Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA01866 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:50:54 +0100 Message-ID: <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:47:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Trupeljak Ozren <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745DEE@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
--- Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> << (BTW, for me, a difference is that science has a non-arbitrary
> > relationship to reality in terms of trying to examine questions of
> > causality,
> > demonstrable in its effectiveness in providing solutions to
> > and offering new capacities for human behaviour.)>>
> <All of which is true for almost any religion you can shake your
> > proverbial stick at. As far as I know, no religions have arbitrary
> > relationship with reality, their examinations of causality can
> > sometimes be very subtle and elegant, and as I previously stated,
> > *do* produce solutions to problems while offering new capacities
> > human behaviour (look at my already mentioned example of talibans
> > Afghanistan: they solved the problem (solid, material reminder that
> > there are other religions out there) by ordering soldiers to shoot
> > Buddha's (isn't that a new capacity for human behavior? How many
> > can brag that they did *that*?;)..)>
> No, you're completely wrong here. All religions have arbitray
> relationships to reality in terms of things like appropriate dress,
> particular rituals that should be performed, the iconography utilised
I am sorry, I do not agree with you. Their choice of dress, rituals,
etc. is very much culturaly dependant, and definitively *not*
> etc. That these choices have material consequences is not in doubt
> but many
> of them are entirely unrelated to their intended aims. Take the
> Nazca, for
> example. They appear to have believed that the key to unlocking
> their most
> precious resource, water, was to devise rituals involving walking
> animal patterns, and symobloic maps of the local geography (the
> famous Nazca
> 'lines'- and indeed there's a bit more evidence for this reading of
> lines than vo Daniken's!). Did these practices have any causal
> to whether or not it rained? Of course not.
Again, I was never arguing that the religious point of view is
particularly succesful as far as giving you the power over environement
goes. I actually said quite the opposite, on a number of occasions.
> That's not to say that
> periods of drought, such rituals didn't serve to unite Nazca
> together, maintained morale etc. but they could have done all sorts
> other things that may have equally achieved that goal. Most
> societies have
> these kinds rituals- important in their consequences- but arbitrary
> in and
> of themselves. A good, non-religious, one that springs to mind is
Your usage of word arbitrary cofuses me. What is arbitrary in
developemnt of communal rituals? These do have a tendency to evolve or
devolve as the time passes, but *not* in an arbitrary way! The rituals
are very much the reflection of the contemporary culture that produced
them (Olympic games, modern ones, were started in the time of the
widespread proliferation of massive sport events at the turn of the
19/20th century, for example).
> Another, religious example, would be the iconography of
> Christianity. Should one use a cross or a fish symbol? Jesus used
> latter, there's not even any explicit evidence that Jesus was
> crucified on a
> cross, per se, it might have been a tree, with a beam across the top
> of it.
> The decision is not necessarily inconsequential (it brings to mind
> Hicks' joke about it might a bit tasteless for followers to wear
> should jesus ever return- a bit like fans of JFK meeting the family
> little rifle pendants), but it is arguably arbitrary.
Very arguably. If you have noticed, both of the symbols actually *are*
associated with Christ. If they chose, for example, a banana, then your
statement about arbitrary use of symbols might stand to closer
And there are reasons why the cross symbol prevailed over fish; just
look how much the contemporary christianity is based upon the ideas
presented by the apostles, in which death, torture and pain were the
most common associations with the faith in Jesus as new Messiah.
> Religions are full of them, but what's important is that religions
> often make claims about the purposes and consequences of ritual and
> that are in contradiction of reality as it is normally experienced
> virgin births, transubstantiation etc.). Science makes claims that,
> at the
> very least, endeavour to be consonant with reality- and there are
> means by
> which to evaluate those claims that are non-arbitrary (Phoebe from
> and the line 'don't get me started on gravity' springs to mind).
I agree. The difference is real and important one. The similarities I
was refering to when I call the science one of the religions, are the
similarities of memetic structure. The science memeplex seem to have
better "truth-generating engine" then most of the religions have, and
that translates into direct power that its disciples can wield.
> deny and obfuscate evaluation of their claims, and ignore, reject or
> and suppress challenges to them. Sometimes science does these things
> well, of course, but doing so is essentially bad science, whereas
> typical religious behaviour.
Which can be explained by the difference in "truth-engines" that the
two organisms have. The religious truth engine is usualy very static
one, relying on the extrapolation of basic principles of that
particualr faith, most of which do not seem to offer any good insights
into the workings of the Universe. This is not necesarily bad by
itself, but if you compare it with the self-modifying, quickly
adaptable, engine of science, it becomes evident that they are not even
of the same level of magnitude as far as discovering the truths of
Again, the difference in truth generating engines is the only big one
that I can discern between science and religion.
> Re: the Taliban example. Of course they haven't got a problem with
> alternative faiths, one of the supposed motives behind the
> because they simply imprison, shoot or exile anyone who doesn't
> accept their
> ridiculous misreading of the Koran (or exactly accurate reading of
> it, in
> some ways it doesn't really matter because interpreting religious
> texts is
> an arbitrary practice too).
Did I say that they don't have a problem with alternative faiths?!
Where? I seem to remember using the example of how *did* they deal with
the problem of visible remainders of other religions...
As for interpreting the religious texts as arbitrary pracitice, again I
have to disagree, because you don't have complete freedom in the
interpretation. The religions themself quite often contain specific
instructions on how they should be interpreted (Torah books, Koran,
The decision to blow up the Bhudda
> statues was
> entirely arbitrary- thet felt like blowing something up and did so.
Really? And on what sociological or psychological analysys of the
Talibans do you base that statement on?
> What do
> you mean by 'new capacity for human behaviour'? Destruction of
> faiths' iconography is central to most faiths' histories, nothing new
Yes, the idea of destroying them is not new. But the act itself, of
driving there with a bunch of tanks and artillery, and spending a week
shooting ancient Buddhas, that *surely* must be an expression of new
capacity for human behavior. How many people before them did something
like that? Can you imagine being one of them? Telling stories to you
children : Ayup, ya betcha, your Pa was right there, shooting the face
off, and sureee I'm proud of that! ;)
It would be incredibly funny, if it was not sad.
There are very few man - and they are exceptions - who are able to think and feel beyond the present moment.
Carl von Clausewitz
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
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 : Wed Apr 25 2001 - 18:54:16 BST