Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society

[^_^ 5,021]

In a new study, Robert Rowthorn, emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge University, has looked at ... how will the high fertility rates of religious people throughout the world affect the future of human genetic evolution, and therefore the biological makeup of society?

Rowthorn has developed a model that shows that the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently “hitchhiking” on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates. Even if some of the people who are born to religious parents defect from religion and become secular, the religious genes they carry (which encompass other personality traits, such as obedience and conservativism) will still spread throughout society, according to the model’s numerical simulations.

“Provided the fertility of religious people remains on average higher than that of secular people, the genes that predispose people towards religion will spread,” Rowthorn told PhysOrg.com. “The bigger the fertility differential between religious and secular people, the faster this genetic transformation will occur. This does not mean that everyone will become religious. Genes are not destiny. Many people who are genetically predisposed towards religion may in fact lead secular lives because of the cultural influences they have been exposed to.”

The model’s assumptions are based on data from previous research. Studies have shown that, even controlling for income and education, people who are more religious have more children, on average, than people who are secular (defined here as having a religious indifference). According to the World Values Survey for 82 countries, adults attending religious services more than once per week averaged 2.5 children, those attending once per month averaged 2.01 children, and those never attending averaged 1.67 children.

...

But while fertility is determined by culture, an individual’s predisposition toward religion is likely to be influenced by genetics, in addition to their upbringing. In the model, Rowthorn uses a “religiosity gene” to represent the various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion, whether remaining religious from youth or converting to religion from a secular upbringing. On the flip side, the nonreligiosity allele of this “gene” makes a person more likely to remain or become secular. If both parents have the religiosity allele, their children are also more likely to have the religiosity allele than if one or both parents did not have it. However, children born to religious parents may have the nonreligiosity allele, while children born to secular parents may have the religiosity allele. Having the religiosity allele does not make a person religious, but it makes a person more likely to have characteristics that make them religiously inclined; the converse is also true.

All individuals, whether they have religious or secular upbringings, have a chance of defecting. Rowthorn explained that the rates of defection from religious to secular and from secular to religious preferences depend on time and place.

“Amongst Christian Churches in Europe and North America, defection rates are higher than conversion rates,” he said. “In some cases, such as the Amish, these losses are greatly outweighed by their very high fertility. However, for mainstream Churches, such as the Catholics or Anglicans, the birth rate is not high enough on its own to offset defections and they rely on immigration to maintain their numbers. In certain other parts of the world, such as East Asia, mainstream Christian Churches are growing through conversion.”

Rowthorn’s model shows that, even when the religious defection rate is high, the overall high fertility rate of religious people will cause the religiosity allele to eventually predominate the global society. The model shows that the wide gap in fertility rates could have a significant genetic effect in just a few generations. The model predicts that the religious fraction of the population will eventually stabilize at less than 100%, and there will remain a possibly large percentage of secular individuals. But nearly all of the secular population will still carry the religious allele, since high defection rates will spread the religious allele to secular society when defectors have children with a secular partner. Overall, nearly all of the population will have a genetic predisposition toward religion, although some or many of these individuals will lead secular lives, Rowthorn concluded.

“The rate at which religious people abandon their faith affects the eventual share of the population who are religious,” Rowthorn said. “However, it does not alter the conclusion of the article that the religiosity allele will eventually take over. If the defection rate is high, there will be lots of children who are brought up as religious and carry the religiosity allele, but who give up their faith. Such people will carry the religiosity allele into the secular population with them. Many of their descendents will also carry this allele and be secular. In this case, the high fertility group is constantly sending migrants into the low-fertility secular population. Such migrations will simultaneously boost the size of the secular population and transform its genetic composition.”

Rowthorn acknowledges that he can only speculate on how a genetic predisposition toward religion may manifest itself in a secular context. Previous research has suggested that a genetic predisposition toward religion is tied to a variety of characteristics such as conservatism, obedience to authority, and the inclination to follow rituals. In this instance of evolution, it’s possible that these characteristics may become widespread not for their own fitness but by hitching a ride with a high-fitness cultural practice.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-religiosity-gene-dominate-society.html

[mawilson 2,133]

...that shows that the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion...

I have long suspected that a predisposition to religion is a genetic disorder.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Okay, atheists. This is your sounding call to out and make more babies, or you'll eventually become extinct.

[^_^ 5,021]

I have long suspected that a predisposition to religion is a genetic disorder.

So this planet will soon be overrun by mutants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have long suspected that a predisposition to religion is a genetic disorder.

You believe that homosexuality is a genetic disorder? Are you in favor of gene therapy to possibly cure gay people?

[mawilson 2,133]

Okay, atheists. This is your sounding call to out and make more babies, or you'll eventually become extinct.

See, that's the difference between you and me. I couldn't care

less about "becoming extinct" - the whole idea of procreating and

passing your legacy on to your children is tied to the fear of death,

which is THE reason people are drawn to religion. Religious people

cannot accept that they will simply cease to exist after death and

that there's nothing to look forward to or to fear, so they make up

stories about afterlife, heaven and hell, as a reward or punishment

for how well they carried out their religious duties in life.

You believe that homosexuality is a genetic disorder?

Probably.

Are you in favor of gene therapy to possibly cure gay people?

No.

[chri'stina 190]

Okay, atheists. This is your sounding call to out and make more babies, or you'll eventually become extinct.

According to some atheists around here, more and more people will wake up and stop believing in fairy tales as time goes on, I thought. Ya know, as we "progress".

[mawilson 2,133]

According to some atheists around here, more and more people will wake up and stop believing in fairy tales as time goes on, I thought. Ya know, as we "progress".

It's already happening - nurture wins out over nature.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

According to some atheists around here, more and more people will wake up and stop believing in fairy tales as time goes on, I thought. Ya know, as we "progress".

LOL...yeah, we'll just breed like rabbits and smother them to death with our fluffiness.

[chri'stina 190]

It's already happening - nurture wins out over nature.

It's not as if atheist parents can be sure to raise an atheist, and Christian parents can't ensure raising a Christian. Sometimes, kids don't do what their parents do. It matters what source their "nurturing" is coming from. Amazing to me though that some people are admitting that religiosity is part of human gene/nature. How did that happen exactly?

Edited January 28, 2011 by chri'stina

[^_^ 5,021]

It's not as if atheist parents can be sure to raise an atheist, and Christian parents can't ensure raising a Christian. Sometimes, kids don't do what their parents do. It matters what source their "nurturing" is coming from. Amazing to be though that some people are admitting that religiosity is part of human gene/nature. How did that happen exactly?

That there is a genetic component to faith which makes some more likely to be religious than others has been known for a while.

[chri'stina 190]

That there is a genetic component to faith which makes some more likely to be religious than others has been known for a while.

I am asking, how did that genetic component come about, in others' opinions? It's just there, for no good reason?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This may be a good time to bring back the Crusades.

[^_^ 5,021]

I am asking, how did that genetic component come about, in others' opinions? It's just there, for no good reason?

Human understanding of genetics is not advanced enough to answer why certain genes even exist We're barely at the point of knowing they exist at all.

[Stanley Hermosill 1]

I categorically reject the notion that there is any such thing as a "religiosity gene." Such a concept is based on bad science, plain and simple.