From: Kate Distin (email@example.com)
Date: Mon 16 Jan 2006 - 16:04:22 GMT
Ben Dawson wrote:
> This is a point that has been on my mind since I watched Dawkins's
> program last week. Is religion really as bad a meme as Dawkins makes
> out? I really can't decide.
> On one hand, when presented with mad Muslims calling all Western women
> whores, it's easy to agree with him. Clearly that is bang out of
> order! On the other hand though, that is an extreme example. My
> parents and sister (all religious) are the nicest people you could
> meet, and would view their own religion as an entirely peaceful thing.
> But if faith causes people to fly planes into buildings, killing
> thousands, then surely our tolerance of this meme should only stretch
> so far?
> I think the problem is in the nature of the meme, rather than the meme
> itself. If I have a disagreement with a friend over the height of a
> building, say, we can resolve that quite easily by looking it up in a
> book or asking an authoritative source or even measuring the thing
> But the meme of faith arises from not being able to empirically prove
> something one way or another. Thus, with no possible way to argue the
> issue out logically, humans turn to their last resort - the primeval
> instinct of fighting one other - because they are both equally certain
> they are right (take the Jew vs Muslim thing that Dawkins showed).
This is true of the meme of "faith" as defined by Dawkins: faith as
belief-without-evidence. But no serious Christian writer would accept
this definition. I don't know where he's got it from. It is one of the
straw men he's so keen on fighting (see Derek's point about his
reluctance to engage with McGrath).
Faith is not about believing things because there's no evidence/proof
either way. Faith is about sticking to beliefs for which you *have*
what you regard as convincing evidence, in the face of what appear to be
counter-arguments or contradictory evidence. Sticking to them, anyway,
until you are convinced of the need to ditch them.
Scientists have this kind of faith in established theories. If some new
bit of evidence arises that seems to contradict an established theory,
the scientists don't immediately ditch the theory. They hold on to it
while they investigate the apparent new evidence more carefully. This
is a rational way to behave and,as it happens, perfectly in keeping with
a memetic view of what's happening. It's what religious people do, too.
So, for example, a Christian is taken ill, or betrayed by a friend, or
is scared about an impending challenge. Faith is about not being able
to see her way out of the current situation, but knowing that in the
past God has never let her down. Faith is about praying, and trusting
God with the situation, on the basis of all her life's experience to
date, even though just now she cannot see how on earth she is going to
be able to cope with the situation.
This is what we do in our human relationships, too. We consider our
loved ones innocent until proven guilty. We display faith in them. All
I'm not sure that I understand what is going on in the minds of people
who fly aeroplanes into buildings, or say (as Dawkins's interviewee did
last week) that they "hate atheists". But nor do I understand what is
going on in the minds of people who commit atrocities in any cause, be
that political, gang-related, tribal or whatever. And I am pretty clear
that what is going on in these minds is not very much like what is going
on in mine when I engage in robust philosophical or theological debate
with my Christian, Muslim, Sikh, or atheist friends.
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 - 16:25:46 GMT