Customer Reviews

The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

Perhaps this book should be called "The Faith Gene" instead of "The God Gene." Geneticist Dean Hamer himself admits that "The God Gene is in fact a gross oversimplification...There are probably many different genes involved..." (p. 8) Later on he writes, "I believe our genetic predisposition for faith [notice: not "God"] is no accident. It provides us with a sense of purpose beyond ourselves and keeps us from being incapacitated by our dread of mortality." (p. 143) Note also that the book's subtitle declares that "Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes" while on page 211, Hamer declares that we are "Softwired for God."

Hamer's problem with definitions and usage arises because he is trying to take an abstraction such as "spirituality" or "transcendence" or "faith" or a belief in "God" and measure this abstraction with personality tests or by observing broader forms of human behavior. Furthermore he wants to make a useful distinction between religiousness and spirituality, between the extrinsic and intrinsic expression, the former being mostly public, such as church attendance, and the latter mostly private, such as prayer or meditation. Having done this he then wants to find a gene or some genes that code for spirituality. This is like trying to catch the ether in a hairnet.

Nonetheless it goes almost without saying that however ill-defined such abstractions may be, they do in fact refer to something real. A belief in an afterlife, in souls and inherited karma, in gods and poltergeists, heavens and hells, in things mystical and extrasensory, in a reality beyond a purely material and animal existence is universal to all human societies, past and present, and would seem to be as necessary as the very air we breathe. (Gurus, churches and religions exploit this human necessity.)

Consequently it is not so far-fetched to look for the predisposition for such beliefs in our genetic code, genes that have been selected by the evolutionary process. The question remains however, exactly what behavior is it that is selected and found adaptive in an evolutionary sense? Hamer thinks it is some sort of personal transcendence--that is, spirituality as opposed to religion as such (see page 215). However I think there is reason to believe that what is selected is the more profane aspects of religion and spirituality. To put it bluntly, what the genes (interacting with the environment of course) code for are tribalisms such as following a leader and being willing to die for the good of the tribe, and in general following the authority of tribal ways and means, believing what the shaman says, what the priest says, what the ayatollah tells us, and what the documents of the tribe declare as true.

Edward O. Wilson in his book, On Human Nature (1978)--highly recommended, by the way--argued that the ability of the individual to conform to the group dynamics of religion was in itself adaptive. He added, "When the gods are served, the Darwinian fitness of the members of the tribe is the ultimate if unrecognized beneficiary." (opus cited, p. 184)

Still there is a sense in which it is possible to see the genetic predisposition toward faith and religion in a more morally positive sense. Hamer believes that "God genes...provide human beings with an innate sense of optimism." (p. 12) Clearly life must be worth living, and faith provides us with any number of compensations for a hard life: promise of an afterlife, a rebirth to a better station, karmic comeuppance for transgressors, and karmic reward for our perceived good behavior, punishment for sin, etc., are artifacts of faith and are the main tenets of many religions.

However as to the specific gene that Hamer comes to identify, the VMAT2 gene, which influences the flow of monoamines in the brain, it could be said that this gene is not so much the "God gene" as the "dope gene," the gene that helps us to get high. On page 77 he allows that "There might be another 50 genes or more of similar strength."

In addition to Hamer's central argument, there are aspects of this book that are interesting and valuable in themselves. The chapter on "The DNA of the Jews" is absolutely fascinating and gives us a good idea of what is possible by using the changes in either the "y" or "x" chromosomes to trace human migrations and intermarriages.

I also like the distinction that Hamer makes between spirituality and religion. We all know people who are spiritual, but don't go to church (or temple or mosque, etc). And we all know people who attend church regularly but are about as spiritual as hyenas. (I won't mention any White House occupants, past or present!) And it is clear that there are agnostic scientists who are very spiritual persons indeed.

However, the weakest part of the book involves Hamer's attempt to adequately define spirituality and to distinguish it from religion. He calls in the psychology and psychiatric establishments to help out. I don't think they help much. It is a daunting task to even define "God" adequately. In the final analysis he goes with the idea of transcendence. However what we humans want to transcend is our animal nature (and sometimes the evidence of our senses and our experience!). Part of the reason we wear clothes and otherwise cover up while imagining that we have souls and are made in the image of God is to make our animal nature less obvious. For human beings it is not sufficient to be just animals. We are (or should be) spirit as well. Hamer actually declares that "Spirituality...is, in fact, an instinct." (p. 6)

Finally, faith does not require a god. Taoism has "the way," and the Buddha famously turned aside questions about God as being beside the point, while the ineffable God of the Vedas is nothing that a believer in a personal god would recognize at all.

When an author admits within the first ten pages of the book his title's misleading, readers have a right to be sceptical. There's much in this book to be sceptical about. Hamer's thesis is of immense importance and must be addressed - is there a biological basis for "spiritual" experiences? How much influence do our cultures impose in how we view the supernatural? Hamer declares he has the answer - which, he confesses, is hardly "a gene" as implied by the title. While other authors have equated the spiritual and the biological, Hamer is the first to pinpoint a likely trigger for these experiences. In this very readable account, he explains why he thinks there's a link between genetics and "faith".

Hamer is an avid speculator - he would make a Wall Street broker blench. He proposed a "gay gene" in his previous book - a thesis that fell on sterile ground. In this book, he proposes that a gene acting as a gateway for hormonal activity is the likely precursor for "spiritual experience". Combining his own research studies and that of others, Hamer developed a test series for spirituality. Spirituality is difficult to define, but he adapts the term "self-actualisation" devised by Abraham Maslow. Self-actualisation is applied to those declaring, for example, that they're "at one with the universe". Although students of the various forms of transcendental meditation more often use that phrase, even adherents of mainstream faiths make similar statements. Why, Hamer asks, are such declarations so universal among cultures? And why do more women than men make them?

Hamer was introduced to the VMAT2 gene by a colleague. VMAT2 sits on chromosome 10 and may vary by a single nucleotide. That variation, according to Hamer, is reflected by the ability of certain individuals to experience self-transcendence. He calls the variation the "spiritual allele". He can use that appellation since further testing showed no relationship of VMAT2 to intelligence or neurotic behaviour. VMAT2 is a "regulator" that appears to control the amount of "monamines" present in the brain. Monamines are the "emotion" chemicals - serotonin, dopamine and other compounds that regulate some brain activities. While many of the details of their impact remain obscure, Hamer postulates that, in the proper environment, these chemicals can give feelings of well-being, anxiety and the other emotions we are familiar with. He thus equates individual experiences of spirituality with activity from the VMAT2 gene. The type of experience, he continues, is likely related to the cultural framework of the individual. It seems clear, but remains to be proven, that the gender difference derives from how VMAT2 relates to genes in the X [female] and Y [male] chromosomes.

Hamer builds his case on some highly speculative, but interesting studies. He cites the SPECT scans of monks and nuns, Persinger's magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobes, and other research in support of his thesis. He is as methodical as the current information allows. Various cultural environments are examined, in particular the now-famous "Aaron's DNA" tracing of Jewish lineages. While these are solid bricks in the edifice, the structure requires much reinforcement. The book's presentation rambles into various interesting asides, which might well be relevant. Hamer fails to draw them together beyond making generalised references to the universality of "spiritual experience". His pandering to his US audience in the title would be forgivable, did he not continue to refer the "God" gene in the text instead of some less absolute term. His conclusion nearly topples the entire edifice by evading the deity issue altogether. We are left wondering how evolution provided humans with a "god module" while leaving the rest of evolution bereft. Hamer deserves credit for raising the issue of the supernatural as a biological behaviour trait in a comprehensive framework. However, much work remains to be done. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Enough with the religious types, the atheists, and even the political wannabes who are abusing this space to promote their own ideas. I mean really - how did a rant against John Kerry get into a review of "The God Gene"?

I actually read this book and found it refreshing. Hamer starts out with a question - why is religion still such a big part of peoples' lives? - and tries to answer it the way scientists do - looking at data. The chapters on twins and siblings were especially interesting. Some of the material on brain chemicals and genes were hard going, but every once in a while the good Doctor lightens things up with a zinger, like the one about Monica Lewinsky.

The one complaint I have is the title. This book really isn't about God at all. It's about us humans and how we work.

Entitled The God Gene Hamer's book is actually about genetic markers for neurotransmitter variability and their subjective effect. Obviously it is more interesting and salable to call the feeling of self transcendence (losing oneself)spirituality and relate this to religion. The book is good in that it traces some of the acheivements in molecular genetics and the tie-ins with human behavior. Hamer does this in a relatively entertaining manner. It is very interesting to see, for example, that the PET scans of monks practicing TM show specific areas of brain activity and attenuation. Later in his book Hamer moves to the concept of memes, organized religion. Unfortunately toward the end, he becomes less the detached observer and leans toward a personal perspective on these topics. (An example of which occurs when Hamer attacks the logic of a particular atheist.)

As an entertaining introduction to some of the relations between feelings and genetic hardwiring, this book is good. However, calling this the "god" gene and relating the feeling of self transcendence to spirituality is the author's extrapolation--not just hyperbole, but a bit disingenuous.

First there was Persinger, a voice in the wilderness who pioneered the study of the neurobiological basis of religious experience. Then there was Joseph, who devoted a lengthy chapter to spirituality, evolution, genetics, and the brain, in the 2nd edition of his 1996 neuroscience textbook. Persinger and Joseph basically stood alone--true pioneers, visionaries. And then came the "Me too" crowd of pretenders, and now we have Hamer whose book, for the most part, is simply a rehash of Persinger, Joseph, Alper, and others. Another reviewer accused Hamer of having a "Plagerism gene." That's much too harsh since he did take the effort to rewrite the words and ideas of these other authors--but without citation (naughty naughty!) And he did manage to get so much wrong! The thalamus, for example is not part of the "limbic system." Proteins and hormones are not synonymous. Catecholamines are neurotransmitters, and the Catecholamines include (are you paying attention Mr. Hamer?) norepinephrine and epinephrine. Serotonin causes "negative emotions"?? Hello? Is this guy a scientist? Does he even know anything about religion? Confuscius

was a religious leader? What? Confuscianism is a religion? Wrong, wrong, wrong! That's the problem with pretenders. If you really want to understand the neurobiology and genetics of religious and spiritual experience, read Persinger, or the edited textbook, NeuroTheology.

Although the title of The God Gene is rather hyperbolic, I believe that Dean Hamer succeeds in convincing the reader that there is a genetic component to our inclination toward spirituality. Yet, apart from this, I felt that this work left the reader wanting on the questions of spirituality and the nature of consciousness. I say this, having recently read Robert Cloninger's Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being. If Hamer's, The God Gene arouses your interest in spirituality, you will very likely enjoy Cloninger's book. Cloninger, on whose concept of spirituality Hamer's research was carried out, presents a revolutionary theory of human awareness. Where Hamer can only vaguely speculate on concepts like intuition, awareness, and the path of consciousness, Cloninger identifies, defines, and measures these ideas with scientific rigor. In The God Gene, Hamer used Cloninger's old personality theory, which has since been wholly transformed into a nondualistic model of "coherence." It is based on a hierarchical system that integrates information from all levels of being (the quantum, genetic, physiological, psychological and philosophical levels). Extensive research is presented from a spectrum of scientific fields, which points to the existence of discrete levels of consciousness and serves as a basis to Cloninger's techniques for deepening one's self-aware consciousness.

This review is not meant to disparage or "steal Hamer's fire;" I am very happy when any scientist supports the research of something as valuable and understudied as human spirituality. I wish only to suggest that if you are interested in spirituality and awareness, and the current efforts of science to study these phenomena, you will be vastly more satisfied by Cloninger's Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being.

"Hormones...are proteins." The sex hormones are sterols. Epinephrine and norepinephrine are catecholamines . No resemblance to proteins! "Thalamus and hypothalamus are parts of the limbic system." Wrong. Hamer is confused about the 3 molecules forming the crux of his argument: norepinephrine, dopamine ("feel good molecule", but it causes paranoia and psychosis) and serotonin ("the brain chemical involved in negative emotions") The opposite is true: depression is relieved by serotonin.

Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, made a splash a few years back, apparently, with the controversial claim that he had discovered a gene that might, possibly, have some sort of correlation, either directly or indirectly, with whether or not someone has a tendency to become a homosexual.

Now he's done something similar with spirituality.

The title is what this book relies on, of course. It's controversial and compelling. We all want to know how faith is hardwired into our genes. But, sadly, genetic research (when done right) doesn't do that, and though Hamer's obviously trying to make a profit with the book, he isn't going to do it by cheating in the science.

Hamer's finding is that a certain gene that affects the monoamine brain chemicals (i.e. dopamine and the like) is more prevalent in people who are "spiritual," as described by a personality testing scale called "self-transcendence." He describes this in great detail, but basically it's a sort of holistic feeling of oneness with the universe.

The author spends almost as much time explaining what he hasn't found as he does explaining what he has. For example, the gene doesn't seem to correlate with church attendance or other formal religious activity. Many people will, no doubt, argue with how he's defining the spiritual.

Also, he gets on shakier ground when he steps away from pure genetics. At one point, for example, he uses what appears to be outdated information about Neanderthals having religious practice.

One of the universal problems that I had continuously through the text is that he doesn't cite specific resources well. There is a single appendix in the back that provides "Sources and Further Reading" and this appendix is divided by chapter, but he frequently makes claims about some historical or scientific point (such as the aforementioned Neanderthal situation) and the reader is left with no way to verify this information, short of exploring all of the books listed for that section. Also, he directs the readers to few peer-reviewed journals, so we're left with the impression that his own preparation for the book was primarily through popular science books, which may or may not contain accurate information.

My reading of this book was a contradiction. While Hamer has the even-handed skepticism and open-mindedness that I look for in good scientific writing, the book is so heavily tilted toward the popular market that is almost completely devoid of any real scientific merit. His observations are intriguing but, based on this book, certainly not proven nor conclusive ... a point that he himself makes.

I found Dean Hamer's book, "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes," a fascinating, easy-to-read study and explanation of humankind's faith, belief and spirituality. I confess, that when I first picked up this book, the title was a bit confusing. Nonetheless, it piqued my curiosity. Once I started reading, I knew this book was not about proving or disproving the existence of God. It is quite the opposite. This book explains and supports our innate, instinctual spirituality, no matter what our belief system may be. I would recommend this book to anyone of any faith and belief.

Before this, I read Sam Harris' The End of Faith polemic and Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell (both reviewed by me). While Dennett notes as an aside in his book that no such single "god gene" exists, Hamer himself early on admits the same, but acknowledges it's not as catchy a title otherwise. The subtitle needs to be changed too: "How Faith Is Hardwired--in perhaps a significant but not overwhelming percentage of our genetic makeup for some of us." God is not proven or disproven, only that some of us tend to look for the divine more than others, and that this may be biased for some in our neural transporters of monoamines.

Looking into the distinction between believing and belonging, Hamer seems to get sidetracked into other studies that he paraphrases, and finding out who tends towards the spiritual--not the same as organized religion in its more public manifestation--certainly proves elusive. Unless you're a twin, since they get to be tracked by eager technicians in labs across the globe, at least from the evidence summarized in this book, ad infinitum.

In March/April 2006, studies of twins in Minnesota by Dr. Koening seem to back up Hamer but with an added proviso: environmental tendency in childhood being a bit stronger but the genetic tendency towards the spiritual in adulthood gaining power among the admittedly small group analyzed. I have heard it summed up that one may tend to revert back to one's childhood faith as one gets older, a point Hamer brings up if at all only tangentially I reckon.

As one with theological but not biological background, I admit that the middle of the book with its exploration of brain chemistry lost me. But Hamer at other places has a knack for being straightforward and engaging. He may well be accused of dumbing down his book to reach people like me. But there's plenty of recondite knowledge I'm certain has escaped many of his peers.

His chapter linking the DNA findings of the priestly Cohen caste to their biblical time, while intriguing on its own, seems grafted into his study, however. It fits his other points, but either deserved more in-depth study as its own brief book or more integration into the wider implications of his argument. Hamer does raise a fascinating crux: if historically, Jewish women only had a 1:200 rate of exogamy outside the tribe, how did the Jews wind up looking more or less like all of the many peoples among whom they dwelt for as much as two-and-a-half millennia?

Differing from E.O. Wilson's sociobiology, Hamer argues with this Jewish example (although again I wish it was clearer) that his own findings show an inner tendency towards the divine impulse not part of transmitted ritual like circumscision or learned cultural behavior like keeping kosher. Differing from Richard Dawkins (I kept waiting for Dawkins' thesis to be confronted by Hamer, and he does not do so until well on in the book) and his attack on religion as a parasitic meme, Hamer seeks not to prove God, but merely to chart how roughly half of one's makeup might be in some cases genetically predisposed towards the spiritual search. He notes rather depressingly, although it may get lost in the whole argument, that parents have barely a miniscule influence on the religious or spiritual tendencies of their offspring. The behavior and the outward adherence can be inculcated and enforced, but not the interior tug towards what Rudolf Otto nearly a century ago called the numinous.

He does not seem to demolish Dawkins as hard as he could have. Why a parasitic meme would not die out after millenia if religion gave its bearers no advantage seems a bit overlooked. Dennett--whose earlier work on consciousness is not mentioned in Hamer, who wrote this about three years before Dennett's new book--might help. Dennett shows the social and psychological advantages and disadvantages of religious faith for human communities and the individual psyche and one's mental health and physical endurance. One disappointment: Dennett's book's chock full of careful documentation. Hamer uses no specific citations, only adding a bibliography but no end or footnotes, so his research cannot be easily traced or challenged. For such a veteran scientist, this seems unprofessional. I know this is a popular book for dummies like me with insufficient training, but these notes--as such as Harris and Dennett show--can be incorporated without overwhelming a lay reader.

Still, while Hamer's book despite its brief length feels too often padded, it does serve as a useful and at its best thoughtful summation of dopamine, serotonin, psilocybin, and their analogous feel-good detached states that meditation and prayer, arguably but intriguingly, seem to imitate. In her account (reviewed by me) "An Infinity of Little Hours," of the austere Catholic hermit order of Carthusians, Nancy Klein Maguire wonders if in every generation there's a "god gene" that impels a brave or foolish few of us to leave the herd and seek the fiery or icy mountaintop alone. It's a awe-filled question, and Hamer's book will inspire more such contemplation and wonder about why this longing persists in every corner of the world despite the secular powers of ideology, persecution, and ridicule.