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.