Are religions evolving?

6th February 2003, 10:38 AM

Recently I had a conversation with very religious christian person about evolution. He believes that the laws of evolution are absurd. To me the laws of evolution appear perfectly logical. So later while driving home, thinking over the conversation, I came to a sudden conclusion that the laws of evolution can be applied to the history of the christian religion.

I was thinking of mutation, gradual increase of complexity, isolation of parts of a population, creation of subspecies and gradually of different species, competition between different species etc.

I think all the above can be applied to christianity. Now I don’t claim to be an expert on the history of christianity but I think it goes like this. It starts at the SE of Mediterranean sea countries around 1AC, expansion over Europe and Africa and later to the other continents up to today. All this time there was constant and complex differentiation in the various doctrines and rituals, new sects, different books and clothes. Competition against other religions and gradually between the various “subspecies” of christianity. Today there are 3 major subspecies (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants) and numerous minor.

For me the laws of evolution apply clearly to the “evolution” of Christianity and probably to most other popular religions. Why can’t they be correct for the Human species?

I find many of the regulars of these forums to be most well informed and I would appreciate your opinions on this.

(English is not my mother tongue so I apologize in advance for any mistakes )

arcticpenguin · 6th February 2003, 10:56 AM

You may draw an analogy if you like, but religion and other mental constructs do not 'replicate' in the way that organisms do and thus are not subject to quite the same natural selection.

Skeptical Greg · 6th February 2003, 11:23 AM

I would have started by asking: " So, what are the 'laws' of evolution?".

6th February 2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
You may draw an analogy if you like, but religion and other mental constructs do not 'replicate' in the way that organisms do and thus are not subject to quite the same natural selection.

Actually I have thought about this point and I think the religions closely resemble the biological viruses. The doctrine/virus is not alive but it is a "set of commands” that when inserted to the alive person/cell changes the way the later operates. Usually the most basic command is to start reproducing the “set of command” and to start infecting other human/cells or the doctrine/virus will “die out”.

Mutation works pretty much the same on both. One way of mutation is small random changes during the replication of the “set of commands” leading to small differences. The other major way is the recombination of ideas/genes between different species (viruses are usually strains not species in english I think but is will use species) of doctrines/viruses in large chunks leading to big overnight changes.

Also an interesting point is that both “set of commands” have the effect of protection against infection by other species. That is when a cell is infects by an A species of virus it is very difficult for B species of virus to infect and affect the cell.

Well the above info maybe hard to grasp for people not very well informed into biology but this is in brief how evolution works for biological viruses.

I hope this clears my point of view. I think the analogy works very well in this way.

arcticpenguin · 6th February 2003, 11:36 AM

If you are not aware of the concept of "memes" and "memetics" you might enjoy reading up on it. I believe the word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins, who refers to religion as a 'mind virus'.

6th February 2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
If you are not aware of the concept of "memes" and "memetics" you might enjoy reading up on it. I believe the word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins, who refers to religion as a 'mind virus'.

Thanks arcticpenguin. I am new this kind of conversations and have still lots of catching up to do.

(Damn I was hoping this was an original idea)

arcticpenguin · 6th February 2003, 11:52 AM

I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme".

Franko · 6th February 2003, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Are religions evolving?

Yes.

But in the same way that new, better adapted species cause old species to go extinct, new, more evolved, better religions will trigger older ones to go extinct.

In fact, the clock on the Religion of A-Theism ran out just a relative moment ago ...

Franko · 6th February 2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme".

Despite the fact that Dawkins coined the term “meme” he is still a moron who couldn’t distinguish between his own ass and a hole in the ground if his very existence depended on it.

Blind watchmaker! Yeah … like when I find a watch lying on the ground I assume that it randomly assembled itself. Wouldn’t that be the reasonable conclusion of any “rational” A-Theist?

Dub · 6th February 2003, 12:17 PM

The Meme Machine is also a good book on the subject.

Franko · 6th February 2003, 12:20 PM

Quote:

The Meme Machine is also a good book on the subject.

Blackmore ... so close ... yet so far away.

That idiot Dawkins (Her Master) will drag Her Soul right back down to the Abyss with his.

6th February 2003, 12:34 PM

I have read about the watchmaker and blind watchmaker debate
(although i didnt know Richard Dawkins who seem to be involved in both

)

I think the problem of the watch in the desert is solved as far as evolution of living organisms is concerned. About watches I dont have much experience but a logical question is this:

"Did you ding the desert sand to see if there are less complex and well constructed watches in the lower layers of it?"

Franko · 6th February 2003, 12:50 PM

Quote:

I have read about the watchmaker and blind watchmaker debate
(although i didnt know Richard Dawkins who seem to be involved in both

Dawkins wrote a book called the “The Blind Watchmaker”. In it he concludes (like a good devoted A-Theist) that if you have a giant robot computer which is capable of “randomly” assembling machines, and then some of those “randomly assembled” machines develop a property called “consciousness” or “life”, it is only reasonable to assume that the giant robot computer magically appeared out of no where, and that no one should ever consider the possibility that the giant robot computer could possibly be more conscious then the little pathetic random machines that it created.

Quote:

"Did you ding the desert sand to see if there are less complex and well constructed watches in the lower layers of it?"

Sure, and obviously there are.

Forget Universes, just look at living creatures … wouldn’t you say that there is evidence that life has evolved into more complex forms over Time? Isn’t human civilization more complex (more interdependent, more complexly organized) than Trilobite “civilization”?

In the same way, the Universe that existed before the Big Bang was less complex (less evolved) than this Universe.

c4ts · 6th February 2003, 01:02 PM

Christianity does appear to spawn mutations that try to kill each other off, but any religion appears to be an evolutionary success if it still survives today. Also, it may be more of a cultural evolution than a religious one, since I can't think of any examples of where a religion was actually eliminated without the rest of a culture with it.

6th February 2003, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
Also, it may be more of a cultural evolution than a religious one, since I can't think of any examples of where a religion was actually eliminated without the rest of a culture with it.

I seem to agree. The way I think it culture may be the full "set of commands" and religion a big chunk of this set.

Franko · 6th February 2003, 01:19 PM

Quote:

I seem to agree. The way I think it culture may be the full "set of commands" and religion a big chunk of this set.

So are you claiming that Reality (the Universe) is like a big Deterministic computer program? (set of commands)

arcticpenguin · 6th February 2003, 01:24 PM

I've also seen discussion of how some modes of thought, like some religions, protect themselves by

1) emphasizing that spereading the mode of thought is a good thing.

2) stressing that competing modes of thought are bad, e.g. any ideas incompatible with a certain religion are 'false gods' or 'temptations of the devil'.

I can't remember where I first read about this stuff, perhaps in Dawkins. Another excellent book is Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett.

6th February 2003, 01:38 PM

Searching Memes in Google I found this page :

http://www.memecentral.com/books.htm

I think all the books you guys have named this far are in there.

Now is the big problem.... what to choose

arcticpenguin · 6th February 2003, 01:39 PM

I would start with The Selfish Gene. Like I say, it's considered a classic. Most of it is about biological evolution, and it is exceptionally well-written.

DanishDynamite · 6th February 2003, 02:19 PM

arcticpenguin:

Quote:

I would start with The Selfish Gene. Like I say, it's considered a classic. Most of it is about biological evolution, and it is exceptionally well-written.

It is indeed well written and quite enlightening. Its been years since I read it though, and I don't have a copy with me at the moment. This may explain why I don't quite understand your opposition to "memes" being subject to evolution. It seems to me that there are many similarities:

1. A meme will die out unless it is transferred to new generations.

2. If a meme is seriously detrimental to a host's survivability chances or the host's chances of passing on the meme to viable offspring, it will also tend to die out.

3. When the external environment changes or, equivalently, society changes, memes which have mutated to a degree that they better fit the new environment, are more likely to be passed on to new generations.

Your opinion?

arcticpenguin · 6th February 2003, 04:11 PM

It is an analogy, and it can be stretched too far.

Memes are not passed down through Mendelian inheritance. Thus they can spread wide in a single host generation if they are sufficiently virulent.

It is possible to hold several contradictory memes in your brain at the same time.

It is possible to go back to the original meme after many cycles of mutation by going back to the original written sources.

etc, etc, etc

BTW, whether "memology" is legitimate science has been questioned. While the conept of memes seems to make sense to us, is it really falsifiable?

Dub · 6th February 2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko

Dawkins wrote a book called the “The Blind Watchmaker”. In it he concludes (like a good devoted A-Theist) that if you have a giant robot computer which is capable of “randomly” assembling machines, and then some of those “randomly assembled” machines develop a property called “consciousness” or “life”, it is only reasonable to assume that the giant robot computer magically appeared out of no where, and that no one should ever consider the possibility that the giant robot computer could possibly be more conscious then the little pathetic random machines that it created.

You obvioulsy havent read anymore than the back cover and title of 'The Blind Watchmaker', or if you have you've totally mis-understood it. Firstly, consciousness and life are 2 very different concepts. It isnt assumed the the 'robot computer' magically appeared. Dawkins explains how the 'computer', as you refer to it, was the product of a mixture of various elements that were present on the young Earth. These 'young Earth' conditions (hydrogen, water, carbon dixoide, ammonia, methane) have been re-created in labs. In this lab created 'atmosphere' were passed electric sparks, to simulate lightning, and ultraviolet light, to simulate the suns power rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In these experiments, simple organic molecules spontaneously appeared in the same general types are normally only found in living beings. The organic molecules that appeared are the building blocks of RNA and DNA.

You mock this idea, yet you have no troubles believing that a God being magically appeared and decided to create a universe for fun.

6th February 2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
It is an analogy, and it can be stretched too far.

BTW, whether "memology" is legitimate science has been questioned. While the conept of memes seems to make sense to us, is it really falsifiable?

I still don't know much about "memelogy" theory. As I understand it is about all mental constructs, not only religion, but on the same lines.

So just keeping to my idea is it also non falsifiable?

I understand that as in any analogy things compared have similar qualities enough to make them comparably similar but not identical.

What I don't understand is why the theory of "viral evolution" is considered falsifiable and thus scientific while my "religious evolution (all rights reserved

)" non falsifiable

arcticpenguin · 6th February 2003, 06:18 PM

I know it's been questioned, but I'm not up on that line of discussion in depth, and I don't want to argue it one way or the other. But if you do some reading on the topic I'm sure you'll run into it.

http://slashdot.org/books/99/06/16/1246255.shtml

7th February 2003, 01:30 PM

One test for evolution is if a certain animal evolves to a point where they cannot mate with earlier species of their ancestory. This being the case, why not see if a Muslim can mate with a Christian or a Catholic with a born again fundie and can I watch?

7th February 2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmygun
One test for evolution is if a certain animal evolves to a point where they cannot mate with earlier species of their ancestory. This being the case, why not see if a Muslim can mate with a Christian or a Catholic with a born again fundie and can I watch?

I would love to watch this too.

Although biological viruses don't mate. At most they recombine DNA.

arcticpenguin · 7th February 2003, 03:51 PM

Here's a thread over in the Science Forum where some of these books were discussed: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...hlight=selfish

Supercharts: "The Selfish Gene arrived from Amazon yesterday. Today I read chapters 1-3. Dawkins kicks ass."

7th February 2003, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Here's a thread over in the Science Forum where some of these books were discussed: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...hlight=selfish

Supercharts: "The Selfish Gene arrived from Amazon yesterday. Today I read chapters 1-3. Dawkins kicks ass." [/b]

Thanks articpenguin. I have decided to read the Selfish Gene and I am looking for it now. I will probably buy it from amazon

Also I have found this site:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html

which is very informative on the memetics theory and the various advances that have taken place.

It is uncanny who close the memetics theory is to what I had in mind. Looks like I have "reinvented the wheel"

edited for grammar

7th February 2003, 04:21 PM

A piece found in page http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMGEN.html

For example, priests in many religions are prohibited to marry and to have children, in striking disagreement with genetic injunctions. Yet we can easily imagine that the religious meme of celibacy would have been selected because unmarried priests can spend more time and energy on "spreading the word", and hence replicating the meme.

An even more vivid example of countergenetic behavior, closely related to the issue of altruism, is that of martyrs, suicide teams, or kamikaze pilots, who are willing to give up their life in order to promote the spread of a meme: a religion, an ideology or a nation (i.e. a group defined by a common culture or ideology). In that case, the loss of one or a few carriers is compensated by the increased chances of survival for the other carriers or for the meme itself. For example, the suicide of an individual may attract the attention of other individuals to the meme he is carrying, and thus facilitate its spreading. A well-known example is Jan Palach, the Czech student who put himself to fire in order to protest the Soviet suppression of the "Prague Spring". In this case the meme would be the Czech version of "socialism with a human face".

* Pouli speechless

Peskanov · 9th February 2003, 07:29 AM

I was talking about religion evolution a few time ago. A girl was supporting that view, and I got really confused. After all, women are the most afected by our terrible jew/christian monolitic society.
If I remenber correctly, most pre-christian religions in mediterranean countries had godess and priestess. In my mother's land, witches burning is not too far in time.The goddess Mari was worshiped there...
Christianism has relegated women to the less relevant socity positions for hundreds of years; is this evolution?
If it is, I really think is a case of "regressive evolution"...

9th February 2003, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme".

I have read some of Richard Dawkins philosophy, and I seriously dont understand why a person your age doesnt see the flawed arguments he have...

His reasons for being an atheist is "People are evil and they claim to be religious, therefore all religions are evil (Not recognizing maybe it is the people who is evil, and not the title they carry.)"...

He quotes about other religion's cutting off man's genetalia and ruining their sex life (then dont join that religion.), etc. etc.

THEN SAYING BECAUSE OF ALL THESE, GOD DONT EXIST....The same whining we get from ignorant teenagers, God dont exist because my life sucks.......
-------------------------------------------

To me, he is nothing but another cult creating his own religion. I have to agree some of his writings are compelling (SOME), but his reasons for being an atheist is a joke.....

Hazelip · 9th February 2003, 08:28 AM

Still waiting for that perfect moment to unleash your irrefutable proof of god's existence, mm?

bonster · 9th February 2003, 09:00 AM

Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock investigates creationism and evolution by comparing biological evolution to the changes in languages. It's an interesting analogy. The Bible, of course, suggests that the diverse languages were created by god after people tried to create the Tower of Babel. Linguists have found connections between languages that show how many (most?) languages share a common root language which is no longer spoken by anyone.

It's been a few years since I've read it, so my recollection isn't good enough to give too many details.

Another interesting thing to observe is how the tactics of creationists change. The courts act as a slection process. Good legal agruments (the scientific arguments are ridiculous) tend to spread. We can see biblical literalism gradually change into intelligent design in a process similar to evolution.

Grafight · 29th March 2007, 02:20 AM

A set of memes, or memeplex, can include any number of memes or cultural units. Memes also can be of varied complexity.

A particular set of beliefs pertaining to a religious species has been considered a memeplex containing highly virulent memes.

As an example, Catholics and Protestants are separate species because accepting the meme of the "Holy Trinity" would disqualify a believer as a Protestant. Since the definition of Protestant is accepting Protestant memes, that implies rejecting those mutually exclusive Catholic ones. Are there shared memes between the two species? Certainly there are, but the memeplexes as whole unbreakable units are incompatible.

Cultural units grow, spread and evolve in an organic way simply because they have an organic origin. The gene and virus analogies become valid at many levels, as we extend the simile and its aplications. Also the analogies become useful in unveiling some mysteries in human behavior and brain mechanics.

Those who base their behavior on reason find hard to understand the mind of the supersticious. How is it possible for someone to create a ficticious set of memes and soon after accept them as true? How can people ignore the reality which makes itself evident through the senses every moment? The answer may lay in the infectious, virulent nature of memes, and their tendency to self-preserve and adapt.

Thats why today we can see men and women of science who scoff at aboriginal medicine men, witchcraft and horoscopes and yet they proffess to believe in Jesus.

6th February 2003, 10:38 AM	#1
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Are religions evolving? Recently I had a conversation with very religious christian person about evolution. He believes that the laws of evolution are absurd. To me the laws of evolution appear perfectly logical. So later while driving home, thinking over the conversation, I came to a sudden conclusion that the laws of evolution can be applied to the history of the christian religion. I was thinking of mutation, gradual increase of complexity, isolation of parts of a population, creation of subspecies and gradually of different species, competition between different species etc. I think all the above can be applied to christianity. Now I don’t claim to be an expert on the history of christianity but I think it goes like this. It starts at the SE of Mediterranean sea countries around 1AC, expansion over Europe and Africa and later to the other continents up to today. All this time there was constant and complex differentiation in the various doctrines and rituals, new sects, different books and clothes. Competition against other religions and gradually between the various “subspecies” of christianity. Today there are 3 major subspecies (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants) and numerous minor. For me the laws of evolution apply clearly to the “evolution” of Christianity and probably to most other popular religions. Why can’t they be correct for the Human species? I find many of the regulars of these forums to be most well informed and I would appreciate your opinions on this. (English is not my mother tongue so I apologize in advance for any mistakes )
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 10:56 AM	#2
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	You may draw an analogy if you like, but religion and other mental constructs do not 'replicate' in the way that organisms do and thus are not subject to quite the same natural selection.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

6th February 2003, 11:23 AM	#3
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	I would have started by asking: " So, what are the 'laws' of evolution?".
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

6th February 2003, 11:27 AM	#4
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by arcticpenguin You may draw an analogy if you like, but religion and other mental constructs do not 'replicate' in the way that organisms do and thus are not subject to quite the same natural selection. Actually I have thought about this point and I think the religions closely resemble the biological viruses. The doctrine/virus is not alive but it is a "set of commands” that when inserted to the alive person/cell changes the way the later operates. Usually the most basic command is to start reproducing the “set of command” and to start infecting other human/cells or the doctrine/virus will “die out”. Mutation works pretty much the same on both. One way of mutation is small random changes during the replication of the “set of commands” leading to small differences. The other major way is the recombination of ideas/genes between different species (viruses are usually strains not species in english I think but is will use species) of doctrines/viruses in large chunks leading to big overnight changes. Also an interesting point is that both “set of commands” have the effect of protection against infection by other species. That is when a cell is infects by an A species of virus it is very difficult for B species of virus to infect and affect the cell. Well the above info maybe hard to grasp for people not very well informed into biology but this is in brief how evolution works for biological viruses. I hope this clears my point of view. I think the analogy works very well in this way.
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 11:36 AM	#5
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	If you are not aware of the concept of "memes" and "memetics" you might enjoy reading up on it. I believe the word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins, who refers to religion as a 'mind virus'.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

6th February 2003, 11:45 AM	#6
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by arcticpenguin If you are not aware of the concept of "memes" and "memetics" you might enjoy reading up on it. I believe the word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins, who refers to religion as a 'mind virus'. Thanks arcticpenguin. I am new this kind of conversations and have still lots of catching up to do. (Damn I was hoping this was an original idea)
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 11:52 AM	#7
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme".
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

6th February 2003, 12:12 PM	#8
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: Are religions evolving? Yes. But in the same way that new, better adapted species cause old species to go extinct, new, more evolved, better religions will trigger older ones to go extinct. In fact, the clock on the Religion of A-Theism ran out just a relative moment ago ...
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

6th February 2003, 12:15 PM	#9
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme". Despite the fact that Dawkins coined the term “meme” he is still a moron who couldn’t distinguish between his own ass and a hole in the ground if his very existence depended on it. Blind watchmaker! Yeah … like when I find a watch lying on the ground I assume that it randomly assembled itself. Wouldn’t that be the reasonable conclusion of any “rational” A-Theist?
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

6th February 2003, 12:17 PM	#10
Dub Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 247	The Meme Machine is also a good book on the subject.
Dub Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 247	__________________ "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." Sir Winston Churchill "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins "Our ignorance is God; what we know is science." Robert Ingersoll "The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." Richard Dawkins "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $1 million reward of James Randi is safe." Richard Dawkins

6th February 2003, 12:20 PM	#11
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: The Meme Machine is also a good book on the subject. Blackmore ... so close ... yet so far away. That idiot Dawkins (Her Master) will drag Her Soul right back down to the Abyss with his.
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

6th February 2003, 12:34 PM	#12
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	I have read about the watchmaker and blind watchmaker debate (although i didnt know Richard Dawkins who seem to be involved in both ) I think the problem of the watch in the desert is solved as far as evolution of living organisms is concerned. About watches I dont have much experience but a logical question is this: "Did you ding the desert sand to see if there are less complex and well constructed watches in the lower layers of it?"
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 12:50 PM	#13
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: I have read about the watchmaker and blind watchmaker debate (although i didnt know Richard Dawkins who seem to be involved in both Dawkins wrote a book called the “The Blind Watchmaker”. In it he concludes (like a good devoted A-Theist) that if you have a giant robot computer which is capable of “randomly” assembling machines, and then some of those “randomly assembled” machines develop a property called “consciousness” or “life”, it is only reasonable to assume that the giant robot computer magically appeared out of no where, and that no one should ever consider the possibility that the giant robot computer could possibly be more conscious then the little pathetic random machines that it created. Quote: "Did you ding the desert sand to see if there are less complex and well constructed watches in the lower layers of it?" Sure, and obviously there are. Forget Universes, just look at living creatures … wouldn’t you say that there is evidence that life has evolved into more complex forms over Time? Isn’t human civilization more complex (more interdependent, more complexly organized) than Trilobite “civilization”? In the same way, the Universe that existed before the Big Bang was less complex (less evolved) than this Universe.
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

6th February 2003, 01:02 PM	#14
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Christianity does appear to spawn mutations that try to kill each other off, but any religion appears to be an evolutionary success if it still survives today. Also, it may be more of a cultural evolution than a religious one, since I can't think of any examples of where a religion was actually eliminated without the rest of a culture with it.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

6th February 2003, 01:17 PM	#15
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts Also, it may be more of a cultural evolution than a religious one, since I can't think of any examples of where a religion was actually eliminated without the rest of a culture with it. I seem to agree. The way I think it culture may be the full "set of commands" and religion a big chunk of this set.
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 01:19 PM	#16
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: I seem to agree. The way I think it culture may be the full "set of commands" and religion a big chunk of this set. So are you claiming that Reality (the Universe) is like a big Deterministic computer program? (set of commands)
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

6th February 2003, 01:24 PM	#17
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	I've also seen discussion of how some modes of thought, like some religions, protect themselves by 1) emphasizing that spereading the mode of thought is a good thing. 2) stressing that competing modes of thought are bad, e.g. any ideas incompatible with a certain religion are 'false gods' or 'temptations of the devil'. I can't remember where I first read about this stuff, perhaps in Dawkins. Another excellent book is Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

6th February 2003, 01:38 PM	#18
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Searching Memes in Google I found this page : http://www.memecentral.com/books.htm I think all the books you guys have named this far are in there. Now is the big problem.... what to choose
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 01:39 PM	#19
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	I would start with The Selfish Gene. Like I say, it's considered a classic. Most of it is about biological evolution, and it is exceptionally well-written.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

6th February 2003, 02:19 PM	#20
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	arcticpenguin: Quote: I would start with The Selfish Gene. Like I say, it's considered a classic. Most of it is about biological evolution, and it is exceptionally well-written. It is indeed well written and quite enlightening. Its been years since I read it though, and I don't have a copy with me at the moment. This may explain why I don't quite understand your opposition to "memes" being subject to evolution. It seems to me that there are many similarities: 1. A meme will die out unless it is transferred to new generations. 2. If a meme is seriously detrimental to a host's survivability chances or the host's chances of passing on the meme to viable offspring, it will also tend to die out. 3. When the external environment changes or, equivalently, society changes, memes which have mutated to a degree that they better fit the new environment, are more likely to be passed on to new generations. Your opinion?

6th February 2003, 04:11 PM	#21
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	It is an analogy, and it can be stretched too far. Memes are not passed down through Mendelian inheritance. Thus they can spread wide in a single host generation if they are sufficiently virulent. It is possible to hold several contradictory memes in your brain at the same time. It is possible to go back to the original meme after many cycles of mutation by going back to the original written sources. etc, etc, etc BTW, whether "memology" is legitimate science has been questioned. While the conept of memes seems to make sense to us, is it really falsifiable?
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

6th February 2003, 05:08 PM	#22
Dub Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 247	Quote: Originally posted by Franko Dawkins wrote a book called the “The Blind Watchmaker”. In it he concludes (like a good devoted A-Theist) that if you have a giant robot computer which is capable of “randomly” assembling machines, and then some of those “randomly assembled” machines develop a property called “consciousness” or “life”, it is only reasonable to assume that the giant robot computer magically appeared out of no where, and that no one should ever consider the possibility that the giant robot computer could possibly be more conscious then the little pathetic random machines that it created. You obvioulsy havent read anymore than the back cover and title of 'The Blind Watchmaker', or if you have you've totally mis-understood it. Firstly, consciousness and life are 2 very different concepts. It isnt assumed the the 'robot computer' magically appeared. Dawkins explains how the 'computer', as you refer to it, was the product of a mixture of various elements that were present on the young Earth. These 'young Earth' conditions (hydrogen, water, carbon dixoide, ammonia, methane) have been re-created in labs. In this lab created 'atmosphere' were passed electric sparks, to simulate lightning, and ultraviolet light, to simulate the suns power rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In these experiments, simple organic molecules spontaneously appeared in the same general types are normally only found in living beings. The organic molecules that appeared are the building blocks of RNA and DNA. You mock this idea, yet you have no troubles believing that a God being magically appeared and decided to create a universe for fun.
Dub Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 247	__________________ "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." Sir Winston Churchill "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins "Our ignorance is God; what we know is science." Robert Ingersoll "The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." Richard Dawkins "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $1 million reward of James Randi is safe." Richard Dawkins

6th February 2003, 06:09 PM	#23
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by arcticpenguin It is an analogy, and it can be stretched too far. BTW, whether "memology" is legitimate science has been questioned. While the conept of memes seems to make sense to us, is it really falsifiable? I still don't know much about "memelogy" theory. As I understand it is about all mental constructs, not only religion, but on the same lines. So just keeping to my idea is it also non falsifiable? I understand that as in any analogy things compared have similar qualities enough to make them comparably similar but not identical. What I don't understand is why the theory of "viral evolution" is considered falsifiable and thus scientific while my "religious evolution (all rights reserved )" non falsifiable
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 06:18 PM	#24
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	I know it's been questioned, but I'm not up on that line of discussion in depth, and I don't want to argue it one way or the other. But if you do some reading on the topic I'm sure you'll run into it. http://slashdot.org/books/99/06/16/1246255.shtml
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

7th February 2003, 01:30 PM	#25
Guest Posts: n/a	One test for evolution is if a certain animal evolves to a point where they cannot mate with earlier species of their ancestory. This being the case, why not see if a Muslim can mate with a Christian or a Catholic with a born again fundie and can I watch?
Guest Posts: n/a

7th February 2003, 03:44 PM	#26
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by jimmygun One test for evolution is if a certain animal evolves to a point where they cannot mate with earlier species of their ancestory. This being the case, why not see if a Muslim can mate with a Christian or a Catholic with a born again fundie and can I watch? I would love to watch this too. Although biological viruses don't mate. At most they recombine DNA.
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

7th February 2003, 03:51 PM	#27
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	Here's a thread over in the Science Forum where some of these books were discussed: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...hlight=selfish Supercharts: "The Selfish Gene arrived from Amazon yesterday. Today I read chapters 1-3. Dawkins kicks ass."
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

7th February 2003, 04:07 PM	#28
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by arcticpenguin Here's a thread over in the Science Forum where some of these books were discussed: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...hlight=selfish Supercharts: "The Selfish Gene arrived from Amazon yesterday. Today I read chapters 1-3. Dawkins kicks ass." [/b] Thanks articpenguin. I have decided to read the Selfish Gene and I am looking for it now. I will probably buy it from amazon Also I have found this site: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html which is very informative on the memetics theory and the various advances that have taken place. It is uncanny who close the memetics theory is to what I had in mind. Looks like I have "reinvented the wheel" edited for grammar
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

7th February 2003, 04:21 PM	#29
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a	A piece found in page http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMGEN.html For example, priests in many religions are prohibited to marry and to have children, in striking disagreement with genetic injunctions. Yet we can easily imagine that the religious meme of celibacy would have been selected because unmarried priests can spend more time and energy on "spreading the word", and hence replicating the meme. An even more vivid example of countergenetic behavior, closely related to the issue of altruism, is that of martyrs, suicide teams, or kamikaze pilots, who are willing to give up their life in order to promote the spread of a meme: a religion, an ideology or a nation (i.e. a group defined by a common culture or ideology). In that case, the loss of one or a few carriers is compensated by the increased chances of survival for the other carriers or for the meme itself. For example, the suicide of an individual may attract the attention of other individuals to the meme he is carrying, and thus facilitate its spreading. A well-known example is Jan Palach, the Czech student who put himself to fire in order to protest the Soviet suppression of the "Prague Spring". In this case the meme would be the Czech version of "socialism with a human face". * Pouli speechless
Pouli Guest Posts: n/a

9th February 2003, 07:29 AM	#30
Peskanov Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 497	I was talking about religion evolution a few time ago. A girl was supporting that view, and I got really confused. After all, women are the most afected by our terrible jew/christian monolitic society. If I remenber correctly, most pre-christian religions in mediterranean countries had godess and priestess. In my mother's land, witches burning is not too far in time.The goddess Mari was worshiped there... Christianism has relegated women to the less relevant socity positions for hundreds of years; is this evolution? If it is, I really think is a case of "regressive evolution"...
Peskanov Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 497

9th February 2003, 08:26 AM	#31
muscleman Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by arcticpenguin I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme". I have read some of Richard Dawkins philosophy, and I seriously dont understand why a person your age doesnt see the flawed arguments he have... His reasons for being an atheist is "People are evil and they claim to be religious, therefore all religions are evil (Not recognizing maybe it is the people who is evil, and not the title they carry.)"... He quotes about other religion's cutting off man's genetalia and ruining their sex life (then dont join that religion.), etc. etc. THEN SAYING BECAUSE OF ALL THESE, GOD DONT EXIST....The same whining we get from ignorant teenagers, God dont exist because my life sucks....... ------------------------------------------- To me, he is nothing but another cult creating his own religion. I have to agree some of his writings are compelling (SOME), but his reasons for being an atheist is a joke.....
muscleman Guest Posts: n/a

9th February 2003, 08:28 AM	#32
Hazelip Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 497	Still waiting for that perfect moment to unleash your irrefutable proof of god's existence, mm?
Hazelip Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 497

9th February 2003, 09:00 AM	#33
bonster New Blood Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 9	Another worthwhile book Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock investigates creationism and evolution by comparing biological evolution to the changes in languages. It's an interesting analogy. The Bible, of course, suggests that the diverse languages were created by god after people tried to create the Tower of Babel. Linguists have found connections between languages that show how many (most?) languages share a common root language which is no longer spoken by anyone. It's been a few years since I've read it, so my recollection isn't good enough to give too many details. Another interesting thing to observe is how the tactics of creationists change. The courts act as a slection process. Good legal agruments (the scientific arguments are ridiculous) tend to spread. We can see biblical literalism gradually change into intelligent design in a process similar to evolution.
bonster New Blood Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 9	__________________ Eskimo: If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell? Priest: No. Not if you did not know. Eskimo: Then why did you tell me? Annie Dillard

29th March 2007, 02:20 AM	#34
Grafight New Blood Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 12	Religions as Memeplexes A set of memes, or memeplex, can include any number of memes or cultural units. Memes also can be of varied complexity. A particular set of beliefs pertaining to a religious species has been considered a memeplex containing highly virulent memes. As an example, Catholics and Protestants are separate species because accepting the meme of the "Holy Trinity" would disqualify a believer as a Protestant. Since the definition of Protestant is accepting Protestant memes, that implies rejecting those mutually exclusive Catholic ones. Are there shared memes between the two species? Certainly there are, but the memeplexes as whole unbreakable units are incompatible. Cultural units grow, spread and evolve in an organic way simply because they have an organic origin. The gene and virus analogies become valid at many levels, as we extend the simile and its aplications. Also the analogies become useful in unveiling some mysteries in human behavior and brain mechanics. Those who base their behavior on reason find hard to understand the mind of the supersticious. How is it possible for someone to create a ficticious set of memes and soon after accept them as true? How can people ignore the reality which makes itself evident through the senses every moment? The answer may lay in the infectious, virulent nature of memes, and their tendency to self-preserve and adapt. Thats why today we can see men and women of science who scoff at aboriginal medicine men, witchcraft and horoscopes and yet they proffess to believe in Jesus.
Grafight New Blood Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 12