Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA28400 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:21:15 GMT Message-ID: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300410EF@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: religion/spirituality Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:24:39 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Lloyd:
Protestant Christians of
the fundamentalist variety take the view that Christ, the Holy Ghost and
Jehovah are different eternal entities with magical powers only Jehovah is
god.
Derek:
And that would be more 'monotheistic'. However such reasoning could be
construed as Arianism, and any group trying to affiliate to the WCC would
have to prove it was non-Arian. St Athanasius still has the upper hand in
these matters.
Lloyd:
They have assumed a monotheistic stance which
appears to enhance the replicating power of their religions.
Derek:
Yes, but why? (sorry Robin, have to ask why at this point). It is clear
that Christianity spread whereas other candidates (Judaism, Mithraism,
Zoroastrianism, neo-Platonism, and even Buddhism - which was present in
Alexandria in the first century according to Clement) did not. But I still
don't follow how the issue of one/many gods has any impact on this. If you
are saying something along the lines of 'Christianity was the winner, and it
was monotheistic, therefore it was the winner because it was monotheistic'
then that is rather a circular argument. I'm not sure if you _are_ arguing
this, are you? (aside from the issue of whether or not it was really
monotheistic).
Lloyd:
Using your own standard of polytheism, Judiasm is not monotheistic either.
Not only did they adopt Ahriman into their religion, they also believe in
more than one creator (Genesis 1: "Let us create man in our own image").
Early Judiasm recognized a the existance of many gods which explains
repeated statements that Yahweh is a "jealous god" and that Jews were to
recognize "no other gods above him".
Derek:
Yes, I'm familiar with the Jahwist-Elohist theories of early Judaism and how
they relate to the 4 postulated authors (or author schools) of the
collection of documents we now know as the book of Genesis, but these
pertain to a _much_ earlier phase in the history of Judaism. At the period
we're discussing, post-Septuagintal Judiasm, Elohism was merely a distant
memory (if indeed it was remembered at all - it needed 19th and 20th century
textual scholarship to tease it out). By the time we reach 1st century
Palestine, the orthodoxy is strictly monotheistic.
Lloyd:
Why did Judiasm not replace the Roman religions ....... Well, Judiasm is
essentially not a proselitizing religion [wheras Christianity is].
Derek:
Fair enough. But here we come to another problem. In the standard
memetical 'mind virus' view of religion, all religions proselitize (or
rather should because after all, they're supposed to be viruses). If you
are correct (you probably are on this one), then you have identified a
strong falsification of the 'mind virus' theory. How can a virus (mind or
otherwise) not attempt to spread itself? Does this suggest that Judaism is
not a mind virus, but Christianity is? I think not, rather it suggests that
the 'mind virus' view is fundamentally mistaken.
Lloyd:
The point here being that
Christianity, particularly as it was formulated by Paul, already had
familiar roots in Greco-Roman culture.
Derek:
Again you are quite right. [Sorry to have snipped so much of your
argument]. But what connection is there between 'roots in Greco-Roman
culture' and monotheism? I'm not disputing your extra reasons for the
replicative advantges of Christianity, merely their relevance to the issue
of "monotheism = high replication, polytheism = low replication". Any roots
in Roman culture would surely have to emphasize the polytheistic aspects, as
that was what Romans were accustomed to.
Lloyd:
Tibetan Buddhists, proselitizing in Europe and America
generally recognize a "universal presence" they equate with the Christian
"God". Pauline-like, they have thus bridged a cultural divide allowing them
to communicate with Christians who are dissatisfied with their Christianity
but, none-the-less, retain much of their religio-cultural basis.
Derek:
But Navayana (the FWBO group) do this, and they've been around since the
1940s, with comparatively little spread. Again, you are probably correct in
your identifiction of the _other_ factors in Tibetan success, but I don't
think that a Pauline-like bridge to Western monotheism is part of it, since
it has already been tried, with much less success, by others.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 10:23:02 GMT