Re: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:00:42 GMT

  • Next message: John Croft: "Memes and CUlture Wars"

    Received: by id AAA08235 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:05:57 GMT
    Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:00:42 -0500
    Subject: Re: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or    meme
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
    Precedence: bulk

    On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 06:13 , Richard Brodie wrote:

    > Rational empiricists
    > get hung up on the myth aspect of religions, taking it on blind faith
    > that a
    > make-believe story cannot possibly have any value. This is an irrational
    > position and a blind spot in the worldviews of many smart people.

    Yup. Whether you think this is my worldview, I don't know, but it isn't.

    I tend to think that religion has usurped, or moves into, the place that
    art should be taking, which is, as you say-

    > By making and recognizing
    > literary allusions, we smile and bond with others. This all has real
    > value
    > although it's difficult to test empirically, if for ethical
    > considerations
    > alone.

    And I am disturbed by looseness of myth and narrative (call it bad art,
    if you want) just as much as I am disturbed by looseness with facts, AKA
    pseudoscience. There is a great degree of both, and, so far, almost all
    religions are criticized by yours truly as bad art.

    So, yeah, my main objection to religion is aesthetic, not empirical.

    - Wade

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:53:16 GMT