Richard Dawkins: Viruses of the Mind

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

by bootload • 17 years ago

60 41 17 years ago

cscs.umich.edu

amichail2• 17 years ago

One could argue that people use religion as a tool to control the people whom they want to associate with.

In that respect, it may not be a mind virus so much as a socially acceptable way to keep people away from you whose behavior you don't like.

zppx• 17 years ago

The entire "field" of memetics is a form of pseudoscience, without clear presuppositions, by the way, Dawkins is a die hard fan of bogus scientific definition: http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/extended_phenotype_...

jacoblyles5• 17 years ago

Do we really need shrill atheism vs. religion discussions here? What has Richard added to the discussion?

Maybe next we should argue about Sarah Palin, or text editors.

netcan6• 17 years ago

Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years. I agree that he can be shrill, but his contributions are meaty.

rkts2• 17 years ago

Dawkins is a classic yellowist (http://paulgraham.com/say.html). Megawatts of brain power spent on arguing with idiots.

jacoblyles5• 17 years ago

>"Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years"

Certainly! I think his biology writing is terrific. I've certainly learned a lot from the man. "The Ancestor's Tale" is one of my top five favorite books of all time.

On the other hand, his religious writing is essentially what you find on atheism.reddit.com. Nuance? You won't get it from this man on this topic. It's us vs. them, and "them" are controlled by an evil mind-virus, so it's not even worth listening to their opinion.

Niten• 17 years ago

I agree that this probably isn't the place for religious debates, but it's plainly absurd to compare Richard Dawkins to Sarah Palin (presumably) with regard to the substance of his arguments, or to imply that he has not added anything worthwhile to this debate.

Locke1689• 17 years ago

A rather accurate explanation of exploit code for a biologist/geneticist I must say...

Indeed countermeasures to the section about "immunization" was the reason the Morris worm spread so far so fast.

rkts2• 17 years ago

It's pretty simple. People who think in personal, emotional terms tend to explain the world that way, while people who think more logically/mechanically explain the world that way. That's where religion and science, respectively, come from.

RyanMcGreal2• 17 years ago

The question then becomes: which approach does a better / more accurate / more useful job of explaining the world?

amichail2• 17 years ago

Religious people don't necessarily see that as a goal.

Pistos2• 17 years ago

[Some] religion[s] and science are not at odds. I'm not atheist, yet I have no problems with the facts and findings of science. I believe in evolution (and that is not incompatible with my faith, even on an official level).

Religion versus science is a false dichotomy. You can be religious, scientific, logical, reasonable and rational at the same time; and many are.

amix2• 17 years ago

While Dawkins has some good points, I don't think attacking religion is a way to go, it leads to hatred and tribalism (us vs. them). The better way is to educate people better and let them decide what to believe in.

In Denmark where I live there is little belief in God and religion isn't that important for people - - this hasn't been done by attacking religion, or presenting religion as a virus, but by educating people better. Denmark is filled with churches, but almost nobody visits them regularly.

JulianMorrison• 17 years ago

Dawkins does try to educate people, in fact from his book output he mostly tries to educate people - see for example "the greatest show on earth".

I think he has a specific reason for attacking religion, and it isn't to de-convert people. His intent is to break religion's special status as immune from criticism in polite society. There is this assumption that religion always does social good, is always well-intentioned, and even if it turns out to be mistaken about reality, it's harmless. This lets religions get away with all sorts of rascally behaviour - see the Catholic church in Ireland, for example. He wants them to be held to the same account as any ordinary organization, and not placed on a pedestal.

amix2• 17 years ago

I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The likely results from his offensive tactics is hatred and opposition against science and more religious fanatics - simply because most people are religious and attacking their beliefs won't make them less religious.

And really, even if he breaks religion and removes it, then we will still have skin colors, nationalities and different cultures - - things that will still split people up in tribes and things that will still cause wars. What we need is to respect each other, respect our differences and cherish our similarities - we will never be the same, so respect and understanding is the only way to go.

GavinB• 17 years ago

Dawkins' definition of virality seems to be ever-shifting. At the end he defines science as a meme but not a virus by saying that virus requires "spread me" to be baked into it.

If this is the case, however, then "mystery is a virtue" is not viral as he claims earlier. Neither is wearing baseball caps backwards, for that matter.

Additionally, most scientific organizations and universities include an element of spreading their methods, so they too have a "viral" component.

When Dawkins claims that the fact that "the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious" makes it non-viral, I get the sneaking feeling that whether or not something is a virus depends heavily on how Dawkins feels about it.

netcan6• 17 years ago

I agree. I think he did a bad job at the end there. What this article needs is a good test for viral equivalent to the sperm/egg one for biological viruses.

Any ideas?

tokenadult• 17 years ago

What online sources would each of you recommend as better articles on the meme concept and the strengths and weaknesses of that concept?

nikils• 17 years ago

Is Facebook a brain virus or meme ?

zby• 17 years ago

According to the mimetic theory by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard there is a social benefit of religion - it is a much more direct explanation of religion and thus more convincing than this virus theory. It is not less condemning, at least for all 'sacrificial' religions - but in a nuanced way - it says that we could not have a civilisation without it even if they are rather problematic for our contemporary morality.

Richard Dawkins: Viruses of the Mind

Related Stories