From: Price, Ilfryn (I.Price@shu.ac.uk)
Date: Mon 16 Jan 2006 - 13:56:17 GMT
My resolution of the position is the arguments that memes both enable and limit. Without memetic evolution (aka concepts and ideas
lodged in language, symbols and artefacts) we would not have organisations and 'culture' (the shell midden story for anyone who
has read the science of discworld two), but memes bent on their own replication (usual caution against causality) act to prevent
change and development and can, in extremis, be damaging (Dawkins Gerin Oil).
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Kate Distin
Speculation about the reason why belief in God persists - whether the
speculation latches onto genetic or memetic explanations - is irrelevant
to the question of religion's *truth*. An evolutionary account of
religion is usually *based on* the assumption that God doesn't exist: it
is not a proof of that assumption.
The same point stands in response to Kenneth's question whether religion
is a mental disease. Language like this (or like Dawkins's "mental
virus") implies that religion is something harmful and misguided, but
neurological explanations of religion are no more relevant to the
question of God's existence than evolutionary explanations are.
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 2.1.5 : Mon 16 Jan 2006 - 14:18:40 GMT