Slashdot Mirror
Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society
Hugh Pickens writes writes "PhysOrg reports on a study by Robert Rowthorn, emeritus professor at Cambridge University, that predicts that the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently "hitchhiking" on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates and that provided the fertility of religious people remains on average higher than that of secular people, the genes that predispose people towards religion will spread. For example, in the past 20 years, the Amish population in the US has doubled, increasing from 123,000 in 1991 to 249,000 in 2010. The huge growth stems almost entirely from the religious culture's high fertility rate, which is about 6 children per woman, on average. Rowthorn says that while fertility is determined by culture, an individual's predisposition toward religion is likely to be influenced by genetics, in addition to their upbringing. In the model, Rowthorn uses a "religiosity gene" to represent the various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion, whether remaining religious from youth or converting to religion from a secular upbringing. Rowthorn's model predicts that the religious fraction of the population will eventually stabilize at less than 100%, and there will remain a possibly large percentage of secular individuals. But nearly all of the secular population will still carry the religious allele, since high defection rates will spread the religious allele to secular society when defectors have children with a secular partner."
Might prove useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean#History
Anyway, it seems that such a trend is eventually self correcting; we will have a religious war in which all those extra children will exterminate each other.
Wanna sign up for the next Crusade, anyone?
So there's an evolutionary advantage to not believing in evolution? Whoda thunk it?
It isn't a religiosity gene, it's more like a gullibility gene or a genetically caused weakness of the mind. I have found that those who devoutly believe in fairy stores and invisible people can be easily convinced of the most absurd things as long as you talk to them in that level, convincing tone that Obi-won pulled off so well in Star Wars.
Also, some people can be hypnotized, others can't. Difference: strength of mind.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
The funny thing is that I thought academics would lean towards the free will argument, but I guess sometimes they take "there must be an explanation for everything" too far and convince themselves that human behaviour is easily explained with statistical models with ridiculously weak premises.
So... how would you detect free will, if it does exist?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.
I'm assuming the gene doesn't actually make you "religious", it just predisposes you to being suggestible and superstitious, which is pretty much the foundation of any religion. ie: People with that gene are less skeptical in general. Just my take on it.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Hate to break it to you and apparently everybody else responding, but there is evidence for a genetic component to homosexual preferences. The fundamental concept is that the gene(s) which when expressed lead to an increased sexual attraction to men work the same way in both genders, so because not all men who carry the gene express it (or do so exclusively), it leads to some female children being born with higher fertility rates, which is why the gene keeps being reproduced. Women with the gene end up having more children than those without it, and their male children are not guaranteed to express the gene, so over human history the net effect has been positive.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
How does that explain the people who were traditionally the most religious people of a society, the contemplative recluses and hermits? I think also if you look into the sramana traditions of India such as Jainism and Buddhism, there is a great deal of radical individualism involved in their practice. The same goes for the Daoist hermits and the Indian Yogis who lived in the mountains in order to practice meditation.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
Because things have changed in the developed world over the last couple of hundred years since the industrial revolution. Now infant mortality has been conquered, we have enough to eat and a welfare state to look after us when we are old we don't have to have as many children as possible. - Unless that is we belong to a Religion which knows it can just outgrow the opposition in tons of flesh by breeding beyond the replacement rate - though whether this is due to wilful hostility towards unbelievers or just ignorance, or small c conservatism and a 200 year lag in changing social rules to suit the conditions is an open question.
Given that the main reason for environmental destruction and social decay is an expanding population it seems incredible that so many religions instruct their followers to carry on breeding untill they are waist deep in their own shit. Religions are so irresponsible over population growth that they quite clearly represent the greatest actual threat to humanity of any of our political systems.
Whether or not there is a god it will be the churches who bring abut the downfall of mankind.if they carry on with business as usual. Remember all a Religion needs is followers, it has no interest in whether they live healthy fulfilled lives or live like battery hens just so long as they are infected with the meme. I am sure that many church leaders aspire to something better but at the root of the thing it's just membership that counts.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Parenting greatly influences the choice of religion, but not the strength of belief. Studies of adopted children show that there is a very strong tendency to become more like the biological parents during early adulthood. A child of atheists raised in a young-earth household is likely to become less of a believer once out of that environment, while a child of young-earthers raised by atheists is likely to convert to some religion.
Actually, according to the article and some related ones, religiosity is highly correlated with conservatism and authoritarianism. This isn't my field, but I think attitudes like Social Dominance Orientation are also related. The basic idea is that people will normally settle on a worldview that fits their personality, right or wrong. Conservatives and authoritarians will naturally gravitate to a stable, hierarchical system, and organized religions (and governments?) frequently embody those characteristics.
Simple, it's individuality and rationalism went wrong. Religion not only breeds conformity, it breeds ignorance, even an individualist person who deflects from the mainstream will run bumbling in the dark because they literally don't know any better.
That and, I'm sorry to be condescending, but besides group solidarity, religiosity is related to an ability to believe contradictory statements -mental compartmentalization- they call it, and I'm pretty sure being dumb enough to not even find the contradiction helps a lot. So a radically individualist person can still be religious, but I think the ignorance aspect plays the major part. I mean, I've personally known people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's wrong and requires monkeys giving birth to humans, it really is that awful.
I wonder how far into science education are those Daoists and Indian Yogis and what their IQs are. I mean seriously it would be an interesting thing to know, I could of course be completely wrong.
But... the future refused to change.
>>"Free will" just means we cannot see the mechanism that produced it.
Out of curiosity, why are you so convinced that determinism is true?
Simple, it's individuality and rationalism went wrong. Religion not only breeds conformity, it breeds ignorance, even an individualist person who deflects from the mainstream will run bumbling in the dark because they literally don't know any better.
Unfortunately the majority of science in history was carried out by religious institutions. Astronomy came out of astrology, the university system was founded by catholic monks, and it was Muslim scholars who introduced the world to Al-gebra.
That and, I'm sorry to be condescending, but besides group solidarity, religiosity is related to an ability to believe contradictory statements -mental compartmentalization- they call it, and I'm pretty sure being dumb enough to not even find the contradiction helps a lot. So a radically individualist person can still be religious, but I think the ignorance aspect plays the major part. I mean, I've personally known people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's wrong and requires monkeys giving birth to humans, it really is that awful.
And on the flip-side I've met people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's what happens and requires monkeys giving birth to humans. Ignorance is not the sole preserve of religion. And neither is compartmentalisation. Most sciences suffer from compartmentalisation in their practitioners' thinking. Take for example (oh irony of ironies) evolution. The model of divergent evolution became widely accepted quite some time ago... for most animals. But up until a few decades ago, the model of parallel evolution lived on for one particular animal: the human being. The prevaling belief was that Africans evolved from Cro Magnon, and Europeans evolved from Neaderthal. I believe paleontologist were still looking for "the ancestor" of the Chinese. This is why "racism" is called what it is -- because they genuinely believed we were completely different animals.
HAL.
I wonder how far into science education are those Daoists and Indian Yogis and what their IQs are. I mean seriously it would be an interesting thing to know, I could of course be completely wrong.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I think he's suggesting that many pro-choice people find it hard to identify with a fetus as being fully human. Thus they are reluctant to use the law (which is force) to defend the fetus against the mother's decision to kill it.
But if you start to realize the fetuses could be killed because of a human quality - a quality they share with you - that may change your perspective. Imagine the reaction on Slashdot if scientists found a "geek" gene and non-geek parents started aborting such fetuses because they didn't want their kids to turn out "like that". That's the situation gays are going to face once we discover which genes predispose one to homosexuality (I say "predispose" because genes aren't a guarantee - identical twins are not always the same orientation, just more likely to be).
It's not pro-lifers that are going to abort the gay kids. It's the moderate, middle-class pro-choice folks who don't want their kids to have certain "undesirable" traits - whether it's mental retardation, being gay, having whatever gender the parents don't want, etc.