# Scientist finds "god gene"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [January 4, 2005, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027 "2005-01-04T14:26:28Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/21 "2005-01-04T18:45:36Z")
> [@Cisco](#):
>
> Well what’s the status on the “gay gene”? I’m usually afraid to ask because (depending on who you ask) the answer is almost invariably either:
>
> “OF COURSE there’s a gay gene YOU FUCKING IDIOT!”
>
> or
>
> “OF COURSE there’s not a gay gene YOU FUCKING IDIOT!”
>
> Well excuuu-use me for asking.
Poke around GD some time. Anyway, to quote a [Skepdic.com](http://Skepdic.com) blurb on the ‘god gene’ subject:
> [@](#):
>
> Has the research been published in a peer reviewed journal? Not according to Carl Zimmer in his review of Hamer’s book for Scientific American.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _[Hamer] and his colleagues are still preparing to submit their results to a scientific journal. It would be nice to know whether these results can withstand the rigors of peer review. It would be nicer still to know whether any other scientists can replicate them. The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits. These alleged associations at first seemed very strong. But as other researchers tried to replicate them, they faded away into statistical noise. In 1993, for example, a scientist reported a genetic link to male homosexuality in a region of the X chromosome. The report brought a huge media fanfare, but other scientists who tried to replicate the study failed. The scientist’s name was Dean Hamer._
> [@jjim](#):
>
> How does the presence of this gene (which presumably is as old as humanity) explain the near 100% religiousity of our ancestors?
What in the world does this mean?
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/22 "2005-01-04T19:04:47Z")
> [@jjimm](#):
>
> How does the presence of this gene (which presumably is as old as humanity) explain the near 100% religiousity of our ancestors? Were a large number of them just going through the motions?
Prove the "near 100% [religiousness] of our ancestors. The only evidence I’ve ever heard is that they buried their dead. What if someone found all of our graveyards 20,000 years from now and said “Well, those 21st centurians were near 100% religious!”?
---
### Author:  [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/23 "2005-01-04T19:08:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> What in the world does this mean?
Wasn’t that clear? Seemed clear to me. However, if I was being obscure, I apologise. I’ll try to rephrase: if the theory of the gene is true, why weren’t large swathes of our ancestors atheists? Or were they just pretending to be religious due to contemporaneous societal constraints?
---
### Author:  [@ninetypercent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninetypercent)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/24 "2005-01-04T19:09:33Z")
> [@Dragwyr](#):
>
> It seems just a bit too convenient to me.
>
> Sure let’s blame genetic makeup for all of our behaviors. What’s next? The “Laziness” gene that makes people not want to go out and get a job? “Hey I would love to be employed, but my genetic makeup prevents me from doing so.” How about those that have criminal tendancies: “I would love to be a law abiding citizen, but my genes just make me want to go out and stab somone 25 times.”
>
> Now we have research suggesting that belief in a higher spiritual power is based on our genetic makeup. Yes, advances in genetic research have greatly improved modern medicine, but where is the line that separates behavior due to genetics from behavior I choose to do?
I don’t think humans choose anything. Ever read What is Man by Mark Twain? [link](http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-whatisman.htm)
All this gene does is alter the amount of neurotransmitters in the brain. It’s not a “GOD GENE” any more than it is a RPG gene or a schizophrenia gene. The title of his book makes it pretty obvious that his goal is to make money off of Christians.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/25 "2005-01-04T19:12:25Z")
> [@jjimm](#):
>
> Wasn’t that clear? Seemed clear to me. However, if I was being obscure, I apologise. I’ll try to rephrase: if the theory of the gene is true, why weren’t large swathes of our ancestors atheists? Or were they just pretending to be religious due to contemporaneous societal constraints?
**Cisco** already posted what I was thinking: you made a very large generalization that you can’t prove. You could generalize about what tribes did, but “near-100% religiosity” is absurd.
---
### Author:  [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/26 "2005-01-04T19:19:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> **Cisco** already posted what I was thinking: you made a very large generalization that you can’t prove. You could generalize about what tribes did, but “near-100% religiosity” is absurd.
Everything I’ve ever learned about, for example, mediaeval England, indicates that _everyone_ was a churchgoer. Not to do so would have meant total ostracisation from society.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/27 "2005-01-04T19:23:56Z")
> [@jjimm](#):
>
> Everything I’ve ever learned about, for example, mediaeval England, indicates that _everyone_ was a churchgoer. Not to do so would have meant total ostracisation from society.
:smack: That’s why everyone was a churchgoer! When it was against the law not to go to church, which it sometimes was, you went whether you believed it or not and kept your mouth shut.
---
### Author:  [@bluecanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluecanary)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/28 "2005-01-04T19:26:14Z")
OK, I ws just about to type a reply and then **Marley23** ’s post appeared.
What **Marley23** said.
---
### Author:  [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/29 "2005-01-04T19:31:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> :smack: That’s why everyone was a churchgoer! When it was against the law not to go to church, which it sometimes was, you went whether you believed it or not and kept your mouth shut.
:smack: Hence my “going through the motions” speculation. I think you’ve misinterpreted what I’m asking.
[Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism):
> [@](#):
>
> In the European Middle Ages people were persecuted for heresy, especially in countries where the Inquisition was active. Medieval “impiety” and “godlessness” were closer to “weak atheism” than avowed “strong atheism”, and hardly any expression of strong atheism is known from this period. Epicureanism, the medieval term equivalent to atheism, was essentially a slur **and had no active proponents**.
(My emphasis.)
Do we have any evidence that there were substantial non-god-gene-bearing people going to church but crossing their fingers and not believing?
I ain’t no god-botherer, by the way. I am the athiest atheist.
---
### Author:  [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/30 "2005-01-04T19:32:03Z")
Hell, people _still_ go to church to keep up appearances or to fit in. I’ve even met agnostic ministers.
---
### Author:  [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/31 "2005-01-04T21:08:04Z")
So if you don’t have the god-gene, is that a god-plan?
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/32 "2005-01-04T21:19:12Z")
> [@jjimm](#):
>
> Do we have any evidence that there were substantial non-god-gene-bearing people going to church but crossing their fingers and not believing?
There’s none that I know of, but between the political climate and record-keeping at the time, I’m not sure how you’d find any. Absence of evidence does not blah blah blah. 😉
> [@](#):
>
> I ain’t no god-botherer, by the way. I am the athiest atheist.
Likewise.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/33 "2005-01-04T21:58:06Z")
> [@Homebrew](#):
>
> I’ve even met agnostic ministers.
::giggles and raises hand:: I’ll be performing my third wedding ceremony this spring.
---
### Author:  [@clayton\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clayton_e)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/34 "2005-01-04T22:20:56Z")
I was going to give a 😕 **Homebrew** ’s way, but it has been redirected your direction, **Cisco** (not that I disapprove or anything like that, I’m agnostic myself. I’m just wondering why someone would choose that line of work)
Hm… slight hijack…
(insert _another_ cheap blue jeans joke)
---
### Author:  [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/35 "2005-01-04T22:25:29Z")
> [@clayton\_e](#):
>
> I was going to give a 😕 **Homebrew** ’s way, but it has been redirected your direction, **Cisco** (not that I disapprove or anything like that, I’m agnostic myself. I’m just wondering why someone would choose that line of work)
>
> Hm… slight hijack…
>
> (insert _another_ cheap blue jeans joke)
Don’t people become ministers to perform temporary services for friends/family?
Like Joey in Friends?
Or maybe for moneymaking purposes (So people can pay them to marry you)
---
### Author:  [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/36 "2005-01-04T22:26:36Z")
> [@ninetypercent](#):
>
> The title of his book makes it pretty obvious that his goal is to make money off of Christians.
Better it go to him than Robertson and his ilk.
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/37 "2005-01-04T22:27:12Z")
I hate these kinds of press releases.
_Everybody_ has VMAT2, the neuron-type (it’s found in other cell types too, like platelets, which carry a very similar variant) vesicular monoamine transporter. Mice that largely lack it (the true knockout is a lethal phenotype), for instance, cannot properly package monoamine neurotransmitters in secretory vessicles, and hence cannot transmit nervous impulses with these chemicals normally. Saying “I have VMAT2” is like saying “I have monoaminergic neurons”, for all practical purposes.
Obviously, Hamer thinks he’s found a variant of the VMAT2 gene that correlates significantly with religious faith or spirituality. Unless this variant has some impact on the VMAT2 gene product’s function and/or abundance, the finding is likely to be a red herring.
It’s interesting to note that functional variants of this gene have been implicated in neurological and psychatric diseases, such as parkisonism, depression, and bipolar I disorder, though the linkages appear to be pretty tenuous, if not non-existant, outside of animal models of disease. I would have thought the importance of this protein to dopaminergic and serotonergic neurotransmission would make it a prime gene candidate as a causative agent in schizophrenia, but no such association has been found. Given the gene’s essentially universal role in monoaminergic neurotransmission, I should think that any marked differences in function would have profound effects on one’s neurological state, and ought to be pretty easy to recognize as some form of severe neurological illness. My guess would be that any kind of profound functional polymorphisms would be selected against pretty heavily, meaning that whatever is going on with this gene, it must be pretty damn subtle. Best of luck to Dr. Hamer proving the linkage has any true significance. As noted above, his “gay gene” proved to be a big fat red herring of the most redolent variety. I’m somewhat surprised he still has the chutzpah to make similar kinds of claims about human behavior based simply on genetics. There’s a lot more to biology than allelic variants.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027/38 "2005-01-04T23:21:38Z")
> [@clayton\_e](#):
>
> I was going to give a 😕 **Homebrew** ’s way, but it has been redirected your direction, **Cisco** (not that I disapprove or anything like that, I’m agnostic myself. I’m just wondering why someone would choose that line of work)
Not as a line of work. I do weddings for non-religious friends and family, and I don’t charge them anything (though the last couple I married bought my round-trip plane ticket across the country to do it, which was flattering.)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientist-finds-god-gene/283027.md?page=1)