Comments on: What the “god gene” means.

By: Peyton

Peyton — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:24:30 +0000

What would a world with only the people who had been geneticaly enginered to eliminate the “God Gene” be like? My guess would be a lot like Nazis!

Understand I am not religious nor do I belive in any sort of “God Being”. But I do belive I am a spiritual person.

I am also very familar with Dr. Hammer’s work. In fact, I speculated on the existence of the “God Gene” years before he did. That gene is VMAT2.

Religion is irrational yes, but it must serve some survival purpose or it would not have evolved into our gentic code.

I like the civilty and intelect of this forum and i will be back.

Currently writing my 6th book on these and related subjects.

My ideal is to try to write in a meaningful but non-technical way so the averge person can “get it”. The title of my book now is The TOOLS OF GOD.

I do not want to preach to the choir like so many athesist do. MY objective is to get religous people to think deeepr than their particular religious dogma. Hence, I do not want to allienate them, that closes off communication and would defeat my purpose. Peace be with you all. Peyton Quinn

By: Erika Price

Erika Price — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:10:42 +0000

Nick, you have it absolutely right. Neither trait comes from one gene alone. Dr. Hammer came under fire for both of his findings, not because his methods proved off-base, but because of the way he marketed them. In an interview with a religious radio station, Hammer admitted he should have called the book A God Gene, not The God Gene. The gene regulates highly spiritual experiences, “holy moments” if you will. That certainly doesn’t explain the whole of blind faith that takes place in religions’ lesser moments.

By: Jason Rayl

Jason Rayl — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:36:10 +0000

It also brings Darwin into the cloister in a big way. I recall an anthropological study published several years ago in Scientific America that examined the “survivability index” of religious communities and found that commonly-held beliefs promoted not only security within a group but also was a strong “selector” for breeding partners.

What it does is make the whole “god process” part of the machine, that free will is present not when we choose to believe but when we choose not to, because that is a denial of salvation, which must be accepted as a conscious choice.

It also renders, as Hammer and you point out, all religion equal–it’s not the tenets of a faith but the act of embracing it that matters, never mind the details.

It also suggests, however remotely, that we could “select” this gene out–or have embryonic gene therapy to eliminate it.

What would a generation of constitutionally non-spiritual people be like?

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:32:53 +0000

Interesting commentary. Most people (if anyone really at all) aren’t familiar with the contributions of individual genes on behavior. The tendency is to misinterpret the finding as an end all explanation of some aspect of behavior like homosexuality or belief. And it’s not certain that both just “boil down to a matter of genetics”. Individual genes usually narrow down the possibilities for behavior when exposed to certain environmental factors. This discovery really shouldn’t be publicly touted as anything more than progress in the quest to understand human behavior. The general public, and especially the reactionary religious community, does not have the experience or knowledge base to understand the effect of this single gene on behavior.