I'm fearless, in this regard, having spent my entire life to date in that state:

Mother Theresa's confessions (if such a word could be used lightly given the context) similarly affirm Theology, that the greatest fear, or perhaps the greatest threat posed to believers, isn't death, or evil, or something else, but the absence of God.

And never having had any ambitions toward beatification, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. There has obviously been a lot of intellectual energy, and even occasional rigor involved in analyzing these issues over the centuries, but to me, it always reads like a dispatch from an alien planet. I worry more about cancer, cardiac problems, and terrorists getting nukes myself. But then, theology was never my strong suit.

Why I never want to be a saint: you have to die first.

This is part of the reason why I am convinced that the propensity to believe in religion has got to be genetic. As someone who also lacks this propensity, I can tell you that I have never been attracted to it nor have I understood why it is so important to have around. I simply don't "get it" and probably never well. For me, the desire to believe in religion is as much of a mystery to me as the desire for homesexual sex.

On the other hand, if you read some of the conservative christian blogs, its very clear that religion is central to many peoples' sense of identity and life. These people simply cannot imagine life without it.

I mean, its got to be genetic. There's simply no other possible explanation.

Personally, I believe it can be explained without genetics...

Imagine a world, where an all-powerfull and all-wise being has children. To teach the children to overcome the common follies of humanity, he places them in a world created by and for them. He then gives them a gift: free agency. Each of them can choose to how they want to live, within the limits of the system. Some choose to live by asking for his help every few seconds, and he gives it. Others want to go it alone, and so he does not show himself in their lives.

(Of course, a few of the go it aloners make life miserable for others, but like I say, we're here to learn about the follies of man.)

Just my two cents. There does otherwise seem to be a paradox where believers see God everywhere, and non-believers see God nowhere. And it's not just that the beleivers are stupid or misguided, as the liberals believe - there are very smart religious people, and in fact there are people that have switched sides throughout their lives...

-David

David,

I know there are religious people who are smart and athiests who are dumb. To suggest otherwise is not my point. Nor is my point to say that those who lack the need for religion are "better" than those who do. My point is that even as a kid, the religious paradym never had any appeal to me. It simply made no sense to me whatsoever, nor did it give me any warm fuzzies. The religious concept simply does not register on my mind (nor apparently in the mind of our host here).

During the late 80's, when I lived in SoCal, I was heavily into the whole space development/libertarian/cryonics/life extension scene, with many of my personal contacts being of poeple in this melieu. None of these people seem to have any interest in religion. Not that they wre hostile to it, it was just that it simply did not matter to them. These people seemed to be healthy, functional individuals who did not need religion at all.

The fact that the religious paradym made no impression, either positive or negative, on these people, as opposed to them being actively hostile towards it, like the liberal-left, is striking to me.

The fact that the enotional (not intellectual) responses towards religion differs so wildly between individuals is the reason why there has to be a genetic component to one's propensity to believe in religion. There is simply no other possible explanation.

Another point I forgot to mention.

Twin studies suggests that propensity for religious belief is indeed hereditary. I remember John Derbyshire (the Derb) making a comment about this on NR's corner some time ago.

The desire to believe in religion...

I think this is a common misconception.

I find very few people have a DESIRE to believe in religion. Many people will find a belief in God after years of running the other way. Some people desire to believe in God or a higher power. But even trying doesn't make it so. And if it is indeed a genetic trait, why then is Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son William a Christian activist and an evangelist?

Some people believe in God, some don't. Some people strive for it and never get there. Some people in spite of belief never trust themselves. Many no matter when they become believers, say a prayer written by St. Augustine that in part says,

Breathe out my doubts and uncertainties

It's carrying on in the face of doubt that makes the belief more firm. But I'm certain that many believers die with a niggling doubt.

Greg,
is there a system available OTHER than the one ending in death?

if it is indeed a genetic trait, why then is Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son William a Christian activist and an evangelist?

That just means that it's a recessive gene that skipped a generation...

is there a system available OTHER than the one ending in death?

Not yet. But the century is young.

I think it's only genetic in the sense that every human has the capability to believe in something that can't be properly proved.

One common thread of humanity is that once you believe something, you also typically believe coincidences that support your views, and ignore ones that don't. This positive-feedback loop usually just causes people to gain more and more reasons to strengthen their beliefs.

And it's not just true regarding religion (pro or anti). There are dozens, if not hundreds, of common beliefs that resemble 'Belief in God'. How about Abortion (pro or con), Global Warming, 9/11 truthers, moon landing hoaxers, Curse of the Bambino, positive effects of breast feeding, benefits of buying a foreign car, Michigan worthy of a top 5 ranking, whatever. It's just human nature that beliefs perpetuate themselves.

Michigan worthy of a top 5 ranking

Heretic! Get out the torches!

I don't know why it is, but it's clear to me that many people need to believe something. And it's also clear to me that if traditional religion isn't available, some of those people will believe in creeds that are much more destructive, such as Scientology or totalitarian political philosophies. So on balance I think that traditional religion (at least Judaism and Christianity, perhaps others, maybe not Islam) is beneficial.

...positive effects of breast feeding...

proven fact.

...positive effects of breast feeding...

proven fact.

I don't want to take this thread OT, and don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd say that specific individual circumstances would far outweigh such a blanket statement.

And thank you for helping to prove my point.

I don't know why it is, but it's clear to me that many people need to believe something. And it's also clear to me that if traditional religion isn't available, some of those people will believe in creeds that are much more destructive, such as Scientology or totalitarian political philosophies

True, almost certainly of majority of humans. And it is equally clear to me that a significant minority, -- myself included, -- have no such need. The wonderful term for this is "apatheists" -- those who are simply left cold by any call for "something bigger than yourself".

I suspect that was always the case, but until very recently there were serious dangers in refusing to at least go through the motions of some religion. Hence everyone seemed to be religious.

Not too many people think about religion from God's perspective. Wouldn't an all-powerful creator have enough self esteem to not need worship or belief? What would we think of a graduate student that creates a computer simulation of the universe down to living creatures who demands such attention from the creations?

A philosopher/mathmatician (Pascal? I forget) once put it somewhat like this.

If you believe and you're right OR if you believe and you're wrong the outcome is imminently preferable to not believing and being wrong.

Problem with that statement is that it is impossible to simply choose to believe something you know is not true. I could say "Yes, there is Santa Claus", or "yes, the Earth is flat". But I would not actually believe either statement. Likewise, if you do not believe in God, but are afraid of being wrong, the most you can do is go through the motions of worship and prayer "just in case" someone is listening, without actually believing. IOW, lie. Assuming God exists, he will either see through such deception and punish you for being an unbeliever anyway, or he does not actually care about beliefs and only about being worshipped. In the latter case, Pascal's Wager wins out, but how many Christians actually think God is that vain and insecure?

BTW, Islam is much more consistent in this regard than Christianity. To become a Muslim, you must submit to Allah and Allah's dictates. To get to Paradise, you are not required to believe, just to obey. So taking Pascal's Wager to a logical conclusion, one must become a Muslim, not a Christian.

Sam: I'm thinking an all powerful creator doesn't "need" worship or belief. If there is an all powerful creator, and that creator doesn't need our belief or worship, but still wants it that way, I would judge it must have something to do with what we need or should have. Why we might need that, and whether it was reasonable for such a creator to create us with such a need is a different, possibly complicated topic. Consider however, the relation between a father and a child. The father never really "needed" a child in the first place and, in fact, many men never have children and never needed them. However, once a father has a child, I think it's obvious that the child deeply needs a relationship with the father--and that relationship benefits the father even though the father didn't "need" the relationship in the first place. We are not ogres when we produce children who need us, but we would be if we neglected that need. To carry the analogy further, there are times our children reject our parenting, even when they need it badly.

About a genetic component to religion:

Maybe. I think that nurture plays a very strong role as well. I'd be willing to be that people who grew up being taught throughout childhood that there is a God, and educated about the philosophical and historic reasons to so believe will be much more likely to believe in God than people who grew up being taught throughout childhood that there is no God, and educated about the philosophical and historic reasons to so believe.

But I also believe in free will. Our destiny in no genetically predetermined. What we believe is not only determined by the physical activity of our brains following purely natural laws.

If there is an all powerful creator, and that creator doesn't need our belief or worship, but still wants it that way, I would judge it must have something to do with what we need or should have.

If that is the case, I would interpret some people's lack of need for God (which is not the same as rejection) as the sign that they really do not need him. IOW, father already allowed these particular children "off on their own" and does not show himself.

Question:

Is the propensity to believe that the propensity to believe in religion is genetically determined genetically determined?

Is the propensity to believe that the propensity to believe in religion is genetically determined genetically determined?

I'd say no but my dad disagrees.