The God Gene and Predestination

[Tarsier]

Thought experiment (and possibly the basis for a short story):

Let’s assume (what I believe to be true and which is not in opposition to Catholic teachings) that God can use natural processes to effect his miraculous works (e.g. guided evolutionary process to lead to the creation of man).

Let’s also assume a God gene exists, which (according to the theory put forth by Dean Hamer) holds that: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality provides an evolutionary advantage by providing individuals with an innate sense of optimism.

Again, not debating whether or not the God gene exists (another thread exists for that if you want to explore that idea). Let’s assume, for the sake of my proposition that it does.

Would there be any reason that such a gene could not be God’s chosen natural mechanism for his efficacious grace? In other words, if one is among the elect, predestined to eternal glory, the VMAT2 gene would be present. If one is not among the elect and not predestined to eternal glory, the VMAT2 gene would not be present. Both of these conclusions would be with the understanding that if God, for his own reasons, chose to act outside the presence of this gene, he could do so.

The main flaw I see is that, if predestination can be identified by a gene, it would imply that science offers a way to know with certainty who is going to Heaven and who is not. But putting that aside, IF the gene were not to be identified in such a way as to betray election, would there be any theological or logical problems with this? Would it be outside of Catholic teaching in some way other than by providing certain knowledge of salvation?

 

[Lee1]

I am no philosopher and so will likely bail out rather swiftly.

In the Catechism we are told that all and any can be saved if they follow the precepts of the Church and sometimes even though they haven’t, depending on Gods mercy, so yes I think the idea that only those with such a God gene will be saved contradicts that.

I’ll go search and possibly edit.

 

[Tarsier]

I believe that even following the precepts of the Church would need to be done through faith (to avoid just being a legalistic set of checkpoints).

So I think that the question remains - if one didn’t have the God gene, would he even be moved to follow the precepts? And if he did, would he be moved by actual faith or would the precepts just be perfunctory actions done out of a sense of obligation to someone or something that is not grace-motivated love of God?

Again, I don’t belief the God gene is tied to predestination (for more than the reason stated above), but suppose there were a group of people who did (i.e. my short story idea) …

 

[Gorgias]

Would there be any reason that such a gene could not be God’s chosen natural mechanism for his efficacious grace?

In a Catholic context? Yes, there is a reason: it conflicts with the doctrine that God wishes all to be saved. Look at what you’re positing:

In other words, if one is among the elect, predestined to eternal glory, the VMAT2 gene would be present. If one is not among the elect and not predestined to eternal glory, the VMAT2 gene would not be present.

See it? Your assertion says that God only wishes salvation for those who possess a “VMAT2 gene”, and condemns all others to damnation. That’s pseudo-scientific Calvinism, right there. So, yeah… it would be “outside of Catholic teaching.”

 

[Cruciferi]

https://www.littleflower.org/therese/reflections/st-therese-and-family-life/

The Martin Family is very interesting:

• 5/5 of the children had a Religious Vocation
• 3/7 of the family members are “currently” Canonized Saints
• 1/5 of the children are a Doctor of the Church

 

[Tarsier]

assertion says that God only wishes salvation for those who possess a “VMAT2 gene”, and condemns all others to damnation. That’s pseudo-scientific Calvinism, right there. So, yeah… it would be “outside of Catholic teaching.”

Thank you, Gorgias, but let me ask if you are objecting to my proposition that the God Gene would be an agent of predestination and election?

Or, because God desires all to be saved, are you objecting to the idea that some are predestined to be members of the elect and that others are not?

I would further ask if you reject that Aquinas’s explanation of predestination is in accord with Catholic teaching?

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you, Gorgias, but let me ask if you are objecting to my proposition that the God Gene would be an agent of predestination and election?

Yes, on a couple of counts:

• First, because it says that only a subset of humans may be saved, and the rest (by definition) cannot be saved.
• Second, because it sets up a new condition for what determines the possibility for salvation. (Essentially, it defines the ‘imago Dei’ as something physical, and not the eternal soul.)

Your argument requires Catholic teaching to be mistaken, and posits that what makes salvation possible is a particular gene.

Or, because God desires all to be saved, are you objecting to the idea that some are predestined to be members of the elect and that others are not?

Yes, I’m also objecting that this asserts ‘double predestination’, which the Church rejects.

I would further ask if you reject that Aquinas’s explanation of predestination is in accord with Catholic teaching?

No, of course not. However, it’s necessary to understand Aquinas’ explanation (and the Church’s teaching) properly in order to recognize what this means.

One important implication of your assertion here is that Aquinas is mistaken: you assert that predestination is, in fact, something in the predestined (see ST I.23.2).

 

[Tarsier]

Thank you, but I am not saying that the gene is a “new condition” for what determines salvation. Rather, I am saying God’s grace and call to election is and (per the language of my original post) the gene would (fictionally) be the agent by which that grace effects salvation, just as it isn’t correct to say that “evolution” created man if we are positing that God created man through evolution. An instrument of God is different than a replacement of his grace.

Thomas also asserts that a subset will be saved. All can be saved, but only those who are called to election will be. All are given sufficient grace for salvation (just as everyone in my God Gene analogy is given the reason to understand and know God), but only the elect are given sufficient grace, without which they will not achieve Heaven.

Double predestination holds that some are predestined to Heaven and some are predestined to Hell. Thomistic predestination holds that God desires all to be saved and gives all sufficient graces, but only those who are among the elect (chosen for reasons outside of our merit) will be given the grace sufficient to achieve Heaven. The others will end up in Hell due to their rejection of sufficient grace, not because of predestination there.

Your last point is a great one and, I believe, answers my question. The “God Gene” would, indeed “place something in the predestined”, which Aquinas rejects with good reason. Thank you. That settles it for me.