More seriously, I think evolutionary biology (or psychology) will have something to say about organized religion among other group structure related behaviors.
They already have.
Although I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions, I recommend Steven Mithen's "The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art and Science" (Thames and Hudson, NY, 1996) or Paul Ehrlich's "Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect" (Island Press, Wash DC, 2000).
Trying to do a linkage study would be a nightmare however since how people define religiosity is probably variable and influenced by social environment. And without a fairly tightly defined phenotype, it is really hard to do quantitative genetics. I think the "gay gene" work of Hamer stumbled for this reason as well.
Yepper. That's one of the things Zimmer mentioned in his critique: the "self transcendence" thingy that Hamer was measuring is pretty vague and subjective. (Remind me again why I'm trying to discuss a book I haven't read??? Shades of Syamasu...)
Anyhoo, I think that religion/religiosity (or maybe better said, religious thinking) likely exists as an outgrowth of the way our preceptual and memory system adapted and developed - an expressed need to explain the mistakes in the processes. IOW, an adaptive response quantitatively but not really qualitatively different from an amygdala-based fight or flight response. The modern version we call religion evolved later when the "cheaters" in game theory terms realized they could obtain personal advantage from fulfilling a need. Since humans are a gregarious and hierarchical species it seems fairly easy to substitute the high priest for the high male. As evolved members of a social species, IMO we're genetically pre-disposed (although I'm not going to claim pre-determined) to seek solace and comfort - and also for obedience. If the high priest can relieve our anxiety, we're gonna look for it.
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-28-2004 09:55 AM