1. Thanks for linking to this so-called “angry atheist” Joel.

    Sure, we may have needed religion in the past to survive, just like all of the other agency detecting creatures. But things have changed. Now religion threatens the survival of the life on this planet.

    Other things have changed due to our evolution in a societies as thinking/linguistic beings, so?

    Let me put it to you this way. Our brains are actually a composite of three brains, two built on top of the reptilian one. Why should we continue relying on those primitive brains in this era?


    1. Who says that it is primitive to have the religious gene, John? What if the religious brain is the higher evolution of the two? It would certainly seem that since society developed because of this evolutionary leap, that non-religion would actually be on the lower end of the evolutionary spectrum.

      Regardless if you are angry or not, I generally have no problem with you. :)

      And what typos? I am near as perfect on Grammar as re-editing a post allows me to be 😉


  2. Joel, the whole reason our brains were added in layer upon layer is because the additions are needed. Our brains are a cobbled together mess like a kluge. It’s like we still have the scaffolding up after the building is constructed. We cannot do away with the scaffolding so when it comes to the brain it prohibits us from rational thinking. That’s why we cannot think rationally because of the reptilian brain, which is still attached to us.

    Are we talking past each other yet?



    1. What? Us talk past each other?

      But, John, what if that scaffolding is holding up the building? The religious gene is where rationality comes from? What then? I would agree that rationality is important, but if there was not imagination and no quest to know the unknown (i.e. religion), then where would our society be? Evolutionary speaking, if this is the case, then removing the religious gene from the human race only spells the end of humanity.

      Missed you at SBL, by the way, and not on purpose. :)


  3. I didn’t make it. Hey, no one asked me to speak this year!? Maybe next year. ;-(

    c’ya, wouldn’t want to be ya.


    1. You mean you don’t want to be as highly evolved as I? :(

  4. steph

    Nothing has been ‘debunked’. It’s all theory. The latest ‘religious gene breakthrough’ comes from a Cambridge academic – wow Cambridge – a blinking economics professor who specialises in money things and unemployment. The study looks like thinly disguised racist anti-immigration bollocks. But then I only study religion. Genes sell well … especially holey ones. I have a gene with a big fat label. It’s the ‘cynic’ gene :)


    1. I have the same gene, I think, Steph. I love cynic genes!


Leave a Reply, Please!