Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA14919 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:32:49 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001124124957.00812e80@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> X-Sender: hawkeye@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:49:57 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca> Subject: RE: religion/spirituality In-Reply-To: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300410EF@DELTA.newhouse.akzo nobel.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 09:24 AM 20/11/00 +0100, Gatherer, D. (Derek) wrote:
>
>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).
>
I certainly hope to avoid such circular arguments in my thinking. As
suggested earlier, the situation is complicated by a host of co-existant
variables that affect replication in addition to the monotheistic stance.
Monotheism may not even be the most important such variable.
None-the-less, monotheism appears to have gained ground with monotheistic
religions gaining members and with polytheistic religions gaining
monotheistic charactoristics. In the case of Amerindian religions, the
"Great Spirit" has been largly assimilated attaining Jehovah-like
charactoristics. He is no longer called "the Great Spirit" but is now
called "the Creator" while individual aboriginal creation stories (where
various spirit-gods are considered "creators") are now considered myth. As
mentioned earlier, certain polytheistic eastern religions have added
monotheistic mutations to their memeplexi.
As to your "Why" question, well, it is possible that these changes have
nothing to do with monotheism per se, but that the economically dominant
cultures in the world today happen to coincidentally support monotheistic
religion. This certainly may be a factor with the economically suppressed
Amerindian populations.
On the other hand, polytheism implies the existance of other gods, not
existant in a given pantheon. The Romans were known for their openess in
accepting such new foreign gods into their belief systems. Mithras was one
example of this. To religions assuming a monotheistic stance foreign gods
are either "false" (i.e. "non-existant" or "evil". Either way, these gods
must be eliminated from the mass culture by either eliminating or
converting their followers. From this perspective, pre-Christian Roman
culture was too easy going. The followers of Jehovah had a distinct
advantage, the Romans had to acknowledge the existance of Jehovah but that
curtosy was not reciprocated leading a replicative advantage. The
polytheistic Romans reacted with their own propoganda war only after it was
too late, the Christians had already established themselves firmly within
Roman culture.
>
>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.
>
I too have personal problems with the "mind virus" metaphor. On the other
hand, while all religions must replicate some may replicate more
successfully than others. A religion that relies on vertical replication
will have disadvantage with respect to a religion that emphasizes more
horizontal transmission. Put another way, a religion that wipes out the
enemies of its god in genocidal warfare (a la "Old Testiment") will grow
more slowly than one that wipes out large numbers of the enemies of its god
and offers the rest of the subjugated population "mercy" by allowing them
the opportunity to convert ("New Testiment"). This hardly constitutes a
falsification of the mind virus metaphor.
>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.
>
And this is what early Christianity did. Christ is an intermediary god
(like Mithras) sent by a higher god for some devine purpose. Satan is an
evil god bent at human distruction. Christianity did the difficult trick of
maintianing certain polytheistic aspects (and using other cultural
Greco-Roman forms) while maintaining a monotheistic stance allowing them to
attack and eliminate other gods more easily.
>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.
>
Again, the situation may be complicated by a variety of competing factors
which I cannot discuss in response to the above because I am not familiar
with the FWBO group. On the other hand, Euro-American culture tends to view
polytheism as primitive while atheism is viewed as "non-spiritual" and
hence as "not believing in anything" - a problem for an individual seeking
supernatural guidance and certainty. Hence, an Eastern religion offering a
monotheistic stance would have a replicative advantage within the culture
over those that offer either a polytheistic or athiestic approach.
===============================================================
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 : Fri Nov 24 2000 - 18:34:21 GMT