Talk:God gene

MAJOR REVISIONS

The previous version of this page had little resemblance to the actual arguments made in "The God Gene". None of the scientific facts were stated, the measurements used were not acurately described, and there was no description of the scientific methods. The new version accurately summarizes the arguments made in the book using straightforward journalistic standards. The controversy section was left intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.217.234 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a theory or a hypothesis?

Both are stated in the article - Scott 9:44 2010 July 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.210.76 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not religion, this is a serious attempt to explain some of the effects that religion claim are god.--Jirate 12:44, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Stub

I have added a stub to this article in the hope that a more knowledgeable person of the subject of the "God gene" can add more information. Specifically, I feel that more technical information of the gene itself, variations between individuals and how they are influenced by the strength/weakness of the gene, etc. Also, perhaps someone could include possible effects on various religions if the existence of this gene is confirmed. For example, would Christians need to re-examine predestination? AscendedAnathema 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Its not really a fact though. I don't think they have identified or even made very good guesses at which gene is this "god gene", So you cant really include stuff about that. -Icewedge 05:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary Views section NPOV

All of the points listed in this section are by religious people who aren't happy with the research. This section should be labled "controversy" because, to counter science with religion just doesn't make sense. Basically, the section says that religious people don't like his findings... what it should be is research by other scientists. -Quasipalm 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• It should be probably labeled, like "Relgious views on the Hypothesis" or something. However, there is surely scientific counter-arguements as the God gene is far from universally accepted. 74.137.230.39 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agreed and went ahead to change it. I saw this word in 20/20 and wanted to see more on this specific gene than its controversy. Nstarz 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's new!

There's an amusing essay [1] by Ronald Knox called "A New Cure for Religion", in which a mysterious scientist called Dr. Mahu discovers that the cause of religion is a special gland called glans Mahui, which can be induced or removed at will (but not re-introduced following its removal). Unfortunately for Mahu's theory, one young man converts to Catholicism some weeks after the good doctor has removed his "religion" once and for all! To which Mahu replied that it confirmed what he had always believed, that the superstitions of the Papists had nothing at all to do with true religion. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

God gene is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of.

SEriously? A god gene? These morons will jump to publishing a book on any little miniscule clue they have. I'm not religious at all and I don't even believe in a deity in the standard sense but come on.... Belief in God is a rational concept that we conclude through the use of logic. To say that there is a "god gene" furthers the ignorant view of modern darwinism-- one that is interp[reted as a demonic force that is set out to delude humanity.... I laugh at this article. The first sentence needs major revision. IT's a part of the brain that makes you happy, it has nothing to do with God. God is a concept concluded through the use of logic. I could say there's a milk gene which deludes people into believing in cartons of milk..... And besides, even if there is a god gene that only makes it more likely that a god of some form exists. Genes are based on reality. Let's remember that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.215.36 (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a dog gene, does that aid?

It is alleged that the center of emotion is the pituatary gland, there is a gene for that.
Nueronal distributions, or lack thereoff, are definitely genetically based.
Extreme stress causes neurotransmissor firing to create new neuronal pathways in order to solve a problem.
Death, destruction, extreme loss, imminant personal demise, the uselessness of it all, are stressors that need to be resolved. Theology is one of those manners in which those neurons attempt to resolve those stressors.
Schizofrenia and hallucinations caused by dehidration and lack of correct sustenance.
Mighty mushrooms, opium, cocaine, acids (LSD), and the occasional sting of a scorpion.

The creation of a structure to keep the peasants in line in case the lords become drastic. The cardinal cannot have the lords become drastic, that would cost the cardinal his head. So, the cardinal needs lot´s of followers, most willing cannon fodder for a trancendental cause. His cause and those similar to his. His functional job position and life-style. That too is analytical.

All those interactions are based on DNA creating a reactive chemical cauldron, genetic. That chemical cauldron causes imbalances with the analytical portions of a brain. The God gene is located somewhere in that analytical section of the human brain.

Do chimps belief in god and create religion? If so, then that gene must be similar to what humans have, if not, then it is somewhere in the difference.

(Fractalhints (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

The "Demonic Gene"

This is the gene that causes a person to "believe" that the God Gene truly exist. Certainly if one exist, than the other does as well. The more you argue that we all have genes that cause us to do certain things, the more believeable it is that something had to create that. The probability of that just happening for no appaerent reason goes way down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.114.66 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A "believe" gene. That must exist. Cogito ergo sum. I believe in the existance of myself, therefore I am.

That would be similar to megalomania. In spanish we can parse that into two portions to define the crypto linquistical semanticism. Megalo (Me lo calo, I accept that so placed upon me) and mania (from the hysteria the monkeys obtain when eating peanuts, mani a, mani being peanuts and "a" signifying to/towards). The true significance becomes clearer: The peanut to accept. Afterall, they aren´t wallnuts and definitely not coconuts. (Fractalhints (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Uh, no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.114.66 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"God Gene" is just a misnomer. The proposition isn't that the gene "causes belief in God" at all. The suggestion is that it favours a category of subjective experience. This may contribute to a higher probability of adopting a "belief in God" at the conscious level indirectly, but such belief isn't caused by the gene directly, it still has to be induced culturally. This is quite a difference, and renders criticism of the "reductionist views of faith" obsolete. It's just a stupid choice of title, and even the original author seems to have "backed away" from that title now. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-Transcendance

Everyone’s perception of God is due to their mind’s conditioning, unless they’ve experienced spiritual interaction; even then, the fallible conditioned mind translates this interaction accordingly. An atheist thinks he knows that god does not exist, without knowing what god is.

All life depicts a spiritual sentient god, a god that is able to perceive sensation, sensitive in perception or feeling; capable of feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive; spirit in nature; the progressive spiritual consciousness of the universe.

To man, God is whatever one wants god to be; it's a word invented by man. Logic dictates that everything, even God had a beginning. Everything, even God evolves or becomes stagnant and dies. Every living thing has a DNA signature; spirituality is part of the god gene.

Life evolved somewhere in the universe possibly trillions of years ago. The bonding of the first two righteous souls created a unity that was the beginning of what mankind calls God. Spirituality DNA within life transcended the physical realm and evolved via progression to become a superior, supreme spiritual life form; the God that oversees the development of the universe like a Master planner, which our souls will be a part of. See self-transcendance at http://urantia.us/urantia_united_summation.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.196.178 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not very professional

I just read now for the first time about this gene, so I do not know anything about the topic. However, it reads like popular press and is poor in philosophical terminology. I have taken the liberty to request a look-over from the philosophy portal. From the molecular side of things, how strong is the correlation between the allele and the psychological markers? e.g. people with the allele are x times more likely to be drawn to spirituality. Lastly, is there any peer-reviewed scientific literature to reference?--Squidonius (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know where to put this

Pentagon briefing on removal of god gene? Has anybody seen this or anything? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADFJlAggnY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it. It is not a real pentagon video. Or if it is, it is not correct. The MRI slides he is showing are not from 2 different people but actually from a 43 year old meth addict. It's taken from this case http://www.neurology.org/content/75/18_Supplement_1/S67.full.pdf+html Theothor32 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't this debunked?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this concept debunked years ago?SRXpert (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What about other animals?

Is there any evidence that other animals share this gene? Chimpanzees are our closest relative, sharing 96% of our DNA. Is there evidence that chimps share this, as well? And how about the other hominoids? Or besides hominoids, any other classes of animals? Are humans the only animal on Earth to have this? Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 20:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on God gene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/no_god_and_no_god_gene_either/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070813233431/http://www.srtp.org.uk:80/godgene.htm to http://www.srtp.org.uk/godgene.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)