Memes or God - where do you get philosophy for living

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Wait. Let me make sure I have this right.

You come here asking us to help you understand memes. I reccomend that you read a book about memes, and your response is that you've read so many sociology texts that reading about memes would be pointless. Then you imply that we are somehow at fault for not teaching you about memes.

Stop, just stop. Read this. We have no obligation to educate you.

Sorry for snapping,

I understand what memes are but in the context of our discussion there is a whole mix of things. Just like pH saying the Catholic Church was responsible for Rwanda is just plain wrong. Some attribute or explain humanity in terms of God and creationism and to me thats incorrect. So to anyone asking me to reject evolution I would say no chance.

Now if you are explaining the work in antropological terms and you say that this theory explains the evolution of ideas and behaviour in this context and this is where memes fit in rather than God then that is at least a discussion.

If someone uses an old Testament Bible Story - and says 10000 descended on the lands of the tribe X and killed them all and took everything they wanted cows goats camels and greyhounds. THen say this is an example of the survival of the fittest etc and tribal behaviour etc and has nothing to do with God instructions but is what tribes in primative societies do when competing for limited resourses do -then at least there would be some logic to saying memes account for this. At least we can discuss .

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I understand what memes are but in the context of our discussion there is a whole mix of things. Just like pH saying the Catholic Church was responsible for Rwanda is just plain wrong.

That isn't what he was saying. He was countering your claim that something like Rwanda was what happens when men are left to their own devises.

They weren't left to their own devises at all, they were steeped in Christian tradition and teachings. Whether or not Christian teaching inspired the genocide or not is a different matter. But it certainly didn't stop it.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

............they were steeped in Christian tradition and teachings. Whether or not Christian teaching inspired the genocide or not is a different matter. But it certainly didn't stop it.

Dah Wicknight. Go to church. That isn't Christian teaching as I know it.

The Rwandans knew what they were doing was wrong at all kinds of levels.

You over estimate the power of the church to influence things -it is only one part of the geopolitic.

pH just seems to want to ignore the other forces at play and maybe if people are open enough to drop the anti-religion bias they may see the whole picture.

Can memes explain some of this behaviour -well it might give us a chance to look at things afresh without precognitions.

pH

CDfm wrote: »

PH - i am not an expert so thats why i posted the link above. In France in the 30s while 90% of people were baptised only one in four were practicing catholics. So I think people really over estimate the power of the Church and its influence.

In that it has just enough influence to stop people murdering babies, but not quite enough to stop a genocide?

Christians may not like to admit and come right out and say that Christian values are ineffectual by themselves in preventing such occurances.The babies thing was just a point saying that it was a Roman value that changed with its Christianification -nothing more.A change in a cultural value or values.

So if we can't find an example of a genocide in Rwanda before Christianity arrived then you'd be equally happy with the phrase "The genocide thing was just a point saying that it was a Rwandan value that changed with its Christianification -nothing more.A change in a cultural value or values."

I am not naive -but attributing and describing Rwanda as a Christian society is as extreme as describing Pol Pots Cambodia as an atheist one. So Stalin was one of your boys -explain that then? - Mao?. Thats all fine and dandy if you want a stereotypical circular discussion.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as a Christian society at all, or do you think they exist but it's just that Rwanda wasn't/isn't one?

ph can you really discuss this issue or do you just feel more comfortable hanging out with the Creationist debabing team.Surely there is more to Atheists explanitions then its all religions fault - what a cop out if thats the best you can do.

As Wicknight points out above, I'm certainly not blaming the Rwandan genocide on Christianity, but if something as nasty and as brutal as that can be carried out in 1994 by Christians on Christians, then I severely doubt that Christianity has or teaches any actual morals, and it merely reinforces my belief that Christianity is just another cult whose sole purpose it its own expansion and accumulation of power.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Can memes explain some of this behaviour -well it might give us a chance to look at things afresh without precognitions.

Memes don't explain behaviour.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Sorry for snapping,

I understand what memes are but in the context of our discussion there is a whole mix of things. Just like pH saying the Catholic Church was responsible for Rwanda is just plain wrong. Some attribute or explain humanity in terms of God and creationism and to me thats incorrect. So to anyone asking me to reject evolution I would say no chance.

Now if you are explaining the work in antropological terms and you say that this theory explains the evolution of ideas and behaviour in this context and this is where memes fit in rather than God then that is at least a discussion.

If someone uses an old Testament Bible Story - and says 10000 descended on the lands of the tribe X and killed them all and took everything they wanted cows goats camels and greyhounds. THen say this is an example of the survival of the fittest etc and tribal behaviour etc and has nothing to do with God instructions but is what tribes in primative societies do when competing for limited resourses do -then at least there would be some logic to saying memes account for this. At least we can discuss .

You're kind of all over the place here. Apology accepted of course, but this is why I think you should read a thorough take on memes. Memetics has virtually nothing to do with all the stuff you were just talking about. Memetics is a tool by which we can understand the ways in which ideas spread between people. Those ideas can be religious, they can be about films, music or technology etc. It says nothing about what effect those ideas have. We could use memetics to analyse what beliefs are present in Rwanda, how they entered that culture and how they spread and developed...but whether Christianity caused/failed to prevent genocide or not has exactly zero to do with memetics.

To my knowledge, the only way in which memetics tackles religion is to provide an alternative explanation as to why so many people can share common beliefs other than it being true. Ideas spread and survive for reasons all of their own, often entirely divorced from how true they are. I made a big post about this before where I think I explained it better, I'll see if I can find it.

Tell me, given whatever understanding you do have of memetics, how do you think it relates to the current discussion? It doesn't as far as I can tell.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

You believe in God and God is perfect, right? The Euthyphro question is irrelevant, both answers are the same. If what is moral is moral simply because it is moral, it is moral because God made a universe in which it is moral. (Read that sentence slowly - Editor)

Both answers are not the same in the Euthyphro dillemma and thats why its difficult.

Its very relevant and is a difficult issue.

GX inserted a very good marker there and the origiunal Euthyphro discussions concerned piety and the moral philosophy contained are applied in medical ethics and the law and as I pointed out used in Dickens.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Both answers are not the same in the Euthyphro dillemma and thats why its difficult.

I really don't think so. Things that exist fall into two sets (from a theist perspective) : God and Everything Else.

So the two options for the Euthyphro connundrum are:

Something is commanded by God because it is moral.

OR

Something is moral because it is commanded by God.


In the first answer, we refer to something "being moral", in the same way that "mass exists" or "water is wet". They are part of the universe, a universe that was arbitrarily created by God.

With both answers what is morally correct is determined by God's whim, either when he speaks or when he designed the universe. Add in his time-transcending perception and it is the exact same thing.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I really don't think so. Things that exist fall into two sets (from a theist perspective) : God and Everything Else.

So the two options for the Euthyphro connundrum are:

Something is commanded by God because it is moral.

OR

Something is moral because it is commanded by God.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Lets just agree to disagree.

No,I'm pretty sure it means "SaintDiego".

Húrin

I find it rather unfair that many people here are asserting that the genocide was something that "the Rwandans" did. It was in fact perpetrated by an extreme Hutu political group. They killed members of their own tribe who were not on their side as well.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Aside from personal morals though, you do accept that this is one of the main reasons why a lot of humans in general do not do bad things? There have been numerous studies, and numerous real world examples, where when the consequences where lifted from individuals, they had no issue with doing immoral things to others. The Milgram Experiment comes to mind. There is also mob mentality during supposed moral panics which leads to the likes of pogroms/witch-hunts or rioting and looting during blackouts.

The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out. - Baron Thomas Babington Macauley

GX has it nailed as far as I can see on the Rwanda issue at general level this logic can be applied to the situation. I accept this happens and accept that Christians can act the same way as any mob.

Zillah wrote: »

You're kind of all over the place here. Apology accepted of course, but this is why I think you should read a thorough take on memes. Memetics has virtually nothing to do with all the stuff you were just talking about. Memetics is a tool by which we can understand the ways in which ideas spread between people. Those ideas can be religious, they can be about films, music or technology etc. It says nothing about what effect those ideas have. We could use memetics to analyse what beliefs are present in Rwanda, how they entered that culture and how they spread and developed...but whether Christianity caused/failed to prevent genocide or not has exactly zero to do with memetics.

To my knowledge, the only way in which memetics tackles religion is to provide an alternative explanation as to why so many people can share common beliefs other than it being true.

Tell me, given whatever understanding you do have of memetics, how do you think it relates to the current discussion? It doesn't as far as I can tell.

I do think memetics is useful and in the current discussion actually is very useful as it allows a person to tag an idea or phenomonum and give it a value a place in time and a unit value.

I can see its attraction to scientists in trying to explain or quantify an issue but can also see its limitations as a qualitative tool. It is useful but like others I see it as a field of study that will give you an overview of a situation and identify issues not explain it. So in Rwanda it might show up dormant hostillity at a tribal level as being a cause .....or religous adherence along tribal lines.

IT can lay down facts and give origans to beliefs but it cant measure their prevalence or intensity at a point in time.It is not really a science though it uses the language of science but is not a science. It cant measure or gave an indication as to the intensity such ideas as massacreing people in other tribes can be attractive. To me its flaw is that while it can identify issues and track them it does not really add to our understanding as it. Same dog -different hair.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I do think memetics is useful and in the current discussion actually is very useful as it allows a person to tag an idea or phenomonum and give it a value a place in time and a unit value.

I can see its attraction to scientists in trying to explain or quantify an issue but can also see its limitations as a qualitative tool. It is useful but like others I see it as a field of study that will give you an overview of a situation and identify issues not explain it. So in Rwanda it might show up dormant hostillity at a tribal level as being a cause .....or religous adherence along tribal lines.

IT can lay down facts and give origans to beliefs but it cant measure their prevalence or intensity at a point in time.It is not really a science though it uses the language of science but is not a science. It cant measure or gave an indication as to the intensity such ideas as massacreing people in other tribes can be attractive. To me its flaw is that while it can identify issues and track them it does not really add to our understanding as it. Same dog -different hair.

Memetics is the study of how cultural ideas move through society based on human interaction and communication.

It does not attempt to explain why some cultural ideas are appealing to certain people and why some are not, simply that they are.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Memetics is the study of how cultural ideas move through society based on human interaction and communication.

It does not attempt to explain why some cultural ideas are appealing to certain people and why some are not, simply that they are.

It only gives very top level data -detrators might say it tabulates what we know already without going into any level of detail.

Can I ask -what does it bring thats original to the party?

You had Transactional Analysis in Economics( my original field) and a useful diagnostic tool which crossed over into Sociology etc and is still popular in Management and Organisational Theory and even Psychotherapy.

The idea of the study of culture and ideas etc is antropology. I would prefer to read Roland Barthes then Blackmore TBH.

I can't help thinking that it is attractive because it has appeal to fans of Dawkins.

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

No,I'm pretty sure it means "SaintDiego".

Its Saint Jerome actually - GERONIMO.

CDfm

pH wrote: »

In that it has just enough influence to stop people murdering babies, but not quite enough to stop a genocide?



So if we can't find an example of a genocide in Rwanda before Christianity arrived then you'd be equally happy with the phrase "The genocide thing was just a point saying that it was a Rwandan value that changed with its Christianification -nothing more.A change in a cultural value or values."



Are you saying that there's no such thing as a Christian society at all, or do you think they exist but it's just that Rwanda wasn't/isn't one?



As Wicknight points out above, I'm certainly not blaming the Rwandan genocide on Christianity, but if something as nasty and as brutal as that can be carried out in 1994 by Christians on Christians, then I severely doubt that Christianity has or teaches any actual morals, and it merely reinforces my belief that Christianity is just another cult whose sole purpose it its own expansion and accumulation of power.

Christian religious belief is about individual morality and christians look to faith for moral guidance as an ideal. There are certain universal principles.I dont want to and wont enter into a debate on moral relativism etc.

Its a question of fact that the genocide that occured in Rwanda happened.
You are dressing it up as a Christian on Christian issue and using it to justify your own position.To me its like the Enniskillen bombing on a bigger scale. Christian or atheist -whoever did it was wrong IMO.

You accept that the Genocide in Rwanda was not ordered or condoned by any church and was in fact condemned. To say it did not is a fallacy.You accept that the Church does not have the power in a secular society to physically intervene.

So what else can the Church do but condemn the action and say it is morally wrong. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

Pol Pot was an atheist and committed genocide against Christians in vast numbers-therefore you as an atheist are responsible?

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Christian religious belief is about individual morality and christians look to faith for moral guidance as an ideal......

What?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Pol Pot was an atheist and committed genocide against Christians in vast numbers-therefore you as an atheist are responsible?

No, and you will notice pH said he was not blaming Christianity.

But the majority of atheists would not say that atheism is supposed to make you a better moral person, where as that seems to be your argument for Christianity, it is better than leaving men to their own devices.

That appears to not be the case. Significant moral change in attitudes to civil rights and ethics started to make serious progress around the time of the Enlightenment when people stopped looking to religions such as Christianity to provide moral systems for people to live buy.

What ever one things about the truth of Christianity history certain demonstrates that it is a pretty ineffective moral system. For every one or two individual Christians who defied injustice you have whole populations of Christians who wallowed in it.

It isn't that Christianity is a bad moral system (though a case could be made for that in another thread) it is that it is seems to be a particularly ineffective one.

I would guess that this is because you have the stories in the Old Testament that are the hight of immorality (genocide, slavery, rape, murder) and then you have the wishy washy ness of the New Testament parables and stories that really don't seem to be effective in countering the immorality of the Old Testament.

As 10 Christians who they would apply the teachings of Jesus to a specific situation and you will get 10, possibly very different, answers. Contrast right-wing conservative Christians in America with middle England Christians in England to see this.

Plus any believer has to reconcile the two testaments, something that may well be possible for someone who spends a long time trying to find an answer (the best people around here seem to come up with is that the Old Testament treatment of slaves, sex slaves, and other cultures was that a) it was better than anyone else or b) they deserved it, neither of which are lend themselves particularly well to high moral teaching.

pH

CDfm wrote: »

Christian religious belief is about individual morality and christians look to faith for moral guidance as an ideal. There are certain universal principles.I dont want to and wont enter into a debate on moral relativism etc.

So we don't know what Christian morals are, they don't work well enough in a Christian society to prevent genocide, and we can't tell whether they're being followed.

I notice you still refuse to answer the question I've asked a number of times above.

Pol Pot was an atheist and committed genocide against Christians in vast numbers-therefore you as an atheist are responsible?

I'm not sure why you would even ask this, I don't believe that religion is the root of all evil, nor do I believe that all atheists are perfectly moral beings. I happily admit that atheists can be psychopaths, serial killers or mass murderers, but as atheism isn't a belief system, I feel no more responsible as an atheist for Pol Pot's actions than modern vegetarians feel responsible for Hitler's actions, there just is no link between the two.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

what does it bring thats original to the party?

It's been mentioned a few times now, but just to recap, memetics is, broadly speaking, the study of natural selection as it applies to cultural phenomena. To a greater or lesser extent, this is an idea, and certainly a term, that was originally developed by Richard Dawkins.

CDfm wrote: »

The idea of the study of culture and ideas etc is antropology. I would prefer to read Roland Barthes then Blackmore TBH.

Well, Barthes is a literary critic who dabbled in the senseless, intensely trivial mess that goes by the name of "postmodernism". Susan Blackmore, on the other hand, is a psychologist who has studied the natural selection as it applies to cultural phenomena. If you want to understand more about what memes are, then, like Zillah, I suggest reading Blackmore in place of Barthes (who died shortly after Dawkins originally developed the idea, who, as far as I'm aware, never wrote on the topic and certainly is not considered by most to be a relevant author).

CDfm

pH wrote: »

So we don't know what Christian morals are, they don't work well enough in a Christian society to prevent genocide, and we can't tell whether they're being followed.

I notice you still refuse to answer the question I've asked a number of times above.



I'm not sure why you would even ask this, I don't believe that religion is the root of all evil, nor do I believe that all atheists are perfectly moral beings. I happily admit that atheists can be psychopaths, serial killers or mass murderers, but as atheism isn't a belief system, I feel no more responsible as an atheist for Pol Pot's actions than modern vegetarians feel responsible for Hitler's actions, there just is no link between the two.

I never claim that all who claim to be Christian actually believe.

As a source of morals Christians.like it or not,we have the Bible as an external source.

I dont claim all who claim to be Christian follow this. Rwanda is a secular society. A person can take it or leave it.

If you subscribe to Dawkins and the evolutionary biology hypotheses you should be clued up enough to know there are other factors at work.

As a Catholic I dont dismiss evolution or other environmental or political factors from this reality. The model you suggest is that either Theism or Atheism are the only factors within your model and that is an over simplification as they are not.

I dont claim that Christianity can prevent genocide.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

It's been mentioned a few times now, but just to recap, memetics is, broadly speaking, the study of natural selection as it applies to cultural phenomena. To a greater or lesser extent, this is an idea, and certainly a term, that was originally developed by Richard Dawkins. Well, Barthes is a literary critic who dabbled in the senseless, intensely trivial mess that goes by the name of "postmodernism". Susan Blackmore, on the other hand, is a psychologist who has studied the natural selection as it applies to cultural phenomena. If you want to understand more about what memes are, then, like Zillah, I suggest reading Blackmore in place of Barthes (who died shortly after Dawkins originally developed the idea, who, as far as I'm aware, never wrote on the topic and certainly is not considered by most to be a relevant author).

Memetics is criticised as a pseudoscience and is very fluffy. It attempts to apply the logic of genetics to culture and the transmission of ideas.

I am suggesting that it is not a science but a cross over hypothesis that has had its day. It promised much and delivered little.

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What?

To be perfect you would be .......?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

It attempts to apply the logic of genetics to culture and the transmission of ideas.

Yay, you got it more or less

CDfm wrote: »

I am suggesting that it is not a science but a cross over hypothesis that has had its day. It promised much and delivered little.

Nobody, least of all Blackmore (who's written the most on the topic), has suggested that it's a science, so I'm wondering whom you believe has said that it's a science, or who's said that it's promised much? What books have you read on the topic?

pH

CDfm wrote: »

I never claim that all who claim to be Christian actually believe.

As a source of morals Christians.like it or not,we have the Bible as an external source.

I dont claim all who claim to be Christian follow this. Rwanda is a secular society. A person can take it or leave it.

So your argument comes down to a tired rehash of the "No true Scotsman fallacy"?

I dont claim that Christianity can prevent genocide.

But it does somehow prevent killing babies? If Christianity can't prevent its adherents committing genocide, then how can you claim it has any positive effects on its members? At the very least I'd say that not murdering your neighbours with machetes in an orgy of violence would be setting the bar very low for any system of morals.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

No, and you will notice pH said he was not blaming Christianity.



What ever one things about the truth of Christianity history certain demonstrates that it is a pretty ineffective moral system. For every one or two individual Christians who defied injustice you have whole populations of Christians who wallowed in it.

It isn't that Christianity is a bad moral system (though a case could be made for that in another thread) it is that it is seems to be a particularly ineffective one.

I would guess that this is because you have the stories in the Old Testament that are the hight of immorality (genocide, slavery, rape, murder) and then you have the wishy washy ness of the New Testament parables and stories that really don't seem to be effective in countering the immorality of the Old Testament.

As 10 Christians who they would apply the teachings of Jesus to a specific situation and you will get 10, possibly very different, answers. Contrast right-wing conservative Christians in America with middle England Christians in England to see this.

Plus any believer has to reconcile the two testaments, something that may well be possible for someone who spends a long time trying to find an answer (the best people around here seem to come up with is that the Old Testament treatment of slaves, sex slaves, and other cultures was that a) it was better than anyone else or b) they deserved it, neither of which are lend themselves particularly well to high moral teaching.

pH is for whatever reason very anti the Church as an organistion.

I happen to agree with a lot of what you say. Christianity gives an individual a moral compass its up to the individual whether or not to use it.If I dont obey a traffic signal -it is still a traffic signal.I am not claiming is always effective in doing so nor am I claiming that individuals are not affected by other factors with greater intensity.

You cant blame Christianity for individuals actions - a person can accept or reject the moral teaching and that doesnt make the moral principle wrong. The same way that a description by someone in England will differ from that of the U.S. and of course it will they are different cultures and countries. The world is not a generic place so the interpretations will be different.

The Old Testament describes a primative society and should be looked at in that context. The New Testament and especially the Letters of the Apostles are the bridge. They dont work for you and thats fine with me.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

But it does somehow prevent killing babies? If Christianity can't prevent its adherents committing genocide, then how can you claim it has any positive effects on its members? At the very least I'd say that not murdering your neighbours with machetes in an orgy of violence would be setting the bar very low for any system of morals.

Well, all that we have is that Rwanda has a Christian majority. You seem to be assuming that all of them were at each other's throats with big knives. In fact, the perpetrators were Hutu nationalist political groups. We don't know if they were adherents to Christianity. I doubt it very much.

As I have noted in other threads, as the cultural influence of Christianity in Europe (which of course is not the same as adherence) has waned, the lethality of wars and genocide has increased. Total war didn't reappear until after the ''enlightenment''.

CDfm

pH wrote: »

So your argument comes down to a tired rehash of the "No true Scotsman fallacy"?

But it does somehow prevent killing babies? If Christianity can't prevent its adherents committing genocide, then how can you claim it has any positive effects on its members? At the very least I'd say that not murdering your neighbours with machetes in an orgy of violence would be setting the bar very low for any system of morals.

If a person doesnt obey a traffic signal that doesnt make the traffic signal wrong.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Yay, you got it more or less :)Nobody, least of all Blackmore (who's written the most on the topic), has suggested that it's a science, so I'm wondering whom you believe has said that it's a science, or who's said that it's promised much? What books have you read on the topic?

I have read around the topic and read a few articles. I wont admit to reading Dawkins on it but was curious:pac:

I havent read Blackmore and have no plans to as what I have read doesnt convince me enough.

pH

CDfm wrote: »

You cant blame Christianity for individuals actions - a person can accept or reject the moral teaching and that doesnt make the moral principle wrong.

But (and once again you ignore the question) you still seem happy to praise and attribute "stopping killing babies" to Christianity?

Let me get this clear, are you say:

"You cant blame Christianity for individuals actions"

so are you actually saying:

"Christianity is not responsible for any individuals actions (good or bad), you can't blame it or praise it for people's behaviour - Christianity in no way affects peoples actions"

Or are you really saying something as stupid as:

"When people exposed to Christianity do good things (in my opinion) that's Christianity working (I CAN JUST TELL!) but any bad things they do that's just because that part of Christianity hasn't been accepted yet."

You know what I've changed my mind about what I said earlier about Pol Pot and atheists. All atheists are now by definition supremely moral people, anyone who isn't, isn't really an atheist, but secretly believes in God. This proves that Pol Pot couldn't possibly have been an atheist (he did some awful things) therefore he must have been religious.