genes and religion

[mylfmyhnr]

religion tells us that proof is in a "feeling", you just "get it" or you don't... well, here's another something to think about: science is proving that the "feeling" of being "in the know" on religion is all in our minds and in our genes, specifically that the most spiritual people tended to have a particular version of VMAT2. and what else? that people who sensed themselves in the "company of the divine" had the right temporal lobe firing.

"It's also an area that's subject to seizures — experiences that can cause intense hallucinations."

hmmm... interesting.

Michael Persinger, Ph.D., coordinator of the behavioral neuroscience program at Laurentian University in Ontario, created a helmet to test the theory that it's the right frontal lobe where the religious experience is centered...

"... The helmet creates a mild electromagnetic field that penetrates deep inside the wearer's right temporal lobe. This field interferes with the normal electrical impulses of local brain cells, coaxing them to fire instead in patterns that Persinger has specially calibrated to stimulate spiritual experiences. And within minutes, 80 percent of people sense a presence in the room with them, usually just over their left shoulder "
choosing your religion
Elizabeth DeVita-Raeburn
December 2006 issue of Women's Health

the vmat 2 gene is the interesting part and has much to do with the whole debate.

the washington times did a piece on this: http://washingtontimes.com/world/200...1404-8087r.htm

and so did time magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,725072-3,00.html

and if you're wondering about the scientist dean hamer: he's head of the gene structure and regulation section and a senior investigator at the center for cancer research at the national cancer institute.
and Michael Persinger, Ph.D.: coordinator of the behavioral neuroscience program at Laurentian University in Ontario.
so, once again science seems to be answering a question that religion simply tells us to have "faith" in. the next time someone tells me that "you just haven't felt it yet" i'll be sure to let them know that i'm working on the electomagnetic field right now that lets me believe.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just a very minor quibble, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea. There are folks who report similar spiritual experiences from left temporal lobe seizures as well, so it isn't just the right temporal lobe.

There is also a putative neuropsychological condition associated with temporal lobe epilepsy and described by Norman Geschwind that consists of hypergraphia (excessive writing), hyposexuality (don't like sex much), viscosity (resistance to change), and hyper-religiosity. I say putative, not because I don't think the condition exists, but because I am not convinced that it is truly associated with temporal lobe epilepsy. Most folks with temporal lobe seizures don't have it, and I have seen many people who seem to have all those features but who do not have temporal lobe epilepsy.

In addition to the uplifting spiritual experiences with seizures, there are others who experience the exact opposite -- described as a feeling as though all the good is being sucked from their souls leaving them with a feeling of utter emptiness and despair. Those folks are truly grateful when the seizures stop. The ones who have only simple partial seizures of the spiritual kind almost never seek medical assistance. It is only when the seizures generalize or cause some loss of consciousness that they ask for any help. They can't get quite testy if you take away all their seizures.

Interesting historical/literary sidenote -- Dostoevsky had temporal lobe seizures (presumably) with an intense spiritual experience as his aura.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'd have to see something more about VMAT2 to understand exactly how that could explain anything. That gene seems too gross a candidate to explain anything as complex as religion or belief in God. It's just a monoamine transporter that aids packaging of monoamines into presynaptic vesicles. Speaking of a "God gene" goes a bit too far and probably does more damage than good for arguments against religion arising from another plane. Personally I think it's best to be very conservative in these matters, especially when it comes to single genes being associated with complex behaviors.

 

[CapelDodger]

... science is proving ...

 

[fuelair]

so people having certain seizures see dog. And this means? People with brain malfunctions seee/believe all sorts of stuff - sometimes electrodes and/or drugs cure them , sometimes not. So?.................where is this fantastic discovery leading us?

 

[mylfmyhnr]

it's just interesting that science has opened up another avenue to the idea of why people are so very devoted to belief. there isn't anything that can sway someone like DJJ for instance, and this gives an idea why. no matter the arguments given to my cousins, for example, they still go to the church and teaches that 'jesus' came to america after his resurrection even though most everyone else doubts this highly. and the point of the frontal lobe issues and seeing a burning bush was the idea put forth by the author of the first article and i found it intriguing. the point about the gene is that "(i)ts proper function is essential to the correct activity of the monoaminergic systems that have been implicated in several human neuropsychiatric disorders". and, no, i'm not saying that religion is a disorder... but that it's alteration may have implications to the "feeling" associated with religious epiphanies. in fact there is the idea that it is and evolutionary advantage to those that had it. the links above go to the actual story... i just summed up to save time and space. well, your time reading the forum and space on said forum... not actually time and space... never mind.

 

[mylfmyhnr]

sorry if i o-ffend... just trying to make a point

ETA: i suppose what i should have said was 'showing that maybe, gene's kinda sorta had something to do with something or other i get to miss speak too, right?

 

[fuelair]

This topic has come up before - though I won't swear with this specific study.
It is not, in all fairness, a big topic with me - but I get very nervous when (assumably) real scientists do work where some reference to religion will be involved as frequently believers will turn it to evidence that religious beliefs are real (more precisely, that what religious believers believe in is actually real). I have no problem accepting that believers have some sort of internal (self) input that they interpret as a religious rapture/epiphany/orgasm(there is a statue...............)which is caused by some level of neural signal/signal disruption. But the cause is not religious - only the brains interpretation of it is. If clear, unequivocal evidence otherwise is available, I will happily look at it - but my fear is that this research will be misinterpreted by many as meaning that the religious (terms as above) is real as in really a religious experience instead of real as in really a brain disturbance with no actual religious connotation/function.

I have misspoken on occasion - we all get to do that - and there may well be genetic predisposition to these brain seizures or to whatever causes them - and their effects. We shall see.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

but my fear is that this research will be misinterpreted by many as meaning that the religious (terms as above) is real as in really a religious experience instead of real as in really a brain disturbance with no actual religious connotation/function.

Very understandable. But here's one thing about that........most religious view need a "soul", an immaterial 'substance' that interacts with the material world. One interpretation of all the emerging data is that we simply now have the neural correlates of how the soul interacts with the material world, and what we are really witnessing is the world behind the world becoming manifest in our biology. But the kicker is that if the soul is immaterial, it is extensionless. So, it should be some sort of unity. Why is it then, that different brain regions are responsible for different aspects of religious experience? A unity is a unity. The brain is a plurality.

The VMAT2 story is probably a dead-end. The monoaminergic systems underly virtually all "feelings" to some extent. They are strong modulatory systems with widespread connections throughout the cortex and brainstem. Each of the neurotransmitters activates metabotropic receptors, which have widespread effects in post-synaptic cells, not just simple depolarization events. I would like to see what this guy's research shows, but I think it would be a disservice to speak of any packaging protein as integral to just the religious experience. The problem, of course, is that it might in some way be invovled. We tend to think of gene products as important for what they do "right now"; but gene products can have really profound effects during development, turn off, then play entirely different roles in adults. Bone morphogenic protein in very early development turns ectodermal cells into epidermal cells and blocks neuronal differentiation, but later its presence is necessary for patterning of the dorsal neural tube. In adults it plays an entirely different role. I wonder if this gene product might play some role in early development. Who knows?

 

[Darth Rotor]

religion tells us that proof is in a "feeling", you just "get it" or you don't... well, here's another something to think about: science is proving that the "feeling" of being "in the know" on religion is all in our minds and in our genes, specifically that the most spiritual people tended to have a particular version of VMAT2. and what else? that people who sensed themselves in the "company of the divine" had the right temporal lobe firing.

A certain feeling also induces some to cry out it ecstatic joy "Oh God, Oh God, I'm coming!"

Is this also as result of VMAT2 stimulation, or are the attendant seizures triggered by a different part of the cortex firing?

DR

 

[mylfmyhnr]

the time mag article is probably the best as a baseline introduction into dr. hamer's work. it mentions that "A single change in a single base in the middle of the gene seemed directly related to the ability to feel self-transcendence," according to dr hamer. the article is also quick to mention that this is only one of many gene's that hamer acknowledges that could play a part in a persons religious experience. he admits that those that self rate themselves higher on "self-transcendence" tests seems to be the ones with the base difference. the other interesting part is the twin study... the twin with the difference was religious, the twin without was not; which, in essence, was a control for the argument of the environments influence on religion.

time also mentions dr persinger:
'Michael Persinger, professor of behavioral neuroscience at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ont., puts the chemistry argument more bluntly. "God," he says, "is an artifact of the brain." '.

and the articles do admot that it's not just the gene:
"About 50 percent of us have it, he estimates, based on his study's findings, yet 91 percent of Americans believe in God or some universal spirit, according to a recent CBS News poll. Which goes to show that any number of things — from the midnight Masses your parents dragged you to as a child to the summer you spent trekking the Appalachian Trail — can influence your spiritual beliefs. "
womans health article

but both articles above (as the washington times link seems to be dead) are very pro-religion, quick to not o-ffend anyone and to point out that science can't prove it all. i admit that it is in no way cut and dry, it's just interesting to me that science shows causal relationships and religion shows faith... once again it comes down to "just believe".