to think religious discrimination/name calling is every bit as bad as racism or homophobia?

[IceBeing]

I hadn't realised how far the understanding of the genetic component of spirituality had gotten. It seems that (as with everything) whether or not you believe in god or are spiritually inclined is a mixture of nature and nurture but predominantly nature.

So if being either religious/spiritualist or atheist is predominantly not a matter of choice but one of genetics then that makes religious discrimination look pretty similar to any other discrimination based on genetic factors like disability, homosexuality, race etc.

This cuts both ways...there is rather more talk of people who believe in god as stupid and just need to get over it on MN than there is talk of people who are gay as being stupid and just needing to get over it.

But then there is also rather more discrimination against children of atheists in the state funded education sector than there is against children of homosexual couples...

Does it change anyone else's view of religious discrimination to know that the level of spirituality it is a predominantly genetically determined factor?

"It seems" . Who says? (Genuine question).

Do you have a link for this theory of genetically determined religiousness? It's not something I've heard of.

I don't think that taking issue with what someone believes is on a par with hating them because they're black or gay, tbh.

Evidence?

I think your post would probably offend many who do believe, actually - I suspect they feel they have thought about things and considered the world they live in and it makes sense to them to believe in a god. I think to suggest it's just something genetic actually denigrates people's belief systems.

However, I'm increasingly certain that this is balls anyway, so I won't worry about it too much!

Ah yes sorry I should link to some papers....will try and find them.

The data comes from twin studies...comparing the level of spirituality between twins that are identical and fraternal....with (obviously) the identical twins coming up more correlated than fraternal twins.

Why would people who believe be offended? This doesn't say anything about the existence or otherwise of god. IT simply says that your capaciaty to believe in god is genetically influenced.

I was reading this: www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/spirituality-and-genetics but I can't get the actual papers at home.

Surely identical twins are likely to have a much more similar upbringing/experiences that fraternal twins? Wouldnt that account for it?

Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me.

Being religious is a choice. It's not something over which you have no control, like your race or your sexuality. If it's genetic, how do you explain people who used to believe in a god but no longer do, or conversely people who become religious in later life?

Religious belief is socially constructed, not a genetic or innate quality. Sexual orientation and ethnic origin are not chosen, religious belief is. So no, you're wrong.

I find it very interesting that a lot of the European immigrants to America where highly religious and that even though our cultures have evolved in similar ways that might contribute to the much larger disparity in atheism rates in the modern day.

dad some people change sexuality later in life too...

We used to think sexuality was a choice...but then evidence came along to suggest is was at least in part genetic.

The same is true for spirituality - which religion you pick may be more arbitrary - but the capcacity for faith is perhaps predetermined.

slowly possibly - although I believe there are statistical methods for dealing with that...

It is essentially the same type of data that was used initially to demonstrate genetic influence on many things including homosexuality....

People don't change their sexuality, sorry. They may indeed change their sexual behaviour, or discover their true sexuality after being uncertain, but that's different. They were always either gay or straight or bi.

The "capacity for faith" is determined by a combination of things, including how credulous you are, how much of a gap there is in your life which needs filling, how much importance you attach to texts written 3000 years ago by a bunch of blokes who didn't know where the sun went at night, and how much you enjoy being preached at.

Your OP is ironic. Homophobia, for example, is a prevalent feature of many religions (certainly amongst the more extreme believers) - and less so amongst those of us who don't believe in any of the gods currently worshipped.

Op can you clarify the point you are making about the US vs the European origin of settlers?

which religion you pick may be more arbitrary

It's not (in the main) - it's determined by your upbringing.

sirchenjin well it did occur to me that children of homosexual parents maybe discriminated against regarding school places by first being refused entry to the relevant religion....

but they could at least point to the equality act and get it over turned...rejecting a child based purely on their parents genetic predisposition to atheism is perfectly acceptable with the rules.

was rate of atheism in US is 3% versus 18% in the UK. The point I was making is that may be because the people who migrated were the ones who were essentially being persecuted in the UK for being too religious at the time.

I have heard tell that being an atheist in Malaysia is an imprisonable offence....are we cool with that?

Do you have a link to an actual paper? All you've posted is an op-ed linked to an article that is an excerpt from a book! No evidence for the 40-50% figure at all (except the weasel phrase "studies show"). The only paper actuallybquoted is over 20 years old!

Your argument is wrong, but in the law religious belief is a protected characteristic in the same way that sex, sexual orientation and race are. So legally, religious discrimination is just as wrong as any other kind.

I don't think it's the same. As I understand it, it's not much more than a propensity to be religious, with outside influences still being very powerful. (I haven't read the actual studies though, I'll admit). It would be interesting if there were any twin studies of adopted twins, one with religious parents and one without. I guess thin on the ground though!

As there is evidence that the brain is malleable and can be shaped through experiences couldn't a 'religious brain' be another example of that?

I still see religious belief as a choice whereas skin colour, disabilties, sex are not choices. What about where there are conflicts? By which I mean, say a religion preached white supremacy. I would not want to excuse these thoughts on the basis that their religion is not a choice.

dad I don't think anyone thinks that homosexuality is 100% genetically predicted...there are other factors..including some which can change with time.

Why shouldn't 'how credulous you are' be a genetic marker? People generally think who intelligent you are is dependent on genetics...why not credulousness?

There's no 'may' about it - and good luck getting that overturned in faith schools. They tend to sit outside the law on many issues.

As for a 'genetic predisposition' to faith/atheism - twin studies don't count as evidence. I'm not buying it - it's an interesting conversation though.

rally except for faith schools....there you may discriminate away as much as you like.