The so-called "god gene" only supports the idea that *belief* in religion may be beneficial. It has no bearing on whether those beliefs need to be true to confer the benefit. If anything, this is an argument against religion, since it provides a biological explanation for the ubiquity of theism.

The belief that one's spouse is beautiful also provides a selective advantage.

That doesn't mean she is actually beautiful.

FAIL

I have yet to see a scientific finding that supports the existence of a supernatural entity.

FAIL.

I love Sundays on Fark. People go to church and then rush home to start guzzling beer and by dinner time we have folks who can barely tie their shoes being "deep thinkers" and trying to pick a fight.

Humans have ~23 thousand genes.

There is not a gene for f*cking skepticism, for piety, for empiricism or for dissent. There is not enough room in the bloody genome to map each gene 1:1 to our nebulous constructs of what we think there should be genes for.

Goddamn liberal arts majors.

Oooh, where did I put the popcorn?

Best part is the letter to the editor from Sam Harris. Was there once a a time when the church denied the existence of genes? That would be funny if they used to.

What does that headline have to do with this link?

FTFA: If religion is good for humans, as evolutionary biologists now seem to recognize, doesn't it seem reasonable that the Creator would design us with a congeniality to receive Him?

That question breaks so many rules of rationality and logic I am left shocked to the point of incoherence.

fnorgby: The so-called "god gene" only supports the idea that *belief* in religion may be beneficial. It has no bearing on whether those beliefs need to be true to confer the benefit. If anything, this is an argument against religion, since it provides a biological explanation for the ubiquity of theism.

i came here to say this. subby needs to learn how to read.

I suppose the headline is technically correct via wordplay, although it is something you'd find on the likes of FOXNews.com.

I stopped reading at "god gene" ...

Why can't science focus on real phenomena? Like the ectotachyons that I just made up?

yogaFLAME: There is not a gene for f*cking skepticism, for piety, for empiricism or for dissent.

Nor is there a gene for being bipedal. Yet, the fact that humans are bipedal is controlled by our genes. The human brain, while a very flexible computer, still gets its initial programming from genes.

fnorgby: The so-called "god gene" only supports the idea that *belief* in religion may be beneficial.

Which, this is arguably a tautology. Humans have been pretty successful, as a species, and they have, almost universally, had a religious bent since time immemorial. If religion isn't beneficial, it is at least not harmful, in an evolutionary sense.

DamnYankees: FTFA: If religion is good for humans, as evolutionary biologists now seem to recognize, doesn't it seem reasonable that the Creator would design us with a congeniality to receive Him?

That question breaks so many rules of rationality and logic I am left shocked to the point of incoherence.

First, welcome to Fark. Second, it's a silly question, indeed.

Third, subby's a sad troll.

The Reverend Professor Smith is either senile or didn't read the article past the first sentence.

Probably both.

Mordant: I love Sundays on Fark. People go to church and then rush home to start guzzling beer and by dinner time we have folks who can barely tie their shoes being "deep thinkers" and trying to pick a fight.

WTF you going to do about it? huh?!

yogaFLAME: Humans have ~23 thousand genes.

There is not a gene for f*cking skepticism, for piety, for empiricism or for dissent. There is not enough room in the bloody genome to map each gene 1:1 to our nebulous constructs of what we think there should be genes for.

Goddamn liberal arts majors.

Is there a gene for being gay?

Phrenological genetics?

t3knomanser: Yet, the fact that humans are bipedal is controlled by our genes.

No argument here. I just take umbrage with people who like to map a gene to anything other than the production of a protein. There are so many confounding elements between [protein] and [abstract social concept] that trying to connect the dots between the two is a waste of time at best. Makes for snappy press releases though, I guess.

yogaFLAME: I just take umbrage with people who like to map a gene to anything other than the production of a protein.

Understandable. It's a gross oversimplification.

DamnYankees: What does that headline have to do with this link?

Pudding.

Why would poets and artists--or any group of thinking people who value the mind--be attracted to a philosophy that is so tailor-made to encourage murderous barbarians? And why should they believe that gene/meme reductionism has any foundation in fact? The ultimate irony is that this philosophy implies that Darwinism itself is just another meme, competing in the infectivity sweepstakes by attaching itself to that seductive word "science." Dawkins ceaselessly urges us to be rational, but be does so in the name of a philosophy that implies that no such thing as rationality exists because our thoughts are at the mercy of our genes and memes. The proper conclusion is that the Dawkins poor brain has been infected by the Darwin meme, a virus of the mind if ever there was one, and we wonder if he will ever be able to find the cure. ~ Phillip Johnson

DamnYankees: FTFA: If religion is good for humans, as evolutionary biologists now seem to recognize, doesn't it seem reasonable that the Creator would design us with a congeniality to receive Him?

That question breaks so many rules of rationality and logic I am left shocked to the point of incoherence.

If God was God, why would he need to impose a congeniality into humans to have us receive Him? Shouldn't His glory be self-evident enough without some genetic hack?

"Oh my God!"

/Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Bevets: be attracted to a philosophy that is so tailor-made to encourage murderous barbarians?

I don't know, why are so many creative people drawn to religion?

t3knomanser: yogaFLAME: There is not a gene for f*cking skepticism, for piety, for empiricism or for dissent.

Nor is there a gene for being bipedal. Yet, the fact that humans are bipedal is controlled by our genes. The human brain, while a very flexible computer, still gets its initial programming from genes.

There are many genes for bipedalism. One has been clearly identified. A Turkish family (new window) who is unable to walk upright led geneticists to find the first gene that is clearly connected to the ability to walk upright. However, they also are mentally retarded, so most likely it's a part that controls how their brain processes motor control.

I suspect the "god gene" is actually a complex interaction of genes that causes humans to seek the simplest explanation for things. This can manifest as accepting an explanation given to you (God causes rain) or seeking an explanation that requires even fewer assumptions (which can't be done until we obtain a certain level of scientific advancement to get the proper background knowledge).

jso2897: DamnYankees: What does that headline have to do with this link?

Pudding.

240 dollars worth?

Basiorana: There are many genes for bipedalism.

That's kind of my point. There is an entire complex of genes that's required to actually be able to walk upright, and it's not even just the genes alone, but cross-interactions between genes.

Basiorana: I suspect the "god gene" is actually a complex interaction of genes that causes humans to seek the simplest explanation for things.

I think it's related to mirror neurons and intentionality modeling. The class of problems our brains evolved to solve biased our brains towards looking to explain observed phenomena based on intentional actors.

Look at it this way: if the grass rustles and you assume it's a lion coming to eat your ass, you run away. Even if you're wrong, you don't lose much by clearing out. Our brains look for patterns and try and ascribe them to an intelligence similar to human intelligence.

Bevets: Why would poets and artists--or any group of thinking people who value the mind--be attracted to a philosophy that is so tailor-made to encourage murderous barbarians? And why should they believe that gene/meme reductionism has any foundation in fact? The ultimate irony is that this philosophy implies that Darwinism itself is just another meme, competing in the infectivity sweepstakes by attaching itself to that seductive word "science." Dawkins ceaselessly urges us to be rational, but be does so in the name of a philosophy that implies that no such thing as rationality exists because our thoughts are at the mercy of our genes and memes. The proper conclusion is that the Dawkins poor brain has been infected by the Darwin meme, a virus of the mind if ever there was one, and we wonder if he will ever be able to find the cure. ~ Phillip Johnson

I don't really look at myself as the kind of person who craves attention, but I've never been to therapy so there's probably a lot of stuff about myself that I don't know. ~ Weird Al Yankovic

DamnYankees: What does that headline have to do with this link?

Drew has instructed the mods to greenlight troll headlines because they invariably start flamewars, his pageview bread and butter. He is an unconscionable whore and a hypocrite who published a book on how the media is full of shiat, only to make his website full of shiat so he could make $400,000 a year instead of $300,000.

No empirical evidence + logical inconsistency = nonexistence

Recent reports show that Levi Strauss had a jean-making gene.

Bevets: Why would poets and artists--or any group of thinking people who value the mind--be attracted to a philosophy that is so tailor-made to encourage murderous barbarians? And why should they believe that gene/meme reductionism has any foundation in fact? The ultimate irony is that this philosophy implies that Darwinism itself is just another meme, competing in the infectivity sweepstakes by attaching itself to that seductive word "science." Dawkins ceaselessly urges us to be rational, but be does so in the name of a philosophy that implies that no such thing as rationality exists because our thoughts are at the mercy of our genes and memes. The proper conclusion is that the Dawkins poor brain has been infected by the Darwin meme, a virus of the mind if ever there was one, and we wonder if he will ever be able to find the cure. ~ Phillip Johnson

Why would anyone give a darn about what some moony has to say about this issue?

Are you a moony, Bevets?

Do you worship Sun Myung Moon?

Johnson does. Do you agree with him?

/I know that you. personally, are a troll, but do you think others should worship Sun Myung Moon? Because quoting Johnson implies that you do. Is that what you want?

Since when does science -- which is about gaining information via ordered testing and re-testing to gather data and attempt to explain various facets of the natural world and universe -- have anything to do with religion? Religion is just a specific philosophy that a bunch of people agree upon with superstition added in.

Basiorana: is unable to walk upright

I come from an Irish family that is often unable to walk upright

Abstruse: Since when does science -- which is about gaining information via ordered testing and re-testing to gather data and attempt to explain various facets of the natural world and universe -- have anything to do with religion? Religion is just a specific philosophy that a bunch of people agree upon with superstition added in.


Oh Geez, I hope Kerpal doesn't show up.

t3knomanser: Bevets: be attracted to a philosophy that is so tailor-made to encourage murderous barbarians?

I don't know, why are so many creative people drawn to religion?

Well, it used to be the best place to hide from the eyes of the inquisitors. Pretend to be a sheep, and don't get caught.

"Thou art god."

Lots of scientists are religious.

MacG: Lots of scientists are religious.

And lots of married people have affairs.

God-is-a-Taco: Recent reports show that Levi Strauss had a jean-making gene.

So was he the Jean Genie?

FloydA: Oh Geez, I hope Kerpal doesn't show up.

I decided to get to the bottom of this whole thing and find out why science and religion are seen to be adversaries. They're completely different ways to answer completely different questions. Science attempts to answer "How?" while philosophy (and by extension religion) attempts to answer "Why?"

Abstruse: FloydA: Oh Geez, I hope Kerpal doesn't show up.

I decided to get to the bottom of this whole thing and find out why science and religion are seen to be adversaries. They're completely different ways to answer completely different questions. Science attempts to answer "How?" while philosophy (and by extension religion) attempts to answer "Why?"

Philosophy and religion are not "by extension" of each other.

Religion answers absolutely nothing.

Bevets: Why would poets and artists--or any group of thinking people who value the mind--be attracted to a philosophy that is so tailor-made to encourage murderous barbarians?

I agree 100%:

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I guess God was down with abortion, as long as he didn't like the fetus, personally.

Science is great even if it points towards an evolutionary advantages due to religion. That has nothing to do with whether any religion is true or not.

Science would still be great even if it pointed toward some religion being true. In fact it would be incredibly exciting if that were ever to happen. So far, it hasn't, and with regard to most current religions, it seems like if one of them were true there should be some evidence of that. Quite the opposite, religious claims are disproven, forcing organized religions to declare increasing amounts of their teachings metaphorical (or use totally nonsensical and dishonest arguments to continue to stick to them as factual).

We can't currently explain or prove everything. That doesn't mean that asserting any answer is equally valid. It means the only intellectually honest answer is "I don't know". Saying "God did it" is a factual claim. You have to have at least some reason to make such a claim. Being unable to think of another explanation is not a valid reason.

Abstruse:Science attempts to answer "How?" while philosophy (and by extension religion) attempts to answer "Why?"

Religion really doesn't try very hard to explain anything. It's a panacea.

Abstruse: Science attempts to answer "How?" while philosophy (and by extension religion) attempts to answer "Why?"

That's right. For example, "Why is the sun hot?" is completely beyond the realm of science, and it is inappropriate for scientists to attempt to try and bring this down to a mundane level. Why questions cannot be answered by science.

Abstruse: Science attempts to answer "How?" while philosophy (and by extension religion) attempts to answer "Why?"

What is the difference between a "how" question and a "why" question?

To the Editor:

If religion is good for humans, as evolutionary biologists now seem to recognize, doesn't it seem reasonable that the Creator would design us with a congeniality to receive Him?



/I'm going to make a little guess here and say that if there was no evidence for an genetic proclivity toward religion, then it would be 'reasonable' to assume god wanted us to work it out for ourselves or that religion is a test of our faith or some such thing. God works in mysterious ways yadda yadda yadda.