Religion is genetic now?

[rousseau]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race".

As far as genetics go, there are theories out there that will predict religiosity being more prevalent among those with lower general intelligence. So in that sense it's partially genetic in a more indirect way.

[Politesse]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race".

As far as genetics go, there are theories out there that will predict religiosity being more prevalent among those with lower general intelligence. So in that sense it's partially genetic in a more indirect way.

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

[rousseau]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race".

As far as genetics go, there are theories out there that will predict religiosity being more prevalent among those with lower general intelligence. So in that sense it's partially genetic in a more indirect way.

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

No I mean theory. I suspect you could find an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows low general intelligence is correlated with religiosity.

I'm mainly taking my argument from The Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa. Maybe intelligence as a concept is problematic to science, but 'General Intelligence' as far as I understand it measures a very specific ability of a person to solve novel problems in their environment. For example, if you put a person in a weird situation, how likely are they to get out of it.

Said book posits that people with high general intelligence are very likely to act in ways that are novel historically.. less kids, less religion, etc, and shows this to in fact be the case with data.

When you look at something like religion you could easily frame it as just another 'problem' (if our goal is accurate understanding and not something like social cohesion). For a person to see through the facade takes significant intellectual ability, and so we should see people with less intellect making up a higher proportion of believers than atheists.

In that way, yes religion is passed down from parents to children, but in addition to that there is going to be a genetic propensity to conform to the same beliefs.

[Politesse]

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

No I mean theory. I suspect you could find an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows low general intelligence is correlated with religiosity.

I'm mainly taking my argument from The Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa. Maybe intelligence as a concept is problematic to science, but 'General Intelligence' as far as I understand it measures a very specific ability of a person to solve novel problems in their environment. For example, if you put a person in a weird situation, how likely are they to get out of it.

Said book posits that people with high general intelligence are very likely to act in ways that are novel historically.. less kids, less religion, etc, and shows this to in fact be the case with data.

When you look at something like religion you could easily frame it as just another 'problem' (if our goal is accurate understanding and not something like social cohesion). For a person to see through the facade takes significant intellectual ability, and so we should see people with less intellect making up a higher proportion of believers than atheists.

In that way, yes religion is passed down from parents to children, but in addition to that there is going to be a genetic propensity to conform to the same beliefs.

Is this the same Satoshi Kanazawa who supposedly proved that Asians can't paint, that black women were objectively uglier than white women, and nearly got fired from the LSE in the backlash? I would be interested about the empirical grounding for his book, if it is being claimed as "science".

[rousseau]

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

No I mean theory. I suspect you could find an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows low general intelligence is correlated with religiosity.

I'm mainly taking my argument from The Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa. Maybe intelligence as a concept is problematic to science, but 'General Intelligence' as far as I understand it measures a very specific ability of a person to solve novel problems in their environment. For example, if you put a person in a weird situation, how likely are they to get out of it.

Said book posits that people with high general intelligence are very likely to act in ways that are novel historically.. less kids, less religion, etc, and shows this to in fact be the case with data.

When you look at something like religion you could easily frame it as just another 'problem' (if our goal is accurate understanding and not something like social cohesion). For a person to see through the facade takes significant intellectual ability, and so we should see people with less intellect making up a higher proportion of believers than atheists.

In that way, yes religion is passed down from parents to children, but in addition to that there is going to be a genetic propensity to conform to the same beliefs.

Is this the same Satoshi Kanazawa who supposedly proved that Asians can't paint, that black women were objectively uglier than white women, and nearly got fired from the LSE in the backlash? I would be interested about the empirical grounding for his book, if it is being claimed as "science".

You'd have to read it and/or read criticisms.

I found the argument convincing even if a bit tenuous in places.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

[Politesse]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

We inherit brains and their inherent and variable capacities, not specific behaviors. How do you imagine you came out an atheist? You and you alone defeated your biology by sheer strength of will?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

We inherit brains and their inherent and variable capacities, not specific behaviors. How do you imagine you came out an atheist? You and you alone defeated your biology by sheer strength of will?

Nature is constantly serving up new recipes for what constitutes human. My atheism is hardly something unexpected. Had I been born in Medieval Europe I'd have been burned alive. I'd certainly call that selection pressure.

We are born with differences in our brains, personalities and tendencies, same as we are born with more physical differences like height, hair color, etc., but they are all physical differences that manifest as behaviors. We inherit much from our parents who inherited from their parents who inherited from their parents etc. That's basic biology 101. But the environment is constantly selecting for and against those behaviors.

[Politesse]

We inherit brains and their inherent and variable capacities, not specific behaviors. How do you imagine you came out an atheist? You and you alone defeated your biology by sheer strength of will?

Nature is constantly serving up new recipes for what constitutes human. My atheism is hardly something unexpected. Had I been born in Medieval Europe I'd have been burned alive. I'd certainly call that selection pressure.

We are born with differences in our brains, personalities and tendencies, same as we are born with more physical differences like height, hair color, etc., but they are all physical differences that manifest as behaviors. We inherit much from our parents who inherited from their parents who inherited from their parents etc. That's basic biology 101. But the environment is constantly selecting for and against those behaviors.

So your position is that your philosophy is a genetic variation?

[Malintent]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

because we don't generally kill everyone we disagree with. generally.

"Selection", in a genetic sense, means "not killed before reproduced". Not, "thought favorably of by a large segment".

Even Nazi's seem capable of finding a mate to impregnate to create tomorrow's Nazis.