Hi All,
I have decided to briefly surface from "lurk" mode to pass on some potentially interesting information.
I'm sure most of you/us remember a vehemently vitriolic, and volatile, varmint who was vanquished from A-mart some time back(sorry, the first two "v" adjectives just popped in my head as I thought of him, so I just flowed with it 8) )who went by the initials J.R. :S ?
Well for a while he had been on a diatribe against religious believers, claiming specifically that they were genetically defective, and that we should find a method to "cure them of their affliction"(just for the sake of clarity, I don't feel the same way as he did
)
Well......low-and-behold, today I took out my latest(3/26-4/1)copy of "NewScientist", and in the "research news and discovery" section there is a brief about a study done by a team from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, whose findings seem to show that genetic factors may be important in determining the level of religiousness a person exhibits in adulthood.
The study supposedly involved 169-pairs of identical twins, and 104-pairs of fraternal twins. They were all male and in their 30s. They were asked about the frequency with which the family attended religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings now, as opposed to when they were growing up.
The religious beliefs of the identical twins remained similar in adulthood, while the fraternal twins exhibited greater differences in religious beliefs as they aged.
One of the team members stated that Maybe, ultimately, we all decide what we're most comfortable with, and it may have more to do with our own make-up than how we were treated when we were adolescents."
So, I'm wondering if that knucklehead(JR) may have actually, inadvertently, had a, somewhat, valid point stuck in among his other inane ramblings and pejoratives? Of course I personally am not convinced by reading a quick synopsis of a single study about which I don't know much. I also don't believe I would call a possible genetic predisposition to religiousness, a "defect in need of a cure". But perhaps it may be a topic worth revisiting? :S
What do you all think?
Sorry, no links, I have a hard-copy
only.
Best regards,
Joe D.....back to lurk mode>>>>>
Disclaimer: I don't believe this was an April fool's joke, but I understand that some folks don't find "NewScientist" magazine to be a credible science journal so take it as you will. :S
I have decided to briefly surface from "lurk" mode to pass on some potentially interesting information.
I'm sure most of you/us remember a vehemently vitriolic, and volatile, varmint who was vanquished from A-mart some time back(sorry, the first two "v" adjectives just popped in my head as I thought of him, so I just flowed with it 8) )who went by the initials J.R. :S ?
Well for a while he had been on a diatribe against religious believers, claiming specifically that they were genetically defective, and that we should find a method to "cure them of their affliction"(just for the sake of clarity, I don't feel the same way as he did
)Well......low-and-behold, today I took out my latest(3/26-4/1)copy of "NewScientist", and in the "research news and discovery" section there is a brief about a study done by a team from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, whose findings seem to show that genetic factors may be important in determining the level of religiousness a person exhibits in adulthood.
The study supposedly involved 169-pairs of identical twins, and 104-pairs of fraternal twins. They were all male and in their 30s. They were asked about the frequency with which the family attended religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings now, as opposed to when they were growing up.
The religious beliefs of the identical twins remained similar in adulthood, while the fraternal twins exhibited greater differences in religious beliefs as they aged.
One of the team members stated that Maybe, ultimately, we all decide what we're most comfortable with, and it may have more to do with our own make-up than how we were treated when we were adolescents."
So, I'm wondering if that knucklehead(JR) may have actually, inadvertently, had a, somewhat, valid point stuck in among his other inane ramblings and pejoratives? Of course I personally am not convinced by reading a quick synopsis of a single study about which I don't know much. I also don't believe I would call a possible genetic predisposition to religiousness, a "defect in need of a cure". But perhaps it may be a topic worth revisiting? :S
What do you all think?
Sorry, no links, I have a hard-copy
only.
Best regards,
Joe D.....back to lurk mode>>>>>
Disclaimer: I don't believe this was an April fool's joke, but I understand that some folks don't find "NewScientist" magazine to be a credible science journal so take it as you will. :S
