I agree that you can't really pinpoint something so terribly abstract as our idea of God to a single gene. It is most likely the product of many many many genes working together. You might as well have asked whether someone's personality can be isolated in a single gene.
I think our idea of God is intrinsically related to our idea of the infinite, and that our idea of the infinite is intrinsically related to self consciousness. God is by definition the infinite. Most philosophical definitions of God depend on some understanding of infinity; all knowing, all seeing, all being, creator of all, etc...
Where do we get our notion of infinity? I think it comes along with self consciousness. Think about it:
A non-self-conscious being is only aware of external stimuli. It may have inner thoughts and feelings, but, because it is not yet self-conscious, it cannot associate those ideas and feelings with an 'I' or a 'self'. So, all it has access to is external stimuli. Now this might be a big step, but maybe we can assume that all external stimuli is finite. Experience seems to confirm this: we see, hear, touch, taste and smell things. They're all bounded by quantity. You can't see an inifite amount of things, or see something infinitely long. Anything you see hear touch smell or taste will be finite. Someone might say that the night sky is infinite in expanse, but that's not true. What we see is a heck of a lot of sky, but not so much of it that we can say its inifinite.
So, external stimulus can only offer us finite experience. Without self consciousness we can only experience external stimuli (see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or whatever senses the non-self conscious being has), which is intrinsically FINITE.
now, what happens when we become self conscious? Self consciousness is more or less thought thinking itself. Not only can we now receive external stimuli, but the fact that we have any stimulus at all gives us another dimension of experience. We can think not just about the external stimulus, but about the fact that we are having the external stimulus, the fact that it is affecting 'me', the 'I' or the 'self'. Experience then becomes reflexive (thought thinking itself). Now (again this might be a big step...), maybe we can think of thought thinking itself as a beam of light caught between two mirrors, or a video camera pugged into a TV pointed at the TV it is plugged into. We get a bunch of smaller and smaller tv screens, smaller untill infinity. Granted the smaller and smaller TV screens example is not really infinite because it is part of external stimulus (sight), but if we take the analogy and apply it to our psychology, we can maybe see how somehow our concept of infinity comes alongside our becoming self aware. We can experience external stimuli, think about external stimuli, think about thinking about external stimuli, and so on until infinity. Because this type of infinity is not part of the actual external stimuli, it isn't bounded to finitude.
So, God being a version of our concept of infinity (infinity with respect to being, with respect to knowledge, etc...), our concept of God came along when we became self aware.
So, in a sense, was created along with our sense of self. What created them is a mystery to me.
I think psychology is dependant on physiology. The human didn't think 'oh I should walk erect, it'll be easier to catch prey'. The way natural selection works is like this:
A population of creatures undergo random changes. Say 1000 bugs; each has 6 legs and comes in different colors. Random genetic mutations make some of the bugs blue others red others other colors. Say the red ones are prone to being eaten by a predator and the blue ones are prone to reproduction, then natural selection is the effect we see when these bugs are left alone to face nature: the red ones will die off and the blue ones will thrive. We say the red ones were killed off by natural selection while the blue ones were favored by natural selection.
Natural selection dosen't work at only the genetic level... Today, with our fast paced world of commercials and popular music we see trends and ideas as the product of natural selection. Ideas like can openers or toasters make life easier and are useful for people. You could maybe say that because these things are favorable for people's survival in today's world, the fact that they've been around for a while makes them a product of natural selection. Things like fatty fattty foods, beanie babies, the spice girls, things that are not helpful for the survival of the species at all (either in a negative way or in a neutral way) will either die off or be replaced by other fads (eaters of fatty fatty foods will become unhealthy and die off naturally until few people remain that eat fatty fatty foods).
Hmm. I've said enough. Hopefully this will help spurt some more discussion on an interesting thread!
Thanks for the inspiration folks!
|