Religion, Science, and Genes

March 2, 2008

A Sermon offered at the Unitarian Universalist Church, Lafayette, IN

By Kathryn Black

More than a century ago William James, the philosopher and pioneer psychologist, first argued that it was possible for scientists to study religion, or - as he referred to the topic - The Varieties of Religious Experience.  In my view he was correct in both his terminology and his thesis and no one would reasonably argue against this now.  Nonetheless, a recent religion column in USA Today appeared to argue that the religious experience was ineffable and could not be studied.  It is true that people will reasonably differ as to what the scientific study of religious experience can prove.  It was the 1960’s before the first journal devoted to the scientific study of religion was founded.  Several other similar journals have been established and in 2008 the American Psychological Association began publication of a journal entitled Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Such journals have been concerned with a wide ranging variety of topics and may consider psychological questions - for example,  “how does religion affect mental health?”
  - or sociological topics - for example, “how do different groups differ in religious activities?”  The editor of the newest journal claims a particular interest in cross-cultural comparisons.

At the present time at last a dozen university institutes conduct or promulgate research on the relationship between religion and health, either mental health or physical health.  Only a minority of these institutes are based in religious institutions.  That is, public institutions have no problem with allowing the study of religious experience.

But in the 1990’s a greatly different kind of research began to appear.  This was typically done by research teams associated with medical schools that had elaborate equipment that enabled them to view brain activity while the subjects were engaging in different kinds of mental activity. This kind of study has been often reported in the newspapers in the last decade. Here is a prototypical example.  SPECT imaging is used after radioactive tracers had been injected into the brain.  (This is not a kind of research for which many would volunteer.)

SPECT is an abbreviation for “single photon emission computed tomography” – a description which doesn’t help me much more than does SPECT, except it suggests that some complicated measurement is involved. One of the most cited studies using this methodology involved SPECT imaging done with two groups of individuals while they were in what would be called a state of mystical experience.  There was one group of Buddhist meditators from Tibet who went into a state that was described by them something like the following:  “There’s a sense of timelessness and infinity and I feel like I am part of everyone and everything in existence.”  And there were also some Christian nuns who were engaging in prayer - with their goal being Unio Mystica, the Latin term for union with God.

The major scientific finding was that these kinds of experiences are associated with an alteration in a specific area of the brain.  These and similar findings were summarized in a 2001 book entitled “Why God Won’t Go Away”.  (Andrew Newburg, Eugene D’Quili, and Vince Rause) Like so many books intended for popularity with general readers there was an explanatory phrase added to the major title.  Why God Won’t Go Away was subtitled “Brain Science and the Biology of Belief”. As you can surmise, this book extended the interpretation of what the scientific results meant. When reading this book, scholars of philosophy or of the classics may be reminded here of Descartes’ suggestion - I’ll simplify – as these authors believe that there is a part of the brain that communicates with God.  This research program and others like it have led to an area of study that is referred to as “neurotheology”.

I personally prefer the conclusion of another researcher doing a similar thing. (Dr. Mario Beauregard, lead researcher.)  His research used magnetic resonance imaging, the common MRI. Rather than measuring what happened when nuns were praying he asked them to think and talk about times when they had experienced union with God.  He found that they demonstrated altered brain activity in not just one but various regions of the brain.  He concluded that this finding of a physical concomitant to religious experience does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience.  He takes the further position that while brain changes and the feeling of bliss may help explain why some people believe they are communicating with God, in fact such experiences neither confirm nor disconfirm the actual existence of God.  

Even without knowing about the findings of brain changes for some when engaged in prayer or meditation one question that might well be raised is:  why do some people attempt or actually achieve such states while others don’t. One of the more interesting answers to this question has been given by a geneticist named Dean Hamer, reputably employed at the National Institutes of Health and widely published in scientific journals. 

I’m now going to summarize for you the research program that Hamer has reported in a 2004 book entitled, “The God Gene”.  Of course it also has a subtitle – “How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.” 

He begins by making a distinction between religion and spirituality. For him, religion refers to church membership, activity level in the church, and holding specific beliefs. Spirituality is something else.  He uses a 33 item scale to measure what he considers spirituality - a characteristic that he refers to as self-transcendence. 

Let me give you examples of items from the self-transcendence scale of spirituality that he used. This scale is made up of three components and I’ll give you examples of each of the three.

Here are examples of the first component. I’ll ask three questions while you decide in your mind whether or not any of these are true of you.  I’ll say them twice while you think about it.  Do you ever get so involved with your work that you forget where you are or what time it is? (repeat)  Do you sometimes have the feeling that you are “in the zone” in terms of writing, or sports, or music, and that you can effortlessly do it right? (repeat) Have you ever been so in love with someone that you felt like there was no boundary between the two of you? (repeat)

Now, raise your hand if any of these have been, or are, true of you. These are common, but not universal experiences.  Spiritual people by his definition are more likely to have these sorts of experiences - which he labels self-forgetfulness.  The more of these and similar questions that were answered yes, the higher would be a persons spirituality score.

Now for the second component:

Are you concerned about protecting animals and plants from extinction? (repeat) Do you feel a sense of unity with all the things around you? (repeat)  Would you risk your life to make the world a better place? (repeat)

And again:  raise your hand if any of these have been, or are,  true of you.  These questions are a part of the subset called “transpersonal identification” which refers to a feeling of connectedness to the universe and anything in it.  This includes a love of nature which has been a recurring theme in spirituality and sometimes is incorporated into religions.  Some people with high scores on this feel that everything is part of one living organism.  Again, the more of these questions answered yes, the higher the spirituality score.

Now for the third set of questions.  Do you sometimes feel a spiritual connection to other creatures – either people or animals - that can’t be explained in words? (repeat) Do you often find yourself moved emotionally by a piece of poetry, or music, or a fine speech? (repeat)  Do you think that mystical experiences can be real? (repeat)

These last three questions are from the subscale that has been elaborately labeled “spiritual acceptance versus rational materialism”.

Will those of you who agree with this or any of the prior questions raise your hands?

People who score high on this subscale are likely to be considered intuitive.  One can of course both be intuitive and a scientist.   Here is a quote from Albert Einstein.  “There is a central order to the universe, an order that can be directly apprehended by the soul in mystical union”.  Again, this may or may not be true but it does illustrate that some scientists believe it. 

The yes answers for all the questions are combined to yield an overall “spirituality score.”

When you consider the questions on this “Spirituality Scale” please note that it would be possible to score high on this without claiming to believe in God.  That is, one might well be a “Mystical Humanist”, a phrase one in the congregation at a previous presentation of this material used to refer to himself. 

Now back to the purpose for administering this scale.  Hamer is a geneticist whose website states, “Many aspects of human personality and behavior are genetically influenced.”  On the basis of a number of unique personal experiences, described in his book, he was interested in finding out whether or not there is a genetic component to spirituality as measured by this scale.  Perhaps the most easily understood approach to genetics is the use of the twin method where one finds a large sample of both identical and fraternal twins and then compares the extent to which they are similar.  Some fascinating work with religiousness had been done in the past with twins reared apart who were asked the following questions.  Do you feel that religion has helped you?  Do you have a sense of God’s presence? Do you spend time privately praying?  Over half of the variation in answers to these questions was associated with having identical genes - which is what is true of identical twins.  On the other hand measures of church attendance and church activity participation were not genetically influenced but appeared to be heavily environmentally determined.

The state of scientific knowledge at the present time is such that finding that something is genetic in nature sometimes leads geneticists further to ask:  can we determine what gene or genes are involved?  This is the question that Hamer set out to answer and much of his book is about whether or not one can claim that a gene exists that makes it more likely that one will seek and value spiritual experiences, defined by the scale I previously illustrated for you.  He believes he has found such a gene and he has chosen to call this - the God gene. This is perhaps an unfortunate choice on his part as many of the critics of his book argue that this is not proof that there is in fact a God, a position which Hamer actually also holds.

Let’s return to a description of his research. The participants in his study were in general “ordinary people” - that is, no monks or nuns – who in fact were recruited for studies of other characteristics than spirituality. (There studies were most often concerned with cigarette usage and addiction, another major interest of Hamer’s.)   The God Gene describes in detail the procedures used to choose which DNA strands would be analyzed for this study and how he found that gene VMAT2 is associated with different scores for spirituality for ordinary people.   

The explanation for why this gene might have an effect is also discussed.  This is a gene associated with some monoamines which on the basis of many other studies are known to be related to consciousness.  Hamer also points out that there may be other genes associated with his measure of spirituality as he examined only 9 of the over 35,000 possible genes.

This finding of a genetic influence should not be surprising.  Almost every physical and mental characteristic has been shown to have a genetic component.  If genes can influence skills, such as intelligence and athletic ability, and behaviors, such as our sociability, why could they not also be a factor in our ability to engage in altered states of consciousness, such as meditation or mystical experiences?  

When geneticists find a characteristic for which there is evidence of heritability, of genetic influence,  they are not only interested in finding the underlying physiological mechanism but they also want an explanation for why this might be useful for survival.  The underlying explanation for evolution within a species - note that Creationists could go along with the idea that evolution can occur within a species - is that creatures with some genetic characteristics are more likely to pass them on. This could be because they are more likely themselves to survive and thus to live long enough to reproduce, or because they are more likely successfully to rear their offspring, or both.

Steven Pinker has recently argued in a book called the Moral Instinct that evolution has endowed us with moral instincts that make it more likely that the species will surive.

E. O. Wilson, the founder of what is now called evolutionary psychology, in 1998 in a book called On Human Nature made the suggestion that the inclination to be religious is “in our genes”.  He proposed multiple hypothetical mechanisms for the evolution of genes that may leave people open to religious indoctrination.  For example, he suggested that by becoming members of a cohesive group of believers we may alleviate individual anxiety or feelings of alienation -   think of the Jews of the Old Testament or some Pentecostal churches of today or any other system in which believers are the Chosen People.  

Hamer suggested further that religious faith for many provides a sense of purpose beyond ourselves and that certain beliefs also give us optimism.  I have in a previous sermon several years ago documented the importance of purpose in our lives and how for many a religious system or spiritual approach fulfills this need. I refer again to the phenomenon of the book The Purpose Drive Life. (Rick Warren) There is also much empirical data that those with optimistic beliefs, no matter what the source, have better health both physically and psychologically.  Optimism may come about for some because of their particular religious belief system.  For example, this may be the result for people who believe in the goodness and healing ability of God.  Optimism may persist even if physical healing doesn’t occur because of the belief that there will at last be reunions with loved ones in heaven.

Many of you are thinking – and I agree - that just because a belief has come about because it is useful for evolutionary success does not make it true.  For example, you are all aware of the phenomenon that people almost as soon as they have a child become convinced that this offspring is one of the best-looking, most intelligent, and generally talented of all children in the world.  This is a very desirable belief from the point of view of evolutionary usefulness, but clearly not true - except of course in the case of my grandchildren.

Let me now summarize what the existence of a God gene likely means.  It has been frequently demonstrated that there are physical changes in the brain while having some mystical and spiritual experiences.  It has been demonstrated that there are some genetic differences characteristic of those who have such experiences.  These experiences are often interpreted in a religious context by the person having the experience.

Remember that Hamer clearly says, and I agree with him, that his book is only about whether the God gene exists, not whether God actually exists

Mystical experiences certainly do not demonstrate that there is a higher power, or a creator that we can call God. Such a belief about God clearly feels right to many people but remains scientifically non-proven and it is a logical fallacy to say that there must be a god because there is a gene that makes some people likely to have spiritual experiences.

I would also suggest that there is a similar fallacy evident in the book by Richard Dawkins entitled The God Delusion.  This book was for over a year on the New York Times non-fiction best seller list. Dawkins is a British ethologist specializing in the Public Understanding of Science and appears to enjoy the title of world’s best known atheist.  One of his major arguments is that there is no God because life can be explained by evolution.  But one could well have both evolution and some sort of higher power, creative spirit, or energy system that could be envisioned as a God.  There is a system of thought called Creation Spirituality that is both Christian and accepting of evolution

So - we have a spirituality gene that is present for some but not all people.  And it apparently has come about and may be increasing in frequency because when it is present there are some behaviors and beliefs resulting which increase the likelihood of hardiness in those possessing it. 

What, if anything, does this mean for those people who do not score high on the characteristic that Hamer refers to as self-transcendence and who probably then do not possess the gene?  I would offer the following possible approach. Rationally decide to engage in what appears to be the important behaviors that make the gene useful even though you are not accepting the belief system.  For example, relaxation and meditation techniques like that used by mystics have been clearly documented as having positive effects on health and healing is There are a variety of meditation approaches that do not require a belief in a world other than the one you see.  Mindfulness meditation is widely written about, discussed on discs available in your library, and taught in medical school stress clinics. Such techniques do require discipline and practice. But you do not need to have a God gene or a belief in a higher power to get positive results from the systematic and deliberate use of this sort of altered state of consciousness.  

There are a number of reasons that Unitarian Universalist church services often include a period of time for prayer or meditation.  If you choose to use this time it may be because you can do this with self-transcendent ease or because you have deliberately decided to learn a useful skill.