Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 5:42:30 GMT
Oct 17, 2019 4:02:31 GMT goz said:
why are you incapable of understanding this?
1. Researched that study and found it was done by a graduate student in psychology NOT a scientist or scientific team. It is the ONLY study I could find on the net on this topic.
They defined religion in the study as
The team gave questionnaires to 169 pairs of identical twins – 100% genetically identical – and 104 pairs of fraternal twins – 50% genetically identical – born in Minnesota.
The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings.
The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings.
2. Asked my sis ( who is a scientist and career biometrician and genealogist who worked in genetics for the Australian Government for 45 years) whose job was to design scientific experiments, to run her eye over the study.
In her opinion it was 'bullshit' without proper design, application statistical methodology from the information given. Her exact words were 'biased lightweight nonsense based on an unscientific postulation'.
Cool you dont like that study. Oh well, sadly once again nothing that you have said can be ascribed to anything other than opinion, I dont know who your sister is but sure lets take her at face value. (Just to be clear I know who you claim your sister to be, but I can claim that my uncle planned the RAF gulf war, it really does not mean much in this context).
I accept that it is the only study you can find on the net, I actually found a few more but they were behind paywalls. So the best I can really do is references in I guess second level academia, by which I mean books and the like as opposed to actual studies.
a huge one the Dean (I think sorry not going to look him up again) Hamer, who is referenced in tons of things regarding this. It looks like he was the most famous to suggest a link between inheritance and religion. I am sure you will find references to him as you look around.
Heres a second tier from the royal publication society;
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2010.2504
In which it states:
It is widely agreed that religion has biological foundations—that belief in the supernatural, obedience to authority or susceptibility to ceremony and ritual depend on genetically based features of the human brain [1–6].
Sadly the links mostly go to book excerpts, but I would consider this legitimate.
This article just takes it as a given, which I know it not very helpful, but anyhow:
There is plenty out there.
I think on the balance of the study I cited and the secondary sources I have just shown you, it is far to say that there is at the very least still debate of there being a genetic component to religious propensity.
Or maybe you can cite some studies that back up you assertion that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith'
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,
There is plenty out there.
I think on the balance of the study I cited and the secondary sources I have just shown you, it is far to say that there is at the very least still debate of there being a genetic component to religious propensity.
Or maybe you can cite some studies that back up you assertion that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith'