Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00235)

Hey,

This morning I finished The God Gene and will share some excerpts and 
comments while it's fresh. There are definite flaws, starting with 
the title. It's attention grabbing but misleading in that the gene 
is associated with self-transcendence as measured on the Cloninger 
scale. That appears to be partly hereditary, whereas there is no 
positive correlation between parents' religious behavior and 
children, but actually a negative one. Hamer says explicitly "this 
is not a complete explanation of spirituality. Genes can account for 
part of the story of spirituality, but not all of it-- not by a long 
shot." Thus the reductionist materialist canard is just that. 
Here's a funny quote from the end of the book where Hamer reports the 
results of publishing a summary of his findings in Slate magazine:
"the flood of reader responses was split into two camps. Half of 
them criticized me for being deterministic and reductionist with no 
spiritual sensitivity. The other half criticized me for not 
realizing that there's no such thing as a God gene-- just a gene for 
stupidity, which I, according to these correspondents, clearly 
possessed." People who are alarmed at the possibility that *any* 
part of spirituality is inherited will immediately turn that into a 
straw man argument that *all* spirituality is inherited.

Here are summary paras that give the gist of Hamer's argument:

The sense of self is central to spirituality...the ability to lose 
one's sense of self, to become at one with the universe and everybody 
and everything in it, is at the heart and core of spirituality. 
Second, our sense of self and the world around us arises from the 
distinctive brain process of consciousness...Third, monoamines play a 
central role in consciousness by lending value to perceptions...that 
make us feel good, bad, or somewhere in between about other people, 
places, and experiences...By influencing the ebb and flow of 
monoamines, VMAT2 helps to determine how we perceive alterations in 
consciousness...No book or sermon can teach one person to use a 
different monoamine transporter or another to ignore the signals 
emanating from his limbic system. It is our genetic makeup that 
helps to determine how spiritual we are. We do not know God, we feel 
him.(pp. 137-139)

The book pulls in a lot of interesting but extraneous material and 
seems padded, a long essay extended into book form. But it ends 
well, with a reflection of the difference between spirituality and 
religion:

"Spirituality is based in consciousness, religion in cognition. 
Spirituality is universal, whereas cultures have their own forms of 
religion. I would argue that the most important contrast is that 
spirituality is genetic, while religion is based on culture, 
traditions, beliefs, and ideas. It is, in other words, mimetic...Our 
genes can predispose us to believe. But they don't tell us what to 
believe in."(pp. 212-214)

This distinction would fit what Gurdjieff calls the difference 
between Essence and False Personality. And I relate it to what Jerry 
refers to as the pathologies in the Theosophical movement. The 
movement was founded to promote spirituality and critique religion, 
but to the extent that it has become a religion (something the 
Mahatma letters say is responsible for 2/3 of the evils afflicting 
humanity) it has lost its way.

When people make slanderous accusations about others trying 
to "subvert the Theosophical movement," their fear is about a dying 
religion and they are looking for someone to blame. First time this 
happened to me was with Jean Overton Fuller announcing that a paper I 
gave on Gurdjieff and Sufism at a Theosophical History Conference was 
a "takeover attempt." She didn't bother to collect any facts, e.g. 
to find out how much contact I'd had with Sufis or the Fourth Way 
movement (very little) or how long and seriously I'd been involved in 
the Theosophical movement (a whole lot.) She must made up a 
conspiracy theory out of whole cloth, wanting to smear the messenger 
because she hated the message. Seeing a fresh accusation along the 
same lines, and Jerry's eloquent response, reminds me of this 
experience. SPIRITUALITY CANNOT BE SUBVERTED BUT RELIGION CAN. 
Leadbeaterism, Blavatskyism, Crosbieism, Tingleyism, all are dying 
religions whose devotees cannot face the fact of decline and 
decrepitude. So instead of looking at themselves for causes, they 
will look for some "outsider" to blame. Theosophy will never die, 
and will never be subverted, because it is not a religion. But the 
religions that falsely claim the title Theosophical are mortal and 
are definitely showing their age.

Cheers,

Paul