Darwin's meme: or the origin of culture by means of natural selection
- Started
- Last post
- 100 Responses
- fate_0
No, it uses the analogy of survival of the fittest in regards to DNA. Not an inherently destructive virus.
Like I said, the uncommonDescent argument, as well as your own, ignores a little thing called consciousness.
The article tries to set up the pins and knock them down. And it is silly for doing so.
- flagellum0
I disagree, fate. This is not how Dawkin's frames his memes argument. I think you need to actually look into what Dawkins says here. The context of Scrutin's rebuttal is right on the money.
So I guess we agree to disagree. :)
- fate_0
bahaha, I love you discipler, you're such a cop-out. "Agree to disagree" "faith in faith". You always have a poor showing when you get into these arguments.
Comparing a meme to a virus or DNA, right or wrong, is simply an analogy, not proof of its nature. You have to debate the very nature of how ideals are acquired, passed on, or forgotten...instead of comparing and contrasting Christianity to AIDS. The latter argument is, like I said, ludicrous.
- flagellum0
Scrutin gives a very accurate definition of Dawkin's view of the meme:
"A meme is a mental entity that colonises the brains of people, much as a virus colonises a cell. The meme exploits its host in order to reproduce itself, spreading from brain to brain like meningitis, and killing off the competing powers of rational argument. Like genes and species, memes are Darwinian individuals, whose success or failure depends upon their ability to find the ecological niche that enables reproduction. Such is the nature of ‘gerin oil’, as Dawkins contemptuously describes religion."
------
Now, I doubt that Dawkins would take issue with that characterization.
Scrutin then, rightly, asserts:
------
"It only begins to look like an explanation when we read back into the alleged cause the distinguishing features of the effect, by imagining ideas as entities whose existence depends, as genes and species do, on reproduction."
------
He then cogently identifies the glaring problems with Dawkins's notion:
------
"We should still remember that not every dependent organism destroys its host. In addition to parasites there are symbionts and mutualists — invaders that either do not impede or positively amplify their host’s reproductive chances. And which is religion? Why has religion survived, if it has conferred no benefit on its adepts? And what happens to societies that have been vaccinated against the infection — Soviet society, for instance, or Nazi Germany — do they experience a gain in reproductive potential?"
"In any case, why are there so many competitors among religions, if they are competing for the truth? Shouldn’t the false ones have fallen by the wayside, like refuted theories in science?"
-----
I find Scrutin's treatment (much like Alistair McGrath's) to be captivating and rather dooming to the Dawkins meme notion.
- fate_0
"A meme is a mental entity that colonises the brains of people, much as a virus colonises a cell. The meme exploits its host "
Bullshit, a meme does not have an agenda, it has no power beyond the minds of those who believe in it. That's the flaw in the characterization. It's an idea, it is a product of human conciousness.
So your "very accurate definition" is stupid.
- fate_0
Seriously, this is psych101. It speaks volumes about your nature, discipler, that you'd agree ideas are palpable and have some independent power over us.
- flagellum0
hehe, again fate, I agree to disagree. Your definition of the meme is far from Dawkinian orthodoxy. I can understand the trouble though, considering the lack of any emprical evidence for this dream of Dawkins'.
Heck, even champion of Darwinism, Gould, thought Dawkins was nuts with his meme.
- Brookoioioi0
Compare what Dawkins actually wrote on Memes and religion with the above posts and you can see for yourself how far creationists will go to distort arguments to create a "straw man"
Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent `mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself ? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have souch high survival value ? Remember that `survival value' here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool. The question really means: What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment ? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be recified in the next. The `everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.
- Mimio0
I don't see anything "dooming" in that criticism. To think that the last 4000 years of religious idealism hasn't produced the grafting and blending of ideals from religion to religion is pretty ignorant actually.
- fate_0
I contest that Dawkin is simply dumbing down his work, using a somewhat comparable but practically unfit analogy to describe his concept. re: Meme vs. Virus. (To quote him "Virus of the mind")
I don't think you could get anyone to rightfully admit that ideals have an agenda beyond the agenda of those who hold them. Well, besides religious types.
- yarsrevenge0
I guess christianity found its proof in the crusades? or abortion clinic bombings? or "god hates fags"? Is that the point I should get out of your article, discipler?
fate_
(Jan 31 06, 08:59)
--------------------Whoa there nelly. You're totally confused. Crooked cops make the entire police force crooked? A "terrorist" (by the US' definition) makes all of Islam responsible? A black man that steals from you makes all blacks responsible? Seriously... people trying to pin historical events on any institution of culture as their true teachings or doctrine. Get that shit out of here man... thats as lame as being racist.
- fate_0
Hey Fred, why don't you get yourself some context. My reply was in jest to the statement that atheism is inherently evil and Christianity inherently good,.
Quote me in full, you fucking retard, before you try and defame me.
- ********0
- Mimio0
Yars, think of why stock brokers jumped out of their office windows during the beginnings of the great depression stock market crash. Then you'll see where this is going. It's the criticism of idealism as it pertains to rational behaviour. A completely hypothetical situtation, that causes dire human consequences immersed primarily in belief/faith.
- fate_0
And just in case you aren't going to do some critical thinking and actually re-read what I said, here's what I did:
I made a sweeping generalization and mischaracterization against a sweeping generalization and mischaracterization. Can you understand that, Fred?
- flagellum0
Brook, the problem is that it is a narritive built upon zero evidence. It sounds nice to those who presuppose a framework of Methodological Naturalism, and that's it. So, good for them. And if fails to address why there are so many competitors among religions, if they are competing for the truth. Shouldn’t the false ones have fallen by the wayside, like refuted theories in science, as Scrutin noted?
If we are going to go on empirical evidence on this specific issue, the weight would fall on the notion that there truly is an external creator who transforms lives and thus keeps faith prosperous in generations to come.
- fate_0
You can't study an ideal (meme) empirically, you can only study its nature and its effects on human behavior. Psychologists figured this out ooooh...about 100 years ago.
- Mimio0
The irrelevant/false religions have fallen by the wayside. Look at the current state of Christianity, it's mutating/fracturing all the time. Ask yourself why that is.
- flagellum0
And this is why Dawkins crosses the threshold of science and into scientism.
- Mimio0
Discipler, it's not entirely dogmatic to think that science can continue to answer question about the nature of life and reality.