*lightbulb*

[dreamer_easy]

Of course Dawkins explains religion as a meme - that is, a sort of cultural virus. If it isn't an external, infectious agent, then from his perspective, it must have evolved - meaning it must grant some survival advantage.

Comments

[drhoz.livejournal.com]

interesting set of articles in New Scientist recently, on that very matter

[jenavira.livejournal.com]

Er. So how is religion not adaptive? *confused by the premise*

[capriuni.livejournal.com]

Well... yes. But don't memes, themselves, grant some survival advantage, and that's why some ideas survive long enough to become memes, and some ideas die the quick death they deserve?

[barrington.livejournal.com]

Sort of. While he argues genes are selfish, and survive interactions in their environment (made up of other genes in the same organism and, via the phenotype they create, genes in other organisms) to become successful replicators by building survival machines for themselves (i.e. the organisms themselves), they don't necessarily benefit the organism in any true sense. (Remember that most mutations and variation is neutral - it has little to no effect on the organism.)

By analogy, he argues that certains memes - religions chief among them - survive because they are good at replicating, which may mean they are beneficial to their hosts, but not necessarily. The viruses of the mind are good at replicating in spite of their hosts, and may cause damage, just as cold viruses are highly successful replicators but cause illness in their hosts.

[drox.livejournal.com]

...it must have evolved - meaning it must grant some survival advantage.

I assume you mean it must grant some survival advantage *to its host*. I'm not sure that follows.

Successful (organisms? memes?) that depend on a host for survival and/or replication often provide some benefit to that host, but there are some that don't, or that harm or kill their hosts. So long as they survive/replicate, what happens to their host is immaterial.

If the analogy holds, most successful religions would benefit their hosts (i.e. adherents, believers etc.) but some would be neutral and others would harm or even kill them.

If I'm understanding this right, the benefit/detriment might even be situational. A religion (or any meme for that matter) might be beneficial in most instances but turn, um, virulent under just the right (wrong?) conditions.

[adrian-middle.livejournal.com]

Granting a survival advantage to nomadic pastoralists 2000 years ago doesn't automatically convey a survival advantage now.