Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / November 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Genetic susceptibility to religion?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.