Genetic susceptibility to religion?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Viator - 20 Nov 2007 14:05 GMT Hi all,
Does anybody know if there has been any research into whether people have a genetic susceptibility to religious indoctrination and brainwashing?
I suspect there is a "critical period" as psychologists say during which a child is most susceptible to indoctrination, *however* I also wonder if some people lack that susceptibility due to genetics or have a shorter one.
Surely someone has done research on this?
Thanks.
J Forbes - 20 Nov 2007 16:06 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks. a starting place for you might be Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate"
Jim
Conspiracy of Doves - 20 Nov 2007 16:27 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks. Wouldn't surprise me. Thousands of years of religious people killing unbelievers might do that to a species.
David V. - 20 Nov 2007 16:33 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *however* I also wonder if some people lack that > susceptibility due to genetics or have a shorter one. I can't point you directly to the research but it has been known for quite some time that infants and small children learn real fast. They have to learn a language, culture, their place in that culture, and a whole bunch of stuff by the age of four or so. In human evolution children had to learn those things what to eat and other survival skills. Religious indoctrination at that early age is going to stick and be real hard to shake off.
 Signature Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. - Abbie Hoffman
Ken - 20 Nov 2007 16:50 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks. There was an article in the Sci Am magazine a while back about the "god gene". We're all born atheists, but the weaked minded one's are soon brainwashed/suckered by the older (but not wiser) ones into religion, superstition, and 2000 year old fairy tales
James Beck - 20 Nov 2007 21:51 GMT In article <6f5fb47c-87bc-4ecd-8943-b7a41e9173a5 @o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, varioustrees@yahoo.com says...
> Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks. One of the science magazines had an article about this recently. Do a search for "The God Gene" and see what pops up.
Like : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/
Jim
Michael Gray - 20 Nov 2007 23:37 GMT >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Surely someone has done research on this? One would think so, but apart from a few peripherally related studies, I know of none that directly address this issue. Most connections between susceptability to credulity are only distally related to genes, such as schizophrenics are notoriously god-soaked, and schizophrenia has a gentic component.
Smiler - 21 Nov 2007 05:48 GMT >>Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > related to genes, such as schizophrenics are notoriously god-soaked, > and schizophrenia has a gentic component. Do schizophrenics hear voices in their head and explain it as 'god talking to them' in an attempt to appear 'rational' or does worshiping god makes them schizophrenic? I don't know the answer, but the former seems more likely. Have any studies been done on that cause and effect relationship?
Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
Michael Gray - 21 Nov 2007 06:28 GMT >>>Hi all, >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >to them' in an attempt to appear 'rational' or does worshiping god makes >them schizophrenic? I can't find a case where religion has "sent" someone schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a physiological disorder, and is most unlikely to be directly caused by mental processes. The progression of a typical case is that the person is progressively gripped by psychoses as the disease progresses, to the point where they can no longer distinguish reality from fiction. It is along this path that they are naturally susceptable to religion, superstition, "alternative medicine", water divining, reiki, UFOs, astral travel, tarot, blah blah blah, i.e.: any bullshit that is predicated on a conflation of fiction with fact.
>I don't know the answer, but the former seems more >likely. Have any studies been done on that cause and effect relationship? Yes. 100% that schizophrenia causes god delusions.
David V. - 21 Nov 2007 16:26 GMT >> Do schizophrenics hear voices in their head and explain it >> as 'god talking to them' in an attempt to appear 'rational' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a physiological disorder, and > is most unlikely to be directly caused by mental processes. Temporal lobe epilepsy could also be a source. Many religious "visions" could be attributed to that.
 Signature Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. - Abbie Hoffman
veritas - 22 Nov 2007 03:29 GMT > >> Do schizophrenics hear voices in their head and explain it > >> as 'god talking to them' in an attempt to appear 'rational' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. > - Abbie Hoffman There is a suspicion among geneticists that there are certain genes that "cause" some people to be more religious than others. They are careful when they speak about it because the exact sequence has not been located. Just suspected. But there may be a genetic reason that some people feel very religious, while others could care less. Myself for example, it means nothing. But, any doctor or psychologist will tell you that if you hear audible voices outside your head and nobody is there to get the nearest medical treatment. God or no God, it's probably a mental problem. Schizophrenics hear voices outside their heads. They may come to realize that no one else can hear them, but to them they are actual voices. That is a mental distrubance. On visions, I don't have a clue. Although, I thought I was dancing in a bar one night until someone stepped on my hand. I'm pretty sure it was the Tequila shots we were doing at the time though. Ken -- "Truth does not give a damn what we believe. We survive or perish according to our ability to discern the truth correctly and act upon it." - Ken www.veritasnovel.com
Day Brown - 24 Nov 2007 08:30 GMT Psychedelics do not cause temporary insanity. However, if you already are insane, LSD makes it really obvious, and there are some few obscure reports where acid has been used to good effect. But the reason it was made illegal, was not because it was addictive, which it is not, nor that overdose was deadly, as there is no lethal overdose, but because it provided a direct experience of the divine, and users realized it was not Jesus.
This upset families who pressured congress to make it illegal. Anything that cured Christianity could not be tolerated. Course, it'll do the same for Muslims. Its the nature of the perceived divinity that presents problems; that presence is not judgemental, so atheists have a hard time with it as well. I've never shared a powerful potion with an atheist, and can understand why they'd rather not try it. You do not want to go there.
But as Quantum physics shows us, reality is not all its cracked up to be. Atoms are not little billiard balls of 'matter', but merely points where cosmic forces are detectable. All the way back in the Vedas, sentient beings realized that there was a 3D projection mechanism. The Tocharians, for one, had words for "men" and "women" like all other languages, but also had a special suffix, "-os". which denoted a sentient being. Not everyone is. If an atheist tells me he has no soul, I dont see any reason to doubt his word. He awta know.
Its peculiar however, from those who pretend to be so rational, to deny that something exists simply because they cannot perceive it, assuming that no body else can either. We have lots of examples of those who can perceive things others cant. Subtleties of color, form, shape, sound, taste, and texture exist for the connoisseur, the artist. We assume there is a genetic reason for this since such talent so often exists in certain family lines.
Michael Gray - 24 Nov 2007 09:14 GMT >Psychedelics do not cause temporary insanity. However, if you already >are insane, LSD makes it really obvious, and there are some few >obscure reports where acid has been used to good effect. But the >reason it was made illegal, was not because it was addictive, which it >is not, nor that overdose was deadly, as there is no lethal overdose, >but because it provided a direct experience of the divine, Idiotic garbarge.
>and users >realized it was not Jesus. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >be. Atoms are not little billiard balls of 'matter', but merely points >where cosmic forces are detectable. Utter Tosh.
>All the way back in the Vedas, >sentient beings realized that there was a 3D projection mechanism. The [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >artist. We assume there is a genetic reason for this since such talent >so often exists in certain family lines. Woo-woo crap.
Mike - 24 Nov 2007 10:48 GMT > Psychedelics do not cause temporary insanity. However, if you already > are insane, LSD makes it really obvious, and there are some few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but because it provided a direct experience of the divine, and users > realized it was not Jesus. LOL!!!! The "divine" had NOTHING to do with it. Most people wanted LSD illegal simply out of pique and disgust for the despised subculture that used it --- i.e. the longhaired, pinko-commie, anti- war, freelove-practicing, rock-and-roll-listening, social-dropout hippy freaks. More thoughtful people divided on the question. Some felt that since the drug is usually harmless it should be legal. Others thought that adverse reactions occurred often enough (albeit usually to people with pre-existing psychological problems) that there was adequate reason to ban it.
> This upset families who pressured congress to make it illegal. > Anything that cured Christianity could not be tolerated. Dude, haven't you heard of the "Jesus freaks"? LSD is as likely to produce fanatical Christian faith as it is pseudo-Hindu or Buddhist mysticism. Usually it produces no religion or mysticism at all. If the hippies mostly went for Eastern (or rather pseudo-Eastern) nonsense it is because they were predisposed to be "anti- establishment".
> I've never shared a powerful potion with > an atheist, and can understand why they'd rather not try it. You do > not want to go there. I would never share a powerful potion with YOU, because psychodelic drugs can only be safely used by psychologically healthy people who have reality-based epistemologies.
And what is your evidence that, on average, atheists use LSD and similar drugs less than religious morons? If you have any evidence to substantiate this claim, post it.
> But as Quantum physics shows us, reality is not all its cracked up to > be. Quantum physics shows us that physical reality is vastly more fascinating and is much MORE than it had hitherto been cracked up to be. By the way, you do not need to capitalize "Quantum" as though the word had any religious significance.
>Atoms are not little billiard balls of 'matter', but merely points > where cosmic forces are detectable. Oh PLEASE expound in great detail about your profound understandings of quantum physics. But wait until I get popcorn!
> All the way back in the Vedas, > sentient beings realized that there was a 3D projection mechanism. I have a complete copy of the Vedas. I would be FASCINATED to see any lines that say anything about "3D projection mechanisms".
Dude, you need to drop a few hundred more micrograms of acid, a half dozen shrooms, smoke up some hash oil and get back to us with further profound insights.
<snip rest of your silly crap>
Day Brown - 25 Nov 2007 06:38 GMT > I have a complete copy of the Vedas. I would be FASCINATED to see any > lines that say anything about "3D projection mechanisms". Read the hymns to Kali by 18th Century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, who was still at the apex of the Vedic canon before the Brits took over, and knew a lot more about what they were about than you do.
He says that everything you see is part of a "projected matrix" out of the mind of Kali (his name for the primordial Goddess). In the Bagavad Gita, which you apparently dont know about either, Arjuna is told that some of what he sees are divinely created and animated forms that exist only as a challenge to the fulfillment of his kharma. Like the monsters in a video game.
The Gita even calls them "avatars". The thing you find out about an avatar is that while you may learn from one, you cannot teach one anything. I am not trying to teach you anything either. Think what you have been programmed to; I dont have a problem with it. My comments are only of use to sentient beings able to carry on discourse in a more polite fashion.
Charles & Mambo Duckman - 25 Nov 2007 08:02 GMT > Read the hymns to Kali by 18th Century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, who > was still at the apex of the Vedic canon before the Brits took over, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have been programmed to; I dont have a problem with it. My comments > are only of use to no one sane.
 Signature Come down off the cross We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
Michael Gray - 25 Nov 2007 08:29 GMT >> I have a complete copy of the Vedas. I would be FASCINATED to see any >> lines that say anything about "3D projection mechanisms". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >are only of use to sentient beings able to carry on discourse in a >more polite fashion. He said this in English, by the looks of it? How astounding!
Mike - 25 Nov 2007 11:24 GMT > On Nov 24, 5:48 am, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:> I have a complete copy of the Vedas. I would be FASCINATED to see any > > lines that say anything about "3D projection mechanisms". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He says that everything you see is part of a "projected matrix" out of > the mind of Kali (his name for the primordial Goddess). I guess "projected matrix" is SLIGHTLY more intelligible than "3D projection mechanisms" which, I assume, is your own fanciful language for whatever you think you understand about Hinduism.
> In the Bagavad Gita, which you apparently dont know about either, > Arjuna is told that some of what he sees are divinely created and > animated forms that exist only as a challenge to the fulfillment of > his kharma. Like the monsters in a video game. And why would you assume I don't know about the Bagavad Gita just because I objected to your preposterous statement that one can experience the "divine" through LSD and that the Vedic tradition contains the concept of "3D projection mechanism"?
> The Gita even calls them "avatars". The thing you find out about an > avatar is that while you may learn from one, you cannot teach one > anything. I am not trying to teach you anything either. Think what you > have been programmed to; I dont have a problem with it. My comments > are only of use to sentient beings able to carry on discourse in a > more polite fashion. How was I impolite? I stated bluntly that your theory about why LSD was banned was silly and that I thought your LSD mysticism about the "divine" and your quantum confusions were nonsense (I am assuming that Capra's "The Tao of Physics" is a likely culprit here). But I hope you are not the kind of fool who takes disagreement to be rudeness.
Day Brown - 25 Nov 2007 21:03 GMT > How was I impolite? I stated bluntly that your theory about why LSD > was banned was silly and that I thought your LSD mysticism about the > "divine" and your quantum confusions were nonsense (I am assuming that > Capra's "The Tao of Physics" is a likely culprit here). But I hope > you are not the kind of fool who takes disagreement to be rudeness. "<snip rest of your silly crap>" Will do fine as an example.
I'm not always as clear as I hope. But I'm not talking about Hinduism. That's like saying that both Lucretius and Pythagoras were pagans, even tho their perspectives, in both cases negating polytheism, were the same. NO. I'm coming at this from a whole nother direction, the North.
What remains in India is a lot like what remains in the Vatican of early Christianity- which for example, married faggots. Indians can do what they like with the Vedic tradition, but it came down to them from Sogdia, and the merchant class of what was known as the Silk Road. Archeology reveals a band of cultures from the Danube basin, east about 40-45deg No, thru the Kara Kum, Kyzle Kum, & Taklamakhan deserts all the way to the Jade Gate. And those cultures started out in the Danube over 7000 years ago, and spread east across what was then fertile grassland not desert 6000 years ago, to arrive in what is now NW China 4000 years ago.
In short, the orginal Aryans. India has some small remnant of their documents. But- expeditions to cental Asia 100 years ago brought back truckloads which mostly laid ignored in museum cellars because of the Wars and the Iron Curtain. But now the Brits & Chinese, as mentioned here, are going to post 100,000 scans of documents and artifacts online. http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol3num2/5_bloom.php
In my Matrix, but maybe not in your world Mike, this is already rattling cages. The oldest ashrams ever found are not in India, but in the Southern Kara Kum, near Gonur and Togoluk. 4000 BP. with the standard meditation hall, the set of monk cells, and sacred apocatheries. With bowls still on the floor, perfectly intact, with cannibis, ephedra, and opium for use in the ritual setting. Its too bad they didnt think to look for mushroom spores, but from other sources, I bet that Amanita Muscaria spores are in the place.
Have a look at "The Mummies of Urumchi" by Barber. People buried in the cold dry alkaline deserts during winter had their bodies freeze dried. There are several times the mummies in the deserts of Central Asia as there are in Egypt, and they are in much better condition. Barber, an archeo fabrics expert, shows us how people in China wore wool from European sheep, woven in Twill, (which the Chinese never did) in plaid, and even in classic Celtic Tartan.
But they wrote Tocharian in the same Sanskrit font you know. For a long time, the Pre-eminent city, Kucha, was like a college town, with Vedic, Confucian, Taoist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Manichean, and other sacred texts that were being translated from among 20 languages that include standard Brama Sanskrit. So, who getsta decide what a text means? what does it mean to someone who is familiar with so many other literate traditions, and not limited to the Dravidian illiterate, or any other local peasant tradition?
And in addition, what does it mean to someone who uses a sacred potion to speed the transfer to an altered state of consciousness? Ugarit Shamen still make a sacred potion from Amanita Muscraia. Which I have tried, and recommend. Are you then going to dismiss their spirutality as "druggies"? They've only been doing this for thousands of years. Their 'pagan' grave markers are still seen in the boonies of Finland.
Ethnobotanist Wasson, who reported on their recipe, suggested that there was a North South drug trade, a 'Soma Road' to India. Well, the above two Ashrams are on that route. Satellite imagery revealed the pattern of roads to a central point in Uzbekistan, and sure enuf, there's a great city that was founded before the Pyramids of Egypt. This is where the Vedas were first written Mike. They found a cylinder seal there from 2400BC with icons on it that look Danubian. You can get some idea from http://www.prehistory.it/fase2/gradesnica.htm
That writing is 7000 years old. But after the horse, and the great cities that emerged along the trade routes like tripolye on the Dneister, 5500 years ago, Sentient beings got to politely discourse with each other, under the influence of various sacred potions, and sift thru it all what seemed to make sense no matter what the chemical state of mind. And they did this for a couple thousand years before written texts about it ever got to India.
The area has opened up to increasing numbers of expeditions. The Amazons really did exist, For example: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_amazon/interview.html Kimball has dug up dozens of women warriors. And you can see how their clothes are transitional between the Danubians or Tripolye in the West, and the Tocharians in the East. "The Magi came from the East." well, this is *that* East. If you can achieve spiritual enlightenment with meditation, go for it.
But dont give me that superiority bullshit trying to denigrate those who used sacred potions. It smacks of egoism, not elightenment. Ask the Dali Lama what he thot of LSD. Your comments sound like a Christian fundy with the full support of the DEA.
Mike - 26 Nov 2007 06:58 GMT > On Nov 25, 6:24 am, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:> How was I impolite? I stated bluntly that your theory about why LSD > > was banned was silly and that I thought your LSD mysticism about the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "<snip rest of your silly crap>" > Will do fine as an example. OK. I'll concede that that was sarcastic.
> I'm not always as clear as I hope. But I'm not talking about Hinduism. In your first message you seemed to be.
<snip archeological stuff for brevity>
> In my Matrix, but maybe not in your world Mike, this is already > rattling cages. Why do you insist on misusing scientific terms? Matrix has a couple meanings in physics and a meaning in mathematics. What, if anything, do you mean by the word "Matrix" (capitalized I notice) in this context? This is part of what "rubbed me wrong" about your first message and inspired me to express sarcasim.
>The oldest ashrams ever found are not in India, but in > the Southern Kara Kum, near Gonur and Togoluk. 4000 BP. with the > standard meditation hall, the set of monk cells, and sacred > apocatheries. Yes, of course. Silly religions are far more ancient than the Vedas. (No offense, but religions seem silly to me.)
> Ugarit > Shamen still make a sacred potion from Amanita Muscraia. Which I have > tried, and recommend. Are you then going to dismiss their spirutality > as "druggies"? I dismiss their "spirituality" as foolish. The fact that it is drug induced is irrelevant to the evaluation.
> But dont give me that superiority bullshit trying to denigrate those > who used sacred potions. There are no "sacred" potions. There only extremely interesting potions that can alter our perception in fascinating ways. I do not criticize the imbibation of such potions, but only the metaphysical leaps of fancy that some people perform to interpret their pharmological experiences.
>It smacks of egoism, not elightenment. Ask > the Dali Lama what he thot of LSD. Your comments sound like a > Christian fundy with the full support of the DEA. Christian fundy? LOL!!! DEA? LOL!!! In your first message you made, what seemed to me, a very foolish statement. To wit: you opined that drugs such as LSD cause one to experience the "divine" and that it is not Jesus. I pointed out that LSD is quite consistent with religious fervor over Jesus as much as any other kind of religious ferver and, in fact, is quite consistent with no religious interpretation at all. For example, the Native American church and the Huichol Indians of Northern Mexico use peyote rites as a way of devotion to Jesus.
I refuse to get into a silly oneupsmanship contest with you over who has taken more interesting substances more often. But I assure you from personal experience that it is entirely possible to enjoy certain pharmeceutical experiences of the so-called "psychedelic" kind without reaching for silly metaphysical interpretations, either of the theistic kind or the subtle "mystical" Eastern kind. Perhaps our disagreement is partly semantic; it is hard to precisely define the word "divine". Insofar as I understand the word "divine", I find it to be a foolish concept that has no part in a rational worldview.
I have been an atheist since about 14. I assure you that psychedelic experiences did not have even the slightest effect of inspiring religion in me. If anything, such substances have the effect of inspiring me to understand Plato's idea of "archetypes". I can certainly recall looking at a tree (for example) and feeling utterly captivated by it, as though some kind of quintessential quality of "treeishness" has been carved out of eternity and is manifesting itself before me in the particular magnificent specimen I am gazing at. And, of course, it is so beautiful one might feel inspired to weep. But that experience has absolutely nothing to do with the concepts "religious" or "divine" or "transcendental". If you disagree, then I think you are misusing the words. And, of course, in rare fleeting moments one can have such experiences and feelings with no pharmalogical inducement whatsoever.
I have never understood people who think that psychedelics can teach anyone anything about the nature of reality or, still worse, teach anyone about an "alternate reality" (i.e. your "divine"). There is one reality which we perceive imperfectly whether tripping or stone sober. Certain chemicals and plants can teach one a bit about one's own mind and about one's own perception and emotions, but that is all. Whether one dispassionately looks at a tree or whether one is tripping and is ecstatically transfixed by the beautiful treeishness of the tree, it is the one and the same tree. The difference is only in one's perceptions and emotions; the difference is not in the reality.
|
|
|