Is Religion a “Mind Virus”?

Storm said:

I find it rather telling that in 10 pages, not one advocate of labelling religion a "mind virus" has seen fit to address this post.

Click to expand...

That is a personal perception.

corynski said:

I have no knowledge or experience of a god or goddess.

Click to expand...

So then, is your position that a deity, may or may not exist?

By the way, I would find it very surprising, that you are in a religious forum, but claiming to have no knowledge of a god or goddess irrespective of whether this knowledge is in the blase', positive or negative context. And just being in this forum discussing deities et al, gives you a life experience down this path.

footprints said:

So then list the flaws in your own reasoning? How well are your critical reasoning skills?

Click to expand...

Just fine. Nothing is flawless.

Storm said:

I must confess, I don't "get" memes.

On the surface, it strikes me as magical thinking. Ideas have a life of their own? How is that not attributing agency to the inanimate (a hallmark of supernaturalism)?

Not that it bothers me, really. The idea articulates a point of my theology quite nicely. I just find it funny that a point of theology is being lauded as a scientific breakthrough.

Anyway, if it's NOT magical thinking, it's reduced to an utterly pointless, unnecessarily complicated statement of the obvious fact that ideas get transmitted.

So, I don't get it. I find this very frustrating, and anyone who can explain what the hell the point is will have my gratitude.

Anyway, to answer the question: by the standards you gave, can you name a single idea that ISN'T a "mind virus?" If not, how is naming religion one anything more than a thinly-veiled, petty insult?

Click to expand...

Memes don't have a "life". They are not "alive". They are not "magical". And therefore by your own words you've already decided they are "utterly pointless". I can't speak for others, but in response to your last post, that is why I did not respond to your comment... I do not see the point in responding to something you've reached a conclusion on.

On the other hand, if you are interested, there are many good books on the subject. Too much to explain in a thread. In short, and over-simplifying, it's not an idea/belief that's the meme, it's the ability of the idea/belief to spread that's the meme.

Take the emotion out of it for a moment by putting your own religious beliefs on the sideline and excluding them from the conversation.

Now pick another religion you do not believe in. For example, if you are a Christian, you probably think the religious beliefs of Hindus are pretty silly. If you are a Muslim, I assume you think the religious beliefs of Mormons are pretty silly, etc.

Now still avoid your own religion, ask yourself why, despite you thinking they are so silly, so many millions of people believe these other beliefs. A possible answer is that these beliefs are among the worlds most powerful memes... religion memes.

Then ask yourself, why do you used the words "thinly-veiled, petty insult" when you associate memes with your own beliefs? IMO it's because of the way your religious beliefs are protect by you, and made exempt of questioning or criticism (BTW "you" is not directed personally at you... it's meant generally for all readers).

And yes, before you say it, atheistic, natural world views (versus faith based world views) which spread across a population are another example of a meme. But these meme are clearly not as powerful as the religious ones for many reasons. For many, the religion memes are simply more powerful, instilled from birth, etc. How else can you explain some of the wacky things that otherwise rational people believe.

IMO, the natural worldview is only appealing if a religion meme has not entrenched itself first, and if your distaste for winged horses, resurrections, and alien space crafts is greater than your need for God and an afterlife, etc. Also, natural worldviews are generally not accompanied by memetic rein enforcers like guilt and fear which are favoured tool of religion memes.

But a belief based on only a meme is irrelevant of the truth of that belief. That's where evidence should come in, but sadly, it often does not.

If the concept of meme has any validity, then religions are, or at least contain, memes.

Sunstone said:

If the concept of meme has any validity, then religions are, or at least contain, memes.

Click to expand...

So too of course does atheism and any other belief pattern held in society. And contrary to statements made elsewhere, each so called, meme, is just as powerful as any other.

On the radio the other day I listened as an announcer was telling a story of how her mother used to cover the furniture with sheets and only take them off when visitors arrived and they would all run around frantically pulling the sheets off. The announcer in question, started this same practice, until her new husband and friends told her she was an idiot. Science has known of this phenomena for many years, very few people refer to it as a meme.

footprints said:

...each so called, meme, is just as powerful as any other.

Click to expand...

Support?

footprints said:

...each so called, meme, is just as powerful as any other.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't have the slightest concept of what a meme is.

sonofskeptish said:

You obviously don't have the slightest concept of what a meme is.

Click to expand...

That's what she said...

While the debate on whether religion is a mind virus continues, one thing is not in dispute... you are more likely to get a virus from a religious site than a porn site...
Religion Has a Virus

Religion is not a mind virus. I think religion is very good thing man can lear humanity from the religion. People cant live their life without religion.

Rami said:

Religion is not a mind virus. I think religion is very good thing man can lear humanity from the religion. People cant live their life without religion.

Click to expand...

False.

In Dawkins example it seems to be he is contradicting himself. Why? Well he is a known atheist with an avowed agenda. You can find quotes of this. So is he not doing that same to others he claims people of religion are doing? Circular reasoning?

Exactly what am I missing if anything?

Point a finger and three point back.

sonofskeptish said:

The terms “mind virus” has been used by scientists and others to describe how religious (and other) beliefs are transmitted from individual to individual, and from generation to generation.

More information can be found in an essay by Professor Richard Dawkins entitled “Viruses of the Mind” (1991)

Viruses of the Mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dawkins’ work makes a compelling case that the religion "mind virus" is, like a biological or computer virus, using us as a host and spreading from mind to mind, and being passed from generation to generation.

In his book “Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme”, author Richard Brodie further explores this concept, and does a great job at explaining what “mind viruses” really are, how they are “caught”, the means they use to duplicate and entrench themselves, how to dislodge them, and even how to create them.

Putting it all together, IMO the “religion virus” has had centuries to perfect itself... mutating and becoming more powerful as it spreads... linking itself to critical tools like sex, fear and guilt... firmly imbedded different versions of itself in our minds... infected parents transmitting the virus to their young as soon as they are able to think, etc.

Fascinating stuff... look forward to your thoughts and comments.

Click to expand...

My humble thoughts on the subject.

Religion seems to me to be a complex interaction of genetics and culture. Some people seems born predisposed to making certain connections in their thinking that could be called "magical thinking"... while others are not. Much like other polygenic traits that humans display (such as height), this has a "bell curve" sort of distribution in the population. With extreme theists and extreme atheists on either narrow end of the curve.

I agree that the details of religions are memes that spread through cultures. However, I think that ones predisposition to religious thinking or lack there of, is primarily genetic.

Some people are essentially born "atheistic" whiles others are born "theistic" and the majority are in various degrees in between these two. Our ideas of what religion is exactly, are shaped by the memes in our respective cultures. Hence American atheists are more likely to vehemently reject Christian memes and more weakly Buddhist ones.

wa:do

I think the concept of religion being a mind virus is a pretty decent metaphor for what people such as myself and Dawkins see as the restrictive (sometimes regressive) effect that religion can have. It's a bit of a simplistic illustration, but it illustrates the point well enough.

While these mind viruses are strong in some parts of the world, I think they have grown weak in the western world in recent times.

If we were to take a poll of RF'ers for example, how many believe the same way they were indoctrinated to believe as a child. I personally was raised catholic but am not now. As education and information have vastly increased, this virus infected sheep theory sounds weaker and weaker.

Dawkins has trouble accepting that people can intelligently come to have spiritual beliefs.

George-ananda said:

While these mind viruses are strong in some parts of the world, I think they have grown weak in the western world in recent times.

If we were to take a poll of RF'ers for example, how many believe the same way they were indoctrinated to believe as a child. I personally was raised catholic but am not now. As education and information have vastly increased, this virus infected sheep theory sounds weaker and weaker.

Dawkins has trouble accepting that people can intelligently come to have spiritual beliefs.

Click to expand...

Generally, when you poll people about their faith you find the typical bell curve.

The majority is "spiritual" but not "fanatical" about their faith. People who go to church once in a while and still profess belief, but aren't dogmatic or gung-ho about it. At either end you find people increasingly more "fanatically" atheistic and increasingly more "fanatically" theistic.

I would put Dawkins in the "more atheistic" end of the spectrum as he can't empathize with theists any more than Pat Robertson can with an atheist.

wa:do