Geneticist claims to have found 'God gene' in huma

[Arminius]

Geneticist claims to have found 'God gene' in humans


By Elizabeth Day
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH


LONDON — An American molecular geneticist has concluded after comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.
His findings have been criticized by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a "God gene" and say the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith — that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain's electrical impulses.
Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe.

The higher their score, the greater the person's ability to believe in a greater spiritual force and, Mr. Hamer found, the more likely they were to share the gene VMAT2.
Studies on twins showed that those with this gene, a vesicular monoamine transporter that regulates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, were more likely to develop a spiritual belief.
Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect on belief.
Mr. Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the "God gene" explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality than others.
"Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic makeup. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation. It's like intelligence."
His findings, published in a book, "The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes," are being greeted skeptically by many in the religious establishment.
The Rev. John Polkinghorne, a fellow of the Royal Society and a canon theologian at Liverpool Cathedral, said: "The idea of a God gene goes against all my personal theological convictions. You can't cut faith down to the lowest common denominator of genetic survival. It shows the poverty of reductionist thinking."
The Rev. Walter Houston, the chaplain of Mansfield College, Oxford, and a fellow in theology, said: "Religious belief is not just related to a person's constitution. It's related to society, tradition, character — everything's involved. Having a gene that could do all that seems pretty unlikely to me."
Mr. Hamer insisted, however, that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God.
"Religious believers can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator's ingenuity — a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence," he said.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"It appears you have the godsucker gene, Ms Robinson. I'm sorry but you will have to be sterilised." :lol:

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they found a very similar gene for foolish gullibility.

But on a more serious note, I tend to favour more interactionist perspectives on the human psyche, especially when young.

[ComradeChris]

Isn't that just a causal relationship? The Correlation of
Studies on twins showed that those with this gene, a vesicular monoamine transporter that regulates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, were more likely to develop a spiritual belief could be because they have certain moods they feel the need to worship or something. I can't think of any good examples to compare this to. I should have taken stats again :lol: .

And this is coming from the person who says homosexuality is genetic? It's a choice based on cultures and surroundings. You're more likely to be homosexual if your surrounded in an all male (since the study he did was on men) environments (ie. the army, sporting teams, all male schools, etc).

But nature vs. nurture could be argued till the end of time.

[robob8706]

Homosexuality is not a choice. It's a distortion of the individuals sexual reality. It's a chemical imbalance. There was this test where scientists injected a pregnant rat with testosterone and the offspring were all very masculine inclined. The female rat's genetalia was developing like a males would and their behavior was was very masculine, they would hump the other females. So homosexuality is a defect in the balance of chemicals in the body. The whole "if a man is surrounded my males" theory is only a half truth. Yes, a male who is put in that situation would likely develope homosexual thoughts which then trigger the sexual chemical output in the brain. Throughout the history of living organisms sex has been an instinct to extend your genes to the next generation. This can only be attained through heterosexuality, and asexuality. So if heterosexuality is what is normal, then homosexuality must be a perversion of the sexual reality. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I am very pro-homosexuality, but to say it is a choice is absurd. If it was a choice then most gays would not be gay because they would rather avoid the persecution. It all depends on taste. You may like foods that i don't like, doesn't mean it was a choice by either of us, it's just the way our brains are designed.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:34 PM
Homosexuality is not a choice. It's a distortion of the individuals sexual reality. It's a chemical imbalance. There was this test where scientists injected a pregnant rat with testosterone and the offspring were all very masculine inclined. The female rat's genetalia was developing like a males would and their behavior was was very masculine, they would hump the other females. So homosexuality is a defect in the balance of chemicals in the body. The whole "if a man is surrounded my males" theory is only a half truth. Yes, a male who is put in that situation would likely develope homosexual thoughts which then trigger the sexual chemical output in the brain. Throughout the history of living organisms sex has been an instinct to extend your genes to the next generation. This can only be attained through heterosexuality, and asexuality. So if heterosexuality is what is normal, then homosexuality must be a perversion of the sexual reality. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I am very pro-homosexuality, but to say it is a choice is absurd. If it was a choice then most gays would not be gay because they would rather avoid the persecution. It all depends on taste. You may like foods that i don't like, doesn't mean it was a choice by either of us, it's just the way our brains are designed.
You're talking about injecting FEMALE rats with testosterone. First off whoever this scientist is (I may have heard his name in passing) was talking about males. I think if you inject enough testosterone into a female embryo/fetus (whichever is before the development of sex characteristics) they will start developing male sex traits.

But maybe I'm thinking of Bisexuality. Is there a difference? For instance if your married, yet go sleep with other men?

[robob8706]

Bisexuality and homosexuality is like the old saying, a sqaure is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Bisexuals HAVE to be homosexual in order to like both genders whereas just playin homosexuals aren't bisexual because they are only attracted to their same gender. Again, i say that it's chemicals in the brain that are triggered by experiences in life. A lot of homosexuals that i have run into have grown up with some kind of abuse, mostly sexual. Trauma triggers those chemical producers in the brain that ordain your sexual preference. There are some gay men who were molested by older men as a child. If it was a choice, one would think that the gay men would stray away from homosexuality since the emotional trauma left from that act is horrendous, but they are gay because the emotional trauma from that act triggered something in their brains.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:05 PM
Bisexuality and homosexuality is like the old saying, a sqaure is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Bisexuals HAVE to be homosexual in order to like both genders whereas just playin homosexuals aren't bisexual because they are only attracted to their same gender. Again, i say that it's chemicals in the brain that are triggered by experiences in life. A lot of homosexuals that i have run into have grown up with some kind of abuse, mostly sexual. Trauma triggers those chemical producers in the brain that ordain your sexual preference. There are some gay men who were molested by older men as a child. If it was a choice, one would think that the gay men would stray away from homosexuality since the emotional trauma left from that act is horrendous, but they are gay because the emotional trauma from that act triggered something in their brains.
Ok. I get it. Pretty much every male in Ancient Greece had a genetic defect then. Thanks for clearing that up.

[robob8706]

like you said

"It's a choice based on cultures and surroundings. You're more likely to be homosexual if your surrounded in an all male"

Culture and surroundings do play a role. Since homosexuality was commonly practiced in those times, then i wouldn't be suprised those men were exposed to sexuality at a time in which would make them think it was ok, thus arousing there sexual orientation. The deeper they get into homosexuality the harder it will be to break free from it. And I don't doubt that psychological disfunction played a role in exposing the men to homosexuality constantly

[ComradeChris]

Chemicals inacted in the brain AFTER conception aren't genetic then. THerefore proving this fellows theory on the gay being related to DNA incorrect.

[robob8706]

There are many things in our genes that are triggered into action. Puberty is an example where our genes are activated at one point.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 10:25 PM
There are many things in our genes that are triggered into action. Puberty is an example where our genes are activated at one point.
But many of these people were fully grown men. Because they after all married wives much younger, as they themselves were in their 30's.

[robob8706]

Women don't hit menopause till around 45...

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 10:48 PM
Women don't hit menopause till around 45...
And it's true. Some stress in some people's life causes them to change opinions. But I don't think one can point genetics for that. I don't know, I think it's a choice. And I'm not homophobic, Hell, I'm borderline Bi sometimes I think too, but I think it's a choice made by the individual.

[robob8706]

I can say the same. I wonder about me too, i wouldn't care if i was but i wonder if i am. Like i said earlier it depends on taste. I may like brocollie whereas you might not. I may like men whereas you may not, doesn't mean it was a choice, it was me finding myself. A definition of oneself. You believe that its a choice. That's fine i dont. The best example i can think of is if I tried Fish for the first time, for example, and I liked it, I didn't make the decision that i liked it, i merely observed the fact that when i stuck it in my mouth, my brain derived pleasure from it.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:09 PM
I can say the same. I wonder about me too, i wouldn't care if i was but i wonder if i am. Like i said earlier it depends on taste. I may like brocollie whereas you might not. I may like men whereas you may not, doesn't mean it was a choice, it was me finding myself. A definition of oneself. You believe that its a choice. That's fine i dont. The best example i can think of is if I tried Fish for the first time, for example, and I liked it, I didn't make the decision that i liked it, i merely observed the fact that when i stuck it in my mouth, my brain derived pleasure from it.


I just hate how society (primarily the Righties) give homosexuality a bad name. Wasn't it considered a mental illness until 1971? I think it's in our best interests to say it's a choice. After all if it's a chemical imbalance or something, that stigma of it being a mental illness could be applied.

I like all kinds of food. I can't think of any I've tried and don't like :) . But I made a choice to like them. At one point I didn't like onions. Now I do. Same with squash. I just basically decided one day, "Why bother being picky?" Most of the things I didn't like at the time were in everything. So I made myself like them as a choice.

[Severian]

This is an incredibly crappy article. Instead of asking religious leaders, they should ask other molecular geneticists how solid his work looks. A common problem in science journalism: they just report one study's result without connection to anything else.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 03:26 AM
This is an incredibly crappy article. Instead of asking religious leaders, they should ask other molecular geneticists how solid his work looks. A common problem in science journalism: they just report one study's result without connection to anything else.
Well that's what makes the difference from an article, and a peer reviewed article. An article could be posted by someone about anything. Whereas a peer reviewed article has the imput of people in that field.

[Severian]

I don't expect newspapers to be like peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'd just like them to do some halfway decent reporting by asking for comment from someone who knows about the subject.

It helps if they have a reporter who knows a little bit about science; the NYT science section is OK sometimes.

Edit: Lo and behold, the NYT does have a review of Hamer's book which is a little better. It quotes a couple geneticists, unfortunately anonymous ones who don't go into the details of why they're sceptical:



Needless to say, many geneticists are skeptical. When Hamer told his former boss at the National Institutes of Health that he was writing this book, her suggestion was, "Wait until you've retired."
.
Another colleague said: "A God gene? That's got to be nonsense. Have you replicated it?"


Also:


Hamer is best known for a 1993 study linking male homosexuality to a region of the X chromosome. Other researchers tried to replicate the findings in 1999 but were unable to do so.


Um. Results that can't be reproduced by anyone else are considered dubious; remember cold fusion? There's even a science humor magazine called the "Journal of Irreproducible Results".

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 03:18 PM
I don't expect newspapers to be like peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'd just like them to do some halfway decent reporting by asking for comment from someone who knows about the subject.
Sorry if you took that the wrong way. I was agreeing with you. I didn't mean to offend. I was jsut saying it was probably just another biased article.

[Raisa]

Im not so sure that the gene actually makes you believe in "god". It just enables your mind to be spiritual as an evolutionary method of survival, because some of the situations the human race gets itself into alot of people would not have made it if it was not for a little imagination or spirit to get through on.

You can almost liken it to the way that Cybil (a very famous schitzophreniac), who was abused by her mother, developled several split personalities to cope with her situation.

The "god gene" has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not, it has to do with survival in the world.

[Commie Rat]

i rekon it is like how you were brought up
liek if you mohter alway told you there was a god ever sine you were 2
you would belive it
but if she didn't then you wouldn't

[idealisticcommie]

It is amazing how profound materialists always confuse the symptoms of the disease with the prescription for cure.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Please do not necro old threads.