Re: (no subject)

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 17 2001 - 13:58:21 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA27243 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:02:00 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.215]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: (no subject)
    Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 08:58:21 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F24XDtMVK9vJdgko3Yq00003841@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2001 13:58:21.0626 (UTC) FILETIME=[53B401A0:01C0AEEA]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >Subject: Re: (no subject)
    >Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:46:52 +0000
    >
    >I think you'll find that many religions produce groups of people who do
    >sensible things, but because God told them to rather than because
    >they've found the behaviour to be useful (which is practically
    >impossible in one lifetime) - don't kill or steal, don't eat pork in hot
    >countries (it goes off quicker than other meats) and so on.
    >
    >The argument would be that groups who adopt a religion (or possess it
    >already) will outcompete other equivalent groups, therefore the
    >religious group's ideology survives, because it is the fittest, and
    >spreads (often by active promotion). All these things (and some hitch
    >hiking junk) travel together, cooperatively. Think about lichen - moss
    >and fungus in commensalistic harmony.
    >
    >Sorry if that was a bit higgledy-piggledy, I'm sure someone else will
    >give me a kicking now.
    >
    I can see that religion could be considered functional in a society. Some of
    the rules were reasonable, such as not eating certain foods, not killing
    others or valuing relationships or personal commitments.

    I'd assume nowadays that people might go to church, temple, mosque, or
    synagogue merely as a social gathering to meet and rub shoulders with
    others. Back in junior high and high school I used to attend a Christian
    youth group (as opposed to Sunday morning services which bored me more). It
    was a great way to meet people in my age group. Those were my less agnostic
    days.

    Religions do have there down sides too. Some tend to factionalize people.
    It's better to have an open mind. Things like the Crusades and Inquisition
    come to mind as exemplifying the down side. Witch hunting would be another.
    Weren't some church groups up in arms against the Harry Potter books because
    of "pagan" undercurrents? Wiccans run into a lot of flack too, if I'm not
    mistaken.

    Maybe an up side is that religion is like a warm blanket in a cold world.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    ===============================================================
    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 : Sat Mar 17 2001 - 14:04:23 GMT