| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2005 09:20:50 AM |
| Object: |
Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
Start the week, BBC Radio 4:
It says here:
ROBERT WINSTON is one of our best known scientists, a leading voice in
the debate on genetic engineering and presenter of many television
series on science including Making Babies and The Human Body. Now he
has lent his investigative skills to the story of God, as, despite
being a scientist, Robert Winston is also a believer. He discusses how
science and religion can work together and what he discovered about
where religion emerged from and why. The Story of God starts on 4
December on BBC 1 and the accompanying book, published by Bantam
Press, is out now.
You can listen to the program again at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml#s
(Look for "Start The Week"). The new one probably won't be up for an
hour or two from the time of this post (which comes from a proper time
zone...),
Quite interesting.
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
So I was wondering: suppose this is true. Would it be morally
legitimate to, assuming the technology existed, to turn this gene or
set of genes off?
Your thoughts welcome.
.
|
|
| User: "explainer" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 06:29:41 PM |
|
|
...despite being a scientist, Robert Winston is also a believer...
....revealing the BBC's misunderstanding of the mutual exclusivity of
facts of science and fantasies of believing.
Everybody's beliefs are what they "know", but can't prove. It's the
folks who know they can prove what they believe that's creates problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 10:05:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:20:50 +0000, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Start the week, BBC Radio 4:
It says here:
ROBERT WINSTON is one of our best known scientists, a leading voice in
the debate on genetic engineering and presenter of many television
series on science including Making Babies and The Human Body. Now he
has lent his investigative skills to the story of God, as, despite
being a scientist, Robert Winston is also a believer. He discusses how
science and religion can work together and what he discovered about
where religion emerged from and why. The Story of God starts on 4
December on BBC 1 and the accompanying book, published by Bantam
Press, is out now.
You can listen to the program again at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml#s
(Look for "Start The Week"). The new one probably won't be up for an
hour or two from the time of this post (which comes from a proper time
zone...),
Quite interesting.
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
So I was wondering: suppose this is true. Would it be morally
legitimate to, assuming the technology existed, to turn this gene or
set of genes off?
Your thoughts welcome.
I have no problems with the "God gene".
The gene that *should* be turned off, is the IYFP gene.
("In yer face proseletysing" gene)
If they can silence that one, then I'm all for it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 09:58:25 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> suddenly spluttered:
Start the week, BBC Radio 4:
It says here:
ROBERT WINSTON is one of our best known scientists, a leading voice in
the debate on genetic engineering and presenter of many television
series on science including Making Babies and The Human Body. Now he
has lent his investigative skills to the story of God, as, despite
being a scientist, Robert Winston is also a believer. He discusses how
science and religion can work together and what he discovered about
where religion emerged from and why. The Story of God starts on 4
December on BBC 1 and the accompanying book, published by Bantam
Press, is out now.
You can listen to the program again at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml#s
(Look for "Start The Week"). The new one probably won't be up for an
hour or two from the time of this post (which comes from a proper time
zone...),
Quite interesting.
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
So I was wondering: suppose this is true. Would it be morally
legitimate to, assuming the technology existed, to turn this gene or
set of genes off?
Your thoughts welcome.
If in the non-existent world of biological determinism, such a
gene/genes did exist, and it could be determined that there were no
side effects of turning them off, then it would be perfectly ethical
to turn of a gene that generates false consciousness.
However, if Winston really understood how genes work, he'd know there
wasn't. There simply aren't enough functional genes to determine
specific aspects of behaviour/personality/belief of that nature,
though there may be genes which, as part of their effect, cause this
phenomenon, as belief in God is actually a mild form of temporal lobe
epilepsy.
Watching people speculate about these things is quite depressing, as
it lets the eugenicists out of jail, despite the mapping of the human
genome showing that their assumptions are virtually impossible.
Perhaps it's time to reassert Rutherford's maxim.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 11:59:21 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:58:25 +0000 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, <Yournamehere>'s personal
Cthulhu ("<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu"
<yournamehere@martyrdom.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> suddenly spluttered:
Start the week, BBC Radio 4:
It says here:
ROBERT WINSTON is one of our best known scientists, a leading voice in
the debate on genetic engineering and presenter of many television
series on science including Making Babies and The Human Body. Now he
has lent his investigative skills to the story of God, as, despite
being a scientist, Robert Winston is also a believer. He discusses how
science and religion can work together and what he discovered about
where religion emerged from and why. The Story of God starts on 4
December on BBC 1 and the accompanying book, published by Bantam
Press, is out now.
You can listen to the program again at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml#s
(Look for "Start The Week"). The new one probably won't be up for an
hour or two from the time of this post (which comes from a proper time
zone...),
Quite interesting.
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
So I was wondering: suppose this is true. Would it be morally
legitimate to, assuming the technology existed, to turn this gene or
set of genes off?
Your thoughts welcome.
If in the non-existent world of biological determinism,
I don't know if you've listened to the programme, but I don't think
Winston was saying that belief in God or no is *determined* in a hard
sense by ones genetic makeup, but rather that some people may be
predisposed, or more inclined to believe as a result of their
particular genetics.
<horrible imagining>
Let us breed Roman Catholic priests together and see...
</horrible imagining>
such a
gene/genes did exist, and it could be determined that there were no
side effects of turning them off, then it would be perfectly ethical
to turn of a gene that generates false consciousness.
Personally I agree that it would be ethical to turn it off, *if* as
you say there were no side effects (which IMO is unlikely) but for
rather different reasons.
If one is predisposed to believe because of a genetic predisposition,
then from a religious point of view is ones belief wholly genuine?
After all, most Protestants - at least here on usenet - claim that
belief is a choice - but what kind of choice is a predisposed choice?
Heh, and to play the Devil's advocate, as it were, if it were true it
would be a wonderful gift to some religions in as much as they'd be
able to do genetic testing to determine who and who isn't a true
believer. Calvinism + Genetic Technology.
.... I believe I see a movie script....! Must speak to Elroy.
However, if Winston really understood how genes work,
Well, it may be that I've over-simplified his point, and suspect by
virtue of his research that few people know more, at least within his
admittedly constrained domain.
he'd know there
wasn't. There simply aren't enough functional genes to determine
specific aspects of behaviour/personality/belief of that nature,
As a matter of interest do we know this for a fact?
though there may be genes which, as part of their effect, cause this
phenomenon, as belief in God is actually a mild form of temporal lobe
epilepsy.
I think this is an arguable case in some instances, and possibly
mostly with respect to the famous cases. But I also think to use this
as an explanation for most believers is, well, a little too general.
Watching people speculate about these things is quite depressing, as
it lets the eugenicists out of jail, despite the mapping of the human
genome showing that their assumptions are virtually impossible.
Perhaps it's time to reassert Rutherford's maxim.
Any knowledge that one cannot measure numerically "is a poor sort of
knowledge"? Well, yes, I'd give a guarded assent to that, but on the
other hand I think that we must recognise that there are certain areas
of being human experience that are not amendable to numbers, at least
not given the current state of the art.
No, I'd think the first maxim we need to first reassert is "First, do
no harm".
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. www.video2cd.co.uk. Your 8mm films on DVD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 02:27:15 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in alt.atheism
After all, most Protestants - at least here on usenet - claim that
belief is a choice - but what kind of choice is a predisposed choice?
Heh, and to play the Devil's advocate, as it were, if it were true it
would be a wonderful gift to some religions in as much as they'd be
able to do genetic testing to determine who and who isn't a true
believer. Calvinism + Genetic Technology.
... I believe I see a movie script....! Must speak to Elroy.
You rang?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 11:10:00 AM |
|
|
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> suddenly spluttered:
Start the week, BBC Radio 4:
It says here:
ROBERT WINSTON is one of our best known scientists, a leading voice in
the debate on genetic engineering and presenter of many television
series on science including Making Babies and The Human Body. Now he
has lent his investigative skills to the story of God, as, despite
being a scientist, Robert Winston is also a believer. He discusses how
science and religion can work together and what he discovered about
where religion emerged from and why. The Story of God starts on 4
December on BBC 1 and the accompanying book, published by Bantam
Press, is out now.
You can listen to the program again at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml#s
(Look for "Start The Week"). The new one probably won't be up for an
hour or two from the time of this post (which comes from a proper time
zone...),
Quite interesting.
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
So I was wondering: suppose this is true. Would it be morally
legitimate to, assuming the technology existed, to turn this gene or
set of genes off?
Your thoughts welcome.
If in the non-existent world of biological determinism,
So are you saying that eye color is random, or an act of will?
such a
gene/genes did exist, and it could be determined that there were no
side effects of turning them off, then it would be perfectly ethical
to turn of a gene that generates false consciousness.
Hmm Reminds me of _The Valley of the Blind_ by H.G. Wells. An explorer
discovers a valley of a lost tribe who are all congentially blind (a
founder effect gene pool). He likes it there, falls for a pretty girl,
decides he can bully or compete his way to chief by the using the
advantages of his sight. But the tribe's doctors decide that his social
conflicts are caused by a pathology of his eyes - those useless soft
spots on one's face - and decide that he can be made a better member of
society by removing them...
I am less troubled by some folk's beliefs on these matters than I am by
the way they came about it, and especially by the determination some of
them show to shape my life by their personal revelations.
However, if Winston really understood how genes work, he'd know there
wasn't. There simply aren't enough functional genes to determine
specific aspects of behaviour/personality/belief of that nature,
though there may be genes which, as part of their effect, cause this
phenomenon, as belief in God is actually a mild form of temporal lobe
epilepsy.
Don't go by a journalist's paraphrase. I would guess that Winston is
talking about a predisposition to follow what we might call a spiritual
path. Depending on other genes, and the person's experiences (including
culture), it could manifest in very different ways.
Watching people speculate about these things is quite depressing, as
it lets the eugenicists out of jail, despite the mapping of the human
genome showing that their assumptions are virtually impossible.
Perhaps it's time to reassert Rutherford's maxim.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
Sure. And if someone with the God gene were also rational, she might be
a Zen Buddhist, or join Doctors without Borders, or some other display
of spiritual or pseudospiritual behavior.
Imagine a gene for physical agression. A person with such a gene might
be a firefighter, or cop, or mugger, or football player. Humans are
flexible. Just because there is a gene governing behavior doesn't mean
that it would express itself in a specific way. It's likely not so
simple, even if true. Even characteristics as simple as skin color are
a result of multiple genes interacting with the environment.
None of this, of course, says anything about the truth value of any
particular religion, or religion in general.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 11:34:26 AM |
|
|
suddenly spluttered:
If in the non-existent world of biological determinism,
So are you saying that eye color is random, or an act of will?
'Biological Determinism'. A specific term for a general doctrine
which speculates that things like behaviour, intelligence etc are
genetically determined. It covers speculative nonsense like Eugenics
and neo-Galtonian race theories.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 10:10:41 AM |
|
|
"<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org>
suddenly spluttered:
Perhaps it's time to reassert Rutherford's maxim.
Here's a visual pun:
http://www.chemheritage.org/classroom/chemach/images/smfotos/05atomic/rutherford2.jpg
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 02:52:55 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
Which does not prove the existence of God, by the way. This hypothesis
suggest that we are genetically predisposed toward a certain kind of
delusion.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Googler" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 06:10:16 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Therion Ware wrote:
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
Which does not prove the existence of God, by the way. This hypothesis
suggest that we are genetically predisposed toward a certain kind of
delusion.
A fallacious argument (a polite way of saying "a crock of s**t").
The hypothesis could just as well suggest that those who DON'T have
this genetic trait (or who have it but it is biologically suppressed)
are genetically deficient and predisposed toward a delusion - namely,
the delusion that God does NOT exist.
Means nothing either way, as regards human learned behaviors.
The whole idea of genetics determining, or even predisposing, learned
behavior smacks of the over-simplistic theories of Jensen, Herrnstein &
Murray. If you buy it, you're close to arguing for a form of genetic
elitism. When a so-called scientific theory leads to such anti-social
conclusions, it really needs to be much more closely examined.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NashtOn" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 11:40:46 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
Start the week, BBC Radio 4:
It says here:
ROBERT WINSTON is one of our best known scientists, a leading voice in
the debate on genetic engineering and presenter of many television
series on science including Making Babies and The Human Body. Now he
has lent his investigative skills to the story of God, as, despite
being a scientist, Robert Winston is also a believer. He discusses how
science and religion can work together and what he discovered about
where religion emerged from and why. The Story of God starts on 4
December on BBC 1 and the accompanying book, published by Bantam
Press, is out now.
You can listen to the program again at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml#s
(Look for "Start The Week"). The new one probably won't be up for an
hour or two from the time of this post (which comes from a proper time
zone...),
Quite interesting.
Anyway, Winston tends to believe in the "God Gene" - that some people
by virtue of their genetic makeup are predisposed to believe in God.
So I was wondering: suppose this is true. Would it be morally
legitimate to, assuming the technology existed, to turn this gene or
set of genes off?
Your thoughts welcome.
Sure.
Time to turn off your post-stupidities-to-Usenet gene.
HTH
Nicola
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Winston, Geneticist, Believer, On BBC Radio 4. |
28 Nov 2005 02:57:50 PM |
|
|
NashtOn wrote:
Therion Ware wrote:
Start the week, BBC Radio 4:
So I was wondering: suppose this is true. Would it be morally
legitimate to, assuming the technology existed, to turn this gene or
set of genes off?
Your thoughts welcome.
Sure.
Time to turn off your post-stupidities-to-Usenet gene.
Not only is yours not turned off, but you seem to have multiple copies.
HTH
Nicola
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
