February 16, 2005
The Faithful: A Matter of Genes? (7 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "God and Evolution," by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, Feb. 12):

Suppose there is a genetic predisposition to explain group actions like a tendency to religious beliefs. Does that mean societies are unable to choose secular values over religiously inspired injustice?

In 1776, a great country was created by people who rejected the divine right of a king to rule them in favor of a republic free of any particular spiritual expression. In that case, the supposed spiritual gene led to a secular government. Carl Senna

St. John, New Brunswick

Feb. 12, 2005

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof reaches the right conclusions about the role that faith has played in human experience. But the research that he refers to exemplifies the vise-like grip that modern science has on many of us.

It is a fact that the experience of the holy, in one form or another, has been an indivisible part of peoples and cultures widely separated in space as well as in time. An important dimension of that lived experience is represented by faith.

It is time that even the most avid scientists (myself included) acknowledged the possibility of there being other ways of understanding faith. Ninad Bondre

Oxford, Ohio, Feb. 12, 2005

The writer is a Ph.D. candidate in geology at Miami University.

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof's suggestion that we may be innately inclined toward faith need not cause the secular left to shudder. Religious belief takes many forms. Regardless of what the gene VMAT2 does or does not code for, it certainly does not determine how we fulfill our spiritual needs.

Let us not be so ungenerous toward individual choice and the varieties of religious experience to assume that one cannot be a member of the secular left and also a profoundly spiritual, even religious, person. Ariel Simon

New Haven, Feb. 12, 2005

To the Editor:

Evolution has selected for rules of thumb, snap judgments and quick explanations. It is no surprise that our need for explanations extends to the whole of existence. Note the power of simple explanations in politics.

It is also true that religion benefits the individual. Like many individual behaviors, it does not necessarily benefit society. Modern religions all encourage unrestricted reproduction, which can stress resources. A certainty of moral correctness doesn't help negotiate coexistence with other societies or other members of the shared society.

I don't expect religion to go away, but I do expect it to be excluded from political negotiation and scientific discussion, neither of which benefits from snap judgments and quick explanations. Thomas Wright

Oak Park, Ill., Feb. 12, 2005

To the Editor:

Theories about a "faith gene" are fascinating, but labeling the left as "secular" is an unfortunate generalization.

Many liberals, when they are not at yoga or shopping for crystals, can be found in Catholic and Protestant churches and in synagogues.

Was Jesus a liberal? According to what he actually said and did, you could logically draw that conclusion. So why are liberals "secular," and how is the right Christian?

Maria O'Meara

Brookline, Mass., Feb. 12, 2005

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof cites a study of 4,000 North Carolinians in which frequent churchgoers were found to have a 46 percent lower risk of dying in a six-year period than those who attended less often. This statistic is particularly startling in light of the fact that a sizable number of North Carolinians do not have health insurance, and many more are inadequately covered.

Could it be that those with comfortable jobs that provide health benefits are best able to maintain healthy and stable lifestyles that include regular church attendance? Also, church membership entails tithing expectations, which the working poor may find burdensome.

David Fellerath

Durham, N.C., Feb. 12, 2005

To the Editor:

An interesting test of the "religion gene" would be to examine its effects in our close cousins the chimpanzees.

J. D. Hill

Huntington, N.Y., Feb. 13, 2005

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home

Back