Is Religion a meme?

[doublecross]

The question I put before the Religion forum is this: Is Religion a meme?

Now, I content that it is, but I will refrain from arguing my point at this time, for it would skew my results. For, you see, my goal here is to find out what you think, not make think what I do. After the poll ends, or if enough people ask me to give my reasoning, I shall do so.
For now, I will just give enough background that people will answer intelligently, based on the definition of "meme" as I am using it here.

In his book, The Selfish Gene the brilliant Biologist, Richard Dawkins, (who has, by the way, been mentioned in the Doctor Who episode the Big Bang II, which I though was interesting, due to the topic at hand and the title of the episode. But I digress), coined the term "meme", which was short for "memetic replicator"

He contended in his book that evolution did not act on the level of individual organisms, or of species, but instead, acted on the level of individual genes.

In one of the final chapters of his book, he pointed out that the principles behind evolution should not only work for genes, but should also work with ideas. He coined the term "meme" to be the idea equivalent of a gene (genetic replicator).   

He contended that ideas could mutate, fill niches, spread, evolve, and self-optimize over time.


What I am claiming, with (for reasons described above) only cursory evidence provided so far, is that Religion is a meme, and, not only that, one of the most infuriatingly successful ones of all time.


Do you agree with me?


I have one final request. If you feel that you do not have a firm grasp of the concept, I would ask you to not skew the poll by voting. However, I would like you to be involved, so please feel free to post, or message me, and, once you feel comfortable, then go vote. I am allowing users to change their votes for a similar reason: what is the point of discussion if no one is allowed to change their mind?

[Daxx]

I would say yes, on the grounds that it fits the definition. I'm actually not entirely sure why religion wouldn't be considered a meme.

[doublecross]

I would say yes, on the grounds that it fits the definition. I'm actually not entirely sure why religion wouldn't be considered a meme.

Not to put words in the mouths of my intellectual opponents, lest I accidentally argue too well for their side (which might sway people the wrong way [I can be persuasive at times]), or argue their case poorly, and thus be guilty of the straw-man fallacy, but I will give some reason people might disagree.

1) Religion is the word of God. Thus, it did not evolve from other ideas. It is divine truth in its purest form.
2) ... 1 is the main reason actually. But within 1 there are subtle variations. Some would argue that religion does not follow the rules of evolution in the ways that gene's do. Others would claim it has too high a copying fidelity to evolve. Other still might have other subtle variations on this that are not just semantically different, but really are different concerns.


Well, there is a 2nd reason people would argue religion is not a meme.

Religion doesn't think or make decisions, or even directly manipulate the world.

Religion only exists within the brains of people who subscribe to it, or on paper. Not everyone who knows about religion agrees with it, and it is true that some of the people who understand religion the best are those who have been fighting it the longest.


Thus, they would claim that it is non-sensical to claim it is a meme, because really, the parallel breaks down. How does the pope figure into this, or witch trials, or heresy, or bibles, or the crusades? How do you reconcile the fact that religion, without people, not only cannot spread, does not exist (according to someone who feels it is a human invention).


You see, it may seem obvious that religion is a meme, but strong arguments can be made by either side.


I feared that those who feel religion is a meme would say "It is a meme, and I don't need to explain myself because it is obvious", and on the flip side of that, those who feel it isn't, would be intimidated by the attitude of those who think it is.


I would like to urge you not to let this happen. Both sides have strong arguments to make, so, by all means, make them.

Please nobody go "I am right, because it is obvious" or "I am right, because it is true." 

After enough time has gone by, I will weigh in on the side of "It is a meme", with what is likely to be a very long treatise that works in lots of biology and history and game theory. Until then, please don't mis-represent either side.


Also.

NO FLAMING. I will personally report you to a moderator myself, even if I agree with you.

[killybob]

ok im going to try, without rejecting my beliefs, to say yes. yes it is. when ancient communities saw anomalies that were not justified by their small pool of knowledge they could only think of supernatural alternatives. the only reason i have a faith is because i find this universe far too orderly (in the places where it counts) to have come from nowhere.

thanks for making this thread.

[doublecross]

Killybob, thank you.

If only more people were willing to enter an argument with an open mind.

Now, if you would be so kind, please explain why you think religion is or isn't a meme.
I am also curious: how do you reconcile the belief that religion is correct, and that it was created by man to explain that which we could not previously explain?


And again, thank you. It isn't hard to say what you think, when you expect agreement from others.
Going against the prevalent belief is something that few have been willing to do. (Interestingly enough, it is what scientists used to get persecuted for doing)

[killybob]

okey dokey, i think mainstream religion IS a meme because, like i said, ancient civilizations who did not understand things (eg. the ancient greeks) made up mythical tales to allow themselves to believe in them. from this stage it grew. take Judaism for example. from it grew a good percentage of today's popular religions. Islam came from the part where Abraham's maid gave birth to his child, Ishmael. Islam, now, has two opposing halves (i can't remember their names). then came Christianity from the same religion. that now has Anglican, Catholic, Reformed, and Protestant.

that's my view and evidence.

[doublecross]

I am going to play Devil's Advocate here (an unfortunate name, because in this context it would reinforce the notion that atheists are somehow evil), and offer some arguments against that logic.

Doesn't claiming that religion changes over time undermine its truth at any given moment?

[killybob]

no, it doesn't undermine it. the religion may change, evolve, or anything else, but it does still retain the most part of the truth it set out with.

[Daxx]

Not to put words in the mouths of my intellectual opponents, lest I accidentally argue too well for their side (which might sway people the wrong way [I can be persuasive at times]), or argue their case poorly, and thus be guilty of the straw-man fallacy, but I will give some reason people might disagree.

I disagree with the reasoning but out of respect I won't argue against it because I know that it'd only end up forcing you to defend a strawman argument.

Well, there is a 2nd reason people would argue religion is not a meme.

Religion doesn't think or make decisions, or even directly manipulate the world.

Religion only exists within the brains of people who subscribe to it, or on paper. Not everyone who knows about religion agrees with it, and it is true that some of the people who understand religion the best are those who have been fighting it the longest.

This on the other hand I think I will need clarification on.

I'm not sure why this would mean that religion is not a meme. Memes do not need to think, make decisions, or manipulate the world (neither do genes) - sure, their expression will affect the world, but that doesn't mean that the memes themselves need to be anthropomorphic. The second paragraph pretty much describes a meme exactly.

no, it doesn't undermine it. the religion may change, evolve, or anything else, but it does still retain the most part of the truth it set out with.

How do we know that it had any truth to set out with (specifically the "truth" that reveals a god or gods to us, rather than historical accounts)?

Also, what is the basis for saying that religion retains the truth it set out with? Quite a lot of traits distinctive of modern religion show up relatively late in the evolution of the religious meme, including monotheism, concepts of grace and redemption as opposed to sacrifice and appeasement, and defined eschatologies. There has even been significant evolution of the Judeo-Christian meme just within the last couple thousand years. Early religion looks very very different to modern religion in some respects.

[killybob]

I know that it'd only end up forcing you to defend a strawman argument.

daxx, just to say, i don't think much for the amount of respect your giving at the moment the bit you said about " out of respect" you said earlier sounds like a joke. i may be arguing on the same side as you (religion IS a meme) but i do notice that your not actually giving people any edge-way to explain themselves. i have no qualms with you voicing your opinion and giving your evidence but please keep an open mind and remain respectful. please don't take offence to this comment.

[Daxx]

I know that it'd only end up forcing you to defend a strawman argument.

daxx, just to say, i don't think much for the amount of respect your giving at the moment the bit you said about " out of respect" you said earlier sounds like a joke. i may be arguing on the same side as you (religion IS a meme) but i do notice that your not actually giving people any edge-way to explain themselves. i have no qualms with you voicing your opinion and giving your evidence but please keep an open mind and remain respectful. please don't take offence to this comment.

I'm sorry, what? Asking questions and picking holes is "not giving anyone edge-way to explain themselves"? That's ludicrous. This is a forum where debate is encouraged, and asking difficult questions is precisely the opposite of stopping people from explaining themselves. Saying ridiculous stuff like this just makes you come across as butthurt that I'm picking holes in your statements. I notice that you didn't even bother to answer my questions; I can only assume that you can't.

Also, back on topic please. If you're going to start making personal attacks at least have the decency to do it in PM, not in a thread where doublecross explicitly requested no flaming (not that anyone should be flaming anywhere on the forums).

[doublecross]

I hope you don't mind if I don't weigh in on the "Daxx is evil" subdebate that appears to have cropped up.


I have noticed that 2 people voted that they think religion is not a meme. I was wondering if anyone on that side of the debate could please explain their position.