Claiming you know Vs. actually Knowing

[_Sethbag]

GOd could have created us with a God gene.

Wow... cruelest cosmic joke ever.

Read my sig. God is a jackass, and that explains an awful lot.

[_Trinity]

I haven't been following this debate closely, as I generally do not enjoy reading through person disputes like this one, so I might have missed this, but here goes.

Regarding the God gene, has any research been done to determine whether belief, or tendency toward, belief in God has a genetic component? In other words, could a tendency to believe in God (or the supernatural writ large), and vice verse, be, to a degree, hard wired? I'm not implying any value judgment in the question, but I'm curious.

By way of comment, I don't find your analogy of the electron and God compelling. I'm not a physicist, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm guessing that, even if scientists cannot see electrons, they can more or less demonstrate their existence reasonably clearly. (What can one see with an electron microscope?)

The evidence for God is, I would think, much, much weaker. The existence of God might adequately explain natural phenomena, but so might other things, and often better, plus they offer a simpler explanation as opposed to a supernatural being running the universe. Many things once ascribed to God now have reasonably simple scientific or naturalistic explanations, so for he things we still cannot explain, which is a better bet, that there exists some natural explanation for it, which we have yet to discover, or that an all-powerful being residing in the ether somewhere is pulling the strings, as it were? The trend line strongly favors the former answer.

I can offer a theory that, in fact, a race of highly advanced aliens created the earth, the solar system, humans, and are controlling our destinies. They use super advanced computers to design the whole thing, and, for the hell of it, they intervene here and there out of whimsy, compassion, or whatever. My theory can likewise be invoked to explain all natural phenomena here on earth. Why is the God theory, ex ante, more credible than my alien theory?

Would you be willing to concede that, because scientists cannot see electrons, that this lends possible plausibility to my alien theory, given that we cannot see the aliens, and the fact that my theory explains adequately lots of natural phenomena?

God can be evoked to explain everything, and it nearly has over the years. So what?

Yes. Research has been done. Molecular biologist Dean Hamer covers it in detail in his book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes. Hamer claims it is the gene vmat2 that provides shots of intoxicating chemicals into the brain - specifically the frontal lobe and limbic systems. From his book:

The frontal lobe is the seat of concentration and attention; the limbic system is where powerful feelings, including rapture, are processed. More revealing is the fact that at the same time these regions flash to life, another important region—the parietal lobe at the back of the brain—goes dim. It's this lobe that orients the individual in time and space. Take it off-line, and the boundaries of the self fall away, creating the feeling of being at one with the universe. Combine that with what's going on in the other two lobes, and you can put together a profound religious experience.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Eventually we'll be able to describe what is going on in the brain in intoxicating detail when we see a tree. That does not mean the tree isn't real.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

I suspect most theists are theists not because it is some primitive gene defect as you like to presume, but because life really is a mystery and humans want to believe there is a purpose to it. Again, you never responded to the "fact" that we cannot see electrons, but scientists believe they exist because it conveniently explains why material objects don’t fall through out hands. Likewise, we cannot see God, but his/her/its existence conveniently explains a lot about the beauty in the world we live in; things science has not been able to explain.

It would not be shocking if science did explain why we see beauty in the world. Science might be able to articulate how our brain responds to certain patterns in nature to produce the "beauty" perception. Likewise, it is unclear how God provides a heuristically meaningful means to explain the existence of beauty either in perception or fact. I don't believe in God because God is an explanation for the fact that I see beauty and I doubt you do either. Perhaps more accurately, I believe in God like I believe in beauty.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

I think the case against Mercury is stronger than Kevin stated. Why would predisposition to belief in God be a defect? Is genetic predisposition to belief in trees a defect? Do we regard the blind as the enlightened ones? If Mecury truly cannot see God, if Mecury is truly spirtually blind, then why not regard Mecury as the defective one?

[_Mercury]

Eventually we'll be able to describe what is going on in the brain in intoxicating detail when we see a tree. That does not mean the tree isn't real.

So by your logic the fact that we cannot see God totally invalidates the idea of Gods existence.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Eventually we'll be able to describe what is going on in the brain in intoxicating detail when we see a tree. That does not mean the tree isn't real.

So by your logic the fact that we cannot see God totally invalidates the idea of Gods existence.

1) We can see God. Most of us anyway. If you are being hyper-literal, then no I don't mean visually. I mean most of us have perceptions of God. If you say you don't, then you say you don't. Perhaps you've corrupted your noetic faculties with sin, perhaps not. But calling everyone else defective is a lot like a schizophrenic thinking everyone else is crazy because they don't see the thought-stealers.

2) My logic is that simply describing the brain states when one perceives or thinks they perceive some aspect of reality doesn't mean the object of that brain state isn't real. It isn't enough to just show that when someone thinks they perceive something X, Y, and Z happen in the brain. That is true of any perception, many of which you likely think are real.

[_Trinity]

1) We can see God. Most of us anyway. If you are being hyper-literal, then no I don't mean visually. I mean most of us have perceptions of God. If you say you don't, then you say you don't. Perhaps you've corrupted your noetic faculties with sin, perhaps not. But calling everyone else defective is a lot like a schizophrenic thinking everyone else is crazy because they don't see the thought-stealers.

Does God exist in a vacuum? Suppose you were born on a planet where only a handful of people existed and none had heard of the concept of God. Would you think of it all on your own? Nature has provided man logic and the use of his senses in order to validate aspects of reality. The notion of God contradicts many aspects of such logic and sense. In fact, those who do not subscribe to the idea that the mind creates the utility of a divine being would like you to suspend logic and the use of your senses in order to validate the existence of God. God becomes the answer for the things that cannot otherwise be explained. Historically, God evolved from pagan beliefs stemming from mysteries of nature; like the sun, the moon, the earth. What couldn't explained by knowledge of these elements was attributed to a controller behind the curtain.

God was/is man's construct. Evidence for this is obvious. Man's perception of God is as varied and individual as the individual himself. If a certain man's idea of God is helpful to him, then by all means let him retain those ideas. But that is certainly not evidence of God's existence external of that man's mind.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

The notion of God contradicts many aspects of such logic and sense.

If we had reason to believe that our perceptions violated logic and sense, that would be good reason to distrust them. Unfortunately, for you at least, perception of God does not have these defeaters as it is not illogical or nonsensical.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

God was/is man's construct. Evidence for this is obvious.

I'm calling your bluff.