It's funny that you are using the God Gene as an argument for God but ignoring the hypothesis behind it which is:
" The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (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;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level. (Stolen from Wikipedia)"
You seem to have ignored the 5th part of the hypothesis. In particular you must have overlooked it when you said " I can't think of anything else which would account for the hardwiring other than the existence of a higher power" - Because the 5th part of the hypothesis explains it without reference to a higher power.
It's entirely possible for a theory to be right in principle, but wrong in the particulars. Just look at Lamarck. Where I'm skeptical of the hypothesis is the fifth point. We know that religion makes
modern humans more optimistic, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons? Like I said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume faith had the same effects on them as it does on us.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier, Dave. What I meant was "I can't think of anything else
that doesn't rely on assumptions."
Now, I'm completely willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong. Maybe the optimism part is actually right. Or maybe the whole theory is bunk. I can acknowledge that either one is a distinct possibility.
Also, my God isn't the same as the unmoved mover. There are a number of key differences. I was merely using the term I thought fit best for the abstract concept of God.