[mixin visuals]

An American molecular geneticist has concluded after comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.

His findings have been criticized by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a "God gene" and say the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith — that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain's electrical impulses.

Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe.

[spiky_dog]

not "scientists", but one singular "scientist". dr. hamer is most famous for his 1993 study purporting to show male homosexuality to be an x-linked trait. sound reasonble? well, only if you like flawed methodology, very small n values, and a lack of repeatability.

with this stellar track record, along with the fact that he's pushing a book about his "god gene" without researching what downstream effects it has (not to mention the weak correlation between his results and the survey questions to begin with), i would not pay any attention whatsoever to this guy.

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/studies.html

[TheBadgerHunter]

To top it all of their was another thread on the same topic a little while ago.

Timeline, Lock, +1.

[Blue Flame]

God gene? think not.

[Jaey]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
To top it all of there was another thread on the same topic a little while ago.

Timeline, Lock, +1.

Fixed

[Superchicken]

See you can get good press for telling gay people it's not their fault for being gay (I don't know if they're so happy with it why they see it as a fault though...). But you get bad press for telling "religious" people that they didn't have a choice. That said depending on your Calvinistic leans this may make sense... that said I don't buy it in the least. I think some people naturally are more inclined to not be as skeptical, or are more artistic or something... or in some cases just smarter. But I don't believe for a second that there is a God gene. The vast majority of people believe in something. Thus this study is bunk.

[SamuraiDL]

wow... don't really know quite what to think...

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
See you can get good press for telling gay people it's not their fault for being gay (I don't know if they're so happy with it why they see it as a fault though...). But you get bad press for telling "religious" people that they didn't have a choice. That said depending on your Calvinistic leans this may make sense... that said I don't buy it in the least. I think some people naturally are more inclined to not be as skeptical, or are more artistic or something... or in some cases just smarter. But I don't believe for a second that there is a God gene. The vast majority of people believe in something. Thus this study is bunk.

I haven't read into any of this, but it does appear that his scientific methods may be flawed. However, you're statement that 'the vast majority of people believe in something' is not enough for you to draw the conclusion you have. In fact, it's a lot worse than the guy in question.

Not to break this into a religious discussion, but it does confuse me when the only proof people have for believing in God (or a god, whatever your religion - something a lot of people on this board need to remember is that Christianity isn't the only one...) is the same 'proof' I would give if I decided to believe that my left sock made the universe; although, it wouldn't involve a rather old book... Red Dwarf did a very good take on this subject.
OK, I'm done. And drunk - so there's no need for any heated responses.

Oh, and do you realise how many times you say 'that said'? It's fucking annoying.

[ManOfSteal]

It's about damn time they found that...

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by Black Book:
I haven't read into any of this, but it does appear that his scientific methods may be flawed. However, you're statement that 'the vast majority of people believe in something' is not enough for you to draw the conclusion you have. In fact, it's a lot worse than the guy in question.

Not to break this into a religious discussion, but it does confuse me when the only proof people have for believing in God (or a god, whatever your religion - something a lot of people on this board need to remember is that Christianity isn't the only one...) is the same 'proof' I would give if I decided to believe that my left sock made the universe; although, it wouldn't involve a rather old book... Red Dwarf did a very good take on this subject.
OK, I'm done. And drunk - so there's no need for any heated responses.

Oh, and do you realise how many times you say 'that said'? It's fucking annoying.

Between Christianity and Islam I'm pretty sure we have over half the world's population by a large margin, thus you could actually say even that the majority are Theists. Actually if this is true you could make a larger case for the suggestion that people who do not believe in anything are actually mutants since the majority of the world does believe in something by a large margin. Atheism and Agnosticism are like midgets in the play ground of world religions.

[Superchicken]

actually just to put things in perspective, a quick google search brought up this.

http://geocities.com/richleebruce/mystat.html

That said, expect to see Christianity continue to grow in the south. While you in North America and the west may continue to ignorantly believe the rest of the world is heading along the same way as you. You will find in Africa, Latin America, and Asia Christianity continues to grow, (though especially in Africa Islam grows)

[SamuraiDL]

glad I found mine before they had to dissect me.

[mixin visuals]

i think my god gene has mutated