5 ms·
Richard Dawkins: Viruses of the Mind
- amichail 17y agoOne could argue that people use religion as a tool to control the people whom they want to associate with. In that respect, it may not be a mind virus so much as a socially acceptable way to keep people away from you whose behavior you don't like.
- zppx 17y agoThe entire "field" of memetics is a form of pseudoscience, without clear presuppositions, by the way, Dawkins is a die hard fan of bogus scientific definition: http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/extended_phenotype_how_richard_dawkins_got_it_wrong_twice http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/extended_phenotype_...
- jacoblyles 17y agoDo we really need shrill atheism vs. religion discussions here? What has Richard added to the discussion? Maybe next we should argue about Sarah Palin, or text editors.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- netcan 17y agoDawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years. I agree that he can be shrill, but his contributions are meaty.
- rkts 17y agoDawkins is a classic yellowist (http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html). Megawatts of brain power spent on arguing with idiots.
- sketerpot 17y agoIn my area of America, atheism is a lot more socially acceptable than it was before it became such a topic of controversy. Things have noticeably improved because of all this arguing. If Dawkins is squandering his talents arguing with idiots, he's doing a remarkably effective job of it.
- berntb 17y agoAh... job done in the anglo saxon world, time to move Dawkins' professor chair to Lebanon? :-) Or maybe not, there they blow up people not appreciated in Syria/Iran.
- pvandehaar 17y agoI see no one who he is arguing with. He tends to refuse challenges to debates by prominent religious leaders...
- jacoblyles 17y ago>"Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years" Certainly! I think his biology writing is terrific. I've certainly learned a lot from the man. "The Ancestor's Tale" is one of my top five favorite books of all time. On the other hand, his religious writing is essentially what you find on atheism.reddit.com. Nuance? You won't get it from this man on this topic. It's us vs. them, and "them" are controlled by an evil mind-virus, so it's not even worth listening to their opinion.
- netcan 17y agoAtheism is more loaded & prone to dumb attacks & dumb counter attacks. So sure, his pure biology writings are less baity then his atheism writing. However, he has contributed to the atheism discussion in the same way. Much of it stems from his work on evolution by natural selection as a metaphysical (rather then a biological) theory, a definitely worthwhile "philosophy of science" contribution to the atheism debate. This allows you to take fluff level stuff (eg Seth Godin, "ideavirus") & put it in to a serious framework, the subject of this article. Memes, Memoplexes, whatever is to organism as meme is to gene (is there a word for this?) It also gives you a framework for evolution as an example of non-god creation. This has to me been a real eye opener. If you want a modern contributor to the discussion who has contributed tangibly, Richard Dawkins is one of the top candidates. This article is not just mindless, it uses provocative (and perhaps shrill) analogies, but it is argued. The subject of this article is an area where Dawkins has made more novel contributions & is more qualified than "Ancestor's Tale," which is not based (according to me recollection) on his own work and is written intentionally as a popular science book. In my opinion, you either you exclude the whole topic as inherently shrill or you admit Dawkins. #Now we are the ones being shrill. [edit] I don't want to sound like too much of a fan. I am not advocating that Dawkins be unchallenged. I am advocating that he has earned a hearing. There is all sorts of stuff in this article I am not satisfied with. EG "4 Is Science a Virus"
- jacoblyles 17y agoThe meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar (Mr. Dawkins is a consumate troll). If you've already heard of that idea, I don't see what this adds. If you haven't, there are better sources. I note that Mr. Dawkins does not compare language to a "virus" though he admits it as memetic, saving the words with harsher connotations for his ultimate target. He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day. On the internet, we call this "flaming". But hey, at least he didn't bring up Hitler. Bach? The University? Keeping alive European scholarship during the dark ages? Providing a center for community cohesion and services to the disadvantaged? Not mentioned, of course. I would even be willing to bet that our beloved secular modern egalitarianism owes its root to Christian philosophy, but that is speculation. No dispassionate exposition on the concept of memes, this. Mr. Dawkins clearly has an axe to grind.
- Niten 17y agoI agree that this probably isn't the place for religious debates, but it's plainly absurd to compare Richard Dawkins to Sarah Palin (presumably) with regard to the substance of his arguments, or to imply that he has not added anything worthwhile to this debate.
- Locke1689 17y agoA rather accurate explanation of exploit code for a biologist/geneticist I must say... Indeed countermeasures to the section about "immunization" was the reason the Morris worm spread so far so fast.
- rkts 17y agoIt's pretty simple. People who think in personal, emotional terms tend to explain the world that way, while people who think more logically/mechanically explain the world that way. That's where religion and science, respectively, come from.
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoThe question then becomes: which approach does a better / more accurate / more useful job of explaining the world?
- amichail 17y agoReligious people don't necessarily see that as a goal.
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoPsalm 19:1-3
- fburnaby 17y agoSome don't. Others are very willing to make extremely bold truth claims near constantly.
- joubert 17y agoBut most of them do. That's the point of religion. It is like a primitive form of philosophy and science mixed together.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Pistos2 17y ago[Some] religion[s] and science are not at odds. I'm not atheist, yet I have no problems with the facts and findings of science. I believe in evolution (and that is not incompatible with my faith, even on an official level). Religion versus science is a false dichotomy. You can be religious, scientific, logical, reasonable and rational at the same time; and many are.
- amix 17y agoWhile Dawkins has some good points, I don't think attacking religion is a way to go, it leads to hatred and tribalism (us vs. them). The better way is to educate people better and let them decide what to believe in. In Denmark where I live there is little belief in God and religion isn't that important for people - - this hasn't been done by attacking religion, or presenting religion as a virus, but by educating people better. Denmark is filled with churches, but almost nobody visits them regularly.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- JulianMorrison 17y agoDawkins does try to educate people, in fact from his book output he mostly tries to educate people - see for example "the greatest show on earth". I think he has a specific reason for attacking religion, and it isn't to de-convert people. His intent is to break religion's special status as immune from criticism in polite society. There is this assumption that religion always does social good, is always well-intentioned, and even if it turns out to be mistaken about reality, it's harmless. This lets religions get away with all sorts of rascally behaviour - see the Catholic church in Ireland, for example. He wants them to be held to the same account as any ordinary organization, and not placed on a pedestal.
- amix 17y agoI don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The likely results from his offensive tactics is hatred and opposition against science and more religious fanatics - simply because most people are religious and attacking their beliefs won't make them less religious. And really, even if he breaks religion and removes it, then we will still have skin colors, nationalities and different cultures - - things that will still split people up in tribes and things that will still cause wars. What we need is to respect each other, respect our differences and cherish our similarities - we will never be the same, so respect and understanding is the only way to go.
- GavinB 17y agoDawkins' definition of virality seems to be ever-shifting. At the end he defines science as a meme but not a virus by saying that virus requires "spread me" to be baked into it. If this is the case, however, then "mystery is a virtue" is not viral as he claims earlier. Neither is wearing baseball caps backwards, for that matter. Additionally, most scientific organizations and universities include an element of spreading their methods, so they too have a "viral" component. When Dawkins claims that the fact that "the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious" makes it non-viral, I get the sneaking feeling that whether or not something is a virus depends heavily on how Dawkins feels about it.
- netcan 17y agoI agree. I think he did a bad job at the end there. What this article needs is a good test for viral equivalent to the sperm/egg one for biological viruses. Any ideas?
- tokenadult 17y agoWhat online sources would each of you recommend as better articles on the meme concept and the strengths and weaknesses of that concept?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- nikils 17y agoIs Facebook a brain virus or meme ?
- zby 17y agoAccording to the mimetic theory by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard there is a social benefit of religion - it is a much more direct explanation of religion and thus more convincing than this virus theory. It is not less condemning, at least for all 'sacrificial' religions - but in a nuanced way - it says that we could not have a civilisation without it even if they are rather problematic for our contemporary morality.