Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA07692 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:50:01 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B2F@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: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:47:42 -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
<Derek:
> Of course, the historical facts are not under dispute, but how do you
> proceed from these facts to confirm or refute the 'mind virus' concept?
> It
> seems to me that people simply like the 'mind virus' concept and are
> determined to stick with it regardless. The problems about monotheism not
> always being a faster propagater than polytheism, and about religions that
> apparently don't propagate at all very well, are continually qualified as
> special cases. How many ad hoc qualfications does the mind virus theory
> need?
>
> Or let me turn the question on its head. What would the characteristics
> be
> of a religion that _isn't_ a mind virus? If mind virology really is
> scientific, then such a thing ought to be at least describable within the
> terms of the theory, even if it doesn't exist. If it's not even
> describable
> then you have a situation perilously close to tautology.>
>
My computer keeps crashing on me in the middle of replying to this,
so I may have to be very succinct (no bad thing!), in case it happens again-
at which point I'm throwing the bloody machine out the window.
I agree here. I 've got myself into a bit of a bind because I agree
with you that the mind virus metaphor isn't viable, but then I've also said
that monotheism should transmit better than polytheism.
I think religious doctrines and practices can be memetic, but not
beliefs.
All religions proselytize, to greater or lesser degrees, but they
all do it. This isn't what makes them succeed in my view.
Aaron Lynch suggests (simplifying here) that in part it's those that
proselytize for having more babies that ultimately succeed. I don't buy
that.
My view is that the context is vital, particularly at the origin of
a religion, and also that the simplicity of its doctrines (its
laws/rituals/practices) are what makes a religion spread.
This is evident of all sorts of trends of religions' development,
and of recent trends in movements of religious belief, e.g. the conversion
of many African-Americans to Islam, or lots of westerners in the post-war
period to Buddhism. People convert to these not necessarily because of
successful proselytism, but because their doctrines suit the
socio-economic/political situation in which people find themselves. For
Western buddhists, they may argue its because buddhism offer the true route
to enlightenment blah, blah, blah, but what's really going on is that it
provides them with a cover for feeling OK about the inherent social
inequities that they feel both kind of responsible for, but also relatively
powerless to do anything about (or, perhaps more kindly, allows them to
interpret doing something about social inequity as equivalent to having a
particular personal demeanour- be nice to people blah, blah, blah).
But in the origins of religions, simplicty in their doctrines I feel
is absolutely critical. Combine simplicity with the right social context (a
mixture of chance and skillful reading of public opinion by the founders of
movements), and bob's your uncle- a tiny wacko cult becomes a multi-national
religion. Without meaning to be too facetious, after all, how much easier
is drawing a fish shape than a star of David to indicate your allegiance to
a faith?
Sorry, if this seems terse, as I say computer problems (bloody
Microsoft, eh Richard :-)?)
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 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 13:52:25 GMT