Posted on 12/13/2004 10:38:52 PM PST by kattracks
Don't get all nervous, but this new "discovery" of a God gene that finally gives us a scientific explanation for those whacked-out believers in God started me thinking about the sin of pride.Romans 1:20 says: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
In other words, human beings have to reject what their senses and intellects tell them in order to arrive at any other conclusion than that God created them and the universe.
Many learned scientists reject this idea, preferring to believe just the opposite: that a belief in the Divine Creator is counterintuitive, devoid of reason, blind to the facts and insufficiently deferential to science. You wouldn't believe the condescending e-mails I received from self-described scientists following my column on the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist," telling me, essentially, what a moron I am.
I wonder what these smug critics would tell Britisher Anthony Flew, one of the world's leading proponents of atheism, who has now abandoned his disbelief in God. Flew observed, quite rightly, that the latest biological research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved."
When anticipating the inevitable shock of some of his co-atheists to his transformation, Flew said, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
That's precisely the point. Contrary to the position of many atheists, especially those who believe that Christians are reality-challenged and science-averse, theism -- particularly Christianity -- is supported by reliable evidence.
Which gets us back to the subject of pride. I have always believed that among the obstacles to belief, human pride is the leading culprit. Pride is responsible for the notion that no God was necessary to have created life from no life, the material world from the immaterial world, something out of nothing.
Instructively, "Humanist Manifesto II" bears this out, declaring, "As nonthesists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity. … But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."
It's hard not to conclude that such pride is responsible for the above-mentioned bizarre theory of American molecular geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer ("The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes"), that a person's capacity for believing in God is genetically determined.
Those with VMAT2 -- the God gene -- apparently have freer-flowing mood-altering chemicals in their brains, making them more inclined toward spiritual beliefs. Environmental influences, such as growing up in a religious family, supposedly have little effect on our beliefs.
Uninhibited by humility, Dr. Hamer doesn't limit his conjecturing to his area of expertise. He ventures out into the spiritual and historical realms as well, telling us his findings aren't antithetical to a belief in God because "Religious believers can point to the existence of god genes as one more sign of the creator's ingenuity … Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene."
Perhaps Hamer's pride obscures from him the pitfalls in over-generalizing and presuming to lump together believers of different faiths. How could Christ, who claimed to be God in the flesh, have shared any mystical experiences with Buddha and Mohammed, neither of whom asserted their own deity?
Perhaps Dr. Hamer's conceit prevents him from recognizing that a God-gene is hard to square with Biblical Christianity. How could Christians subscribe to the idea of a God gene when the God of the Bible, if nothing else, is a god of accountability and judgment? Surely even Five-Point Calvinists would consider the notion a grotesque twist on the Doctrine of the Elect. But these distinctions are doubtlessly lost on the likes of Hamer, whose theories necessarily elevate the concept of determinism and demote personal responsibility.
Indeed, perhaps it is pride that leads the anti-theistic among us to reduce everything to deterministic molecules and DNA because such things are within their eventual grasp and control. To acknowledge that there may just be certain things beyond their eventual comprehension and, thus, control could be tantamount to recognizing that there is something -- Someone -- greater. Such blasphemy cannot stand.
Perhaps the good doctor's arrogance precludes him from considering that for many Christians, believing is not a matter of some chemically induced emotional state. It is based on things far less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of our emotions, such as a belief in the Bible as the unchanging, inspired Word of God.
David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com
read later
Who's getting all nervous?
Pride, arrogance, and of course denial. All signs of a human heart, and one that secularists and liberals don't see.
There has always been religion and there will always be religion. In ancient times it was "worship" of a rock, the moon, the sun, an alligator, a monkey, etc,,,,,,,it was /is a means of dealing with the unknown. Man is the ONLY animal that needs it, that needs to understand the unknown.
ping
I must have the gene... gee its funny seeing liberals believe in pre-destination. For them, there's no free will, your genes make you what you are.
Man is the only entity that has a spirit. "No, Martha... all dogs really don't go to heaven."
Flame suit on and shields up against dog lovers
Of course I know that my young friend does believe in God deep down inside, but is on this silly denial/rebellion trip, and thinks that it makes them "cool, hip, enlightened, and intelligent".
Um, this research has been around long enough to show up in some sci-fi, notably Robert Sawyer's. If you're interested, the original research by Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada was written up in Wired recently.Couple of points, and an alternative take on the issue:
1) While there are most likely genes that code for faith, indirectly and directly, it's pretty doubtful such complex behavior is the result of a single gene.
2) All behavior is biologically determined. The notion that some behavior is a consequence of biology and some is not does not correspond to the facts. Thinking is the activity of the brain, and the brain is an electrical-chemical organ. As demonstrated by recent advances in mind-machine interface technology, thinking is as physical an activity as running. There is no “Ghost in the machine” – essentially, you are your brain.
3) Thus, “Accountability and judgement” as traits and concepts are fundamentally biological phenomena – not alien or adverse to biology, as Limbaugh implies.
4) Biology and divinity are not necessarily adverse. If God created mankind (a biological creature), there is nothing strange or alien about the human mind being biological in nature. What else would it be? Of course, the biological explanation also opens up for other, non-deistic explanations for human origins.
Some further reading:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195149300/102-4073317-3609723?v=glance
It isn't just pride. There is a condition called spiritual blindness that ocurrs after a while in those who mock God and deny his existance. They are bound. And part of that state is that the forces binding them, put a spiritual mirror (if you will) in front of the person's eyes. In the presence of one who's life causes conviction and inner reflection, their mere presence becomes an accusation against the bound person's wickedness. Doesn't even matter how trivial that wickedness might seem. To them it is insulting to feel bad about what they've done. Rather than admit it to themselves and choose the better path, their pride causes them to blister the good guy verbally and sometimes physically. The greater the conviction, the nastier the response to their presence. The projection that goes along with this is a window on the person's soul. They will accuse others of everything under the sun that they themselves are guilty of.
People do not want to be held accountable for their lives, to you, me or anyone else. And they especially don't want to be held accountable to God.. Many don't even want it hinted at. God gave them the right to choose heaven or hell. I always find it funny that they get to make the choice, then want to remark how awful God must be for sending them where they chose to go. Duplicity and gall go hand in hand with pride. Kinda reminiscent of the scene in a mob movie where a hitman assasinates a guy with a bullet to the back of the head. Blood spatters on his suit from the shot. Noticing, he contorts his face in anger and kicks the dead mark and plugs him a few more times. The gall that dead guy had of ruining a murderer's suit.. how awful.
When people deny God, there is no solid moral base. Everything is debateable, nothing impermissable and there is no good or evil, no right or wrong. Everything becomes relative. But, you're right, they can't see. The enemy blinds them and only God can take the blinders off them if they can be brought to their spiritual senses. That is not easy.
maybe there's a left-wing, hand-wringer, gobbly-gook gene
"While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."
Then it should be a very simple matter for these 'scientists' to create life from nothing.
Go ahead. I'll wait!
All behavior is biologically determined. The notion that some behavior is a consequence of biology and some is not does not correspond to the facts.
If I read you correctly here, you're essentially saying all behavior, no matter what it is, is biologically determined, then you are way off base.
Our brains change with use. People who [do anything on a regular basis] have certain enlarged portions of their brain, but that doesn't mean their behavior is biologically determined. It means their behavior determines certain portions of their brain, not the other way around.
Moral Absolutes ping.
David Limbaugh's take on the "God gene" and atheists who become theists at the end of life. Just in case someone doesn't know, the "scientist" who claims to have discovered the "spiritual belief" gene also claimed that he had discovered a biological reason for homosexuality, which he later had to admit was baseless. So he doesn't have a great track record, except for agenda driven false claims; pretty good on that one.
Bertrand Russell was another staunch atheist who changed his mind at the last minute, IIRC.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Excellent point. The brain is a physical organ used by the soul. The soul is the motivating force.
Many examples: there have been people who have been found to have "no brain" and still function, using what little connective/membrane type tissue is still there. Should be vegetables but they aren't.
When people have parts of their brains damaged, suffer dysfunction, and gradually work around and relearn, using other parts of the brain. I have a good friend who is an example of this.
People who radically change their beliefs, convictions, and behavior - used to be atheists (didn't have "god gene") and became believers in God. Etc.
The idea that everything is biologically explained is irrational and leaves zero room for any free will. If it were true, no one would be responsible for anything, whatsoever.
Good article.
There is a God "gene"
It's called a soul. And EVERY human is born with one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.