Is there a spirituality gene? If so, is it adaptive?

From a rationalist point of view, genetic hard-wiring is perhaps the best explanation for the persistence of religious belief in humans. But if all or most of us are equipped with a "faith" gene, what evolutionary purpose does it serve? Or is it ultimately non-adaptive? Who stands to propagate their genetics more successfully in the decades to come: believers or non-believers?

It's complicated, and there are trade offs.

For instance, spirituality might help you tolerate a life of drudgery.
That makes you a well adapted drudge, which prevents you from becoming a CEO.

But as a drudge, you might breed a lot of little drudges.
And the CEO's kids might kill themselves.

Sprituality can help us tolerate tedium, and it can help us through crises.
Faith that help will come helps keeps the shipwreck victim swimming.

Forgiveness helps keep the family together, but can lead us to tolerate
abuses that we shouldn't.

Dawkins addresses this very question. As of right now, there is no "religion gene." But in terms of natural selection, religion served the same purpose back in the day as it does now. It brings people together under a common deity(ies).... you know, strength in numbers and all that jazz. People who fervently believe will fight to the death to prove they're right, or figure out a way to convert people, either by hook or by crook, in order to increase their numbers beyond propagation.

"Idiocracy" also touches on this, although in terms of intelligence as a whole, not so much religion. IMO, the way things are going now, unless there is some massive evolution in consciousness that takes us to a level that transcends religion and erases the boundary between belief and non-belief, the believers will always outnumber the non-believers.

because the girls were cute and the meetings often left them feeling inspired, if you know what I mean. So in that sense, religion might also be considered adaptive.

it may be a genetic deficiency, like color-blindness.

Perhaps their lives are somehow richer for not believing. It's possible, you know.

Genes are weird, anyway. What purpose could, say, the ability to curl one's tongue, possibly serve??

I can think of several nifty (and adaptive) tricks one could do with the former, none with the latter.

On edit: if there is a spirituality gene, I may have been born with only one copy, or possibly none. But I wouldn't call it a deficiency—and as I say, it may turn out to be more adaptive NOT to have it.

<raising eyebrows>

:)

I kid, I kid.

perhaps seeing everything in black and white somehow makes their life richer.
It's possible, you know.

for someone who bitches about the snarkiness of the atheists.

What an odd thing to say.

If there is a genetic susceptibility to gullibility or superstition, That seems like it would be a bad thing too.

I can't see how it would have any survival advantages.

You wrote, "I can't see how it would have any survival advantages."
That's the kind of thing a color-blind person might say.
It's completely beyond their comprehension,
and there's no way to explain it to them.

Explain how a predisposition to gullibility and superstition might be a desirable trait, more desirable than predisposition to critical thinking.

:rofl:

Your own predisposition to gullibility and superstition must be a sign of deficiency in reasoning or communication skills.

I hope your heirs don't inherit your deficiency.

:rofl:

Similarly, you can't see what color shirt I'm wearing. That's not really laughable, because I haven't actually given you the slightest indication as to what color shirt I am wearing.

So if we have a tribe of early hominids containing members who have a trait enhancing the likelihood that said individuals will override their individual desires to act in a manner that would be detrimental to their tribe or family, and encouraging the same individuals to act in manners beneficial to their tribe and family...you don't see that tribe having a competitive advantage over other tribes?

Not all human traits need be good for individual survival. Most of our social emotions hinder immediate survival, by either irrationally forgoing resources or by expending resources in an inefficient manner. All that need occur for those traits to spread is for their existence to help preserve the tribal society in which they exist.

Talking to bananas is like talking to a smilie. :rofl:

Your example of early hominids sounds good enough, but we are not early hominids. At least most of us aren't)

we're still hominids ;)

While I like to think that the human capacity for rational thought, long-term behavior planning, and self-control have advanced with our brainpower, and while our intensely legal society has put a high emphasis on those traits (and a lower emphasis, sometimes to the point of forbiddance, on following social emotions to attain some degree of justice), I'm not convinced that religion has become maladaptive.

On one hand, it may still act as a tiny extra push, slightly increasing the odds that a religious person act according to social demands, thus increasing their odds of surviving through procreation and parenting. As an aside, I think this would be practically impossible to fairly test, since there's far, far too many variables at play.

On the other hand, it also may be that inborn predisposition to religiosity may slightly increase the odds of horrendously maladaptive behavior--and I'm sure you can come up with better examples of this than I can. As with the previous possibility, I think this would also be practically impossible to fairly test.

I can't prove or disprove either, and I certainly can't weigh one against the other. The suppose best I can do is say that I don't really know.

You wrote, "our intensely legal society has put a high emphasis on those traits".
The OP asks if there is a spirituality gene.
Could there be a legality gene?
Could our intensely legal society be the result of natural selection?
Will H. Sapiens be replaced by H. Lawyer?
:popcorn:

in being gullible about what your parents and other authority figures tell you. If an elder tells you, "don't wander off into the jungle," and you believe them unconditionally, your chances of being eaten by a tiger are much lower. If you decide to test the matter first-hand, you stand a higher chance of being picked off.

Superstition might be the extension of an adaptive willingness to accept your society's ideas about what is safe to eat and what herbs have helpful medicinal effects. If you believe what your parents tell you about those things without investigating the causal relationships behind them too deeply, that same tendency might lead to a belief in the efficacy of rituals or taboos about what to eat which aren't grounded in fact. As long as you're marginally better off believing these things than not believing them, there's plenty of room to believe complete nonsense. As long as there is a net benefit to a credulous organism over a skeptical one, the credulous will propagate at the expense of the skeptics.

Some people use "spiritual" to refer to religious practices, while some define it as profoundly separate from religion or even something stifled by organized religion. If we're going to talk about spirituality in a scientific way, we have to be specific about the social constructs and/or biological processes we're talking about. Or, if we're talking about something completely distinct from biology or sociology, we need to define that, too.

If we're not all on the same page, an intelligent discussion is impossible.

Genetic deficiency?! Like color blindness?!

Why not pray over your judgemental attitude for awhile and meditate on the fig tree that hadn't produced and instead was withered with one word.

to attack atheists for allegedly doing what he himself is actually doing. Go figure!

There's no use for that kind of language here.

He believed that Cosmic Consciousness was an evolutionary step forward.
:popcorn:

edit to add: the NYT link in this post still works: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2772549&mesg_id=2777340

it must be true.

Would you like a list of famous people that thought the world was flat?

That's part of the woo woo credo!

although you never know, there might be plenty of famous Texans who are not educated enough to know that.

For instance, I read the other day that the reason no one wanted to fund Columbus was because he thought the diameter of the world was much smaller than it is, and everyone else thought he would starve about halfway across the Atlantic on his way to Asia.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in about 225 BCE, and the Greeks knew the world was round thereafter. Augustine knew the world was round, so most (though not all) Catholic scholars since have believed the same. By the time of Columbus, navigation techniques relied on the knowledge that the world was round.

Until about 400 years ago, everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe. It would probably be much easier to find a list of famous people who bought the Ptolemaic model of the universe.

I've got a background in vaccines, that means I am the expert in theology too! I demand you all beleive everything I ever say in this forum, cause I'm a scientist you know!
BTW, stupid argument because James Watson (of Watson and Crick) believes black people are genetically inferior.
Scientists are just as flawed as everyone else and their philosophical beleives should not be given any more weight than anyone elses.

Religion seems more likely to be the result of over-generalization-slash-expansion of several processes; with the exception of bliss/nirvana, there's nothing in the religious/spiritual framework that exists purely within the religious/spiritual framework.

As for adaptive vs. non-adaptive? I'd say the universality of religion in human existence suggests that religion is either adaptive, or is at very least a non-maladaptive side effect of adaptive traits. Human society is built by and for humans; hence there are very few human traits which are completely maladaptive in modern human society.

a devout follower. There are many disadvantages also. For a tribe, large or small, to get into lock step behind a leader greatly increases the tribes ability, for instance, to conduct a war or build a pyramid which would at times be a positive survival endeavor. Like wise a balancing gene or lack of it would cause the skeptics to scream and if the war or pyramid became more and more ridiculous the skeptics will out persuade the leaders who started the effort in the first place.

These contests go on all of the time. If it was not built into human genes to behave this way humanity would be different. The Northern colder climates push man kind to plan ahead.

Its a complex of genetic and environmental influences including cultural.
I doubt strongly there is "A" gene. I personally think there are some traits that do contribute..I think which part of the brain we use more (right hemisphere vs. left) has some influence. Same as if someone is more technically oriented (math logic hard sciences) vs more verbal/artistic.

I've ever read in this forum, smoogatz.