
Richard Dawkins: Viruses of the Mind  - bootload
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
======
amix
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
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.

~~~
amix
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.

~~~
gsk
You may be wrong. I was at the Intelligence Squared debate on Atheism [
[http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-
events.php?event=...](http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-
events.php?event=EVT0204) ] yesterday in which Dawkins debated. The vote was
overwhelmingly in support of Dawkins' position (which is not fundamentalist
atheism but one of calling a spade a spade). More people voted in favor of
Dawkins' stand after the debate than before. Things are more nuanced, of
course. I personally favor the position advocated by E O Wilson (co-opt
religion).

------
GavinB
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.

~~~
netcan
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?

------
rkts
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.

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

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

~~~
fburnaby
Some don't. Others are very willing to make extremely bold truth claims near
constantly.

------
amichail
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.

------
jacoblyles
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.

~~~
netcan
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.

~~~
jacoblyles
>"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.

~~~
caf
Hold on a moment, he never calls any mind-virus (or any virus at all) "evil".
In fact he points out that the differences between biological viruses and our
genome are really only in the method of propagation each is targetting -
viruses are no more "evil" than the genes for blue eyes are. I would also
refer you to the part where Dawkins says that a complete genome can be
regarded as a massive colony of viruses.

It is clear that declaring viruses (whether of the biological or mind type) as
"evil" is to engage in silly anthropomorphism.

~~~
jacoblyles
"Malicious" then, or "malignant", if not "evil.

>"I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet,
trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a
Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?"

Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is
equivalent to being dead.

>"Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before,
the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's
Chorea."

Mr. Dawkins could not be more clear with his connotation.

~~~
berntb
>>Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is
equivalent to being dead.

Well, Dawkins doesn't believe in brainwashing defenseless children to believe
things without testable basis.

(If you consider that a strange position, well... it do say something.)

At least these days, the kids _probably_ don't have a large risk of getting
mental problems for life by being sexually abused by the religious teachers...

------
zby
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.

------
Locke1689
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.

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

------
nikils
Is Facebook a brain virus or meme ?

------
zppx
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_...](http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/extended_phenotype_how_richard_dawkins_got_it_wrong_twice)

