active drugs prevent the formation of undesirable neural nets.

Perhaps, our ancestors could have prevented the crimes of the religious zealots in history,given the right psychopharmacology. Else put, stopping the rationalising of the survival instinct, towards having the generalised spirituality coalescing to crystalise as a specific religiosity: e.g., belief in Zeus, Jesus or Alah as gods.

If the penchant towards religiosity is some sort of mental appendix (no longer needed), should we treat the condition? Or, would addressing/treating any society-wide pathology be unwise? Are delusions still delusions, when these staies are hard-wired into the brain and reinforced by society?

Appendum:

Maybe survival is hard-wired, spirituality firm-wired and religiosity soft-wired.

Bugsy,

If you are truly interested you should, at the very least, be reading New Scientist and Scientific American. American Scientist is also an excellent publication.

I built up a network during my years in and out of academe. So, yes, I do correspond frequently with scientists here and abroad.

If you have a specific question and you are able to frame it concisely and in such a way that you demonstrate your understanding of the topic you have a reasonable chance of getting a response. It's usually best to frame the question around a journal article your correspondent has published. A follow up phone call after an initial email can help.

However, if you want to be part of the global "scientific conversation" you have to participate in research. Why not do a research based Ph.D?

Of course if you know scientists who are involved in research you may be able to use them to start a network.

I keep my hand in by helping researchers with their statistics. (So, yes, I do know what it mean to say that genes are responsible for 40% of the variance of a trait :-D)

Incidentally, we now know that the simple Mendelian model of dominant and recessive genes does not adequately explain evolution. In the last decade or so we have learned that genes function in networks. We have also learned that parts of what was previously dismissed as "junk DNA" plays a vital role, perhaps THE vital role, in evolution. See:

Regulating Evolution; May 2008; Scientific American Magazine; by Sean B. Carroll, Benjamin Prud'homme and Nicolas Gompel; May 2008. This article is a MUST READ for anyone interested in evolution.

Hope that helps Bugsy.

Pericles,

Until recently we thought that we had kept our appendixes as useless appendages over "evolutionary time" – ie hundreds of generations AT LEAST. We now know that is not correct.

However since we are able to treat the difficulties caused by an appendix there will be no selective pressure to lose it.

My point exactly, stevenlmeyer.

>>Until recently we thought that we had kept our appendixes as useless appendages over "evolutionary time" – ie hundreds of generations AT LEAST. We now know that is not correct.<<

So it is in fact our knowledge of its historical function that has changed, not evolution.

Which continues to work at its own pace.

This I don't understand, though.

>>However since we are able to treat the difficulties caused by an appendix there will be no selective pressure to lose it.<<

How does the ability of our Health System to address appendicitis through surgery, reduce the likelihood that the appendix itself will eventually be "deselected" by evolution?

Or have I misunderstood i) you or ii) how natural selection operates?

Pericles

If having an appendix increased the likelihood that, say, you will die before having children, there would be selective pressure against an appendix. So the proportion of the population with appendixes could decline quite rapidly – say within a few hundred generation. More likely the nature of the organ itself would change within a few hundred generations.

However it seems that until recently having an appendix MAY have conferred a slight advantage – ie it would help you survive to have children. This is contrary to what had been thought. It may help explain why appendixes have survived in their current form over what appears to be tens of thousands of generation.

Then again it is possible that appendixes only became a liability with the advent of modern diet.

Right now having an appendix causes neither a significant advantage nor a disadvantage. Over evolutionary time it will probably wither but this could take many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of generations.

I am not sure why you are so focussed on this. I included the link to the article merely because I thought it was an interesting tidbit.

A much more interesting discussion is when and how we became NAKED primates. This is still very much an open question. Speculations abound and some have gained popular currency but no one is certain.

I am glad that you have mentioned epigenetics and regulation networks, because I was about to use them as examples of why I think your initial ideas about the eventual demise of "atheist sub-species" or the dominance of "religiousity" are just fantasy. Epigenetic regulation of networks acts subtly and introduces a fair degree of flexibility into the system and is heritable, even if not hard-encoded in genetic alleles. These sorts of regulation are quite likely to play a large role in plastic traits like behaviour, attitudes, and whole host of other subtleties. The key thing is that epigenetic regulation is largely reversible or alterable without altering the underlying genetic structure. It is the interface between genes and their expression through interaction with the environment. So that means that while attitudes may be partialy inherited from ones parents (but not necessarily from ones grandparents or their grandparents), the environment (especially the social environment) in which you live has a great deal of influence over their expression, and so are reasonably likely to be specific to local social environments. The authors weren't kidding when they said that whether the effects seen in a small sample set of Minnesotan male twins should be checked in a larger population. As a quantitative genetics statistician, you would certainly understand the significance of a large 95%CI in assessing exactly how precise a research tool a questionnaire comprising of a dozen or so questions is in assessing the heritability of particular attitudes.

Scientists have known that genes function in networks for far longer than a decade. When the Oxford nanosequencer comes online and the $1000 genome prize is won, I reckon the future is going to be far weirder than you expect, because we should be able to nail down a few 'gene networks' and be able to tackle some very big issues. By comparison, I see sci-fi projections of what the future holds based on the weakest of premises as trivialising an exceptionally interesting topic.

Lastly, steven, I am not exactly sure what you are hoping you are 'helping' me with? Did I ask for assistance?

LOL Bugsy,

Do get over yourself.

You write:

"I am not exactly sure what you are hoping you are 'helping' me with?"

You asked about my experiences corresponding with researchers. I replied and expressed the hope that you found my comments helpful.

You write:

"I see sci-fi projections of what the future holds based on the weakest of premises as trivialising an exceptionally interesting topic."

I enjoy this type of speculation. You don't. It's a matter of taste. Each to his own.

You write:

"When … the $1000 genome prize is won, I reckon the future is going to be far weirder than you expect,…"

I reckon the future is going to be much weirder than ANY of us expect including you and me. I think many of our cherished notions are going to be destroyed.

BTW I no more think that atheists are going to become extinct than Dawkins really thinks genes are "selfish". I freely admit to indulging in a bit of headline writers' hyperbole.

What I DO think is that religiosity in Western society is going to grow because of the factors I mentioned. How it will play out I am uncertain. For all I know it will manifest itself in a sort of Gaia worship.

You seem unwilling to accept the fact that human populations – not individuals – do evolve. One of the most interesting evolutionary adaptations in humans I've come across is the blood chemistry of Tibetans. Living more than 12,000 feet above sea level, they have a blood chemistry that is somewhat different to us lowlanders.

See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626284.700-special-blood-lets-tibetans-live-the-high-life.html

Religion is not the only attitude that seems to be heritable. So apparently is attitude towards economic risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=19210185

Maybe one day bankers will choose their traders genomically.

Actually they already can.

If banks employed solely female traders and executives we'd probably have been spared the current global economic crisis.

Lighten up, Bugsy.

Hey if you want to talk about science fiction, that's fine. Really. But don't pretend it isn't.

I was trying to point out in what was probably in hindsight a completely misread way, that writing to any scientist point blank and telling them that you think that their research is likely a waste of time is unlikely to provoke any sort of meaningful response. Instead, I guess you thought I was asking for advice.

I actually thought that this was an interesting topic of research, apart from the oddly strong defence of what has now been admitted as improbable speculation, but why not in future put in a thread title that reflects what you actually think?

I hope this helps.

Many people make the mistake believing that just because something is heritable and natural selection acts upon it, that it follows that sub-groups will form and that trait will come to dominate or disappear. It doesn't: variety and variability tend to be maintained.

A lot of people also make the mistake of believing that if women were in charge, then certain crises such as war, economic crises etc. may never have happened. This has no basis in history.

I don't want to lighten up steven, I like berating you, it gives me great pleasure.

Gentlemen,
Up front I'll admit I'm well out of my depth here. But I feel the need to thank you for one of the most entertaining and informative conversations I've read on OLO. Good chuckle too.
My heart felt thanks
examinator

stephen quote<<..Right now having an appendix causes neither a significant advantage nor a disadvantage...>>unlike foreskins lopped off for 6000 years...lol

<<Over evolutionary time it will probably wither>>>just like the goy forskins wither at the thought of mutilating their boy children

<<but this could take many thousands,..perhaps tens of thousands,..of generations....>>yeah that has worked with the jews and arabs...lol..you will be talking about ears..evolving piecings..next..lol

sadly you evolution nutters..got no concept of evolution principles[involving random 'evolutions'...mainly negative/destructive of species/survival...

i blame it on dorkins..with his flathead fish...lol..dragging thier eye.. in the mud...lol..only..butt one of his..'teachings'..to his flock/followers..as the new[neo]age messiah..of the athiest hoard..or is it a herd..of athiests..or a coven..of athiest-ics..nest of athiest....swarm?..swamp..such a feast of the mindless evolving belief in disbelief

You can always tell when Johan's been smokin' again.

LOL Bugsy,

If berating me gives you "great pleasure" then I am glad to be of service. :-D

Just a few points.

Point 1:

"Science fiction" is your term. I call it a speculative extrapolation of what we think we know.

Point 2:

Although I find the whole field of epi-genetic inheritance fascinating, that's not what I was referring to in my previous posts. It turns out there are regions of DNA that do not code for genes but govern the expression of genes. Mutations in these stretches of DNA can have a profound affect on an organism. The real difference between humans and monkeys may not be in our genes but in our "DNA switches" – not to be confused with epi-genetic switches.

Point 3:

You wrote:

"A lot of people also make the mistake of believing that if women were in charge, then certain crises such as war, economic crises etc. may never have happened. This has no basis in history."

I was referring to the fact that, on average, women are known to be more risk averse than men. What seems to be needed among financial traders is a healthy dose of risk aversion.

The remark was, of course, intended to be jocular. In your humourless way you did not pick up on that.

Examinator (and Fractelle)

Sorry that no nefarious Zionist plots emerged in the course of this thread.

Maybe next time.

Oh steven, I'm glad that even though you find me humourless, you still manage to LOL.

I am sure "speculative extrapolation" is what Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov would have called it also steven. Instead of peer review, perhaps you could get your ideas published in paperback ?

I thought you were talking about new genetics discoveries. My mistake. I didn't realise the level that we were at. Mendels work, while good and the basis of much of genetics, has been modified by other discoveries, such as recombination (which has been known about since before the discovery of DNA). But I must tell you that mutations in regulatory regions in "junk DNA" that control the expression of genes have a normal inheritance and can be modelled in the same way as other genes. This is because they reside within the DNA itself. They are quite well explained by the simple model of Mendelian inheritance with dominance and recessiveness, combined with recombination and selection of course.

Promoters, enhancers, transcription factors etc. are all inherited in a very similar manner to genes.

What's really new is how genes proteins are regulated post-trancriptionally by splicing and protein modification. That's epigenetics.

Hope this helps.

Ah, jocular, that explains that one. Oh dear.

Bugsy

Love a good Asimov, my favourite 'jocular science speculationist' (non word ?), not that crazy about his nom de plume (Paul French)books though.

Sadly I posted a topic along the same lines of speculation before I caught up with your posts. Although there was a feeler for a serious discussion.

Steven
Zionist plot? I never thought of that. I must be slipping, maybe there's a subconscious link intended to show how the Israel/Palestinian conflict is the endgame Good versus Evil. Nostradamus revisited?

Nah, damn those exploding eggs!

Psst Perhaps you should appologise and wipe your face.

"speculative extrapolation"

Very good. I'll file that for reference in anticipation of stevenlmeyer's next "jocular" missive.

I thank all who have vigorously and humorously at times made your positions clear but not always on the subject :Atheists doomed!Religion triumphant! I must admit I have learnt a lot and often felt out of my depths. I have also learnt that erudition doesn't always serve the interests of the erudite who unfortunately isn't always able use the knowledge effectively in argument or discussion but to massage the ego.

The fact remains that the atheist and the God-fearing/loving live their lives as they choose.The atheist is capable of commendable acts that one is inclined to attribute to the God-loving/fearing whilst the God/fearing/loving doesn't always behave in a way their God would approve. There is a gap between belief and application of belief. Death will cliam all indescriminately anyway regardless of the differing belief systems and then what? No one knows. In the meantime ofcourse they live lives full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
But they love doing it,anyway. That's being human, I suppose

socratease