Dawkins says religion is a meme, because if it is a gene, then it must be beneficial in some way, and he does not believe religion is beneficial in any way.
Does he really say that? 'Cause it looks to me like really crap logic, and seems to contain a false premise besides.
...if it is a gene, then it must be beneficial in some way...
What's he think of, say, the gene that causes [pick a debilitating genetic disease; I'm too lazy to look one up]. How's that beneficial (to the host)?
...he does not believe religion is beneficial in any way.
And this is the basis of his argument? "Because I believe it it must be so"?
It's been a long time since I read "The Selfish Gene", but I thought it had better reasoning than that. I thought that religions were memes (or meme-complexes) not because of anything to do with beneficial or detrimental, but because they're coded from ideas, while genes are coded from nucleotides.
IIRC both genes and memes act "selfishly", and both can be beneficial or detrimental. Or both, depending on the situation.
Am I perhaps recalling incorrectly?
I do find it interesting that (in the case of religions anyway) "beneficial" and "detrimental" would seem to have no relation to "true".
Atheists I've spoken with don't insist that religion has no benefit whatever, but many insist that the detriments outweigh the benefits. And then there are those that merely dispute the *truth* of the religion, while accepting that religion might be beneficial (even if false) overall.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 05:04 am (UTC)Does he really say that? 'Cause it looks to me like really crap logic, and seems to contain a false premise besides.
...if it is a gene, then it must be beneficial in some way...
What's he think of, say, the gene that causes [pick a debilitating genetic disease; I'm too lazy to look one up]. How's that beneficial (to the host)?
...he does not believe religion is beneficial in any way.
And this is the basis of his argument? "Because I believe it it must be so"?
It's been a long time since I read "The Selfish Gene", but I thought it had better reasoning than that. I thought that religions were memes (or meme-complexes) not because of anything to do with beneficial or detrimental, but because they're coded from ideas, while genes are coded from nucleotides.
IIRC both genes and memes act "selfishly", and both can be beneficial or detrimental. Or both, depending on the situation.
Am I perhaps recalling incorrectly?
I do find it interesting that (in the case of religions anyway) "beneficial" and "detrimental" would seem to have no relation to "true".
Atheists I've spoken with don't insist that religion has no benefit whatever, but many insist that the detriments outweigh the benefits. And then there are those that merely dispute the *truth* of the religion, while accepting that religion might be beneficial (even if false) overall.