Is atheism a genetic oddity?

[SearchingforPeace]

Atheists are more likely to be left handed, study finds

Left-handed people are more likely to be atheists, a study has found, as it says belief is passed on genetically.

......

But modern science means many people who would not previously have survived are making it to adulthood and reproducing - leading to a greater incidence of atheism.

......

It found that there was a "weak but significant" association between left-handedness and being non-religious, and a stronger one between autism and being non-religious.
....

Interesting theory. Anyone have any thoughts, feelings, or ideas on this.....

 

[that's not my name]

My dad and I are both left handed and pretty much agnostic, while my mom is more religious and she is right handed. I don't think it really has much to do with that though. My dad and I are both very analytical and rely strongly on our subjective logic, and while my mom is analytical as well when it comes to her work (she's a very serious and respected scholar in her field), she does in her personal life what she enjoys, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think more people should be like that. I don't want atheists to take this personally when it's not meant to be, I know people are atheist for a variety of reasons, just like people are religious or agnostic for a variety of reasons, but I think one big reason is fear and the need to know and be in control (same goes for religious people to a large degree). Well, we don't know. There is so much we don't know and it is okay to acknowledge that.

 

[Population: 1]

Lefty here. Agnostic. It proves all that sinister crap you righties laid down on us throughout the ages? Ever look up the terms for lefties in various languages? The vast majority are not compliments but descriptions of how devilish we are. Hmmm.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

What about people who change beliefs?

 

[Population: 1]

What about people who change beliefs?

Must be ambidextrous.

 

[Typh0n]

To anyone who is interested, here is the study metioned in the article:

The Mutant Says in His Heart, “There Is No God”: the Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods Is Associated with High Mutational Load | SpringerLink

Abstract: Industrialisation leads to relaxed selection and thus the accumulation of fitness-damaging genetic mutations. We argue that religion is a selected trait that would be highly sensitive to mutational load. We further argue that a specific form of religiousness was selected for in complex societies up until industrialisation based around the collective worship of moral gods. With the relaxation of selection, we predict the degeneration of this form of religion and diverse deviations from it. These deviations, however, would correlate with the same indicators because they would all be underpinned by mutational load. We test this hypothesis using two very different deviations: atheism and paranormal belief. We examine associations between these deviations and four indicators of mutational load: (1) poor general health, (2) autism, (3) fluctuating asymmetry, and (4) left-handedness. A systematic literature review combined with primary research on handedness demonstrates that atheism and/or paranormal belief is associated with all of these indicators of high mutational load.

The study doesn't seem neutral, at least based upon the choice of language they use. Not sure. Serious scientific site though.

 

[that's not my name]

To anyone who is interested, here is the study metioned in the article:

The Mutant Says in His Heart, “There Is No God”: the Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods Is Associated with High Mutational Load | SpringerLink



The study doesn't seem neutral, at least based upon the choice of language they use. Not sure. Serious scientific site though.

It seems logical though, that those who are deemed abnormal are more likely to question societal norms.

 

[Mole]

We are all and each becoming from the moment we are born to the moment we die.

And whatever we worship we become.

In the West as we individuate large.numbers are turning from mass religions to personal worship.

 

[Typh0n]

It seems logical though, that those who are deemed abnormal are more likely to question societal norms.

Of course they are deemed abnormal because they question social norms. Thats' what it means to be "abnormal" is to question or reject social norms.

I think what they are saying is that conformity to collective, organized religion and social norms in pre-industrilized society was more likely to cause survival of those individuals who adhered to said religion and norms, given that so many factors could cause death, those people who had collectivist morals had more of chance to survive because this was a pragmatic approach. I'm just saying I question the way in which the article was written as lacking neutrality, not so much the conclusions they draw.

For example, they seem to be saying that "genetic mutants" are somehow defective or something, furthermore this has to do with pre-industrialized society so I don't know how these value judgements could apply today.

Traditional religious beliefs are less necessary to the survival of individuals in our society, this isn't good or bad, it simply is. They were more necessary in older societies, again, this is just how it was. We can draw value judgements about this, but then it ceases to be science.

 

[that's not my name]

Of course they are deemed abnormal because they question social norms. Thats' what it means to be "abnormal" is to question or reject social norms.

That's not what I said or meant. I said that people who are deemed abnormal for whatever reason and find themselves on the outside are more likely to question societal norms as a result.

I think what they are saying is that conformity to collective, organized religion and social norms in pre-industrilized society was more likely to cause survival of those individuals who adhered to said religion and norms, given that so many factors could cause death, those people who had collectivist morals had more of chance to survive because this was a pragmatic approach.

More or less agree.

I'm just saying I question the way in which the article was written as lacking neutrality, not so much the conclusions they draw.

I never said anything about that, nor did I imply anything about it.

For example, they seem to be saying that "genetic mutants" are somehow defective or something, furthermore this has to do with pre-industrialized society so I don't know how these value judgements could apply today.

Ok. Different doesn't mean defective, but ok.

Traditional religious beliefs are less necessary to the survival of individuals in our society, this isn't good or bad, it simply is.

More or less agree

They were more necessary in older societies, again, this is just how it was.

Don't know if I agree

We can draw value judgements about this, but then it ceases to be science.

My comment was never about the science of the study.

 

[Typh0n]

My comment was never about the science of the study.

Ah, alright.

We aren't arguing the same thing then.

My comment was about the science of the study, yours seemed more about a conclusions you drew:

I said that people who are deemed abnormal for whatever reason and find themselves on the outside are more likely to question societal norms as a result.

I agree, but my comment was about the neutrality of the article. "What is the connection?", then seems like a fair question.

 

[Population: 1]

Of course they are deemed abnormal because they question social norms. Thats' what it means to be "abnormal" is to question or reject social norms.

I think what they are saying is that conformity to collective, organized religion and social norms in pre-industrilized society was more likely to cause survival of those individuals who adhered to said religion and norms, given that so many factors could cause death, those people who had collectivist morals had more of chance to survive because this was a pragmatic approach. I'm just saying I question the way in which the article was written as lacking neutrality, not so much the conclusions they draw.

For example, they seem to be saying that "genetic mutants" are somehow defective or something, furthermore this has to do with pre-industrialized society so I don't know how these value judgements could apply today.

Traditional religious beliefs are less necessary to the survival of individuals in our society, this isn't good or bad, it simply is. They were more necessary in older societies, again, this is just how it was. We can draw value judgements about this, but then it ceases to be science.

Mutant is another term of endearment righties use for south paws. Charming isn’t it? All the more reason I rebelled in elementary school when they attempted to ‘correct my condition’. Fuck that. Lefty and proud mofo’s! When we take over I’ll try and show mercy and understanding.

Edit: Partly a joke but they were still trying to dissuade left handed children to be left hand dominant when I was in grade school. They did everything short of tying my hand behind my back. I’m sure they would’ve if it hadn’t been considered abuse by that time.

 

[that's not my name]

Ah, alright.

We aren't arguing the same thing then.

My comment was about the science of the study, yours seemed more about a conclusions you drew:



I agree, but my comment was about the neutrality of the article. "What is the connection?", then seems like a fair question.

It is a fair question. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It seems logical though, that those who are deemed abnormal are more likely to question societal norms.

Yes, but here you have chicken and the egg problem.
Are they deemded abnormal because they are questioning social norms or they are questioning the norms because someone simply decided one day that they are not normal ?


Plus my bet is that all of this is just a subtle way to trash atheism. Which is actually older than any of the modern religions if you judge by science, which this whole story tries to maintain as the starting point.
Also if atheism is consequence of mutation then very good chunk of people in my country as well as many political parties are the consequence of genetic mutations ... as well as majority in various countries that have atheist majority. What I simply don't find to be realistic. Modern atheism was created simply because religious authorty was horrible towards people in the terms of constant abuse, denying food, slavery, genocide, sexual abuse etc (or it was in the bed with authority that was doing those kinds of things). Plus there were people who though that basing the whole society around ideas for which there is little to no concrete proof was actually bad idea. However religion in general never managed to cope with this rejection and therefore you constantly have various theories that are trying to prove that atheists aren't even humans.


When you read the link in the first post there are basically no claims that are scientific and that are trying to go deeper into the issue (the whole claim is basically "take my word for it"). It is true that normal people know very little about genetics and from what I have seen that is being abused in all kinds of ways. However no one is ever trying to explain a little bit more thoroughly such claims and therefore it is reasonable to have doubts about such claims. Especially since the tone seems like trashing for the sake of trashing. (atheist are genetically mutated, atheists can't survive without modern technology (since they are weak or something), atheism somewhat correlates with autism ... )

All I really see here is badly packed propaganda, to be honest.

 

[that's not my name]

Yes, but here you have chicken and the egg problem.
Are they deemded abnormal because they are questioning social norms or they are questioning the norms because someone simply decided one day that they are not normal ?

I already addressed this.

Plus my bet is that all of this is just a subtle way to trash atheism.

Okay. I don't, and I think that there is a big problem in todays society with people trying to find a reason to be offended.

Modern atheism was created simply because religious authorty was horrible towards people in the terms of constant abuse, denying food, slavery, genocide, sexual abuse etc (or it was in the bed with authority that was doing those kinds of things). Plus there were people who though that basing the whole society around ideas for which there is little to no concrete proof was actually bad idea.

Sounds like you're trying to create a simple explanation to complex development. It reveals more about you than anything. Your reason is not necessarily the reason.

However religion in general never managed to cope with this rejection and therefore you constantly have various theories that are trying to prove that atheists aren't even humans.

I think you're trying to take offense to this.

When you read the link in the first post there are basically no claims that are scientific and that are trying to go deeper into the issue (the whole claim is basically "take my word for it").

Again, like I told the guy before you, my comment had nothing to do with the science behind the article.

(atheist are genetically mutated, atheists can't survive without modern technology (since they are weak or something), atheism somewhat correlates with autism ... )

Thats not what I said or implied and I don't think the study is implying that, at least not directly either. Stop being offended at things that weren't said, or if you are going to be, direct it to someone other than me, because I don't care.

 

[Lark]

I think this is a wildly poor inference from what's likely a weak correlation anyway, my brother is left handed and he's as religious as I am, I know plenty of religious people who are left handed and I was not aware that left handedness was genetically determined in any case. I think its a poor idea to suggest that religious views and convictions are genetically determined, it would mean that culture or anything else was pointless, no tradition or intergenerational memory or learning could exist on that basis or matter either.

The stronger one between autism and being non-religious is interesting, mainly because I hear autism being linked with more and more things these days, links between autism and homosexuality, trangender or other LGBT identity politics, links between autism and trolling or trends in opinions online. Sometimes I think I'd like to know more about autism if its going to prove so significant or pivotal but then again I wonder if its likely to prove to be one of those logical fallacies that I think some varieties of groupthink engage in, over estimating the wider social impact or importance of all matters pertaining to or involving themselves.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I already addressed this.


Okay. I don't, and I think that there is a big problem in todays society with people trying to find a reason to be offended.

Sounds like you're trying to create a simple explanation to complex development. It reveals more about you than anything. Your reason is not necessarily the reason.

I think you're trying to take offense to this.


Again, like I told the guy before you, my comment had nothing to do with the science behind the article.

Thats not what I said or implied and I don't think the study is implying that, at least not directly either. Stop being offended at things that weren't said, or if you are going to be, direct it to someone other than me, because I don't care.

Don't worry I was simply finding a way how to jump into this thread and for some reason I have started from your post. (and I started to type while the thread was much smaller)


I simply posted what I think, I really don't find any of this to be worthy of "serious emotional engagment".

 

[that's not my name]

Don't worry I was simply finding a way how to jump into this thread and for some reason I have started from your post. (and I started to type while the thread was much smaller)


I simply posted what I think, I really don't find any of this to be worthy of "serious emotional engagment".

Oh ok, carry on then. I'm used to trying to shut people down quickly because the quality of conversation at perC is not as high or as honest in intent.

 

[biohazard]

I'm ambidextrous, atheist, and anti-theist.

 

[ceecee]

Mutant is another term of endearment righties use for south paws. Charming isn’t it? All the more reason I rebelled in elementary school when they attempted to ‘correct my condition’. Fuck that. Lefty and proud mofo’s! When we take over I’ll try and show mercy and understanding.

Edit: Partly a joke but they were still trying to dissuade left handed children to be left hand dominant when I was in grade school. They did everything short of tying my hand behind my back. I’m sure they would’ve if it hadn’t been considered abuse by that time.

I have a mutant husband and two children. None of them are atheists or autistic.