Be nice to theists - they are victims of their genes

by cofty 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • James Brown
    James Brown

    I can hear the eyeballs rolling as I type this.

    This makes sense to me.

    I start my world view with the bible and the bible supports this finding,

    that people believing in God is genetic. 

     

    I have read the bible cover to cover 7 times since leaving the Watchtower and the predominant theme

    I found in the bible is predestination.

     

    I ask myself why do I believe? and why do others not believe? 

     

    If one believes in God and the bible they are destined to and if one believes in no God and that the bible is a crock of xxx that also is predestined.

    Romans 9

     

    13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (held in [a]relative disregard in comparison with My feeling for Jacob).

    14 What shall we conclude then? Is there injustice upon God’s part? Certainly not!

    15 For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion (pity) on whom I will have compassion.

    16 So then [God’s gift] is not a question of human will and human effort, but of God’s mercy. [It depends not on one’s own willingness nor on his strenuous exertion as in running a race, but on God’s having mercy on him.]

    17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, I have raised you up for this very purpose of displaying My power in [dealing with] you, so that My name may be proclaimed the whole world over.

    18 So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills.

    19 You will say to me, Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist and withstand His will?

    20 But who are you, a mere man, to criticize and contradict and answer back to God? Will what is formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?

    21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same mass (lump) one vessel for beauty and distinction and honorable use, and another for menial or ignoble and dishonorable use?

    22 What if God, although fully intending to show [the awfulness of] His wrath and to make known His power and authority, has tolerated with much patience the vessels (objects) of [His] anger which are ripe for destruction?

    23 And [what if] He thus purposes to make known and show the wealth of His glory in [dealing with] the vessels (objects) of His mercy which He has prepared beforehand for glory,

    24 Even including ourselves whom He has called, not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles (heathen)?

    25 Just as He says in Hosea, Those who were not My people I will call My people, and her who was not beloved [I will call] My beloved.

    26 And it shall be that in the very place where it was said to them, You are not My people, they shall be called sons of the living God.

    27 And Isaiah calls out (solemnly cries aloud) over Israel: Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant (a small part of them) will be saved [[b]from perdition, condemnation, judgment]!

    28 For the Lord will execute His sentence upon the earth [He will conclude and close His account with men completely and without delay], rigorously cutting it short in His justice.

    29 It is as Isaiah predicted, If the Lord of hosts had not left us a seed [from which to propagate descendants], we [Israel] would have fared like Sodom and have been made like Gomorrah.

    30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles who did not follow after righteousness [who did not seek salvation by right relationship to God] have attained it by faith [a righteousness imputed by God, based on and produced by faith],

    31 Whereas Israel, though ever in pursuit of a law [for the securing] of righteousness (right standing with God), actually did not succeed in fulfilling the Law.

    32 For what reason? Because [they pursued it] not through faith, relying [instead] on the merit of their works [they did not depend on faith but on what they could do]. They have stumbled over the Stumbling Stone.

    33 As it is written, Behold I am laying in Zion a Stone that will make men stumble, a Rock that will make them fall; but he who believes in Him [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] shall not be put to shame nor be disappointed in his expectations.

     

     

    so according to the scriptures some can not help believing and some can not help unbelieving.

    And now science and genetics  is supporting this biblical view. 

     

     

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    I start my world view with the bible and the bible supports this finding,

    that people believing in God is genetic. 

     I have read the bible cover to cover 7 times since leaving the Watchtower and the predominant theme

    I found in the bible is predestination.

    Predestination isn't genetic, in fact, predestination removes any iota of free-will and would remove any possible genetic component.]

    so according to the scriptures some can not help believing and some can not help unbelieving.

    And now science and genetics  is supporting this biblical view.

    Those verses say God decides, also removing a genetic component.

  • DJS
    DJS

    James,

    A pre-disposition is not a pre-destination. Believing is ultimately a choice, even for those predisposed towards religion. The science suggests a strong correlation between intelligence, education and a rational personality and secularism/atheism, just as the tendencies for those with a less rational personality, less intelligence and less education show a strong correlation towards religiosity.

    Lots of empirical data support this, but a strong correlation is not a direct, cause and effect, correlation. With more education, including a more wordily, sophisticated experience, religion can wane even amongst those more typically disposed to it. 

    Nature/nurture is of course alive and well; no one disputes that, and Cofty's OP doesn't suggest that.

    To me, the nature/nurture issue isn't what this OP is about; it is about how we evolved as a species to have a high disposition towards religiosity. That is interesting. Examining the difficulties of the species to survive is where it all starts. Maslow's hierarchy suggests that, when all of your time is spent looking for food and fending off threats (security), there isn't much time for more highly evolved pursuits. Throw in thousands of years of superstition and irrational fear of a god killing you on the spot for something you did, killing your child for something you did, making your crops fail or the rain to go away because of something you did, that you will be punished after death with fire, purgatory, eternal destruction or being re-incarnated as a worm for something you did, and Cofty's OP makes a lot more sense.

    Our DNA looks like it does for a reason. And, when you consider that religion has, for thousands of years, discouraged research, rational analysis and academic achievement, dear god there is no wonder we bred a predisposition into our DNA for religiosity. For many religions and for thousands of years, only the hierarchy (hieroglyphics) and the religious elite were educated or even allowed to be educated.

    Absent these external, social and cultural forces, our species should begin to evolve away from it. And it is, predictably. Thank god (I'm an atheist so this is simply a phrase to me).

    Even today, one of the first things that the high control religions do when they take over is to kill the academics and the rational/secular, or attempt to silence them.



  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    Yeah some people will believe no matter how absurd a belief is. Only a programmed code can explain this behaviour. 
  • abiather
    abiather

    Just like water has TEMPORARY nature [becoming vapor when heated above 100 degree] and PERMANENT nature [liquidity], humans too have temporary nature [atheistic or agnostic] and permanent nature [being in tune with their source]!

    Yet atheists and agosics will not be satisfied till they revert to their permanent nature—like people who reached the zenith of material prosperity like Buddha, Bill Gates ….

    Tryig to link theism with gene is an act of self-consolation!

  • GrreatTeacher
    GrreatTeacher

    In the nature vs. nurture debate very rarely can you completely control for one or the other. Monozygotic (identical) twins allows science to completely control for the nature portion because they have the exact same genetic code. 

    So,the remainder of the behavior would be a function of nurture, right? Not so fast, because twins are raised in the same environment. So, finding a pair of identical twins (same nature) raised in a different environment (different nurture) would allow us to draw the conclusion that similarities of behavior would be a function of the similarities of nature (in this case the identical genome). The environment (they grew up in different homes) would, in this case not be a cause of similarity at all since it is completely different.

    Straight causation would need a 100% similarity of behavior rate ( in this case, religiosity). In this case, there was a 62% similarity of religiosity behavior. Is this significant? Yes, because no correlation at all would be 0%, and this is very nearly the statistic found (2%) in the case of fraternal twins raised apart. They had different nature (genes) and nurture (  environment.

    So, we can conclude that there is a 62% correlation between genes and religiosity. Statistically speaking, this is a strong positive correlation.

    However, this leaves room for other factors as well.

    This is why the natural experiment of identical twins raised apart gives us tremendous insight into the relative amounts of nature and nurture that cause certain human behaviors.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Thank you GreatTeacher for your clear explanation.

    I highly recommend the book "Nature via Nurture" by Matt Ridley

  • JeffT
    JeffT
    If religiosity is determined by genetics, so is non-religiosity, it just means that religious people don't have the religion gene.  It would be equally valid to say "feel sorry for atheists they're victims of their genes."  
  • cofty
    cofty
    Yes it would. But why would you feel sorry for people who are genetically inclined to avoid falling for superstitious delusions?
  • JeffT
    JeffT

    I wouldn't.   Neither am I sorry for people who are theists.  Why are you?  

    I'm just pointing out that both sets of people got to where they are by the roll of the dice when the sperm hit the egg.  If this study is correct the atheist didn't get to his position by virtue of superior intellect any more than the believer got to his via superior moral character.  

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit