The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes

by Dean H. Hamer

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God; this conviction has existed since the beginning of recorded time and is shared by billions around the world. In The God Gene , Dr. Dean Hamer reveals that this inclination towards religious faith is in good measure due to our genes and may even offer an evolutionary advantage by helping us get through difficulties, reducing stress, preventing disease, and extending life. Popular science at its best, The God Gene is an in-depth, fully accessible inquiry into cutting-edge research that can change the way we see ourselves and the world around us. Written with balance, integrity, and admirable scientific objectivity, this is a book for readers of science and religion alike.

Genres: Science, Religion, Nonfiction, Psychology, Genetics, Biology, Spirituality

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[David Rubenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

The God Gene is an interesting survey of the evidence that spirituality is hardwired in our genetic makeup. Dean Hamer makes it quite clear, that this book is not an argument that God does or does not exist. For him, that is beside the point. The point is, whether or not there is something about faith or spirituality that has helped humans survive, that evolution has found useful to promote for the purpose of survival.

Moreover, Hamer makes a strong distinction between spirituality and religion. For the most part, religion is a cultural phenomenon. Most people who are religious still practice the religion of their parents. Religion is learned from parents, teachers, religious leaders and peers. On the other hand, one can be spiritually inclined without being religious, and even without believing in a God.

There are a number of quotes by some famous people, like Albert Einstein; he was a good example of someone who was spiritual, but did not particularly religious. For example, he said, "If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds." And, he did not believe that science and religion were separable. I a very famous quote, Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Quite a bit of this book is taken up with statistics. Hamer gets his statistics from studies of identical and fraternal twins who have been raised together in a family, as well as those who were raised apart. This allows researchers to distinguish between shared characteristics of twins that are purely genetic, characteristics that are acquired in a shared environment (for example, in a family setting), and characteristics that are acquired in an individual, unshared environment (such as with friends, at school, etc.). So, if you are going to read this book, be prepared for lots of statistics.

The author was personally involved in a study that attempted to find a gene (or genes) that helps promote spirituality. Of course, he recognizes that there is no single gene that determines whether or not an individual will be spiritual. He discusses his finding that one particular gene called VMAT2 showed a tiny (less than 1% of the total variance) influence on a trait that he calls "self-transcendence". So, in effect he found one of possibly fifty or more genes that may influence spirituality. This is a tiny contribution, but one that he claims is statistically significant.

This is a fascinating book, and I recommend it to anybody interested in psychology, and the evolution of spiritual genes and religious memes.

[Phrodrick slowed his growing backlog · Rating 3 out of 5]

The 3 stars represents a near layman sense that in The God Gene, Dean Hamer ultimately abandons too many scientific details in favor of what reads like an agenda he had explicitly indicated was not a necessary part of his hypothesis. For most of the book he is explicit that every test for individuals with a strong spiritual personality held this personality trait independent of belief in God or any preference in religion. Then he states, as an unarguable fact that God needs a way to make himself known. First, we get science with page of supporting data and controls then we get speculation absent science and what reads to me like the hope we would not pick up on the switch. For many reader there is too much about scientific method and controlling for variables. For me the sudden absence of what was too much was startling.

As a non Ph.D with only marginal training in the hard sciences here are my counter conjectures.
Is there a gene for: advanced math skills, advanced language learning abilities, artistry, tool making, patience and maybe auxiliary ones for patience in parenting or educating? In short is there a likely genetic nexus for almost any personality trait, good or bad and more so in those with more than average expression of that trait. Why not? The case for why can readily be tied to at least two human traits.

1. We are highly adaptable. In order to survive in as many parts of the earth as Humans do, we need to have traits to facilitate adaptability. In cockroaches or rats a very high turnover of generations, means that they can quickly produce more of the offspring that can survive in a new environment. Humans generations and family size means that this solution is not possible. Humans have adaptive behaviors. Tenacity, aggressiveness, curiosity, patience and the rest provide some portion of a given population’s skill sets. That variety of specialties increase the a chance that a group of individuals, will together have the skills to address the many problems of a new environment, or changes in an old one. This may seem like an argument for Survival of the Specie rather than the Selfish Gene, but like many animals we are social. In being social we have a more complex society. A purely Selfish gene personality may be repellent to the larger society and less likely to reproduce.

2. We have so many preferences. Not everyone is looking for the same features in a possible mate. We have apha males and alpha females. But unlike some of the apes, mating is not just the prerogative of the alphas. There may be temporary fashions, cultural norms or environmental pressures, but there is also the chance that just being different is all it takes for mating pairs to find each other. A kind of feed-back loop that defines the concept of complex society and the need for adaptability.

Almost all living things have to be able to identify patterns. Non-evergreen tree have to have a mechanism to identify the forecasters of new seasons. Animals need the ability to identify friend from predator from food and so forth. Humans add in another quality. It is not enough for us to know that there will be four seasons in a year. We have a genetic desire to know why? Where good explanations for Why do not exist, we will make them up. Why is in our genetic makeup. I wish I had the references at my fingertips, but for now I can only ask your agreement.

Combine a need to know why, an interest in things beyond our individual needs (spirituality) and something as simple as the need to comfort the bereaved or to celebrate the end of winter and you have a bases for religion. Especially one fitted to a local conditions or cultures. Coincidentally, a genetic value in having a portion of the population being spiritually oriented.

All of this is a purely human view of the world. God, or Gods may exist. He, She or Them have worked very hard to not be obviously among us. Almost by definition to be God or a God is to be so superior to humans that what seems most obvious to me, is that He, She or They want us focused on what and who is here. She, He or They have created a very complex world, filled with problems from survival, to understanding the far reaches of space. Maybe if we can learn to live with our human variations, cure the problems of surviving on a planet, without first exhausting the same planet, maybe we will be ready for the Big Reveal.

[Owlseyes]

Theme: biological perspectives on RELIGION

Some scattered ideas to amalgamate into a coherent-sense article or review someday later.

Method.



A-Hamer, a geneticist, started in 1998, with a study on smoking addiction for the National Cancer Institute; more than 1,000 men and women were recruited to take a 240-question personality test:Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI); traits measured: SELF-TRANSCENDENCE, which includes 3 other traits: SELF-FORGETFULNESS (ability to get entirely lost in an experience),TRANS-PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION (feeling a connectedness to a larger universe); and MYSTICISM (openness to things not literally provable); put together these traits may provide a notion of what 'to be spiritual' is.




B-Hamer proceeded, now ranking the participants according to CLONINGER'S* SELF-TRANSCENDENCE Scale; each participant positioned along an axis: from least to most spiritually inclined.

C-Checking on participants´ genes; Hamer narrowed the search to 9 specific genes (involved in the production of monoamines...which regulate functions such as mood and mood control; [Prozac manipulates monoamines!]

RESULTS

D-Hamer found: the VMAT2 (vesicule monoamine transporter) apparently related to how participants scored in Cloninger's scale of self-transcendence; "those with the nucleic acid cytosine in one particular spot on the gene ranked high. Those with the nucleic acid adenine in the same spot ranked lower".**
"About half the people in the study had at least one copy of the self-transcendence-boosting version of VMAT2, which Hamer dubs the God gene".




E-Hamer says that the gene he's found maybe not the only one that affects spirituality. It may involve hundreds or even thousands!!!
***
Once a colleague of Hamer asked him"...just one?"; he replied: "What I meant to say, of course, was 'a' God gene, not 'the' God gene."
----

F-Robert Thurman, professor of Buddhist studies at Columbia University, says that Buddhists "have long entertained the idea that we inherit a spirituality gene from the person we were in a previous life".





----
*from Wiki:Claude Robert Cloninger, M.D. (born April 4, 1944) is a psychiatrist and geneticist noted for his pioneering research on the biological, psychological, social, and spiritual foundation of both mental health and mental illness

**from Wiki:...According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the "God gene" moniker).

*** Recently Nature published an article about the 65 genes for Autism.

[Lena · Rating 3 out of 5]

The basic concept of this book is that people who have a certain version of a specific gene consistently test higher on subjective scales of self-transcendence than people who don’t. I find this idea thought provoking, as it sheds a scientific perspective on a subject that is so often clouded in myth. Hamer’s book is far from perfect, however; I got bogged down in his detailed descriptions of his original studies, and no further studies I am aware of have yet confirmed or expanded on his findings. But the book asks some interesting questions and points to the possibility of even more interesting answers that hopefully other scientists will continue to explore.

[Joselito Honestly and Brilliantly · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not a science guy so a major part of this book which deals with science [DNA, Memes, genes, monoamines, etc.:] didn't give me much enjoyment.

Some may take the book's title with alarm, but the author does not actually try to disprove God or the authenticity of religious experience. He's only saying that Man, as he is, is genetically predisposed towards spirituality, or to believe in some higher power [which some call God:]. In one part of the book, he even likened it to an instinct. Just like when a baby is born, without anybody teaching him how, he knows already how to suck his mommy's tits and feed himself, so is it that a human being automatically has mechanism for spirituality from the moment of birth[and maybe even before birth, although the author did not discuss the possibility of worshiping fetuses inside their mother's womb:].

Of course, spirituality is not purely genes or instinct as outside influences do help shape it. That is why we have different religions or systems of belief. Or different religious experiences. In any case, the book educated me on the three distinct, but related, components of spirituality: self-forgetfulness, transpersonal identification and mysticism.

SELF-FORGETFULNESS I always experience when playing chess. I forget about myself, the time of day, my need to eat, sleep, pee. I become so absorbed with the game that for me nothing matters but finding the right moves to win or avoid defeat. But this is not spirituality as there are two more components which are not present while playing chess.

TRANSPERSONAL IDENTIFICATION is when one feels connected to the universe and everything in it, whether living or non-living. You can say that people like the environmentalists, the nature-lovers, the do-gooders, animal rights activists, etc. have this "transpersonal identification" so they mouth phrases like "we are all brothers", "we are the world, we are the children", "the world is our home", "we are the child of the universe", etc.

MYSTICISM is the last, but not the least, component of spirituality. People who are fascinated by things that science can't explain, who believe in miracles, believe in the supernatural, are mystics.

Then there is the distinction between religion and spirituality. Roman catholicism is religion. But you don't have to have a religion to be spiritual. An example the author gave was Albert Einstein. He was not religious. He rejected the orthodox Judaism of his parents, did not believe the existence of the soul separate from the body or God as a personal being concerned with our lives, answers our prayers and doing a final judgment on us. He even doubted if man has an afterlife. Yet the author considerts Albert Einstein deeply spiritual, and this quote from him [Einstein:] may well qualify to be one of my favorite quotes for Goodreads:

"The most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."

The mind which conceived of e=mc2 calling itself "frail and feeble" compared to the higher spirit he recognizes is, for me, true worship.

[Michael Thomas]

Years ago, as a reward for her elementary school achievements, I promised my niece a trip to the zoo. As we ate our lunch, there were loud wailing screams emanating from the chimp enclosure. Later that day, we were informed that a young chimp had died. Thus, for those organisms on this planet conscious of death, a community in mourning.
Homo-Sapiens date back to at least 200,000 years ago. It was once believed that these modern humans had evolved from a single hunter and gatherer clan. However, the most recent archaeological evidence suggests that those characteristics defining modern humans had derived from separate regions in Africa. Thus, collaboration amongst these various tribes. Therefore, through interbreeding (whether cooperatively or forcefully?), these traits were assembled into a distinct species: Homo-sapiens.
So, did we contemplate the great beyond, beyond death, back then? Perhaps, even sub-species of humans also did (there’s evidence that Neanderthals had death rituals)? If so, what did they believe? That’s so difficult to pinpoint, as writing systems are only about 5,000 years old.
Since neither science, nor religion, can truly explicate what the “Truth” is, we may only leap from that land of where we’re presently situated, over that expansive ocean of what we do not know, onto that land of what actually is (that “Truth”), with a gigantic leap from our imagination: belief.
Therefore, I will leap back to what I imagine the ancient ancients believed (at least tens of thousands of years ago, probably more like hundreds of thousands). Upon death, the organism passes into a spirit. This spirit does not transcend to another realm. Rather, remains in this existence as a form of pure energy (Uncle Ug)… When did spirits transcend beyond this existence? How/why/when were God/Gods involved?



“Oh, I run to the river
It was boilin’
I run to the sea
It was boilin’
I run to the sea
It was boilin’

All on that day

So I ran to the Lord
I said, ‘Lord, hide me
Please hide me
Please help me’

All on that day

He said, ‘Child, WHERE WERE YOU
When you ought-a been praying?’
‘Lord, Lord, hear me praying’
‘Lord, Lord, hear me praying’
‘Lord, Lord, hear me praying’

All on that day

Sinnerman, you ought-a be praying
Ought-a be praying, Sinnerman
Ought-a be praying…”

Regardless of one’s beliefs, “Sinnerman” (Nina Simone) powerfully emotes that human essentiality to embrace spirituality… Can there be a genetic link to such passion? Such is the premise of “The God Gene”, by Dr. Dean Hamer (that’s kind of a misnomer, it’s more like a spiritualistic encoding).
Alrighty then, all organisms are endowed with intelligence and consciousness. Core consciousness is merely an understanding of that organism’s environment, so that it may intelligently adapt accordingly.
Humans (at least some) are capable to a higher degree of. Self-transcendence is that conscious heightening to reach beyond myself. Regardless of the form, there’s a connectivity between all matter and energy… a “one-ness”.
There was a study performed in 1962 at the Boston University School of Divinity by Walter Pahnke and Timothy Leary (both of Harvard). It was known as the “Marsh Chapel” or “Good Friday” experiment. Of the 20 participants, 10 of those divinity students received a hallucinogenic (psilocybin), while 10 were given a placebo. Thereafter, all 20 attended a mass. To the 10 placebo students, it was just an ordinary homily, nothing memorable. To the 10 jacked-up on psilocybin, it was a life-altering experience, and one that was remembered with clarity the entirety of their lives, as each had tapped into their self-transcendence, which carried with them through their careers.
I’ll spare you of the brainy details that Dr. Hamer delves into, but hallucinogenics (such as psilocybin) seem to activate such spirituality. Magic Mushrooms (psilocybin) have been ritualized by shamans for thousands of years, so they may access the spirits... They’re now being utilized to treat addictions, depression, and other “mental” conditions, as they can reboot the brain circuitry.

I will digress off the main thoroughfare to a residential tract. Aligning this street are single family residences, with paintings to the exterior and window dressings to differentiate one from another. We shall halt our momentum at a model with seemingly 3 levels. The first floor houses that primal gifting of anger, birthed within every organism, a necessity in order to seize what’s necessary for survival: the prime directive. According to the model, the second story and third unit are interchangeable. Since I have selected my upper unit to reason, my attention has focused on decorating those intellectual pursuits. Therefore, I have adorned that gifting of doubt with the full furniture package: to think. Whereas, although equally as vital to that conscious comprehension of our humanity and its relevance within this ecosystem, my second story has not received those same commitments of my energy as that third unit. Thus, that gifting of guilt has not been furnished to its fullest extent: to feel.
It’s to such a 3-level model that we shall enter, where those seemingly distinct levels have been amalgamated into one another with wirings and dendrites and synapses and other such fasteners. You know, how can nature and nurture be pitted against one another when they’re so indistinguishably intertwined? It’s a rather smart and empathetic home. Really, an evolutionary marvel. So complex… You see, without observation, a wave. With, a dot. An individual dot is unimpressive. Connect the dots to become entangled, a defiance of space-time. Thus, a meaning has been formed.
The hunger from such a journey has been growling. So, by mere thought and feel, I’m transported to the kitchen, where a full meal has been prepared. As I ravage through the grub, to satisfy the prime directive, I can’t help but to feel some empathy towards those less fortunate…

Anyways… “It is our genetic makeup that helps to determine how spiritual we are. We do not know God; we feel him”… Page 139, “The God Gene”.
To feel “him”, as Albert Einstein?... “The most beautiful and most profound religious emotions that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical… In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we re able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.”… Page 30, “The God Gene”.

Even though we may be genetically predisposed to spirituality, that specific belief in which to express this passion is cultural/environmental. It’s my position that there are as many paths to this Creative Force as there are people on this planet, plus one. Therefore, find your way. As, the importance isn’t the belief, rather the epic. So, activate this gift of spirituality, develop it, wherever that should take you. Henceforth, I too have vowed to decorate my second story with that same dedication as I have expended on my third unit.

Perhaps, this “God Gene” has been evolving for millions of years, dating back to a common ancestor between humans and chimps and elephants and other such organisms, aware of death? Yet, when did we transcend from a realization of death to those attempts to comprehend it (from chimps to humans)? Why? Why have humans developed this gene (these genes)?… “I believe our genetic predisposition for faith is no accident. It provides us with a sense of purpose beyond ourselves and keeps us from being incapacitated by our dread of mortality.”… Page 143, “The God Gene”.
Hmmm… A gene/genes evolving for who knows how long, anticipating that human transformation from hunter and gatherers to our modern societies, so necessary to not only consciously comprehend the great beyond, but more importantly, co-existence within large populations… sounds like an intelligent design to me… So too professes, Professor Einstein: “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all discernable concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.”… Page 27, “The God Gene”.

So, Sinnerman/woman’child, what’s it gonna be?

[Bryce · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was respectfully written, and an OK read. The author was generally good at pointing out the weaknesses in genetics studies, but he didn’t point out the fundamental weaknesses present in the social sciences or neurobiology. So don’t be shocked to find this book exploring the predisposition toward spiritualism to be based on weak evidence.

The social sciences are notoriously difficult to find large amounts of high-quality data. The social sciences, therefore, have difficulty establishing meaningful correlation (to say nothing of causation). They rarely have more oft-used tools than the observational study and the survey. Both of which can be useful, but can be misleading due to confirmation biases, intervention biases, geographically limited subjects, small sample size, among others. The author also uses anecdotes - which serve a fine narrative purpose - but are not reliable for meaningful evidence. The social science data served more as a springboard for the author’s curiosity, rather than a substantive foundation to build upon.

If the problem of the social sciences is too little data, genetics studies are subject to the problem of too much data. The author does a fine job illustrating this inherent weakness. Genetics studies are highly prone to this issue, and there are ways to mitigate it. One such way is to change statistical significance from, normally and arbitrarily, p<.05 to a stricter standard, such as p<.0005. So when the author’s colleague recommended he look at the gene VMAT2 (which the author hadn’t heard of, let alone came upon in his GWAS computations) and states that the effect of VMAT2 and (social science-based) self-transcendence scale trait was “just short of statistical significance” – I about lost it. Credit is due to the author for stating that it’s unlikely that a tendency toward spiritualism is based on a single gene (extremely few human traits are), but this “evidence” for VMAT2 is truly grasping at straws.

And finally, neurobiology is one of the most complex fields of science. The human brain is an absolute wonder. However, our current understanding of neurobiology is severely lacking, despite great strides in being able to obtain some (hopefully useful) neurobiological data*. The author is a little too confident in stating the nature and effects of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine and their vague implications in a predisposition toward spiritualism. Humans have (close to) no idea what’s going on with the brain and its neurotransmitters. The fact that we have antidepressants that modulate serotonin and dopamine (or any biologically active drugs, for that matter), is an absolute miracle.

As a side note, the title is misleading, as to make the casual observer believe that there is such a thing as “the/a God gene.” Even the subtext “how faith is hardwired into our genes” is misleading because in the final chapter the author states how genetic predisposition does not mean “hardwired” at all.

It concludes: “the act of believing… is one of the greatest gifts of being human.” Surely no hypothesis, religious, scientific, or otherwise would exist without that gift. However, this author took that idea a little too far by writing this book in the first place.

*For further reading on how we hardly understand anything in neuroscience, please read about the IgNobel prize winner “The Dead Salmon Study”: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...

[Claire Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oof. I expected more. Hamer takes on a long and unbelievably detailed tour of his methods for experimental twin studies, slightly varied studies, other studies that speak to OTHER studies, for answers that seem ambiguous or - in some cases - simply don’t exist yet and must be performed at some point in the future.

What a dry-hump.

He also calls serotonin the ‘feel-bad molecule’ and postulates that the Hebrews circumcised their guys as a handy (Hamer’s actual phrasing) way to identify other people as Jewish……..

….. is it though?

Anyway, Hamer does distract you with some interesting stories about Neanderthals and cannibals to get you to the END - a dying gasp of “religion and science can coexist.” (RIP 2004) But not enough, so you’re better off just reading a book about cannibals.

[Shara · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s hard to review this book without launching into my own personal philosophy about the subject, because after all, when we read, we often bring the baggage of our own points of view in order to digest the material.[return] [return]I picked up The God Gene for a variety of reasons (it’s always a variety that causes these pick-ups): the first, and most obvious, is that I believed the book would relate to certain aspects of my novel. In the end, I’m not sure it has, but it’s given me plenty to think about, especially in terms of human behavior and spirituality, and that will always be beneficial.[return] [return]But the other reason I picked up the book is my fascination of both science and faith. The television show “Lost” loves exploring these two subjects, and so did “The X-Files”. And because I’m a person that’s more likely to take the middle ground between two extremes, I couldn’t resist this book. A scientific way to explain faith? Bring it on, because whether or not I agree, I’ll be amused to no end.[return] [return]The God Gene stresses several points, and they’re good points to remember while reading, especially depending where you fall in religious category. People who don’t believe in God may find this theory preposterous, believing that looking for a genetic link to spirituality is a waste of time because it doesn’t exist; people who do believe in God may find this theory completely blasphemous: how dare anyone try to reduce God to a gene, or to science?[return] [return]Well, here’s the kicker:[return] [return]1) The term “God gene” is really a catch-all: when exploring the genetic properties of spirituality, the author admits to using the term “God” to encompass everything and anything spiritual/unexplained: this would include beliefs in the supernatural, or to put a lighter twist on it: mystical.[return] [return]2) The book does not set out to prove whether or not God or a higher power exists. It does, however, seek to explain why people seek out God, or the spiritual life, and whether or not there is a genetic cause for it.[return] [return]3) Lastly, the book stresses that there is a difference between spirituality and religion. Granted, religion can lead to an interest in one’s own spirituality, but religion is often a vehicle. Furthermore, the book sets out to prove that spirituality can be inherited (genes), whereas religion is something that is learned (memes).[return] [return]Whether or not you as a reader agree with these “controls” doesn’t matter: these are the limits in which the writer is discussing his theory and experiments. And the experiments and discussions are quite interesting. Do I believe in all of it? I can’t say: it amuses the hell out of me though, and it’s fun to consider. The idea is, at best, popular science, and we’re obviously getting results from a certain point of view. But Dean Hamer does his best to be objective, recording failings where they exist, pointing out limitations where they exist. But anyone who compares the spiritual experience to that of a drug-induced experience gets an A+ in my book: not because it reduces spirituality, but because the same chemicals are at work in the brain in both experiences.[return] [return]Is it worth the read? If you have any interest at all in spirituality, science, or even want to explore the possibilities as to why (keyword: why) you believe what you do, I definitely recommend this book. For me, it reinforced some things I already intuitively knew: that there’s a reason some people are more spiritual than others, and you can “spiritual” without being religious. There’s a bit of scientific jargon to deal with, don’t get me wrong, but not so much it weighs down the book.

[Joel Justiss · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hamer, a geneticist, tells how he identified a gene which affects an individual’s “self-transcendence.” While admitting that there are probably many genes which have an influence on that characteristic, he explains that finding one such gene demonstrates the heritability of a key aspect of personality that is considered “spiritual.”

In the middle of the book, Hamer turns from the subject of “self-transcendence” to faith, and a few pages later, to religion. Unfortunately he doesn’t point out that he is changing the subject, so he gives the impression in the latter part of the book that a religious inclination is partially determined by genetics. The later chapters ramble through a variety of subjects involving scientific studies related in one way or another to religion. Hamer concludes by pointing out that, although he is religious, his discovery in no way validates religious experience.

143 (subject changes from “self-transcendence” to faith)
146 (subject changes to religion)
205 Confucianism stresses moral values and ancestor veneration [a good counter-example to the idea that morality requires a deity:]
209 It appears that Dawkins does have a religion—science—which he follows based on his own faith rather than logic.
Historically, each time religious controversy has touched science, it has been theology that’s been burned. In the sixteenth century, the church taught that the sun circled the earth; astronomy proved it to be the other way around. In the seventeenth century, infectious diseases were seen as punishments by God; microbiology taught us their true origin. In the nineteenth century, spontaneous generation was accepted dogma; it took Pasteur to show that life comes only from life.
212 Just because spirituality is partly genetic doesn’t mean it is hardwired. Our genes are more like a family recipe handed down by word of mouth than a precise set of instructions that must be followed in exact detail.

[Hayley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This respectfully written book discusses how genes may influence our propensity to be spiritual or not.

The author describes how he and his colleagues had to 1) select a way to measure spiritual tendency, which is a slippery concept 2) find how much of it seemed to be genetically based, and 3) look for specific genes that influenced it.

They found at least one gene - one whose expression relates to packaging and distribution brain-signaling chemicals - but of course they don't attribute all spiritual variation to differences in this gene. The book's title is misleading.

It's hard for me to know whether the author is over-stating the importance of the gene. He tempers his remarks but does seem to think the gene is rather significant.

In addition to genetics, he highlights the importance of "unique environment," the life experiences unique to a single individual, for helping to shape spiritual tendencies.

He considers general spirituality distinct from religious tradition, which is less heritable and more controlled by "memes" - units of human culture that can be passed from person to person.

The book repeats again and again that it is not trying to argue for or against religion, or the existence of any gods.

I would be very curious to hear the praise and criticisms of other geneticists, because I feel ill-equipped to apply either. The author mentions he's had some of each. Well, I'd like to hear more of both. He could've devoted a chapter at the end to detailing and refuting some of those arguments.

I do appreciate his caution, though, in having a whole section near the beginning devoted to caveats.

[Nicole · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author, Dean Hamer, tries to make the case that there is evidence for a gene relating to spirituality. He begins the book with an explanation that spirituality and being religious are not the same thing. In fact, he uses measures of self-transcendence or feelings of interconnectedness with other living things, as a basis for connecting to spirituality. Further on in the book he also explains that religion is a product of culture, that what type of religion a person adheres to is influenced by environment.

Parts of the book were interesting. I was not fully convinced that the studies behind finding a gene with a reliable "spiritual" marker were adequate enough to pull much information from it. I wanted, too, to read more of a discussion on how spirituality could have played a role from an evolutionary standpoint. Instead, the author digresses into discussing religion and more of what the author discusses comes across as opinion than research-based conclusions and ideas. The second half of the book becomes more muddled and its unclear why the author jumps from spirituality to religion and even God. I particularly did not like the idea of bringing in God when the author is adamant that the gene has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of anything other than a personality trait.

The book wasn't much more than what I expected. I had hoped for more, for better from a scientist. However, it appears obvious that biases are getting in the way.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is "spirituality" an instinct?

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.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Geri · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you were hoping to find scientific evidence of a clue to a Divine Creator in this book, keep on seeking. I wish I'd read the reviews first before taking up time to read this book. I picked it up at the library on a whim, as I had recently watched a documentary on the links between science and religion in which this book was mentioned. For those who like reading genetic or science textbooks, you'll enjoy this book. Otherwise, skip it.

[Ieva · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't think that this book deserves a rating even of 1 star. Had to read this for my Genetics class (I am in university) and this book was just plain nonsense. Obviously to those who have never encountered scientific language before the studies might sound fascinating, but in reality this book was about complete nothing. Not worth anyone's time. Although I have to give credits to the author, because he knows how to sell nonsense!

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

We are the only living creature that has spiritual genes hard-wired into our brain. Have you ever wonder why if evolution is true that nature would "waste" precious space to hard-wired unneeded neurons to a non-existence creator ? God through his majestic plan hard-wired these neurons for us to communicate with him. That is the omniscient characteristic of God.

[Mohamed Bendary · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Brilliant Genetic study.
Amazing when Prof. Hamer touches on the heredity of Homosexuality, I loved it.

[Jrobertus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hamer is a geneticist and wants to explore the nature of spirituality. He discriminates it with religion. Spirituality is a sense of oneness with the world, a loss of self and communion with nature. Religion is more of a cultural meme and takes many forms; its practitioners may or may not be spiritual. The sense of spirituality may be achieved by deep mediation or tapped into my drugs, and indeed many rituals are centered on hallucinogens. There is no denying the prevalence of these feelings so are they controlled by genes and if so, what is the evolutionary advantage. Controlled studies with drugs and MRI and other scans of experienced monks suggest that transcendent states are arrived at when areas of the posterior brain controlling the perception of the body in space are put to sleep, so to speak. You feel you have no bounds and are one with the universe. These areas are stimulated by monoamines like DOPA and serotonin and so Hmer looks for genes controlling these compounds. Twin studies have shown that spirituality has a strong genetic component so this seems like a fruitful quest. He finds one gene controlling monoamime packaging in the nerve terminals and makes a convincing case it is PART of the effect. Why should spiritual genes have an evolutionary advantage? Who knows, but a reasonable speculation is that these spiritual feelings counter depression and give vigor to life. If such a carrier lives longer and is healthier and has more kids, since he thinks life is worth living and he will carry on after death, then there you go. It is a fact that religious folks tend to be healthier than non, although it may be they have better health habits like less smoking and drinking. It is very well established that the placebo effect in medicine can have profound effects on health. If you believe something works, a pill or a sand painting, the brain stimulation of your immune system gives a real boost to your health. This may also be the case for religious believes. In any case, the breeding advantages of spiritual behavior have no bearing on the actual truth of religious dogma, which in general seems mighty childish to me. I guess I am deprived on any corresponding placebo advantages.

[Jakub Ferencik · Rating 3 out of 5]

I finished this book at the beginning of January but never really got to jot down a quick review for it. So here goes from my faulty recollection of what was being discussed.

Dean Hamer does a great job on touching on the difficulties of computing on a genetic level what it would take to argue for a "God Gene". There are certain factors that affect ur likelihood of being spiritual, such as the levels of serotonin you have. From what I remember, there was not much confirming that there is one particular God Gene out there that determines whether you will be religious or not but there are hormonal realities that underlie belief which is enough for me to be interested.

Hamer also touches on Psychedelics & meditation which I found immensely interesting. A lot of what is in this book I will use for my own research. I'll probably write about it more at that point! Busy time of the semester, so this is all I can muster

[heidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Almost good but not quite. Scholarly but lacks clarity. The writer strings different research outputs together and tries to explain if the "God gene" existed and how it works. But he doesn't make his proposal easy to follow. There are some information here and there that serve as interesting trivia though.

I wondered as I was reading, if this book would be improved by the addition of diagrams? Lots and lots of diagrams to illustrate the different parts of the brain and how neurotransmitters or monoamines bind in human body? I read the kindle version so I'm not sure if the physical copies come with helpful diagrams, but given the lack of lucidity in the author's explanations I think a few diagrams might compensate for the murky writing.

Ultimately: this book is inconclusive and unconvincing.

[Marjorie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like the concept and that it takes a relatively neutral stance on religion. I was more interested in the sociological implications than the detailed genetic research, so maybe that's why I feel a bit meh. Not a knock on the book itself though.

[Rae · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maslow. Psilocybin. Jewish DNA. Self-transcendence. Statistics.

[Nati · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

[Rexara Amara · Rating 1 out of 5]

All the data presented in this book is based on the authors own "scale" of what he believes "spirituality" to be. Because of his very biased scale, all his data is tainted by his own beliefs and interpretations. Thus, most of the data in this book is bunk.

[Eric Wurm · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author of this book is not trying to instill a reductionist view in the reader, nor is he trying to provide evidence for or against the evidence of gods or any "spiritual" notion. He states very clearly that either interpretation could be drawn from the existence of a gene that correlates with spirituality. There is no need for the potential reader to get their Fruit-of-the Looms in an increased state of entropy.

Hamer, the Harvard biologist and geneticist hypothesizes, as have others, that "spirituality", "faith", or belief in the supernatural may have a genetic basis in addition to the obvious environmental and cultural basis for existence. Human beings, and even our primate ancestors, may have an innate need for spiritual thinking which varies between individuals in a population. This is exactly what Hamer set to find out.

The scientific background given by the author is excellent, and is made accessible to the lay reader. The interpretation of the data on a correlation between the "God Gene" haplotype and its corresponding phenotypes and spiritual thinking seems tenuous at best. The scientific community has not been very receptive of the work, as Hamer describes himself, to include his colleagues. Perhaps there is an actual correlation with a corresponding cause behind it, but simply from reading this book alone one would have to judge that we're not close to an answer on VMAT2, unless more work has been done very recently.

A rather disappointing end to the book saw Hamer do his best to suggest that religion and science were compatible and reconcilable. Of course, this all depends on the belief and the believer. If the believer is willing to have their faith give way to factual evidence, then there is no conflict. Unfortunately, for many believers in many parts of the world and especially in the United States, that doesn't happen. Whether a "God gene" exists or not, Hamer doesn't provide any reason why the reconciliation of faith and science should be attempted. Perhaps there shouldn't be one.

Lastly, Hamer's failure to comment on or perhaps recognize is the mutual exclusivity of many aspects of various faiths and religions. They can't all be right. Suggesting that science and scientists (such as Richard Dawkins, who is labeled as extreme) attempt to reconcile in the face of these mutually exclusive faiths and in a climate where creationism is becoming more fervent is ludicrous. Many of the ideas expressed via faith can be dismissed for obvious lack of evidence and efficacy. For example, science needs as much reconciliation with the Mormon faith, the Scientologists, or the Muslim and Christian creationists as it needs with cryptozoologists, alien abductees, and tarot card readers. Some ideas are simply not even worth acknowledging in the face of modern scientific evidence. Referring to the dismissal of baseless ideas as "faith in science" is a bit ludicrous and perhaps pandering to crowd. The book could do without the last chapter and have been much better for it.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was torn on how to rate this book. I was really intrigued to see what sort of evidence the author provided in support of his ideas. I love to read books that try to explain the connection between what are typically thought to be psychological traits and our genetic code. As I expected, however, the evidence provided was weak and not very conclusive as far as I was concerned. None the less, I think the author did a great job explaining his theories. With all that is unknown about genetics and even more so how the brain operates we will probably be unable to answer the questions presented here for some time.

The author theorizes that there is a gene that makes a person more prone to traits such as transcendence and that these traits are passed on through the basic theory of natural selection. I'm not sure to what degree I do or do not agree with what he had to offer as a whole, but some of his individual theories were very compelling. The section that struck the closest with my personal beliefs dealt with the power of the mind and positive thought. I know that makes me sound lame, but I am who I am.

I am glad he made a distinction from the start between being religious and being spiritual. By no means would I be considered a religious person, but I tend to think of myself as quite spiritual. While I may not practice a straight forward dogma or faith, I strive to find balance in my life and in the world around me. I kept thinking of me and my brother while I was reading this. My brother is what people typically think of as spiritual: a devout Christian who attends church regularly and has strong faith in his religion. I have no religion that I claim, but I would consider myself just as intrigued by faith as him. Rather than looking to God, however, I look to nature and the universe. We both believe in a higher power and an order to life and the world, we just view the origin of that power differently.

[Broodingferret · Rating 3 out of 5]

While not as convincing in defending its thesis as The Science of Desire was, The God Gene still made for some fascinating reading. Hamer's thesis is that there is evidence for a genetic influence on the human experience of spirituality (which, incidentally, makes the title problematic, as religion and spirituality are, as Hamer himself points out repeatedly, different things). While the results of the various analyses that Hamer expounds on are provocative, and certain genetic correlates of spiritual behaviors and mental states have been uncovered, Hamer's own explanations for how these genetic traits might mediate spiritual behavior seems like a bit of a stretch. One reason for this, I do realize, is that I was looking for a more detailed analysis, yet this books is written for a lay audience, eschewing complicated biochemical detail for clarity; I'll likely do better looking up the actual research articles if I want to get into the grit of the topic. Regardless, The God Gene is filled with provocative ideas and interesting facts, and is written in an approachable and clear way, making it an enjoyable and quick read.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pros: Hamer delievers his research content very clearly and doesn't get too bogged down in the statistical data (which might count as a "con" too). His (and others in his group) discovery of the VMAT2 gene offer an interesting approach to stuying the source of faith in humans. Also, for some reason, I really liked the beginning of one of the middle chapters where he give instructions on how to isolate your own DNA (using household items - one of which is vodka). There were little tidbits like that kept the story moving.

Cons: Some of the critics who have access to the peer-reviewed material boil the VMAT2 gene discovery down to one of mere chance and claim that there is no statistically significant discovery at all. There are also critics that would rather this predetermination towards faith not be true. So, depending on the mission of the critics, this book could be a flop or a presentation of a very important advance in genetics. I honestly can't tell.

Overall: The concept of a "God Gene" alone makes this book worth reading for anyone with any interest in biology / the study of religion.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've seen many discussions of why we may have evolved to believe in gods, and why religion makes sense from both an evolutionary psychology perspective and meme theory, but I hadn't seen that spirituality can actually be correlated with specific genes. Hamer gives an excellent, popular science overview of his research into the genetic basis of "spirituality" (thoroughly distinguished from "religion" which is primarily cultural and learned, a distinction I was particularly happy to see). He treads very carefully, but still thoroughly, in breaking spirituality down to its possible brain biochemistry without making any statements on the validity of the beliefs we are apparently predisposed to. As with any popular science book, this one drastically simplifies the subject and makes his ideas appear far less hypothetical than they are. But it is just simplified so _well_ I can forgive that in this case -- I respect a scientist who can write to different levels.

[Jason Mashak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Essential reading, right along with Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents, Lawrence's Apocalypse: Cambridge Lawrence Edition, Hecht's Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson, and many others that help one to understand why religious conflicts have existed since the dawn of man.