Richard Dawkins Faith In Memes Is As Blind As A Christian's to God

[Autumnlicious]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.