Abstract
Sociobiology derives its atheistic stance from the Darwinian framework of purposeless, naturally selections of random variations of matter in motion. However, explanatory gaps in sociobiology’s explanation of religion, from the initial cosmic singularity to free will, invite a Divine foot in the door. By interpreting yogic, Taoist and Kabbalistic descriptions of the anatomical connection between the human and the divine not as primitive, poetic metaphors but as interoceptions of a little-known, enigmatic, epigenetically suppressed, structure running through the central axis of the central nervous system called Reissner’s fiber. I propose a new theistic sociobiological theory of religion. Justified belief in this theory could epigenetically reawaken the suppressed Reissner’s fiber genes and begin the empirical testing of the theory.
Highlights
Sociobiology derives its atheistic stance from the Darwinian framework of purposeless, naturally selections of random variations of matter in motion
Richard Lewontin (1997), Wilson’s Harvard colleague and principal adversary, who vigorously opposes what he perceives to be sociobiology’s “genomania” and its threat of social Darwinism and eugenics, adamantly insists that science’s materialism must be absolute, “for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
While the “sociobiology wars” have settled into an uneasy truce allowing both sides freedom to adjust the variables of the genome, the environment and culture, the alliance against religion has become more militant
Summary
Combatants in the “sociobiology wars” have vehemently disagreed about the extent to which biology governs social behaviors. Richard Lewontin (1997), Wilson’s Harvard colleague and principal adversary, who vigorously opposes what he perceives to be sociobiology’s “genomania” and its threat of social Darwinism and eugenics, adamantly insists that science’s materialism must be absolute, “for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” Science, he said, cannot coexist with a “powerful God who at any moment can rupture natural relations.”. Hawking rejects invoking God because that would merely deflect the question of who or what created the universe to who or what created God. One can either fill the gap of the cosmic singularity by incoherently calling gravity and quantum fields nothing or with an eternal self-subsistent God. Second, sociobiologists agree that random variation and natural selection sufficiently explain evolution from molecules in the primordial soup to man. If God is excluded from the temple of science because He can “rupture natural relations,” why are scientists allowed to control the atoms of their brains inside the temple?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
