> At 05:13 AM 10/15/96 +0000, Hakeeb A. Nandalal wrote:
> >Lior Golgher wrote :-
> >
> >> We should pay more attention to the use of terms like "a genetic
> >> basis operating in meme selection", "a statistical probability of
> >> someone being born with a mind that would find theism acceptable"
> >> and most-radical "mental "uncertainty" chip in our heads". With
> >> no intention to insult anyone, such terms are no more than a
> >> modern variation of age-old determinism.
> >>
>
> >Point taken and I agree completely. My "mental chip" metaphor was never
> >meant to be literal or to imply that there were specific genes which
> >were responsible for a person being "God meme" receptive or not. I was
> >attempting to put a readily understandable metaphor to explain my
> >observation that there were no particular attributes displayed by
> >atheists but were lacking in theists apart from their difference in the
> >belief in a God.
>
> I don't know why we would throw away the idea of a "faith" gene -
> lots of our predispositions certainly have genetic components.
> Complex behaviors like sexual preference have genetic components -
> perhaps being an atheist is like being a homosexual, just some
> minority choice we make in how we live our lives (why it may even
> cause us to be discriminated against). The choice can
> certainly be affected by our environment, but perhaps the strongest
> component is genetic... (?)
>
> ken
Weaken this to "faith-biased", and we may be in workable territory. So
many emotional traits have a superificial genetic bias, that I would be
surprised if faith was exempt.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////