RE: religion/spirituality

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 21 2000 - 13:46:56 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: religion/spirituality"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA03267 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:49:18 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B26@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: religion/spirituality
    Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:46:56 -0000
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

            <<Richard Brodie:
    > Judaism "proselytizes" only to blood children, hence the lower rate of
    > spreading throughout heterogeneous populations than Christianity. Both fit
    > the mind-virus model quite well.>>
    >
          <Wade:
    > Both fit, yes.
    >
    > The 'proselytizing' comes from the fact that blood matters from the
    > maternal side. Thus, female wandering and cross-fertilizing is the agent.
    > And there is a strong tribal system behind it all to gather in the
    > children.
    >
    > Different sort of virus, but virus, yes, nonetheless. Or bacterium, or
    > something....>
    >
            Still doesn't answer Derek's question though does it? Why didn't
    judaism spread through the Roman Empire the way Christianity did?

            Is it perhaps due to something akin to Gladwell's notion of certain
    types of people being necessary for social trends to "tip"? I'm not sure I'd
    buy into his journalistic typologies, but perhaps christianity appealed to
    particular social classes in roman society who in turn encouraged greater
    transmission than Judaism. Having been watching a fair few programmes about
    ancient Egypt recently, I'd offer the example of the Pharaoh Ahkenaten (I
    bet I've spelt that completely wrongly), who I believe was/is known as the
    heretic pharaoh because in his reign he unilaterally altered the religion of
    the Egyptian state.

            If a political leader switches religious allegiance, then it usually
    has a major effect on the eventual religious beliefs of that nation. I
    don't know myself, but what were the proportions of christians in the Roman
    Empire when it formally converted to Christianity? In other words, was it
    perhaps the product not of widespread proseltyism, but of simply the
    conversion of a particularly important figure, or class, in the social
    hierarchy?

            Somebody in a recent post, possibly in a different thread was quite
    critical of retrodiction, and whilst prediction might be preferable to
    really give memetics legs, this kind of retrodictive scenario is arguably
    equally important. What's needed here is a mechanism for the success of
    christianity as opposed to judaism in the roman empire, or to identify the
    factors that led to this occurrence.

            If both work as mind viruses, then what made one more effective than
    the other at that time? I'd presume it may be more likely to have been some
    contextual elements, rather than the contents of the doctrine per se which
    is how the question started. It may also explain why some polytheistic
    religions persist amidst montheistic ones- because the environmental context
    of their believers offers a niche in which they can persist.

            Another question might be related to the historical emergence of
    montheism and polytheism, in two senses: First, what influences peoples'
    decisions to relate either everything to a single god, or specific things to
    specific gods, in the first place? Second, which came first and how? It
    occures to me that if I want to persist with the idea that monotheism is
    "easier" than polytheism, in a simple sense, then I wonder why polytheism
    appears to have occurred, or at least have been dominant, before the major
    monotheistic religions emerged.

            Maybe early modern humans had more overactive amigdalas (is that
    spelt correctly?) than later humans.

            Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 : Tue Nov 21 2000 - 13:51:07 GMT