Richard Dawkins Faith In Memes Is As Blind As A Christian's to God
July 6, 2010 at 10:20 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2010 at 10:33 pm by Cecco.)
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
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
