Christopher Hitchens, Darrell Ray and the God Virus

[Michael Schubert]

Listen to this story about a public community college professor who attempted to proselytize her students:

A student was taking a final exam on May 8, 2012, when his teacher laid a folded manila envelope on the student's desk and told him to open it later when he was alone. The package contained a bible with a personalized message and highlighted passages. The student contacted the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) to say the letter was "bizarre" and "unsettling". He gave FFRF a copy of the class syllabus in which the teacher said she forbids "taking the lord's name in vain".

After hearing about this complaint from the student, the college's administration warned the teacher that next time something like this occurs, she will be fired.

Now let us examine this other story about disguised proselytizing in the public classroom, this time in Indiana:

After receiving a student complaint, FFRF called for Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, to investigate allegations that a physics and astronomy professor appeared to be teaching creationism at the public university.

The teacher, Eric Hedin, apparently injected religion into his astronomy courses and the students complained of the class's extreme Christian bias on the Rate My Professor website. He "constantly talks religion", one student wrote.

But we don't hear precisely why religious people do this. In an informal and simplistic way of putting it, you could say they are just a couple of screwballs. But there is actually more to it than that.

These two situations are illustrations of philosopher Christopher Hitchens's and Psychologist Darrell Ray's theories. In his book, God is Not Great, Hitchens argues that religion must intrude on nonbelievers in order for it to spread, and he has a point. In order for a church to gain power and material wealth, they must go out into the community and proselytize people. These two teachers must not have the time and resources to do that, so they force their religion on their students. Going one step further than Hitchens, Dr. Darrell Ray says that religion and gods function like mental parasites, in that they take over one's cognitive functions and use it for their own benefit. One could say the science teacher has caught the God Virus, and it is using his knowledge of science to spread its disease. The same goes for the teacher in New York. She wants to enforce her religion by implementing its mind control; she forbids "taking the lord's name in vain" in the syllabus. That is very undemocratic and anti-free-speech.

And that is something to think about. I just finished reading The God Virus; it is a masterpiece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE8QWFBUY6w

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I don't think they do to make their religions more powerful, at least, not consciously. Mostly it's just they think they have a platform where they can save souls, and they shouldn't waste it. Some may even think god put them in that position for this purpose. But of course the end result is the same.

[Minimalist]

I find the majority of theists to be sanctimonious shits. That answer serves me quite well.

[FallentoReason]

They have plenty of justification from their p.o.v. because *if* their beliefs are true, then what they are doing is morally right. It's as if they see a child drowning at the beach, so they feel *compelled* to save them. But someone could come along and point out that they're in fact just practising butterfly which makes it look as if they're drowning, because they're not very good at it

Of course, the big question is obviously whether their beliefs are in fact true.

[MindForgedManacle]

Er, why are you referring to Hitchens as a philosopher? I mean hey, I agreed with numerous things Hitch said, but so too did I disagree with much of what he said. While he showed some amount of familiarity with philosophy, that doesn't equate actually being one.


*Back on topic* From what I (think I) understand, this 'God virus' hypothesis is more or less just using Richard Dawkins' idea of a 'meme', yes? If so, there are good reasons to doubt this, as much about the concept of memes is uncertain and not really addressed, like how does a meme *actually* get around to intentionally defending itself, or how does it *actually* propagate? It seems to lack real explanatory power, and only provide a bit of predictive capability.

[Michael Schubert]

Er, why are you referring to Hitchens as a philosopher? I mean hey, I agreed with numerous things Hitch said, but so too did I disagree with much of what he said. While he showed some amount of familiarity with philosophy, that doesn't equate actually being one.


*Back on topic* From what I (think I) understand, this 'God virus' hypothesis is more or less just using Richard Dawkins' idea of a 'meme', yes? If so, there are good reasons to doubt this, as much about the concept of memes is uncertain and not really addressed, like how does a meme *actually* get around to intentionally defending itself, or how does it *actually* propagate? It seems to lack real explanatory power, and only provide a bit of predictive capability.

Are you not officially a philosopher until you hold a degree in Philosophy? I don't think he has a diploma on his bedroom wall, but I think Hitchens's book, God is Not Great is definitely Philosophy.

Yeah, Ray is, in essence, expanding on Dawkins's theory of memes; thank you for bringing this up. I think he (Ray) is speaking more specifically about fundamentalist religions, as opposed to Dawkins, who is talking about cultures.

I suggest you read the book. I really cannot explain everything in a forum post.