<p>Monozygotic twin studies are the general course of action for this kind of question. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921867">Genetic and environmental influences on multiple dimensions of religiosity: a twin study</a> concludes there is a genetic component. </p>

<p>A complete approach for these kind of studies is to take twins that have been separated to different households from birth and compare them to twins in the same household. I'm not sure what this particularly study does (haven't read it) but its a typical approach in behavioral biology.</p>

<p>A <a href="http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-12/religiosity-genes-again-confirmed-by-another-twin-study">summary of the above article</a>, also references a book where they compared monozygotic twins to dizygotic twins.</p>

<p>The difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins is that monozygotic twins share almost a complete set of genetics (mutations happen) while dizygotic twins share the same amount as a normal set of siblings.  The idea being that if monozygotic twins share traits at a higher statistical rate than dizygotic twins, that there is a genetic component to that trait.  This, of course, does not mean the trait "is genetic" in totality.  Most behavioral traits have a combination of genetic and environmental (be it developmental, social, toxicological, or else wise environmental) factors.  There's also a new factor discovered recently that lies somewhere in between: epigenetics.  I can't be certain, but I'd think this would appear in monozygotic similarities, probably confounding results a bit.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-02T22:51:48.663Z
2012-09-03T17:24:27.190Z
2012-09-03T17:24:27.190Z
Keegan Keplinger
<p>I know that parent beliefs have very strong influence on child, but is it possible that genetic factor also play a role? I doubt that the content of any religion could be heritable through genes nor anyone could be genetically predestined to be Christian, Jew, Buddhist or votary of any particular religion. But is it possible that some kind of sensitivity to religious aspect of life could be heritable? </p>

<p>I know that it is hard to distinguish genetic and environmental factor in such case, but maybe someone have already made such research for example on monozygotic and dizygotic twins or adopted children? </p>

<p>I've thought that if it is indeed heritable, then celibacy in the Catholic Church might be suicidal for this faith, as it eliminates the (potential) "godliness genes".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T21:21:41.830Z
Not to play "Devil's advocate" (couldn't resist), but how could scientists quantify something like this as a means for comparison between subjects?
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T21:30:31.413Z
@ChuckSherrington there are purported measures for "religiousness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Measurement_of_Religiousness/Spirituality_(book) not sure what the current accepted one(s) may be, if any.
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T21:39:10.310Z
@BenBrocka Sure, I would buy into that, but going from questionaire -> personality characteristic -> phenotype -> genotype would still be hairy, I think.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T21:40:12.977Z
(don't get me wrong, I think this is an interesting question, I'm just not sure how answerable it is in general)
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T22:04:49.403Z
Ok, I know that it is hard to measure the "religiousness", but was it studied for _any_ possible measure? Qualitative or quantitative (theist/atheist)?
Marta Cz-C
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T22:07:30.257Z
@ChuckSherrington There are plenty of measures, take a look at `McGregor, I., Haji, R., Nash, K.A., & Teper, R. (2008). "Religious zeal
and the uncertain self." Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 183–188.` This measure is used in Inzlicht et al. (2009; see [this answer](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/1184/29) for more detail) when looking for neural correlates of religiousness.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T22:14:06.207Z
@BenBrocka Thanks for revision of my question, but I think you've changed the meaning of my question. "Religious preference" may suggest what religion one will choose instead of if he/she believe or not.
Marta Cz-C
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-30T22:35:32.053Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev I figured as soon as I said that someone would come up with dozens. Hehe.  That might only push us back to "personality characteristic" in my chain above, though.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-01T07:06:00.697Z
@ChuckSherington, monozygotic twin studies:
[Genetic and environmental influences on multiple dimensions of religiosity: a twin study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921867) concludes there is a genetic component.  The general course of these kind of studies is to take twins that have been separated to different households from birth and compare them to twins int he same household.  I'm not sure what this particularly study does (haven't read it) but its a typical approach in behavioral biology.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-01T07:23:15.887Z
Perhaps eventually if somebody else doesn't beat me to it (I'm not calling dibs on it though, so feel free anyone else).  I don't want to invest the time into reading it right now. [Here](http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-12/religiosity-genes-again-confirmed-by-another-twin-study) is somebody else's summary of it, it looks like they just compared monozygotic to dizygotic.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-02T22:43:12.987Z
@Xurtio Answers can be improved. So just if you copy and paste your comment, it would be beneficial. Bear in mind that comments are to _improve_ a question. For _answers_ (also - partial) - there are... answers.
Piotr Migdal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-03T08:01:56.477Z
Consider the opposite. If evolution adapts a creature to it's physical environment, might the idea of Christianity itself be evolving to fit the environment of the human mind? If so, finding a gene for religiousness would be nonsense because you'd only find genes for normal mental development.
Preece
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-03T08:41:44.867Z
@Preece I do not assume a priori that such a gene exist nor that the religiousness is it only function if such a gene exist. It could for example makes people more social and helps integrate the members of community (as integration is indeed one of the function of religions in human communities). Also, as I said, I do not think that the content of any religion is a product of direct biological evolution.
Marta Cz-C
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-03T17:48:16.147Z
@MartaCz-C My point is: we might not be prone to the idea, the idea may be prone to us. It's just another vantage point that I don't think adds up to a full answer. I'm not telling you what you think, merely providing another view.
Preece
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-03T19:17:52.707Z
@Preece, nobody's finding a "a gene for this or that".  Instead, think of it as finding "genes associated with this or that".  Furthermore, the idea of a social construct like religion "evolving" is confusing language in the context of genetics where the word is already reserved for a specific kind of molecular process.  Lastly, the "proneness" of the construct is not being assayed either, and it's more likely that they are simultaneously prone to each other in varying distribution and context.  Genetics and environment are a complicated, entangled dance.
Keegan Keplinger
<genetics><parenting><nature-nurture><religion>
Is religiousness a genetically heritable feature?
Marta Cz-C
# Is religiousness a genetically heritable feature?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-08-30)

I know that parent beliefs have very strong influence on child, but is it possible that genetic factor also play a role? I doubt that the content of any religion could be heritable through genes nor anyone could be genetically predestined to be Christian, Jew, Buddhist or votary of any particular religion. But is it possible that some kind of sensitivity to religious aspect of life could be heritable?

I know that it is hard to distinguish genetic and environmental factor in such case, but maybe someone have already made such research for example on monozygotic and dizygotic twins or adopted children?

I've thought that if it is indeed heritable, then celibacy in the Catholic Church might be suicidal for this faith, as it eliminates the (potential) "godliness genes".

**Tags:** genetics, parenting, nature-nurture, religion

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not to play "Devil's advocate" (couldn't resist), but how could scientists quantify something like this as a means for comparison between subjects?  
> **username_2**: @ChuckSherrington there are purported measures for "religiousness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Measurement_of_Religiousness/Spirituality_(book) not sure what the current accepted one(s) may be, if any.  
> **username_1**: @BenBrocka Sure, I would buy into that, but going from questionaire -> personality characteristic -> phenotype -> genotype would still be hairy, I think.  
> **username_1**: (don't get me wrong, I think this is an interesting question, I'm just not sure how answerable it is in general)  
> **username_0**: Ok, I know that it is hard to measure the "religiousness", but was it studied for _any_ possible measure? Qualitative or quantitative (theist/atheist)?  
> **username_3**: @ChuckSherrington There are plenty of measures, take a look at `McGregor, I., Haji, R., Nash, K.A., & Teper, R. (2008). "Religious zeal and the uncertain self." Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 183–188.` This measure is used in Inzlicht et al. (2009; see [this answer](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/1184/29) for more detail) when looking for neural correlates of religiousness.  
> **username_0**: @BenBrocka Thanks for revision of my question, but I think you've changed the meaning of my question. "Religious preference" may suggest what religion one will choose instead of if he/she believe or not.  
> **username_1**: @ArtemKaznatcheev I figured as soon as I said that someone would come up with dozens. Hehe.  That might only push us back to "personality characteristic" in my chain above, though.  
> **username_4**: @ChuckSherington, monozygotic twin studies: [Genetic and environmental influences on multiple dimensions of religiosity: a twin study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921867) concludes there is a genetic component.  The general course of these kind of studies is to take twins that have been separated to different households from birth and compare them to twins int he same household.  I'm not sure what this particularly study does (haven't read it) but its a typical approach in behavioral biology.  
> **username_4**: Perhaps eventually if somebody else doesn't beat me to it (I'm not calling dibs on it though, so feel free anyone else).  I don't want to invest the time into reading it right now. [Here](http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-12/religiosity-genes-again-confirmed-by-another-twin-study) is somebody else's summary of it, it looks like they just compared monozygotic to dizygotic.  
> **username_5**: @Xurtio Answers can be improved. So just if you copy and paste your comment, it would be beneficial. Bear in mind that comments are to _improve_ a question. For _answers_ (also - partial) - there are... answers.  
> **username_6**: Consider the opposite. If evolution adapts a creature to it's physical environment, might the idea of Christianity itself be evolving to fit the environment of the human mind? If so, finding a gene for religiousness would be nonsense because you'd only find genes for normal mental development.  
> **username_0**: @username_6 I do not assume a priori that such a gene exist nor that the religiousness is it only function if such a gene exist. It could for example makes people more social and helps integrate the members of community (as integration is indeed one of the function of religions in human communities). Also, as I said, I do not think that the content of any religion is a product of direct biological evolution.  
> **username_6**: @MartaCz-C My point is: we might not be prone to the idea, the idea may be prone to us. It's just another vantage point that I don't think adds up to a full answer. I'm not telling you what you think, merely providing another view.  
> **username_4**: @username_6, nobody's finding a "a gene for this or that".  Instead, think of it as finding "genes associated with this or that".  Furthermore, the idea of a social construct like religion "evolving" is confusing language in the context of genetics where the word is already reserved for a specific kind of molecular process.  Lastly, the "proneness" of the construct is not being assayed either, and it's more likely that they are simultaneously prone to each other in varying distribution and context.  Genetics and environment are a complicated, entangled dance.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-09-02. Score: 10

Monozygotic twin studies are the general course of action for this kind of question. [Genetic and environmental influences on multiple dimensions of religiosity: a twin study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921867) concludes there is a genetic component.

A complete approach for these kind of studies is to take twins that have been separated to different households from birth and compare them to twins in the same household. I'm not sure what this particularly study does (haven't read it) but its a typical approach in behavioral biology.

A [summary of the above article](http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-12/religiosity-genes-again-confirmed-by-another-twin-study), also references a book where they compared monozygotic twins to dizygotic twins.

The difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins is that monozygotic twins share almost a complete set of genetics (mutations happen) while dizygotic twins share the same amount as a normal set of siblings. The idea being that if monozygotic twins share traits at a higher statistical rate than dizygotic twins, that there is a genetic component to that trait. This, of course, does not mean the trait "is genetic" in totality. Most behavioral traits have a combination of genetic and environmental (be it developmental, social, toxicological, or else wise environmental) factors. There's also a new factor discovered recently that lies somewhere in between: epigenetics. I can't be certain, but I'd think this would appear in monozygotic similarities, probably confounding results a bit.


---

