Over at the Psychology Today blog, The Scientific Fundamentalist, Satoshi Kanazawa is getting a lot of attention for a really odd argument. The title basically sums it up, “If Barack Obama Is Christian, Michael Jackson Was White.”
Honestly, not much good can follow a title like that, but let’s move on. Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, is arguing that President Obama is at least partially Muslim, regardless of what church he goes to or what creed he accepts. Obama is a Muslim because it’s in his genes:
[...] the fact that Barack Obama’s father was a Muslim Kenyan, descended from a long line of Muslims, will remain true until the day he dies, and nothing he ever does in his life can change half of his genes that he inherited from his father. His genes are for keeps. The fact that he has attended Christian church for the past 20 years is not going to change that. Michael Jackson looked white much longer than Barack Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church. Obama is still as (half) Muslim as the day he was born.
Part of his argument makes sense. If a segment of the human population has interbred for a long time, they’re likely to have certain genetic markers in common which could be used to identify them. Call this a genetic fingerprint that would identify the a certain group.
Historically, I think it’s questionable whether or not Islamic Kenyans have maintained enough of a closed group to develop a fingerprint. Islam is a very diverse religion, and in many cases it seemed to live comfortably along side other religious groups for centuries. When Monophysite Christian and Muslim groups intermingled, what does that do to the group genetics?
But more to the point, what does defining a person’s religion by their genetic markers do for us? Is it a useful definition? Since what we’re looking for when we ask about someone’s religion is some understanding of their beliefs, I can’t see that it is. Unless Kanazawa is going to suggest that some people are genetically predisposed to accepting the Trinity while other are predisposed to a more straight-forward monotheism, I just don’t see the point.
Joachim Krueger, another blogger at Psychology Today, is even less impressed:
If religion is inherited through the Y-chromosome, he is fully Muslim; if it is inherited through the mitochondrial DNA, he is fully Christian; if the religious gene is located somewhere else, he has a 50-50 chance of being one or the other, and the premise of Satoshi’s post is moot. Now, Satoshi knows all this. I therefore conclude that his post is meant to entertain, enrage, and befuddle. That’s too bad because the primary purpose of these blogs is to help, advise, and educate. Am I wrong?
I don’t understand. What does a religious identity have to do with genes? Genes make us human – in all shapes, colors, and sizes. But genes have nothing to do with religion.
Sounds like mental masturbation to stir up controversy and a plea for relevance to me. *shrugs*
Huh, I knew they were looking for a gay gene but I didn’t know they’d found one for religion. I’ve got to get that one screened.
If it’s through the midichlorians, does that make him a Jedi or a Sith?
So this is bizarrely similar to something I ran across on Pharyngula a few days ago.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/christian_genetics_is_a_strang.php
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/franklin-graham-i-think-the-presidents-problem-is-that-he-was-born-a-muslim-video.php?ref=fpa
Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) recently stated that islam is passed from father to son by “the seed”. Of course you can guess who’s status as a christian Graham was attempting to call into question.
“I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name. Now it’s obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed and he has renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he says he has done, I cannot say that he hasn’t. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said.”
Of course a point could be made about judaism being passed on genetically (the matrilineal descent thing), but that isn’t really connected to the religious part of it any more than christianity or islam. The real “seed” of these religions is indoctrination. Muslim children are not born muslim. They are converted at birth when their parents claim them in the name of allah and begin teaching them that they are muslims. Obviously any outsider would say that this applies as much to christianity as islam or judaism, but Franklin Graham (who by the way is currently doing his dad’s old job) sees christianity as the only faith that is not genetic and must be chosen.
“Well, you know, you can be born a Muslim, you can be born a Jew, but you can’t be born a Christian. The only way you can become a Christian is by confessing your sins to God, asking his forgiveness, and by receiving Jesus Christ by faith into your heart, that Christ died for your sins, shed his blood on Calvary’s Cross, and that God raised him to life. If you’re willing to accept that and believe that, and let Jesus Christ be the lord of your life, God will forgive your sins, he will heal your heart, and that’s the only way you can become a Christian. And so if the President has done that, then I would say he’s a Christian, if that’s what he has done.”
And I love the way he tries to play both sides here. “Listen if the president says he’s accepted Jesus as his lord and savior I can’t prove he’s lying. I’m just saying he’s brown. I mean that’s kinda suspicious right? He’s got the seed of islam in him.”
So Obama is a Muslim and a Christian by this logic? Why is that even a problem? He’s still a Christian, right?
Where exactly is the “problem” here?
The “problem” is that even though that’s what they think the teacups still understand that it’s unacceptable to say out loud that you have a problem with Obama because he’s a ni***r.
Maybe he is trying to use the same argument with muslims as people do with Jews, are they a religion or a race. Still sounds like garbage.
What a pile of horseshit. Skin colour is an inherited trait. Religion is not. Comparing the two is the sort of nonsense you’d expect from the religious Right, not form a (so-called) scientist. Kanazawa – san e – baka iro da yo.
What a load of useless noise. Anyone who claims the title of “scientist” in a biological discipline ought to know the difference between inherited traits and external developmental factors (ie; culture and religion). That’s even before we get to the point that simple observations run directly counter to his hypothesis. I’m the son of two christians; my likelihood of being christian is, by his logic, 100%. Yet here I am, an atheist. I’m not sure whether this is intentional or not, but it’s ignorant and irresponsible either way.
That was retarded. He’s equating Islam only with Arabs. Plus he’s missing the point. Obama’s Kenyan grandfather converted to Islam. He wasn’t of Arab extract. You can tell the Right don’t do their homework if they solely want to make a lame point.
Plus historically Muslims didn’t interbreed with us that much to let us have some Arab genes anyway. They converted sure enough, but in places like Uganda and Kenya, the vast majority of Black Muslims bred with themselves or other Black tribes whilst the Arabs bred with themselves or Tanzanian Blacks. My Dad was an East African Muslim for a time in his life and I don’t have any Arab blood to my knowledge.
And technically, considering that Obama’s ancestors would have practised their traditional religions, wouldn’t those ‘genes’ carrying on and therefore make him a Nyansaye follower (Kenyan traditional religion)?
“[...] the fact that Barack Obama’s father was a Muslim Kenyan, descended from a long line of Muslims, will remain true until the day he dies”
He not just missing the point that Obama’s grandfather converted to Islam, he’s deliberately trying to obfuscate people. I guess to further his position, which – from the rest of the text – would appear to be that Obama is not really a Christian. At least, not one you can trust.
How can genes be related to religion?
If that were true then we are worshippers of a pagan pig god because that was the religion 15.000 years ago.
Yes, but how many Christians believe the world is that old? =P
You mean they have forgotten about the one true pig god that is even older than the Christian god? The pig god created the universe, the Christian god only this solar system…. with assistant of an alien race.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage) will take away your chocolate rations.
But he may be correct but for the wrong reason.
The genes set up the growth and development of the body.
So theoretically it sets up the nature of the brain seat of intelligence and thinking ability.
So the theoretical g0d gene sets up the brain development such that it allows the person to accept BS as real. This would explain why so many people believe such fantastic BS instead of science.
But at some point around 4000-10000yrs ago the g0d gene mutated into the science gene that has been inherited by only 20% of the people. and is a recessive in many others.
This explains a lot and more intelligently than that scientist does and I just made this up.
Wait I didn’t make it up!!! A g0d like voice spoke to me and inspired this insight…..
There that makes it a fact.
“A g0d like voice spoke to me”
Are you sure it wasn’t the voice of reason?
That is disturbing – and a logical fallacy. Olaf has it right – we’d all be worshiping pagan gods if there was any truth to it.
A statement like that would make me fire this guys ass, if I were his boss and he was working for me in a scientific capacity.
If religion is in fact inherited, atheists would be far less prevalent. I was born into a religious family and do not practice my religion today. The argument is that human being have a genetic disposition to create/maintain/worship higher powers.
All of this boils down to OccAm’s Razor.
1. I have a disorder that prevents my body from expressing the religion gene.
2. I do not have this gene (despite most/all of my ancestors “having” it).
3. The gene is fabricated by religious persons with an agenda.
Given the history of religious bodies, I have go to with #3 for $1000 Alex.
Don’t you mean $100?
The $1000 questions are supposed to be difficult.
I doubt it’s anything so simple as one gene, or even a gene complex, and probably is a complex interplay of genetics, in utero hormonal exposure, environmental triggers, and suchlike that determine whether a particular brain is more or less capable of accepting an idea like belief in God.
But I do not doubt there is some biological basis to the capacity to entertain such ideas, as some people report having an easier time than others with such thoughts. This is not to say that religious affiliation is deterministic, but only to say that there probably is a biological component to it that powerfully influences a person’s original disposition to religion.
” If a segment of the human population has interbred for a long time, they’re likely to have certain genetic markers in common which could be used to identify them.”
I think you’re conflating genes with memes,
-and unless you’re an indigenous Australian or Greenland Eskimo, you’re probably descended from Ramses the Great. Yeah, I know Genghis Khan was the most prolific male, but Ramses has had more centuries for his genes to get around. I’m not interested in marrying any siblings, but I’m keeping up with the cat-worship part of the faith.
This is definitely one of the more ridiculous things I’ve heard in a while. I’m not really sure of the point either.
“Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong for our President to be Muslim. The only thing that’s wrong with it is denying it.”
Translation:
“[I don't want to look like a bigot while inferring the president is somehow a terrorist, so here is a nice fake justification.]”
(Not that I think Muslims are terrorists. I just know certain groups love to say they are.)
I am descended from a variety of European immigrants, and to my understanding, the results of migrating from one European locale to another. It gets mixed with the so-called Natives of the land, so what does it really mean if I am 1/4 pure Italian? — I don’t know a lot about genetics, but I don’t really believe there is such a thing as an “Irish” gene, like for people who claim to be 100% Irish who don’t know anything about Ireland other than some of their great-great-grandparents came over on a boat. It’s just an example. For Christians who go all over the world as missionaries to change people’s “genetics” and have them convert to Christianity, it should not mean very much to them that Obama is brown and Christian. Many black people in the US are Christians, what were they before? I don’t understand this logic. I don’t even really understand it when the Jews do it, this is some tribal lineage going all the way back, but what else is Jewish about it? My grandmother’s suspicious maiden name leads me to wonder if I might really be Jewish, I think it combines well with the fact she grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and descends from immigrants of Eastern bloc Europe, but I think she said she was Episcopal, and I can’t trace the roots. What difference does it make? I’m not Jewish now and neither is she. Am I genetically Episcopalian? That side is going to have to take it up with the Catholics and Presbyterians I’m also genetically related to.
Judaism is a bit of a weird case because of the dual nature of it being both a tribal identity and a religion. While there was obviously enough genetic exchange between jews and non-jews to ensure that jews look like the surrounding community a strong tendency to breed inside the comunity, induced by both religion and legal restrictions that separated jewish communities from the general population, mean that you can still detect genetic markers that are strongly associated with being jewish. The really strong emphasis on the maternal lineage is relatively recent and is more of a blowback by the religious conservatives to the increased assimilation brought by the enlightenment and the removal of legal restrictions, mostly in europe, that led to more contacts and as a result more interfaith relationships.
I think this stupid meme about ‘moslem genes’ is an attempt to slip the Overton window a bit in the racism direction. They are trying to make ‘Moslem’ into a (scary, evil different) race, not a religion. They hope to use this to be able to demonize Moslems and deny them rights and maybe eventually citizenship in the name of ‘national security’ without tripping over the first amendment.
That’s the most preposterous thing I’ve heard in my entire life. You’re telling me that if he was removed from any influence of religion from his life he would still be Muslim, or Christian, or have any beliefs period? What this idiot says is stupid and contrived, and then they expect skeptics to be “nice”. If that’s true, then I happen to be genuinely allergic to stupid…
To sum it up, Kanazawa is a blinkered idiot.
There are two problems with this. First, you don’t “inherit” a religion. All humans are born atheist. They are then indoctrinated or “brainwashed” at a very early age to believe in the nonsense of their parents. Secondly, even if Obama is a Muslim, so what? The Constitution is very clear that there shall not be a religious “test” for higher office. Obama could be a Wicken, Rastafari, Shinto, New-Age Left-Handed-Path Kibology Last Thursdayist for all the Constitution cares. His religion matters only to the nigger-hating Xenophobes that slither around Tea-bag rallys. I could only hope that he (or some future President) would declare himself (or herself) an Atheist so we as a society could dispense with all of this religious idiosy. That person would get my support and campaign dollars for sure. Unfortunately, humans in the US haven’t evolved that far yet. Sad. ‘Nuf said.
OMG! Run! HURRY! get your kids out of that school! They have books on sexual identity!
What a stupid argument. There may possibly be a gene for religion – but that would be a gene that gained evolutionary advantage from believing in higher being, imaginary friends and most importantly doing what you were told. What flavour of religion you then exhibit is almost entirely dependent on where you live and were brought up. As many have said, two Xtian parents can produce an athetist, so like for most behavioural things that have a genetic component, the influence of the gene would be just a few percent.
They’re just trying to slur him with the muslim label. How about that many Palestinian arabs are actually Xtian rather than Muslim?
He also seems to think that montheistic faiths were here from the beginning of time (6000 years ago?) or did they evolved? How could he explain the fast expansion of Islam?
Goes to my point: The man is a retard and not worth the effort of correcting.
As soon as he used the words “Muslim genes” I wrote him off as a complete retard and stopped reading.
After reading both letters I have to say that he wasn’t saying what I understood and that he has (a feble) point.
Of course, he is playing with the concept muslim and some kind of confusion between religion and ethnicity, and taking advantadge over a popular myth, so I don’t think he deserves any respect.
His point is that, as muslim people only interbreed with muslim ones, that would have, over the generations, changed muslim population -I assume it’s possible simply by genetic derivation (not sure about the english term, how do you call the variation in a population without a selective force?). Moreover, Islam has his rules and those rules could have added up to natural selection and improved the predominance of some traits.
There are some problems, of course:
1.- Muslim religion has been around for a thousand years, that would have been a pretty fast evolution or a non-relevant evolution.
2.- Islam, from Bangladesh to Kenya through Pakistan is a diverse religion wich affects pretty different ethnicities. maybe in a little population that evolution would be more important.
3.- For Islam to be a valid classificator it should have ebeen an spiltting in the original population between muslims and non-muslims, and he should prove that interbreeding between both groups was very rare. That is hardly the situation some centuries ago as muslims proved before christians that they were able to share and respect other religions.
4.- Probably the mean division in Kenya was distance and ethnicity. Each tribe probably breed only in his own tribe or, exceptionally, with neighbour ones. That isolation makes irrelevant the religious splitting.
5.- There is more genetic diversity in East Africa between pretty close tribes than all over the rest of the world, as genetic studies have proven recently.
So…he could have (in theory) a point but he is an ass and a pretty lame “scientist”. Where are his evidences?
The term you’re looking for is genetic drift.
Since Islam, like Christianity, is an evangelical religion that seek to convert people the link between Islam and an ethnic origin disappeared long ago. While in the early years you could safely assume that a Muslim will also be an Arab the fast expansion of the Muslim conquests and the following mass conversions of the conquered to Islam have eroded this link. However, even if there was some shared genetic heritage of all Muslims being related to it will not mean that even if you’re not raised as a Muslim you will have some dormant Musliminess just sitting there waiting to take over as soon as you get elected president.