The meme of Richard Dawkins

[_marg]

And it's the same with an idea. "Sh*t happens" has been more successful at replicating itself than, say, "wow, what unfortunate circumstances" because it's wittier, catchier, easier to remember, and probably somewhat more entertaining. Not because "sh*t happens" specifically encodes in itself its own propagation.

In this sense the reproduction and survival ability of memes and genes is exactly analogous. Genes survive because of the advantages their expression gives to their host, and so do memes - and not because they're specifically coded to survive.

And religious stories involving the supernatural, involving extraordinary events are much more memorable than the mundane naturalistic ones and hence easier to remember, easier to spread and pass down to future generations.

[_Sethbag]

Renegade of Phunk, I'm not really up on the fullest and latest thought on memes, but I would say yes, every little "self-contained" atom of thought could be considered a meme. And memes which survive and spread in the population do so because they are "fitter" than others.

It's interesting that we have nowadays a phenomenon called "viral marketing". I'm sure we're all familiar with it. It's where a company will have some irreverant, or very humorous, little video made up and release it on the internet, and it spreads around very quickly as people email links to it to their friends and mention it on message boards and so forth. Why do these videos spread? Because they're entertaining. Because they're catchy. Because they amuse us. And because human beings who find themselves amused and entertained by ideas or videos or whatever often feel a desire to share that experience with others they know.

How often do really stupid, lame, boring videos survive as successful examples of viral marketing? Um, never. And why not? Because they aren't fit enough to survive in the environment in which we live, where we're all bombarded with different pieces of information vying for our attention, and because the boring videos don't inspire within us a desire to share the boredom with our friends.

In an environment which is physically demanding, do you think a gene variant which codes for weak muscles is going to survive for long in competition with a gene variant which codes for strong muscles? No, of course not, unless that disadvantage in muscle strength is offset by some other advantage that weak muscle gene might convey. And that could happen. What if the same gene that causes weak muscles also codes for much smarter, and much more clever brains? Ok, well that's a different story. If the environment in which the organisms live is well suited to enable a smarter, cleverer animal to survive better, then the gene may well outcompete the strong muscle/dumber brain gene after all. It's all about the phenotypic expression of the gene, in combination with the environment in which that gene is expressed, and how well suited the effects of the gene are to survival in that particular environment.

[_dartagnan]

marg,

And I showed you that logically everyone is an atheist

Thanks for the new sign line. This is probably the best one ever.

You are an atheist to a different sort of God than others.

And as I said, you cannot be an atheist to something. Your argument suggests that a gay man who is hiding his homosexuality from his family, is only gay to his lover, and heterosexual when he is around his family. That's ridiculous. "Atheist" isn't an adjective, like ugly (i.e. I'm ugly to him but I'm not ugly to her).

You (I'll assume for this discussion) believe in an interfering with mankind sort of God. Not every theist does, which means their God is different than yours, hence you are an atheist to their theism. Logically there is no getting around that Kevin.

Calling everything you say "logical" might be self-flattering, but it doesn't make it reality. I'd venture to say that not a single person on this forum, and quite possibly the planet, buys this argument.

The "a" in atheism means without. To disbelieve is a more active position than simply "without" belief.

And atheists by definition disbelieve. Without belief is to disbelieve, the same as asocial is to be without social tendencies and can be dinstiguished from anti-social, only by a very fine line.

If there is no evidence, if a theist can not present a coherent transparent description of their God, then a rational position to hold is to remain without the belief in that God. One can take it a step further and actively disbelieve in that God claim, but lack of evidence or absence of evidence is not proof that something does not exist.

There is evidence, but everyone here seems to be too loyal to their own religion (of science) and an inadequate scientific method. The fact that there is evidence, and the fact that people reason their way into theism, proves that atheists don't have the market cornered on rational thinking.

So from a logical standpoint it isn't a rational position to claim something doesn't exist when there is no conclusive evidence of that.

"Conclusive" evidence? There is no conclusive evidence to support the theories from Dawkins - his meme concept being only one example - but he still believes it to be true. Does this mean he's not rational?

And the word "atheism" does not say one must actively disbelieve that a God could ever exist.

"Ever" exist? Labels don't presume future states. That's like saying the word republican doesn't say a person couldn't "ever" become a democrat. No, it means the person is currently a republican and not a democrat. Likewise, atheists currently disbelieve the existence of God. If the time comes when they do believe in God, at that time they are no longer atheists.

No atheism is good.

How can it be a "good" term when, by your reasoning, "atheist" can apply to me, the Pope, and virtually everyone else on the planet? This is not a sound argument.

Well according to you the proper definition would entail an irrational belief. So I can understand why you'd want that.

You're not interested semantics. You just want to change definitions to your liking. Sorry, but it isn't "logical." The definition of atheism doesn't require any qualification of rational or irrational belief. It simply means a "doctrine" or a "disbelief" in God.

You are choosing to use a very limited exclusive definition which appeals to you so you can argue against a strawman argument.

Now that you know you have been proved wrong, you're going to gripe because I didn't use a definition you prefer. The fact that the definition I used exists as a perfectly valid definition (and apparently the most common), this is all I need to show, since you kept telling me I was wrong to use it. Why is it wrong? Because it doesn't bode well with the argument you're trying to fabricate, apparently. You've provided no valid explanation as to why I should reject it.

I could find better definitions than the limited exclusive one you've presented.

And if they were truly the "more common" definitions, then you wouldn't have to go digging for them.

I see so theism is a belief in every single God believed by man. You must believe in Zeus and host of other Gods then.

Ridiculous.

I believe I made it clear I don't know what your God is. If I haven't then I will say "I don't claim to know what your God is"

That makes two of us, but I know he/she/it exists.

Well I can look at the myriad of differing religions which exist today, I can look at the evolution of religions. There is evidence that modern man existed 200, 000 years ago, yet Christianity is only about 2,000 years old. So what was the monotheistic God doing before Christianity, before Judaism, keeping silent when mankind held pagan God beliefs?

What a ridiculous question.

Do I think it likely the current popular monotheistic God favors only a select group to reveal himself to at any particular time historically or is it more likely man or leaders of a group/tribe create a God/gods which takes an interest in that tribe/group?

You need to stop reading what atheists say about the "evolution of religions" and actually pick up a book written by relevant scholars. Atheists like to draw up their models about the "evolution" of religion, and then they think their conclusion proves religion is false. This was the same nonsense that took place in the Zeitgeist movie.

Let me educate you on an important fact. Ancient Israelite religion wasn't the first monotheistic religion, despite popular myth. Zoroastrianism was monotheistic and at least 3000 years older than Israelite religion. Donald Redford shows that Akhenaten from the 18th dynasty, was also a monotheist.

Look Kevin...it boils down to it being unacceptable to pigeon hole the term atheism into an exclusive limited definition which doesn't even apply to most atheists, just so you can argue a strawman.

WHAT straw man??? You're the one who thought you were going to score points by "correcting" my definition of atheism. You derailed a perfectly good thread about something entirely different. Somewhere online you picked up the distinction between "hard and soft" atheism, and assumed the rest of the world must accept it because you say so. Now you assert, without reason, that atheism is something you can be "to" something.




canucklehead,

I want to start spreading the meme of "a lack of belief in the invisible dragon in my neighbour's garage".

Dartagnan, can you suggest how I might start going about doing this?

You need to ask Dawkins, since he is the one who has faith in memes.





GoodK

I'd just like to say that a case made against Richard Dawkins, is not a case made against atheism

That never was the argument. This is simply an attempt to discuss a very interesting argument. Sethbag insisted it was strictly a metaphor, but the more I read the more I wonder if Dawkins didn't mean to suggest it is something more. I brougyt it here because I have had really good luck discussing interesting topics in an informative manner. But those days are over I guess. This thread has already been polluted and I'm spending more time addressing attacks by marg than I am in responding to those who offer educated replies. Funk man deserves a response, but it seems that he and I agree more than we disagree so I might not get to him tonight.

We can discuss the scholarship of Richard Dawkins, minimize his achievements - but this in no way does anything to strengthen the argument for God or dismantle an "atheist" world view.

No, it just knocks down another attempt by Dawkins to discredit theism. It is kinda like knocking down an apologetic argument about archaeological finds in mesoamerica. Knocking it down doesn't disprove Mormonism either. It just shows that the apologists are on a fishing expedition. So is Dawkins.




Sethbag,

First off, memes refer to basic, replicating units of thought, and they aren't inherently good or bad.

A virus is bad all around, and that is precisely why Dawkins chose that term.

I think Kevin is all up in arms against memes primarily because Dawkins explains beliefs in God as memes, and that offends him

Sigh...

No, that doesn't offend me.

The problem I have with Dawkins' meme isn't that he includes religious belief. It is that he only calls religious belief a virus. He agrees that there are other types of memes, but religious belief is viral, not athiestic belief. That doesn't count for him. So ultimately he is simply making a subjective judgment call as to what he thinks should be considered viral and what shouldn't.

I have no problem agreeing that there are probably quite a few memes having to do with atheism. I don't agree that "atheism" itself is a meme - atheism is, strictly defined, a lack of belief in God. But there are plenty of beliefs that could be categorized under a heading of "atheism" - less strictly defined - which no doubt are memes. Take the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme, or the Russel's Teapot meme, or the invisible pink unicorn meme. There's no doubt these are all memes, and there's nothing wrong with that. To be a meme is not inherently bad.

How many viruses do you know that aren't bad? You completely missed out on the analogies I presented, which showed why people refer to brush fires in a good way and viruses in a negative way. The Obama campaign would never support an ad that said, "We're going to spread our message like a virus!" Replace that last word with brush fire, and the difference is clear. Dawkins is pounding home the notion that religious beliefs are viral, they infect and even do damage to the mind.

Further, my problem is that his model has too many holes in it. He doesn't clearly explain the process by which a meme is transmitted, received, and more importantly, processed in the human mind. The more he talks about memes "jumping from one brain to the other" and infecting its host, the more I can't help but imagine zombies too stupid to make a cost-benefit anaysis about acceping or rejecting the new information they have come in contact with. Dawkins just makes it seem like there is absolutely no reasoning going on in the minds of those who receive, accept and replicate religious based memes.

I haven't got time (or possibly inclination as well) to respond to each and every point so far made in this thread, but I would like to remark on a couple of things.

Well, I thought you would, which is why I brought it here. Take all the time you need, that's fine with me. Bokovoy and I took days in between responding to one another. But if you skim over my post in a hurry you're going to continue relying on a "gut feeling" of what I'm saying. You and I don't have any problem conversing in a cordial manner. We never have. But I brought it over here because I was hoping to keep the discussion mosquito free (which seems to be wishful thinking).

Actual physical viruses do not self-replicate. Rather, they get the cellular machinery of their host to replicate them.

Yes, that's true, they feed off the host. But if that is how memes work, then they are not only metaphorical. Memes must take on ontological substance if they are physically feeding off the brain. One of the main reasons I wanted to discuss this with you was to get down to the bottom of Dawkins' meme concept, with regards to it being strictly metaphor or real. I thought maybe you had access to more of what he has said.

Memes are the same way. A meme, which is an idea, cannot replicate itself literally, however the meme can inspire the mind of its host to replicate it.

That's interesting but that is more than what Dawkins has said about it; from what I've read anyway. If that is true, then I have no problem with the idea of a meme "inspiring" a person. Inspiring isn't the same as infecting like a virus, but people make a choice to be inspired by something. They don't make a choice to be infected by a virus. What I don't like is the imagery of a meme attacking an unknowning victim and turning him into a religious robot whether he likes it or not. That would be more along the lines of biological viruses attacking people against their will. Biological viruses are unwanted and the host is usually immediately unaware of when he or she is being infected. Yet, a person must make a choice to accept a meme in the form of a religious claim, and recent scientific studies show that religious people are happier people, and benefit from religion in ways that no biological virus can boast.

Not everyone who says "show me the money!" actually watched Jerry Macguire. Likewise, not everyone who ever says "where's the beef?" actually saw the 1980s Wendy's commercials featuring the old lady saying it. Some of us did see these things, and we also saw these phrases grow and spread into popular culture even outside of their original contexts. Why is it that over 20 years later so many of us still recognize "where's the beef?"

Memory.

Why is it that 12 years later so many of us still recognize "show me the money!"? Somehow these memes inspired enough minds to propagate them and keep them alive.

But we're still missing discussion on the process. Dawkins explains nothing. He doesn't even talk about the immediate human response to memes. It seems he threw out the idea with his negative conclusions, simply to spark excitement among his anti-religionists, who think he has again, made "science" work against religion.

Other memes don't. If I tell three kids to draw a star with yellow lines coming out the middle, they may actually just run off and start playing Wii or Xbox and forget all about it, and that meme just dies on the vine and is utterly forgotten. That doesn't mean it wasn't a meme.

Exactly. So what makes religious memes viral? Because people share them with others? I don't see Dawkins referring to catch phrases as viral, yet they have the same characteristics. They spread about culture the same as religion.

[_marg]

Kevin

And as I said, you cannot be an atheist to something.

If you don't want to go off the main topic at all which you previously mentioned, then don't respond to anything you think is off topic. Given that you've commented I'll respond.

Without the word, the concept "theist", the word "atheist" wouldn't exist. Hence I am an atheist to all theists of every God imaginable because I hold no God beliefs. You are on the other hand an atheist to theists who have different God beliefs than you.

You can not have an "a" (meaning without) in the word atheist, without the "theist" concept existing.

This is from the Catholic encyclopedia on line: Note the bolded line, and I'll paraphrase...' the early christians were atheists to the pagans'.


"Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods;

[_marg]

And by the way this is why coming to an agreement on what "atheism" means relates to the main topic.

Chap had said "Given the obvious dependence of all known religious belief systems on social (mainly family) transmission between generations in order to propagate themselves under normal circumstances, it is not surprising to find that a child whose family is indifferent to religion will usually not end up believing in any religion.

To say that this is because they have picked up an atheist 'meme' from their family is as pointless as to say that they have picked up a 'non-cannibal' meme because they were not brought up to eat people, or a 'non-scientologist' meme because they do not spend their time crouched over E-meters, or a 'non-alien abduction' meme because ... but I think I have made my point, and can spare my readers further scrolling down the screen."


From my personal observation Chap is correct. I am an atheist not because the idea of being an atheist was discussed in my family and it had a stickiness factor in my memory. I am an atheist because there was lack of religious indoctrination and I was little exposed to indoctrination from the outside world. Whatever there was didn't stick.

With your limited definition of atheism as applied to meme theory, I would have had to have been indoctrinated with repeated discussion from my family that I shouldn't become an a theist.

[_GoodK]

To say that this is because they have picked up an atheist 'meme' from their family is as pointless as to say that they have picked up a 'non-cannibal' meme because they were not brought up to eat people, or a 'non-scientologist' meme because they do not spend their time crouched over E-meters, or a 'non-alien abduction' meme because ... but I think I have made my point, and can spare my readers further scrolling down the screen."

And I think this is a good reason for us non-believers to stop consenting to be labeled as atheists.

[_Chap]

To say that this is because they have picked up an atheist 'meme' from their family is as pointless as to say that they have picked up a 'non-cannibal' meme because they were not brought up to eat people, or a 'non-scientologist' meme because they do not spend their time crouched over E-meters, or a 'non-alien abduction' meme because ... but I think I have made my point, and can spare my readers further scrolling down the screen."

And I think this is a good reason for us non-believers to stop consenting to be labeled as atheists.

Personally, I don't mind that much if people use the 'a-word' to characterize my state of non-belief.

I only complain when people start suggesting that the fact I disclaim belief in any religion entitles them to say that I belong to a religion called 'atheism', or that I 'believe in atheism' for the same reasons that other people believe in their religions.

I don't 'believe in atheism'. I just don't believe in any religion, or, to be more particular, in any deity.

[_GoodK]

Personally, I don't mind that much if people use the 'a-word' to characterize my state of non-belief.

I only complain when people start suggesting that the fact I disclaim belief in any religion entitles them to say that I belong to a religion called 'atheism', or that I 'believe in atheism' for the same reasons that other people believe in their religions.

I don't 'believe in atheism'. I just don't believe in any religion, or, to be more particular, in any deity.

I didn't mind at first, until I realized it was just another way to defend religion.

It's a tactic, they don't have to deal with supporting their own fantastic claims if they are busy attacking atheists.

If we need words like atheist, then the flood gate opens for other words that describe nothing.

[_Tal Bachman]

Dartagnan

I just logged on coincidentally to write a post touching on how daft Dawkin's "memophilia" is when it comes to religious belief, and you've beaten me to it!

Excellent post and very good points made.

I might try starting a new thread on how non-theism seems no more "moral" than theism.

[_dartagnan]

Well I am out on business now, and I see I have some catching up to do. Feel free to take over until I get back.