Designer genes for God and gays?
Published January 21, 2004
The authors of the religion-and-serotonin study seem to associate it with religion, but I would associate it with much more. But here is how the study authors describe it:
The spiritual acceptance scale measures a person's apprehension of phenomena that cannot be explained by objective demonstration. Subjects with high scores tend to endorse extrasensory perception and ideation, whether named deities or a commonly unifying force. Low scorers, by contrast, tend to favor a reductionistic and empirical worldview.Really? What happened to the "meditative search for meaning"? Instead, we get a bunch of fruitcakes looking for ESP and "unifying forces."
And how about the "practical, self-conscious, materialistic, and controlling" people who "consistently have difficulty accepting suffering, loss of control, personal and material losses, and death, which lead to adjustment problems"? Now, in the serotonin study they have been transformed into people who favor "a reductionistic and empirical worldview."
Like the test authors, perhaps?
Sorry folks, but this stuff ain't science to me. It strikes me as highly judgmental.
And, while I don't mean to defend spiritual people, I would wonder how they could even begin to define that. Why wouldn't a believer in an imaginary Communist Utopia be considered "spiritual" for having transcended ordinary mortal feelings?
The ability to transcend the self is at the core of Utopian thinking. Subordination oneself to the state (and forgetting about oneself in the process) has led to enormous self-sacrifice, as well as to sacrifice of others.
QUERY: Might not "the Good" itself involve self transcendence?
(See my previous post on Communism and Christianity: "We are killing to build a world in which no one will ever kill. We accept criminality for ourselves in order that the earth may at last be full of innocent people")
It occurs to me that "self-transcendence" is by no means synonymous with religious belief. Most of the religious people I know do not speak in terms of self-transcendance, out of body experiences, talking with God, or anything like that. People who've had LSD trips (and some of the Ecstacy crowd) sure. But religion is more a matter of belief than transcending the self. It's a bit like the old saying, "If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're crazy." I submit that very few of those who call themselves "religious" hear God talking to them, or leave their bodies.
I am deeply suspicious of the assumptions underlying the search for biological differences in the brain as an explanation of non-conforming thoughts, and I think it is entirely possible that these differences might beg the question as to whether they were caused by, and not a cause of, the self-transcendence under observation.
- Designer genes for God and gays?
- Published: January 21, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Eric Scheie
- Eric Scheie's BC Writer page
- Eric Scheie's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Randall,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that there are Randian utopias, scientific utopias, and probably other versions of utopian thinking which are not "self-transcendent." But please note the psychologists' definition -- which is not mine: "the extent to which individuals conceive themselves as integral parts of the universe as a whole." That's pretty broad. And without getting into extended semantics, the word "Utopia" comes from the name of Thomas More's imaginary republic -- in which the inhabitants can quite honestly be said to epitomize self-transcendence. ("where no man has any property, all men zealously pursue the good of the public...." etc.)
While we may not agree on what is meant by the term "spiritual" my primary point is that it is not necessarily the same as "religious," and I am concerned that people could be confused -- and that too many people in the neuropsychologists' camp will jump to conclusions.
To chart such (self reported) behavioral data against brain chemistry data runs the risk of committing the error of post hoc ergo propter hoc. For example, serotonin levels decline with age, and, in the case of Highly Sensitive Personality, levels drop from stress or chronic overarousal. I am deeply suspicious about self-reported "spirituality" in the case of fifteen persons forming the basis of generalized pronouncements about religion.
Regarding genetics, other than the mention of a study of adopted twins and "religiosity", the paper offered no evidence to support a genetic theory other than speculation.
Still, it is a fascinating study.
(I would very much like to get hold of the "Self-transcendence" questions from the Temperament and Character Inventory test, too!)
My own attempt to google up the English language version of the "Temperament and Character Inventory" didn't turn up anything useful. I'm guessing that by now some of the personality tests have been given to people who were also questioned about their church attendance and perhaps tests have been given to various kinds of church, synagogue, mosque, and other sorts of temple attenders and then compared to those who do not so attend or profess. So it is possible that the measure used in this study has been found to correlate with actual religious activity. But personality testing is certainly not my bailiwick and I don't know anywhere near as much about it as I would like to.
Fascinating and thought-provoking although it forced me to pay more attention than usual to follow along. (smile) Thanks to you both!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11916)
You say: "The ability to transcend the self is at the core of Utopian thinking."
Well, that is true of some utopians but by no means all. Look at Atlas Shrugged for a very non-self-transcending vision of a utopia. Or read libertarian L. Neil Smith science fiction novels for another.
As for what is spiritual: Well, before launching into semantic debates to keep in mind that most words in the English language are overloaded with different meanings. Look up the word "set" in the Oxford English Dictionary some time. There are relational database theorists who get upset by those who use "incorrect" meanings of the word "set" when talking about databases. Some of these relational theorists are accused by others of being religious about their theory.
In this research paper a difference in cognitive function was found between groups of people and the difference was linked to a genetic difference. Whether one labels that difference spiritual/rational or some other pair of words is really besides the point and the semantic debate about what is "spiritual" is besides the point. The definition used by the researchers is a defensible definition in my view and represents a reasonable use of the word. An OED dictionary editor would probably find it to be so.