Richard Dawkins: Viruses of the Mind(cscs.umich.edu)
cscs.umich.edu
Richard Dawkins: Viruses of the Mind
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
11 comments
Dawkins does try to educate people, in fact from his book output he mostly tries to educate people - see for example "the greatest show on earth".
I think he has a specific reason for attacking religion, and it isn't to de-convert people. His intent is to break religion's special status as immune from criticism in polite society. There is this assumption that religion always does social good, is always well-intentioned, and even if it turns out to be mistaken about reality, it's harmless. This lets religions get away with all sorts of rascally behaviour - see the Catholic church in Ireland, for example. He wants them to be held to the same account as any ordinary organization, and not placed on a pedestal.
I think he has a specific reason for attacking religion, and it isn't to de-convert people. His intent is to break religion's special status as immune from criticism in polite society. There is this assumption that religion always does social good, is always well-intentioned, and even if it turns out to be mistaken about reality, it's harmless. This lets religions get away with all sorts of rascally behaviour - see the Catholic church in Ireland, for example. He wants them to be held to the same account as any ordinary organization, and not placed on a pedestal.
I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The likely results from his offensive tactics is hatred and opposition against science and more religious fanatics - simply because most people are religious and attacking their beliefs won't make them less religious.
And really, even if he breaks religion and removes it, then we will still have skin colors, nationalities and different cultures - - things that will still split people up in tribes and things that will still cause wars. What we need is to respect each other, respect our differences and cherish our similarities - we will never be the same, so respect and understanding is the only way to go.
And really, even if he breaks religion and removes it, then we will still have skin colors, nationalities and different cultures - - things that will still split people up in tribes and things that will still cause wars. What we need is to respect each other, respect our differences and cherish our similarities - we will never be the same, so respect and understanding is the only way to go.
You may be wrong. I was at the Intelligence Squared debate on Atheism [ http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=... ] yesterday in which Dawkins debated. The vote was overwhelmingly in support of Dawkins' position (which is not fundamentalist atheism but one of calling a spade a spade). More people voted in favor of Dawkins' stand after the debate than before. Things are more nuanced, of course. I personally favor the position advocated by E O Wilson (co-opt religion).
>>I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people.
The only data point I know well enough to talk about (Sweden) contradict your hypothesis. The "Swedish Dawkins/Russel" was the philosophy professor Ingemar Hedenius in the 1950s. He almost made Dawkins look like a bible thumper.
It did work well... and Sweden 60 years ago was probably about as religious as the Midwest is today.
I see no reason to give old magical ideas like Xianity, Judaism, the Asa religion or Islam more respect than new ones like Scientology.
The only data point I know well enough to talk about (Sweden) contradict your hypothesis. The "Swedish Dawkins/Russel" was the philosophy professor Ingemar Hedenius in the 1950s. He almost made Dawkins look like a bible thumper.
It did work well... and Sweden 60 years ago was probably about as religious as the Midwest is today.
I see no reason to give old magical ideas like Xianity, Judaism, the Asa religion or Islam more respect than new ones like Scientology.
[deleted]
Dawkins' definition of virality seems to be ever-shifting. At the end he defines science as a meme but not a virus by saying that virus requires "spread me" to be baked into it.
If this is the case, however, then "mystery is a virtue" is not viral as he claims earlier. Neither is wearing baseball caps backwards, for that matter.
Additionally, most scientific organizations and universities include an element of spreading their methods, so they too have a "viral" component.
When Dawkins claims that the fact that "the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious" makes it non-viral, I get the sneaking feeling that whether or not something is a virus depends heavily on how Dawkins feels about it.
If this is the case, however, then "mystery is a virtue" is not viral as he claims earlier. Neither is wearing baseball caps backwards, for that matter.
Additionally, most scientific organizations and universities include an element of spreading their methods, so they too have a "viral" component.
When Dawkins claims that the fact that "the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious" makes it non-viral, I get the sneaking feeling that whether or not something is a virus depends heavily on how Dawkins feels about it.
I agree. I think he did a bad job at the end there. What this article needs is a good test for viral equivalent to the sperm/egg one for biological viruses.
Any ideas?
Any ideas?
It's pretty simple. People who think in personal, emotional terms tend to explain the world that way, while people who think more logically/mechanically explain the world that way. That's where religion and science, respectively, come from.
[Some] religion[s] and science are not at odds. I'm not atheist, yet I have no problems with the facts and findings of science. I believe in evolution (and that is not incompatible with my faith, even on an official level).
Religion versus science is a false dichotomy. You can be religious, scientific, logical, reasonable and rational at the same time; and many are.
Religion versus science is a false dichotomy. You can be religious, scientific, logical, reasonable and rational at the same time; and many are.
The question then becomes: which approach does a better / more accurate / more useful job of explaining the world?
[deleted]
Religious people don't necessarily see that as a goal.
Some don't. Others are very willing to make extremely bold truth claims near constantly.
But most of them do. That's the point of religion. It is like a primitive form of philosophy and science mixed together.
Psalm 19:1-3
One could argue that people use religion as a tool to control the people whom they want to associate with.
In that respect, it may not be a mind virus so much as a socially acceptable way to keep people away from you whose behavior you don't like.
In that respect, it may not be a mind virus so much as a socially acceptable way to keep people away from you whose behavior you don't like.
Do we really need shrill atheism vs. religion discussions here? What has Richard added to the discussion?
Maybe next we should argue about Sarah Palin, or text editors.
Maybe next we should argue about Sarah Palin, or text editors.
Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years. I agree that he can be shrill, but his contributions are meaty.
Dawkins is a classic yellowist (http://paulgraham.com/say.html). Megawatts of brain power spent on arguing with idiots.
In my area of America, atheism is a lot more socially acceptable than it was before it became such a topic of controversy. Things have noticeably improved because of all this arguing. If Dawkins is squandering his talents arguing with idiots, he's doing a remarkably effective job of it.
Ah... job done in the anglo saxon world, time to move Dawkins' professor chair to Lebanon? :-)
Or maybe not, there they blow up people not appreciated in Syria/Iran.
Or maybe not, there they blow up people not appreciated in Syria/Iran.
I see no one who he is arguing with.
He tends to refuse challenges to debates by prominent religious leaders...
He tends to refuse challenges to debates by prominent religious leaders...
>"Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years"
Certainly! I think his biology writing is terrific. I've certainly learned a lot from the man. "The Ancestor's Tale" is one of my top five favorite books of all time.
On the other hand, his religious writing is essentially what you find on atheism.reddit.com. Nuance? You won't get it from this man on this topic. It's us vs. them, and "them" are controlled by an evil mind-virus, so it's not even worth listening to their opinion.
Certainly! I think his biology writing is terrific. I've certainly learned a lot from the man. "The Ancestor's Tale" is one of my top five favorite books of all time.
On the other hand, his religious writing is essentially what you find on atheism.reddit.com. Nuance? You won't get it from this man on this topic. It's us vs. them, and "them" are controlled by an evil mind-virus, so it's not even worth listening to their opinion.
Hold on a moment, he never calls any mind-virus (or any virus at all) "evil". In fact he points out that the differences between biological viruses and our genome are really only in the method of propagation each is targetting - viruses are no more "evil" than the genes for blue eyes are. I would also refer you to the part where Dawkins says that a complete genome can be regarded as a massive colony of viruses.
It is clear that declaring viruses (whether of the biological or mind type) as "evil" is to engage in silly anthropomorphism.
It is clear that declaring viruses (whether of the biological or mind type) as "evil" is to engage in silly anthropomorphism.
"Malicious" then, or "malignant", if not "evil.
>"I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?"
Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead.
>"Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea."
Mr. Dawkins could not be more clear with his connotation.
>"I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?"
Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead.
>"Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea."
Mr. Dawkins could not be more clear with his connotation.
>>Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead.
Well, Dawkins doesn't believe in brainwashing defenseless children to believe things without testable basis.
(If you consider that a strange position, well... it do say something.)
At least these days, the kids probably don't have a large risk of getting mental problems for life by being sexually abused by the religious teachers...
Well, Dawkins doesn't believe in brainwashing defenseless children to believe things without testable basis.
(If you consider that a strange position, well... it do say something.)
At least these days, the kids probably don't have a large risk of getting mental problems for life by being sexually abused by the religious teachers...
Atheism is more loaded & prone to dumb attacks & dumb counter attacks. So sure, his pure biology writings are less baity then his atheism writing. However, he has contributed to the atheism discussion in the same way.
Much of it stems from his work on evolution by natural selection as a metaphysical (rather then a biological) theory, a definitely worthwhile "philosophy of science" contribution to the atheism debate.
This allows you to take fluff level stuff (eg Seth Godin, "ideavirus") & put it in to a serious framework, the subject of this article. Memes, Memoplexes, whatever is to organism as meme is to gene (is there a word for this?) It also gives you a framework for evolution as an example of non-god creation. This has to me been a real eye opener. If you want a modern contributor to the discussion who has contributed tangibly, Richard Dawkins is one of the top candidates.
This article is not just mindless, it uses provocative (and perhaps shrill) analogies, but it is argued.
The subject of this article is an area where Dawkins has made more novel contributions & is more qualified than "Ancestor's Tale," which is not based (according to me recollection) on his own work and is written intentionally as a popular science book.
In my opinion, you either you exclude the whole topic as inherently shrill or you admit Dawkins.
#Now we are the ones being shrill.
[edit] I don't want to sound like too much of a fan. I am not advocating that Dawkins be unchallenged. I am advocating that he has earned a hearing. There is all sorts of stuff in this article I am not satisfied with. EG "4 Is Science a Virus"
Much of it stems from his work on evolution by natural selection as a metaphysical (rather then a biological) theory, a definitely worthwhile "philosophy of science" contribution to the atheism debate.
This allows you to take fluff level stuff (eg Seth Godin, "ideavirus") & put it in to a serious framework, the subject of this article. Memes, Memoplexes, whatever is to organism as meme is to gene (is there a word for this?) It also gives you a framework for evolution as an example of non-god creation. This has to me been a real eye opener. If you want a modern contributor to the discussion who has contributed tangibly, Richard Dawkins is one of the top candidates.
This article is not just mindless, it uses provocative (and perhaps shrill) analogies, but it is argued.
The subject of this article is an area where Dawkins has made more novel contributions & is more qualified than "Ancestor's Tale," which is not based (according to me recollection) on his own work and is written intentionally as a popular science book.
In my opinion, you either you exclude the whole topic as inherently shrill or you admit Dawkins.
#Now we are the ones being shrill.
[edit] I don't want to sound like too much of a fan. I am not advocating that Dawkins be unchallenged. I am advocating that he has earned a hearing. There is all sorts of stuff in this article I am not satisfied with. EG "4 Is Science a Virus"
The meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar (Mr. Dawkins is a consumate troll). If you've already heard of that idea, I don't see what this adds. If you haven't, there are better sources.
I note that Mr. Dawkins does not compare language to a "virus" though he admits it as memetic, saving the words with harsher connotations for his ultimate target. He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day. On the internet, we call this "flaming". But hey, at least he didn't bring up Hitler.
Bach? The University? Keeping alive European scholarship during the dark ages? Providing a center for community cohesion and services to the disadvantaged? Not mentioned, of course.
I would even be willing to bet that our beloved secular modern egalitarianism owes its root to Christian philosophy, but that is speculation.
No dispassionate exposition on the concept of memes, this. Mr. Dawkins clearly has an axe to grind.
I note that Mr. Dawkins does not compare language to a "virus" though he admits it as memetic, saving the words with harsher connotations for his ultimate target. He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day. On the internet, we call this "flaming". But hey, at least he didn't bring up Hitler.
Bach? The University? Keeping alive European scholarship during the dark ages? Providing a center for community cohesion and services to the disadvantaged? Not mentioned, of course.
I would even be willing to bet that our beloved secular modern egalitarianism owes its root to Christian philosophy, but that is speculation.
No dispassionate exposition on the concept of memes, this. Mr. Dawkins clearly has an axe to grind.
1. He starts by giving us a loose, abstract definition of malicious DNA (virus): "``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg. "
2. He then tries to establish a connection to computer viruses. This is is aid of constructing 'virus' as an abstract concept that can exist outside of it's physical form as a piece of DNA. He points out some characteristics of computer viruses.
3. He then suggests that religious memes are viruses, that they exhibit virus characteristics etc.
*This is still analogy, not evidence. But this is clearly not fluff. Being contrarian, provocative or the like is not necessarily bad.
Like I said, I am not 100% satisfied with everything. I think that he hasn't defined for themes the same distinction between code/malicious code, DNA/Malicious DNA. The whole section dealing with that is not good enough. I am not at all convinced that all memes are not viruses
But if that is your reason for objecting to this article being on HN, that's not good enough. That's a reason to remain unconvinced, not a reason to dismiss.
This is an interesting approach to an interesting question (flammable or not) written by the person most qualified to argue it.
2. He then tries to establish a connection to computer viruses. This is is aid of constructing 'virus' as an abstract concept that can exist outside of it's physical form as a piece of DNA. He points out some characteristics of computer viruses.
3. He then suggests that religious memes are viruses, that they exhibit virus characteristics etc.
*This is still analogy, not evidence. But this is clearly not fluff. Being contrarian, provocative or the like is not necessarily bad.
Like I said, I am not 100% satisfied with everything. I think that he hasn't defined for themes the same distinction between code/malicious code, DNA/Malicious DNA. The whole section dealing with that is not good enough. I am not at all convinced that all memes are not viruses
But if that is your reason for objecting to this article being on HN, that's not good enough. That's a reason to remain unconvinced, not a reason to dismiss.
This is an interesting approach to an interesting question (flammable or not) written by the person most qualified to argue it.
Well, you are right in some respect. The conversation here is interesting in spots, even if Dawkins' own knee-jerk reactions to religion are tiresome.
I find Dawkins' remarks on religion tiresome because they usually seem so obvious that I can predict what he's going to say before he says it. When he gets interviewed about religion, he sounds like someone playing Tetris at a moderate difficulty level: mostly acting on reflex, because what else is there to do? My heart goes out to him.
someone has to do it
HN is one of the few places on the internet where agreement can be reached on the 6th or 7th tab. I forget that it's unique until I read comments on Techcrunch or Youtube.
Maybe we can handle Atheism here. Maybe we can even handle text editors.
Maybe we can handle Atheism here. Maybe we can even handle text editors.
"The meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar" - While this is true. Dawkins did INVENT the concept (or at least the name) meme so this article surely has relevance if you are interested in memes. I agree with you on his religion bashing. He created this concept mainly to attack religions by equating them with viruses. It is interesting though that he overplays the beneficial part of computer viruses while downplaying the beneficial part of religion. The line between parasite and symbiosis is fuzzy. Even organisms like dwarf tapeworms can help people by reducing allergies so surely religion has done some good.
>>[Dawkins] created [memes] mainly to attack religions by equating them with viruses.
Huh, it was quite a few years since I read "Selfish Gene" last, but that isn't how I remember it? Where did he state that? (AFAIK, Dawkins has never been a big fan of meme-ism, the theoretical research.)
>>The line between parasite and symbiosis is fuzzy.
A bit, but I definitely remember Dawkins arguing for a simple test of this in evolutionary biology.
>>Even organisms like dwarf tapeworms can help people by reducing allergies so surely religion has done some good.
Parasites like tapeworms was so common that our immune system wasn't optimized for being without them. Does that really qualify as symbiosis?
But sure, religion might not have caused more suffering than tapeworms... :-)
Huh, it was quite a few years since I read "Selfish Gene" last, but that isn't how I remember it? Where did he state that? (AFAIK, Dawkins has never been a big fan of meme-ism, the theoretical research.)
>>The line between parasite and symbiosis is fuzzy.
A bit, but I definitely remember Dawkins arguing for a simple test of this in evolutionary biology.
>>Even organisms like dwarf tapeworms can help people by reducing allergies so surely religion has done some good.
Parasites like tapeworms was so common that our immune system wasn't optimized for being without them. Does that really qualify as symbiosis?
But sure, religion might not have caused more suffering than tapeworms... :-)
"He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day."
The flaw in his arguments is actually deeper: he takes a two-sided view, falling into the fallacy of the excluded middle. If we posit (1) the existence of his memetic engine, and (2) its apparent propensity to self activate, then a good scientist must ask what results from self activation when a basic subsistence meme is not available or needed. In other words, what is the nature of the memetic engine's idle task (to extend his computer metaphor)? Moreover, what type of memetic idle task might be designed by a community of rational minds whose basic survival needs are being met?
We might reasonably predict that the non-subsistence meme pool would fall into a stable pattern that is self-consistent, simply for the sake of having a stable self-consistent framework upon which other social activities can be installed. I would expect it to look like a typical computer programming framework, with a great deal of intricate structure, much of which is not susceptible to trivial performance analysis.
We can even amuse ourselves by looking for other religion-software analogies. Are there any religious patterns analogous to a fixed-point combinator? Introspection? Debugging?
The flaw in his arguments is actually deeper: he takes a two-sided view, falling into the fallacy of the excluded middle. If we posit (1) the existence of his memetic engine, and (2) its apparent propensity to self activate, then a good scientist must ask what results from self activation when a basic subsistence meme is not available or needed. In other words, what is the nature of the memetic engine's idle task (to extend his computer metaphor)? Moreover, what type of memetic idle task might be designed by a community of rational minds whose basic survival needs are being met?
We might reasonably predict that the non-subsistence meme pool would fall into a stable pattern that is self-consistent, simply for the sake of having a stable self-consistent framework upon which other social activities can be installed. I would expect it to look like a typical computer programming framework, with a great deal of intricate structure, much of which is not susceptible to trivial performance analysis.
We can even amuse ourselves by looking for other religion-software analogies. Are there any religious patterns analogous to a fixed-point combinator? Introspection? Debugging?
I agree that this probably isn't the place for religious debates, but it's plainly absurd to compare Richard Dawkins to Sarah Palin (presumably) with regard to the substance of his arguments, or to imply that he has not added anything worthwhile to this debate.
[deleted]
[deleted]
According to the mimetic theory by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard there is a social benefit of religion - it is a much more direct explanation of religion and thus more convincing than this virus theory. It is not less condemning, at least for all 'sacrificial' religions - but in a nuanced way - it says that we could not have a civilisation without it even if they are rather problematic for our contemporary morality.
A rather accurate explanation of exploit code for a biologist/geneticist I must say...
Indeed countermeasures to the section about "immunization" was the reason the Morris worm spread so far so fast.
Indeed countermeasures to the section about "immunization" was the reason the Morris worm spread so far so fast.
What online sources would each of you recommend as better articles on the meme concept and the strengths and weaknesses of that concept?
Is Facebook a brain virus or meme ?
The entire "field" of memetics is a form of pseudoscience, without clear presuppositions, by the way, Dawkins is a die hard fan of bogus scientific definition: http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/extended_phenotype_...
In Denmark where I live there is little belief in God and religion isn't that important for people - - this hasn't been done by attacking religion, or presenting religion as a virus, but by educating people better. Denmark is filled with churches, but almost nobody visits them regularly.