Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA18074 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:00:31 +0100 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:36:07 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science Message-ID: <20010420203607.B969@ii01.org> References: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAKEHECCAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <030601c0c92c$1c0f90a0$8e5d2a42@jrmolloy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <030601c0c92c$1c0f90a0$8e5d2a42@jrmolloy>; from email@example.com on Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:54:41PM -0700 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:54:41PM -0700, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <email@example.com>
> > I find little difficulty in distinguishing religion from memetics. Memetics
> > models and tracks the spread of ideas and beliefs. Religion is composed of
> > beliefs (whether they are 'correct' or not). At a mimimum, then, memetics is
> > meta to religion.
> In further support of your excellent comments, I'd add that memetics is to
> religion as science is to faith.
How does faith in memetics as a science fit in there?
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 21:17:49 BST