Immigration Study shows that 31,5% of newborns in France in 2010 have non-european parents...

I would like to believe that it would happen sooner than that. On other hand what if they have more "god" genes, therefore heightened spirituality than Europeans in general? I hope it is not the case.

There is strong evidence that religiosity has a genetic basis. The genetics of religiousness are not yet precisely understood, but the "god gene(s)", as you call it, may well vary in intensity across ethnic groups. Throughout history parts of the world have always been more fervently religious than others. The Middle East spring to mind as a particular hotbed of religiosity, while the societies of East Asia, Siberia and pre-Columbian America (all Mongoloid people) have constantly been the least religious, or at least the least theistic and dogmatic (though that does not prevent other forms of "godless" spirituality, like Buddhism or animism).

Northern Europeans, especially Nordics, have proven less religious historically, or at least less attached to organised religions and liturgical practices, than southern Europeans. This perhaps because they have partial Siberian DNA. The gap between Europeans is not huge though.

One of the main non-genetic factors of religiosity is the type of religion practised. Monotheistic religions are more dogmatic than polytheistic ones, for the simple reason that all religious authority and knowledge is centralised in a single almighty and omniscient god. There is less ground to doubt god if one think that he is perfect and all knowing that if there are plenty of deities with human attributes bickering between themselves.

It is surely not a coincidence that the three great monotheistic religions were founded in that strip of land between Jerusalem and Mecca. The earliest monotheistic religions all came from the same region: the Babylonian cult of Marduk (which started around the time of Hammurabi, in the 18th century BCE), the Egyptian cult of Aten (14th century BCE), and the Iranian Zoroastrianism (founded in the 6th century BCE). True monotheistic religions have not arisen anywhere else in the world (apart from derivatives variants of Hinduism influenced by Islam, and Sikhism in Punjab also influenced by Islam). So there really seems to be something in the gene pool of West Asian and Red Sea peoples that predetermines them towards monotheism, and therefore also towards increased religiosity (and consequently also heighten the risk of fanaticism).
 
Last edited:
There is strong evidence that religiosity has a genetic basis. The genetics of religiousness are not yet precisely understood, but the "god gene(s)", as you call it, may well vary in intensity across ethnic groups. Throughout history parts of the world have always been more fervently religious than others. The Middle East spring to mind as a particular hotbed of religiosity, while the societies of East Asia, Siberia and pre-Columbian America (all Mongoloid people) have constantly been the least religious, or at least the least theistic and dogmatic (though that does not prevent other forms of "godless" spirituality, like Buddhism or animism).

Um...pardon me, Maciamo? East Asia has historically been EXCEEDINGLY RELIGIOUS. Are you not aware of the numerous temples, shrines, local superstitions, et cetera, that thrived alongside the numerous and extensive religious movements of the Far East? We have Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism (of about 10 varieties!), Mohism, et cetera.

The Siberian people were universally primitive polytheists and animists. They believed in shamans, spirits, Gods, demons, et cetera.

The American Indians share similarities with the Siberians, whereas the Meso-American religion had a Caananite-esque obsession with human sacrifice and grand religious structures!

Northern Europeans, especially Nordics, have proven less religious, or at least less attached to organised religions and liturgical practices, than southern Europeans - perhaps because they have partial Siberian DNA.

Protestantism was more fervent of a religion than Catholicism during its height. That religion has cooled in Europe is due to complex social reasons, including definitive movements meant to diminish its appeal to people from various sources.
 
Um...pardon me, Maciamo? East Asia has historically been EXCEEDINGLY RELIGIOUS. Are you not aware of the numerous temples, shrines, local superstitions, et cetera, that thrived alongside the numerous and extensive religious movements of the Far East? We have Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism (of about 10 varieties!), Mohism, et cetera.


I am more than familiar with East Asian cultures, thank you. I have studied them extensively, especially the Japanese one, having lived in Japan for several years. I am also the author of Wa-pedia, a site similar to Eupedia but focusing on Japan, where I have written abundantly about Buddhism and Shintoism.

Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and Shintoism are not religions in the sense than Europeans or Middle Easterners understand it. They are at best philosophies. For a start they all lack the concept of god. Buddha and Confucius were regular men who never claimed to be god, and never claimed that there was a god (or several gods). Both Buddhism and Confucianism are atheistic.

Confucianism is just a set of ethical and sociopolitical rules and guidances. It is more a mindset, a culture than anything else. It includes such concepts as the filial piety, loyalty to the state/family/company, cultural etiquette, seniority system (sempai vs kohai in Japan), and the use of honorific and humble terms in everyday language. In fact, it pervaded East Asian culture so much that most Japanese aren't even aware that they follow (rather strictly) Confucian teachings, because nobody ever talks about Confucianism in Japan. It makes no doubt that they are Confucian in their attitude though, much more so than Buddhist.

Buddhism is more of a self-improvement method to be at peace with oneself and the world that surround us. As a Atheist, I consider Buddhism compatible with my metaphysical beliefs. Some sects of Japanese Buddhism have imported "deities" (more like demons) from Shintoism as part of the folklore (for instance Raijin and Fujin, although I can assure you that there is no cult or actual divine belief associated with them).

Shintoism is difficult to classify. On one side there are primitive animistic beliefs (like the "spirits of the forest", or the belief that some stones, waterfalls or giant trees are "sacred", whatever that means). The Japanese word kami, referring to these "spirits" is often mistranslated as "gods" or "deities". It is completely wrong though, as kami have nothing in common with gods or deities, apart from being mysterious and invisible. They have no power, no names, and no particular attributes.

The other side of Shintoism is more recent, and was revived by State Shintoism from the late 19th century. It is a set of Japanese traditions and customs, typically practised in Shinto shrines (not temples). This includes wedding ceremonies, the Shichigosan celebration for children, and various festivals. I have participated to many of them, and there are totally non-religious in character. Actually almost all Japanese are essentially atheists and non-religious, even if they call themselves Shintoist or Buddhist. It is not a contradiction at all as these aren't religions (unless you really wish to call them that way, but then any lifestyle choice could be called a religion, which becomes preposterous).

Like Shintoism, Taoism grew from animism, and includes a lot of Chinese (this time) folklore. Like for Confucianism, Taoism is so cultural that it pervaded Korean and Japanese cultures, almost without them noticing it (at least today). No Japanese would ever call themselves Taoist, yet they all know about the Yin-Yang, the Chinese traditional zodiac, Chinese medicine, Feng Shui, and all the other things that constitute Taoism.

If you thought even a moment that Taoism, Confucianism or Shintoism were religions, then you must not have the faintest idea of what they stand for, or have a very odd definition of religion. They are sets of cultural elements, not religions. Therefore East Asians aren't very religious, and never were. Their only traditional religion is animism, which has long ceased to be believed in by anyone but the most superstitious country people.

The Siberian people were universally primitive polytheists and animists. They believed in shamans, spirits, Gods, demons, et cetera.

That's basically what I said. They are not very religious. Polytheism and animism is just folklore, very shallow beliefs, relatively unorganised religions that lack a dogma, written rules, a religious authority, theology, and everything else found in Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Animism has been called the "natural state" of humanity, the simple beliefs in the spirits of nature, ghosts, and other unexplained phenomenons for primitive people. Animism is or was found among pretty much all hunter-gatherers, including nomadic and semi-nomadic Native Americans.

The American Indians share similarities with the Siberians, whereas the Meso-American religion had a Caananite-esque obsession with human sacrifice and grand religious structures!

Mesoamerica is only one small part of the Americas. It is not because they practised gruesome human sacrifices and built pyramids that they were profoundly religious people. They were barbarians for sure, but one does not necessarily equal the other.
 
There is strong evidence that religiosity has a genetic basis. The genetics of religiousness are not yet precisely understood, but the "god gene(s)", as you call it, may well vary in intensity across ethnic groups. Throughout history parts of the world have always been more fervently religious than others. The Middle East spring to mind as a particular hotbed of religiosity, while the societies of East Asia, Siberia and pre-Columbian America (all Mongoloid people) have constantly been the least religious, or at least the least theistic and dogmatic (though that does not prevent other forms of "godless" spirituality, like Buddhism or animism).

When I look at American culture, even Canadian, I can observe that African Americans are the most religious/spiritual people of all races. They are very emotional about expressing religion everywhere, even after boxing match, even if they lost, they always thank the "Lord".
That's actually a good example of why people developed spirituality. One doesn't need to have good self-esteem to be successful. Just the believe that god/supernatural is on your side, and helping you, can give one extra energy, will power, and bravery. It's like evolutionary psychological trick to make people more successful species.

When one looks at burials of Humans and Neanderthals, from same era, it shows that Humans were more spiritual. Humans' burials were always more furnished with everyday items and some symbols, more ritualistic in nature. Neanderthals' burials were very spartan to say at least. Makes me think that Neanderthals were less spiritual creatures. Later, through thousands of years of coexistence with humans, Neanderthal's culture became more elaborate, in burials and also with pieces of art like more complicated necklaces. There was a shift, perhaps due to interbreeding or just cultural influence.
Anyhow, I'm curious if lower spirituality of Europeans, especially northern Europeans is due to Neanderthal admixture?
If from future tests it will turn that Northern Europeans have more Neanderthal's genes then I might be right.
 
Anyhow, I'm curious if lower spirituality of Europeans, especially northern Europeans is due to Neanderthal admixture?
If from future tests it will turn that Northern Europeans have more Neanderthal's genes then I might be right.

Interesting thought. I have also noticed that in most Asian or African countries the older members of the family , will be cared for by the younger eg: elderly parents or grandparents. Also the grandparents seem to have a significant, hands-on, role in the lives of their grandchildren. I don`t think that is always the case regarding these two things here in Europe.
 
Interesting thought. I have also noticed that in most Asian or African countries the older members of the family , will be cared for by the younger eg: elderly parents or grandparents. Also the grandparents seem to have a significant, hands-on, role in the lives of their grandchildren. I don`t think that is always the case regarding these two things here in Europe.
Good point, this all might boil down to less emotional nature of Northern Europeans. That's why they care less about family ties or spirituality. The "lesser emotional state" is genetic in nature too, I'd suppose.

If this character trait came from Neanderthals, that might explain why the went extinct. They didn't care. :LOL:
 
I think the time has come to give absolutely free abortion for poor people and make everything to limit traditional family teachings among inmigrants.
While giving EVERY kind of support for working women in stable middle-high paying jobs.
And of course 0 more immigration.
In the US young people for example are 50% white, 25% black and 25% Hispanic. That's crazy, how you know that meaningful majorities among those minorities espouse our values
 

This thread has been viewed 2610 times.

Back
Top