Hey there! Me again.

I started a similar thread but my I didn't relate my thoughts clearly enough, so I will start again with a slightly different twist and state things as simply as I can.

Richard Dawkins: 'God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture'.

Definition of a meme: A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

Wikipedia explains further: ...memes evolve by natural selection (in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Theorists point out that memes which replicate the most effectively spread best, and some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove detrimental to the welfare of their hosts

So the idea is that memes battle for survival and evolve in a way that is very similar in description to that of the way genes survive in biological evolution, that they adhere to the laws of natural selection, yet memes are not biological; they are not part of our genetic make up i.e. the idea of god, or the desire for god, is not in our flesh and blood.

This differs from darwinism, as these laws tell us that the idea of god etc. is part of our genetic code i.e. the idea of god, or the desire for god, is in our flesh and blood.

If we take memes out of the equation, then by darwinian laws, to say that people can have the idea of god educated out of them (as dawkins does, proven by his daily crusade to convert people) would be ridiculous, as you cannot educate your biology, your flesh and blood, out of yourself.

However, if you create the idea of memes, you can then state that the idea of god can be educated out of us, because memes are just ideas that are fleeting and can be easily removed by logic and open-mindedness and such.

But there is not the slightest bit of evidence for memes, yet Richard Dawkins talks and acts with the faith that they exist, which happens to suit his philosophy on religion.

Therefore, Richard Dawkins faith in Memes is as blind as a Christians to god.

I hope I have made my point clear. I don't want a slanging match, please - I am aware I am no scholar.

To summarise:

1) Richard Dawkins says god exists only as a meme.

2) There is as little evidence of memes existing as there is god.

Does anyone else see the double standard here?

Thanks for reading.

P.S. I don't believe in god

(July 6, 2010 at 10:20 pm)Cecco Wrote: Richard Dawkins: 'God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture'.

Definition of a meme: A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

Umm not sure what you mean ... he is just saying "god" is = to "Idea" and the only reason a particular religion/god has been able to survive is basicaly our ability to mould the deity/religion as we see fit... much like christinsanity where god/jesus is differnt for every diffrent person...Where sceptics see contradiction in the bible the religious make exscuses ignore or call "out of context" but where the bible agrees with the individual that part will be true, its written in such a way that you can pull out what you like fit it to your needs (the evolving god)

I would think it blatantly obvious that ideas and behaviors can be naturally selected upon.

No one is claiming that a meme is a solid, much less biologically reproducing being. It is simply an idea that has caught on. Which memes stick around and which fade out, are sometimes referred to in evolution-speak with 'survival' and 'selection' but even though it is structurally similar, it does not involve genetics or biological reproduction.

Also, not every conclusion uses faith to get there. When a conclusion is reached using only available information, and only based on that info, faith is not involved.

As for religion being a part of our code, it is not. The ABILITY to believe in such things requiring faith, but not the need. Our imaginations are very complex and amazing. A concept that sounds really pleasant, and which the brain is able to 'make fit' to things, is sometimes taken to be a truth on faith (no real indicators or evidence) and will feel right to the new believer. We also though, have the ability to use reason and logic, to revise our beliefs with new information. That would be where educating oneself out of religion might come in, as well for as other faith-requiring beliefs (like horoscopes or new age crystals).

Memes do exist. They are real concepts though, not physical things. Just like memories exist, emotions exist, political ideologies exist, etc. They are not material, but real none the less.

Quote:No one is claiming that a meme is a solid, much less biologically reproducing being. It is simply an idea that has caught on. Which memes stick around and which fade out, are sometimes referred to in evolution-speak with 'survival' and 'selection' but even though it is structurally similar, it does not involve genetics or biological reproduction.

so far you have agreed with me entirely.

Quote:As for religion being a part of our code, it is not.

there is no evidence for that statement, and in the interests of accuracy and science, should not be repeated without some.

Quote:Memes do exist. They are real concepts though, not physical things. Just like memories exist, emotions exist, political ideologies exist, etc. They are not material, but real none the less.

You sound like you are defending god: not material, but real none the less. how can you say they are real without proof? and i don't believe dawkins is claiming they are nonmaterial. to say they are nonmaterial is like comparing them to a ghost.

one definition of nonmaterial from the dictionary: unreal.

(July 7, 2010 at 7:10 am)Cecco Wrote:

Quote:No one is claiming that a meme is a solid, much less biologically reproducing being. It is simply an idea that has caught on. Which memes stick around and which fade out, are sometimes referred to in evolution-speak with 'survival' and 'selection' but even though it is structurally similar, it does not involve genetics or biological reproduction.

so far you have agreed with me entirely.

I don't think so. I've been getting from what you wrote, that you thought individual memes (like the meme of a god existing) were more than a popular concept, that they were genetic or physical somehow. The evolutionary structure of some things sticking around and spreading due to being the selected or favoured ones can be seen both in the usual biological sense, AND where popular concepts/ideas stay around longer than unpopular ones which die out. That's the only similarity in both of these types of evolution, even though it's usually the biological ones that get talked about.

What's interesting is that religions would have never have had to start any disputes with scientists and their evidence proving evolution, if the only form of it discussed were as to which concepts outlast other ones. But when our planet's huge history of biological evolution was found, the religions freaked out because the newly discovered evidence disproved the magical 6 day creation of all earth life, and disproved that it all happened only 6 to 10 thousand years ago. They are still denying it, even when shown tons of transitional species, observed speciation, etc.

Quote:

Quote:As for religion being a part of our code, it is not.

there is no evidence for that statement, and in the interests of accuracy and science, should not be repeated without some.

I am not a scientist, but I am quite a fan. Maybe I would have gone into botany if I hadn't dropped out of school at 16 to support myself. Probably, since it's a strong interest of mine. I want to rephrase what I wrote above, since I think I can see what you are saying about it. Here goes:
As for religion being a part of our genetic code, there is nothing to indicate this. It's possible that something might show in the future though, I suppose. All we know for sure is that the ability to believe in things without proof exists in us, including the ability to fill in any blanks with our imaginations. This ability may have survived in humans because it was beneficial and meant fitting into existing social structures where one is expected to take on the group's morals, beliefs, etc on trust rather than only coming to one's own conclusions from real experiences and evidence. Humans survive better in societies than on their own scattered, so this faith-ability-trait would have survived better as well, I'm thinking.

Quote:You sound like you are defending god: not material, but real none the less. how can you say they are real without proof? and i don't believe dawkins is claiming they are nonmaterial. to say they are nonmaterial is like comparing them to a ghost.

one definition of nonmaterial from the dictionary: unreal.

I think of nonmaterial in the non-physical sense, but if we go by the definition you're using, I'll just use a different word, non-physical. Ideas, even popular ones (called memes) are real, but non-physical. I'm not saying they are not real. We know ideas exist, and that some are popular. We experience them on a regular basis, and we see/hear them expressed.

He's talking about the concept of God. Like the concept of the Easter Bunny, the concept of God, obviously exists.

(In fact I now feel I would change my response to an earlier thread that asked "Do you believe in Evil?"... because, I put "Yes" because as I stated, I believe in the concept of evil, I believe in subjective evil. But I believe in the concept of God too - and yet I wouldn't say I believe in God because I reserve that for belief in the existence of God itself. So since belief in the concept of God doesn't equate to belief in God, the Easter Bunny, or anything else for that matter (besides the concept) - then I'm not going to equate belief in the concept of evil to belief in evil either. So I'd rather now just state that I don't believe in evil).

EvF

PREAMBLE: I am a university student (Major: physics at UCLA). By all qualifications, I am a scientist and have done research (biological) vetted and critiqued by my fellows, worked for credible researchers (4) and in the process of securing a mentor at NASA Ames.

Really? Really? Another thread dedicated purely to Richard Dawkins without even really renaming it?

Wonderful - you must really love this guy.

Quote:This differs from darwinism, as these laws tell us that the idea of god etc. is part of our genetic code i.e. the idea of god, or the desire for god, is in our flesh and blood.

Stop right there. The concept of God, ghosts, whatever is a fundamental misuse or hijacking of our evolved abilities to keep track of relationships, actions caused by others and the subsequent virtualization of such (You imagining someone doing or thinking something - recursion can apply).

To say the idea of God is baked into our DNA is as ridiculous as saying the wind and weather have a life (as in living) about them, after all, many people (primitive) and today's children are most susceptible to believing that such does exist. After all, when you are learning about human social groupings and cause and effect, does it not make sense, based on those two almost axioms (caused by a lack of information and addition biologically evolved trust in your guardian), to think the weather has a personality?

One can easily see in poetry the attribution of human traits to inanimate objects, yet one does not rationally believe that their clock hates them or that the computer is there to make ones life miserable.

Quote:If we take memes out of the equation, then by darwinian laws, to say that people can have the idea of god educated out of them (as dawkins does, proven by his daily crusade to convert people) would be ridiculous, as you cannot educate your biology, your flesh and blood, out of yourself.

But one can educate invalid suppositions out of people. One's parents have the job of telling one that "No, the weather is not out to get [you]." All human cultures and societies have a common aspect of correcting what is perceived as invalid in their children, for better or worse. But the science behind whether the weather is alive or not is clear.

Quote:However, if you create the idea of memes, you can then state that the idea of god can be educated out of us, because memes are just ideas that are fleeting and can be easily removed by logic and open-mindedness and such.

But there is not the slightest bit of evidence for memes, yet Richard Dawkins talks and acts with the faith that they exist, which happens to suit his philosophy on religion.

The current consensus is that meme theory or hypothesis is not sufficiently explored to discount or hold that it is correct past several convincing papers for and against.

But we could always make wide sweeping assumptions and pull a strawman against Richard Dawkins for using meme theory as an adequate away of explaining the common prevalence of ideas among disparate cultures (but not all of them with respect to cultures). It doesn't invalidate that the concept of God, like the weather having a personality (earliest concepts of God was the weather, the sky, the sun), and ghosts is purely a matter of superstition, easily formed from attributing cause and effect along with personality to fundamentally non-human objects.

It is a fallacy to apply human social theory and behaviors to non human entities past the most base shared forms, and even then it is very, very restricted for only purposes of understanding enough to form a whole new social theory for the species in question. We call it anthropomorphizing - the attribution of human characteristics to non-human entities.

Quote:Therefore, Richard Dawkins faith in Memes is as blind as a Christians to god.

I hope I have made my point clear. I don't want a slanging match, please - I am aware I am no scholar.

Your supposition is flawed, your reasoning is ill-justified and your evidence is lacking.

It doesn't take a scholar to see that - all it takes is simply learning about whatever bullshit you happen to have an opinion on. I'm sorry, but here the concept of everyman's opinion being just as good as even another's facts (used very specifically as within a purely scientific or logical context is a no-go.

Quote:To summarise:

---

1) Richard Dawkins says god exists only as a meme.

2) There is as little evidence of memes existing as there is god.

Does anyone else see the double standard here?

Thanks for reading.

P.S. I don't believe in god

---

Yes we know you're an idiot for not even doing a cursory wikipedia search at the minimum. Not as good as learning the areas or studying under credible researchers and professors, but it would be something compared to spouting nonsense.

Ooo, another thread about Dawkins. Do you think you're edgy?

seriously, some of the attitudes on here are so childish. i'm sorry to have upset you dawkins disciples. it is clear to question anything of the man is a great sin in here. if not one of you can see the double standard in believing in memes when there is no evidence for them then (but there is evidence! they exist in our minds as a concept so it must be true!) well, actually, what did i expect from an internet forum? no wonder dawkins closed his one down.

i will leave you all to agree on everything.

'the man who knows he knows something knows he knows nothing at all' - some of you could do with learning that.