Religion as a Meme

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

perhaps we didn't read the same text?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...48044?v=glance

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
I am curious, while I am not very deeply versed in Taoist thought, I have read a few pieces, enough to intrigue me. Time has limited my exposure, but I would love to one day read the works of Lao Tzu. However, one of the works I have read just a few months ago was the Tao of Physics, and I sincerely do not recall Fritjof Capra being associated with that work. By chance was this an endorsement of the author (his name escapes me at this moment) or something similar in a particular edition. The quote is a nice sentiment, and I believe Arthur Clarke said something similar as well; (paraphrased) "science to an insufficiently developed society is indistinguishable from magic."

There was one more question I had posted earlier, which I would like to ask again in order to better clarify my understanding of the subject of memes: "If thought patterns (the precursor necessary to my understanding of "meme") are somewhat "hard wired" and/or otherwise inevitable, then perhaps humans are predisposed to some type of systematic belief? Not that that "belief" cannot be changed, but that some form of belief system is required for sanity, if no other reason?...In other words, are memes the philosophical manipulation of the psychological predisposition?"

I appreciate your responses, and I would be interested in your view towards this to further my understanding of the subject of memes.

this is a good question in my opinion. due to my own tradition, i do not see thought patterns or even behaviors as "hard wired" which tends to imply, to me at least, that they are fixed pathways or actions that produce the same response when activated.

in any case.. it seems to be that Susan Blackmore as posited memes as a psychological virus... so though it has appliabiliy with regards to philosophy, i do not believe that we can say that they are a philosophical mode of information exchange.

meme: [coined on analogy with `gene' by Richard Dawkins] n. An idea considered as a {replicator}, esp. with the connotation that memes parasitize people into propagating them much as viruses do. Used esp. in the phrase `meme complex' denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organized belief system, such as a religion. This lexicon is an (epidemiological) vector of the `hacker subculture' meme complex; each entry might be considered a meme. However, `meme' is often misused to mean `meme complex'. Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans (and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts) cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has superseded biological evolution by selection of hereditary traits.

if you have a real interest in this subject, i would encourage you to check out this site:

http://www.memecentral.com/

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Juan,

perhaps we didn't read the same text?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...48044?v=glance

I stand corrected. You have my most humble, red-faced apology. I dug out my old copy, and sure enough...

What do you think of David Suzuki's writings? His are some others I am considering in the near future.

this is a good question in my opinion. due to my own tradition, i do not see thought patterns or even behaviors as "hard wired" which tends to imply, to me at least, that they are fixed pathways or actions that produce the same response when activated.

in any case.. it seems to be that Susan Blackmore as posited memes as a psychological virus... so though it has appliabiliy with regards to philosophy, i do not believe that we can say that they are a philosophical mode of information exchange.

meme: [coined on analogy with `gene' by Richard Dawkins] n. An idea considered as a {replicator}, esp. with the connotation that memes parasitize people into propagating them much as viruses do. Used esp. in the phrase `meme complex' denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organized belief system, such as a religion. This lexicon is an (epidemiological) vector of the `hacker subculture' meme complex; each entry might be considered a meme. However, `meme' is often misused to mean `meme complex'. Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans (and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts) cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has superseded biological evolution by selection of hereditary traits.

if you have a real interest in this subject, i would encourage you to check out this site:

http://www.memecentral.com/

Thank you for the clarification. I will look deeper into the subject when I get an opportunity (hopefully soon).

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara! I took some time to look at the site you suggested, here are a few quotes I pulled away immediately, with my observations.

"All of these are viruses. Not computer viruses, but MIND viruses. These messages all have one thing in common: they contain compelling messages, or memes, that grab our attention and persuade us to pass them on. These memes play on our fear of loss, or embarrassment, or appeal to us with promises of sex or money or good luck. Some of messages make us feel good about ourselves because we believe that by passing on a plea for help or signing a petition, we're doing a good deed.

"... The message spreads explosively as we and many others help it reproduce. The information in the message -- whether true or false, useful or not -- becomes widespread, infecting many people.

"Most of these viruses of the mind are spread because they are intriguing or frightening or inspiring, and not necessarily because they're true. That's the problem."

-Internet Virus Antidote, http://www.memecentral.com/antidote.htm

"Isn't memetics just a fancy name for _________ (fill in the blank with "cultural evolution", "behavioral psychology", "sociobiology", or anything else)? Why is this anything new?

The breakthrough in memetics is in extending Darwinian evolution to culture. There are several exciting conclusions from doing that, one of which is the ability to predict that ideas will spread not because they are "good ideas", but because they contain "good memes" such as danger, food and sex that push our evolutionary buttons and force us to pay attention to them."

-Memetics FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), http://www.memecentral.com/#faq

I found this intriguing in that it seems to correspond directly with advertising psychology, a subject I did spend a little research time with. On a personal note, I think Darwinian "evolution" gets overused in application far afield from its primary source, I suspect in order to render credence to a particular subject such as this.

Back to advertising psychology. I looked into a gentleman named John B. Watson, considered the founder of advertising psychology, most of my research came from the University of Texas at Austin Advertising Psychology department research website. If you would indulge me in a brief excerpt from my paper;

"In the simplicity of Freudian terms, it would seem our baser instincts contained within the ID are coddled and cultured (by advertising), even nurtured and fertilized. Abnormally so. Granted, the Super-Ego would (or should) temper and restrain such. But the Super-Ego is generally not the stronger muscle in the modern ... archetype of civilization. And advertising thrives on stroking our baser instincts.

"John Broadus Watson was an early pioneer in the fledgling field of advertising psychology. He was born in South Carolina in 1878. In 1908, he was installed at Johns Hopkins University as one of the first professors of psychology at that institution. John B. Watson was a significant founder of the behaviorism branch of psychological study, rejecting Freud and instead basing his efforts on the works of Ivan Pavlov and his famous animal experiments. To Watson, humans were simply another form of animal, and all animals were “hard wired” to do the things they did. The trick was to be able to control what those hard wired reactions would be, and so control the animal.
"In very simplistic terms, this is the foundation upon which the modern advertising methods were built.
"After his term with the University (which ended in 1920), the advertising firm J. Walter Thompson inducted Watson’s services. By 1924, he was vice president at that company. It was here that he developed methods for influencing people to buy things like baby powder and toothpaste.

"The business of the advertiser or the seller is not to create fundamentally new desires. That is not necessary and really cannot be done. Man already has certain desires present from birth, which are a part of his fundamental make-up. All that a seller can do is to direct these desires in certain directions, or stimulate them to action, or show by what new ways an old desire may be satisfied." -Starch, Daniel, Principles of Advertising, 1923, Chicago, IL: A.W. Shaw Company

"John Watson discovered that human infants possess an inventory of three basic reactions-love, fear, and rage. Beyond these, environmental factors were responsible for individual habits. The job of advertising was to tap into fear, rage or love to create a psychological need. Watson also realized he needed, and therefore developed, methods of researching consumers. Variations of his models are still in use throughout the industry today."

I bring this out to denote the great similarity between Watson's "hard-wired" behaviorism school of psychology and what I saw defining the term "meme", I see a great similarity between the two, and considering Watson's innovations predate those of Dawkins, et al, I am inclined to lean towards his research. Being a business major probably also inclines my bias. It would seem then to me, that I was on the right track, if not in specifics at least in principle, concerning what I took away from the discussion previously. Have I missed anything?

Thank you for the website reference, I expect to return at some point when I can.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
I stand corrected. You have my most humble, red-faced apology. I dug out my old copy, and sure enough...

What do you think of David Suzuki's writings? His are some others I am considering in the near future.


Thank you for the clarification. I will look deeper into the subject when I get an opportunity (hopefully soon).

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.



no worries... i was hoping we were talking about the same book! i've been in a situation where i've been talking with someone about a text of the same name, however, a different translation and it was almost like they were different books.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

On a personal note, I think Darwinian "evolution" gets overused in application far afield from its primary source, I suspect in order to render credence to a particular subject such as this.

it's true that appeals to authority are common, espeically in fields that aren't what you might call "hard" science. sometimes, i think that this particular appeal is made due to the conception that most people have at least a rudimentary understanding of the theory of evolution in it's most basic forms. often, i think that people get intellectually lazy and simply use another term that doens't quite work and just sort of confuses the issue for laypersons like myself.

I bring this out to denote the great similarity between Watson's "hard-wired" behaviorism school of psychology and what I saw defining the term "meme", I see a great similarity between the two, and considering Watson's innovations predate those of Dawkins, et al, I am inclined to lean towards his research. Being a business major probably also inclines my bias. It would seem then to me, that I was on the right track, if not in specifics at least in principle, concerning what I took away from the discussion previously. Have I missed anything?

Thank you for the website reference, I expect to return at some point when I can.

well.. personally, i think that your paper presents a good western psychological understanding of the behaviors of people. naturally, as i don't ascribe to that type of philo/psychological system, i see things a bit differently.

i don't really want to get into the Buddhist philosophical stuff on this thread... however, i've started one on the Eastern Thought section, if you'd like to continue this aspect of our conversation there?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

i don't really want to get into the Buddhist philosophical stuff on this thread... however, i've started one on the Eastern Thought section, if you'd like to continue this aspect of our conversation there?

Thank you very much for the invitation! I did look throughout the Eastern Thought section, and while I saw a number of threads that might be the one you mentioned, I'm not certain which particular one you had in mind. Would you be so kind as to let me know which specific thread? Thank you in advance, juan

[Susma Rio Sep]

There is a lot of exposition on Buddhism in this thread.

And Vaj is very clear that Buddhism is not a meme like other religions. This position of Vaj is useful to draw the conclusion that for him Buddhism is a religion.

Although Vaj does not feel like dialoguing with me about Buddhism;* yet I will address this question to him and the Buddhists in this forum, maybe he might just change his mind and reply. For I do believe that I have a legitimate question. Anyway, the other Buddhists might care to reply to my question.


In the Christian religion there are doctrines which cannot be understood by the human mind, these are called mysteries.**

An example of these mysteries is the doctrine of the Trinity: three persons in one God, each person being fully God and yet the three don't make three Gods, but one God.

Another example is the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. This doctrine however is only taught in the Catholic Church.

Still another example, the doctrine of man's free will and God's omnipotence and eternity. The mystery consists in how man can be free when God is the one that is in charge of every act of man as the ultimate causal agent of all man's existence and operation.


Here is my question which should have been already clear to posters who have been following my message this far, namely:

Are there doctrines in Buddhism which are acknowledged to be mysteries by Buddhist masters themselves, or these Buddhist masters don't see any mysteries in Buddhism, or they don't have any concept of mystery as understood in the Christian religion?

If there are no mysteries in Buddhism, then I am happy for Buddhists, for they are liberated from one difficulty in Christianity, that of doctrines which must be accepted but which human reason can't make head nor tail of.

Susma Rio Sep

*Sounds like Vaj is memetic, although Buddhism is not a meme.

**There is other meanings of mystery in Christianity: it is also understood as the whole unfolding of creation, fall, and redemption; or similarly any major part in the history and development of the Christian faith, like the mysteries of the Holy Rosary.

[El Greko]

I was trying to make a point - I am sorry you got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Please don't start preaching to me being nice to people when I am being accused of being part of a faith that started every war since Cain killed Abel, on and on it goes, relentless propaganda from hell, from Satan the cause of all death and wars, who hides behind his cloak and then brainwashes the world into blaming organised religion.

Satan is the only entity who organises religion.

His emissaries preach organised religion, run organised religion.

I follow Jesus.

So could you all please direct your venom away from my Lord?

[littlemissattitude]

vajradhara...this is fascinating stuff. First of all, thanks for finally providing a definition of "meme" that makes some sense. I've run into the concept in several places, and it has always been presented in a manner that is convoluted and jargon-ridden.

First, I have a respectful question. You said that the Buddhist point of view is that "excessive attachment to any view" is a bad thing. Does this translate to the idea that a Buddhist can accept that his or her beliefs may be wrong? I only ask because most of the religious people of whatever tradition or denomination I have ever known simply cannot countenance the idea that their beliefs might possibly be wrong. I don't understand this attitude because I have always had it in mind that things I believe may very well be wrong - just because I believe something, that does not make that belief a certain truth. This may even be a stupid question, but this what your comment on excessive attachment made me think of, and made me wonder.

Also, I was fascinated by your comments on exclusivism and fundamentalism. I did research on Southern Baptists for a sociology of religion class I took a couple of years ago (I had to research one of the religious traditions in my family background, and one of my great-grandfathers was a Southern Baptist minister). I was fascinated to discover through that research that some Southern Baptist congregations won't even accept baptisms from other Southern Baptist congregations, much less baptisms from other Christian denominations. Talk about exclusivism.

I find it interesting that you bring up Richard Dawkins (who I will freely admit is not one of my favorite people). As Brian commented, Dawkins seems to be as bad as some ardent religionists in believing that he owns the whole truth. Only in his version, nonbelief in his dogma (I hate to use the term, but he is a very dogmatic thinker, in my opinion) doesn't result in banishment to eternal punishment in hell, but only brands the nonbeliever as hopelessly stupid

It is no surprise, then, that Dawkins is one of the most famous advocates of the "Brights" movement (www.the-brights.net). This is essentially an athiest movement that claims to hold a "naturalistic worldview" that is "free of supernatural and mystical elements". I don't think it is any coincidence that they chose a word - bright, a synonym for smart - to stand for their movement, considering their apparent view that anyone who professes any kind of religion isn't very bright at all. I think it is interesting that, on their website, the claim, very much like many religionists, that they are "marginalized" (their word), and feel persecuted for their beliefs. At least they admit that their belief might be a meme, although they seem to define it a bit differently (and perhaps a bit more innocuously than the definition they reserve for memes associated with what they would characterize as "supernatural" or "mystical"): a meme is "a word, idea, or behavior that spontaneously spreads through a given social group."

Which brings us to juantoo3's questions about whether or not science is a religion. I tend to believe that science is very much like a religion, if not being an actual religion in and of itself. My scientist friends mostly disagree with me, which is fine. It would be an awfully dull world if everyone agreed on everything. The point that juantoo3 makes about the boost to believers' egos by telling them they are chosen is very well illustrated by the position of the Brights. I do think that Thomas Kuhn's ideas about paradigm shifts in science also contribute to the idea that the scientific establishment operates in some ways very similarly to many religious institutions. I also believe that the general hostility of the scientific establishment to "popularizers" - those who write about science in a way that demystifies it for the layperson - mimics the world of religion in that it violates the sort of priesthood of scientists (initiates) who wish to hold to themseleves secrets they believe that nonscientists (the general public) are not equipped to fully understand and, anyway, are not really entitled to know. Goodness knows that Carl Sagan and Stepehn Jay Gould were both looked down on by their non-popularizing colleagues.

A final word about Dawkins and memes. It seems to me that Dawkins use of memes to make religion seem an artifact of humans' biolgoical existence is in the great tradition of sociobiology that reduces everything to physics and chemistry. That kind of reductionism bothers me on both logical and philosophical levels. I think this is a valid assessment of his - and those who share his beliefs - intention, based on a couple of definitions I found at memecentral.com. In the FAQs there, the answer to the question "What is a meme?" is "Memes are the basic building blocks of our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life." This sounds quite sociobiological to me. That site also holds that "The breakthrough in memetics is in extending Darwinian evolution to culture." Am I mistaken in thinking that this statement makes the assumption that culture is, at bottom, biological?

As I said, all this is very fascinating. I've always been fascinated with the interplay between science and religion. I just hope I haven't overstepped the bounds of the discussion.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Attitude writes:

First, I have a respectful question. You said that the Buddhist point of view is that "excessive attachment to any view" is a bad thing. Does this translate to the idea that a Buddhist can accept that his or her beliefs may be wrong? I only ask because most of the religious people of whatever tradition or denomination I have ever known simply cannot countenance the idea that their beliefs might possibly be wrong. I don't understand this attitude because I have always had it in mind that things I believe may very well be wrong - just because I believe something, that does not make that belief a certain truth. This may even be a stupid question, but this what your comment on excessive attachment made me think of, and made me wonder.

Dear Miss Attitude, your post is directed to Vaj; however, since it's placed in a public bulletin board in public, I believe you invite also comments from all readers. There is the private message way of communicating with one particular poster. So I will take the liberty to give my thoughts to the paragraph above.

Religious systems like proprietary medicines will always maintain that their own group is the only true, definitive, final, and exclusively only valid one religion. To do otherwise is to commit seppuku, hara-kiri. It's simple human psychology of self-preservation, meme or no meme. So also the various Buddhist schools.

Susma Rio Sep

[I, Brian]

Good post, littlemiss.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
Thank you very much for the invitation! I did look throughout the Eastern Thought section, and while I saw a number of threads that might be the one you mentioned, I'm not certain which particular one you had in mind. Would you be so kind as to let me know which specific thread? Thank you in advance, juan

Namaste Juan,

perhaps this would be a good thread for us to pick up?

Buddhist Philosophy

[Vajradhara]

Namaste little miss,


thank you for the queries.

Buddhism, as a linga franca, operates on two levels.. that of the empirical and that of the intuitive. i would hazard that most Buddhists would conceed that the inutitive is always subject to being deluded whilst the empirical is always subject to the interpetation of our deluded senses. so, i would have to say that yes, most Buddhists would conceed that they may be incorrect in their beliefs.

the Buddhas teachings are like rafts that are to be abanonded once we cross the river.. if we keep carrying them they create more problems for us. so in this sense we cannot be dogmatic about our views either.

this doesn't prevent some people from becoming so

in my opinion, the essential thing that sets Dawkins and Gould, to a lesser extent, on thier paths is that seems to be taking a stance against religion, which is an inferred application of thier field of study or learning. Science is agnostic about God and it seems to me that this is simply a reflection of their own bias on the issue.

it is an interesting concept, these memes, and the implications are pretty enormous. i reserve my right to determine if this is a good theory until i become infected by the meme that says that memes are good

as an aside... you know that the word for how memories are stored, Engram, was coined by Layfayette Ron Hubbard in his initial Scientology publications. though i've little regard for Scientology as a religious system, the term "Engram" has now made it into everyday useage as a "memory engram". an example of a meme in action

[littlemissattitude]

Vajradhara...thank you so much for your answer concerning the Buddhist position on the possibility of belief being wrong. I suspected that this might be what the answer would be, based on what little I know concerning Buddhism.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

in my opinion, the essential thing that sets Dawkins and Gould, to a lesser extent, on thier paths is that seems to be taking a stance against religion, which is an inferred application of thier field of study or learning. Science is agnostic about God and it seems to me that this is simply a reflection of their own bias on the issue.

I have to say that I would make more of a differentiation than you do between Dawkins and Gould in talking about their stances concerning religion. Dawkins is relentlessly opposed to religion in any form. This, I don't believe, was Gould's position regarding religion. While he himself was, from my reading of him, at the least an agnostic, if not an atheist (but a huge believer in baseball, which made him a good man by definition) , Gould did not crusade against religion and religious people as Dawkins seems prone to do.

Have you ever read Gould's book, "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life"? It is an interesting little book in which he proposes a stance of "nonoverlapping magesteria" toward science and religion. This stance promotes a sort of respectful coexistence between science and religion, while proposing that neither discipline probably has much of anything to say to the other. This position would give to science the job of defining the natural world and to religion the job of defining the moral world. This is certainly not the sternly negative position that Dawkins takes.

Just as a side note, I find it interesting that while religion can be just as hostile to science as science is to religion (or at least scientists and theologians sometimes take these positions), this is not always the case. For example, I've read some interesting work by John Polkinghorn, a physicist in his first career who became an Anglican clergyman and theologian, who has done some very interesting work in the area of showing that science and religion do, in fact, have lots of things to say to each other, and definitely do not necessarily contradict each other. I wonder where he would come down on the subject of memes, in religion and in science.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste LMA,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Vajradhara...thank you so much for your answer concerning the Buddhist position on the possibility of belief being wrong. I suspected that this might be what the answer would be, based on what little I know concerning Buddhism.

my pleasure. this is my view and i post it to sustain my own understanding. this goes to a certain aspect of the way that humans think about things. you've heard it said, i'm sure, that a picture is worth a thousand words. have you really analyzed why that is? Buddhist psychology has been doing that for nearly 2500 years. we've got some interesting ideas about this... one of them is that we think in symbols and pictures which we then must express in words. there is alot lost in the translation this also explains why reality cannot be expressed in language or ideas, it transcends them all, yet exists nonetheless, free of them all.

I have to say that I would make more of a differentiation than you do between Dawkins and Gould in talking about their stances concerning religion. Dawkins is relentlessly opposed to religion in any form. This, I don't believe, was Gould's position regarding religion. While he himself was, from my reading of him, at the least an agnostic, if not an atheist (but a huge believer in baseball, which made him a good man by definition) , Gould did not crusade against religion and religious people as Dawkins seems prone to do.

granted, Dr. Dawkins is more stringent in his views and quite vocal in expressing them to any and all. Dr. Gould was kind of insidious with it in a Mr. Neigbors sort of way.. when i saw a picture of him for the first time it was like seeing a picture of my uncle... on my mothers side.... from a second marriage on a more serious note.. i agree... he was much more realistic about things of this nature, in my opinion.

Have you ever read Gould's book, "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life"? It is an interesting little book in which he proposes a stance of "nonoverlapping magesteria" toward science and religion. This stance promotes a sort of respectful coexistence between science and religion, while proposing that neither discipline probably has much of anything to say to the other. This position would give to science the job of defining the natural world and to religion the job of defining the moral world. This is certainly not the sternly negative position that Dawkins takes.

i've not. i agree with that sentiment to a certain extent.. i.e. that they can respectfully co-exist. however, i think that things are beginning to change, albeit slowly, to a different view of things... a much more... "eastern" view. modern physics is already postulating that everything in the universe inter-is with each other.. which is, of course, the Li world view of ancient China.. some 5000 or so years ago.

when Quantum Theory was first proposed even Einstein found it unpalatable. that had, however, no bearing on it's accuracy and now nearly complete acceptance. heck, you could posit that "Quantum Theory" was as well know as "E=MC^2" and i think that it would be pretty close.

we will, hopefully, live to see what becomes of the new readings of the COBE experiment and how that confirms some of Dr. Hawkings' and Dr. Penroses' cosmology theories!

Just as a side note, I find it interesting that while religion can be just as hostile to science as science is to religion (or at least scientists and theologians sometimes take these positions), this is not always the case. For example, I've read some interesting work by John Polkinghorn, a physicist in his first career who became an Anglican clergyman and theologian, who has done some very interesting work in the area of showing that science and religion do, in fact, have lots of things to say to each other, and definitely do not necessarily contradict each other. I wonder where he would come down on the subject of memes, in religion and in science.

i agree. my texts are repleat with scientific inqueries into the nature of things, how they work and why. given the tools that they had to work with, there are some pretty astounding conclusions but they always give rise to a spiritual understanding as well. in the world view of ancient China, when you investigated why a flower was blooming, you were investingate the very nature of the universe