Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

[Satya]

A meme could be thought of as a thought contagion or mind virus. It's the cultural equivalent to the biological gene and it follows Darwin's natural selection algorithm in much the same way our biology does. It's a basic cultural unit of information that is spread and self propagates using humans as its host. This excerpt explains it in a little more detail...

A meme (rhymes with 'dream') may be defined as any self-referential belief system which contains within itself the instructions for its own propagation. Memes are often described as the cultural equivalents of computer viruses.

A meme carries exactly the same fear-driven psychological motivation as a chain letter - "If you propagate me then something nice will happen, if not then something horrible will happen".

In order to justify themselves against attack by reason, memes place absolute reliance on faith, which is seen as being superior to reason. They also contain self-referential or circular claims to the truth such as "This meme says it is the divine truth. Since it is the divine truth whatever its says must be true. Therefore it must be divine truth because it says so and all competing memes must be the work of the Devil".

These two types of self-referential statement "propagate me" and "I am the only truth" provide the driving force for memes to invade the minds of their hosts. In addition, many memes contain the instructions "Help people who believe in this meme, attack people who do not". These commands being the ultimate cause of all religious hatred, wars, pogroms and persecutions throughout the centuries.

The general defining features of all memes can thus be seen to be self-referential 'closed-loop' type of circular statements, and a strong tendency towards hatred and intolerance.

The science of the study of memes, their internal structures and modes of propagation is known as memetics (by analogy to genetics - how biological entities propagate themselves).

More detailed analysis will usually show the following features:
Like a virus such as rabies a successful meme must perform two actions:

- Overpower the resistance of its host.
- Bring about the conditions for its spread.

To establish itself in the mind of its host it will use some or all of the following mechanisms:

[1] Promise heaven for belief.

[2] Threaten eternal punishment in hell for disbelief.

[3] Boost the believers' egos by telling them they are 'chosen' or superior to believers in false memes.

[4] Disable the faculties of disbelief ('immune response') by claiming that faith is superior to reason.

[5] Establish itself as the One True Meme, usually by some sort of holy book containing a circular self-referential argument such as:

X is the one true meme. We know X is the one true meme because The Source of Universal Truth has approved X. We know The Source of Universal Truth has approved X, because X contains statements which say so. We know what X says is true because X is the one true meme.

Once it has parasitised the mind of its host, a meme needs to propagate itself. A successful meme will contain instructions for some or all of the following:

[6] Holy war - convert or kill all unbelievers.

[7] Intimidation and terrorism - threaten and discriminate against unbelievers.

[8] Enforced social isolation or even death to apostates. (An apostate is a host which has cured itself of a meme-infection. It is especially dangerous to the meme because it might pass on meme-resistance to others).

[9] Fecundism - encourage true believers to breed faster than believers in false memes.

[10] Censorship - prevent rival memes from reaching potential hosts (a theological doctrine known as 'Error has no rights') and forbid rational analysis of the meme itself.

[11] Disinformation - spread lies about rival memes.

http://kwelos.tripod.com/memes.htm

So what do you think? Could people who follow certain religions just be hosts to a parasite that feeds on their desire to believe in something greater than themselves? Do religions often ensure their own survival by playing off human fears of punishment and ambitions for reward?

A great essay which explores the concepts of memes was Theory of Power by Jeff Vale and it made this argument in regards to religion...

Surpassing language and writing, religion rapidly developed as the ultimate memetic control. With a developing capacity for rational thought, individuals gained the ability to weigh the utility of their decisions. This did not constitute independent thought, free from the control of genes and memes. Rather, it constituted an ability to make decisions with the awareness of their perceived longterm results.

Animals have long been able to weigh choices subconsciously in order to maximize the release of desired neurochemicals for instant gratification. Rational thought allowed humans to attempt to consciously maximize their desired emotional or psychological states. Significantly, the conscious attempt to maximize these states worked most effectively over longer time frames, in complex cultural environments, and allowed the individual to consider the demands of the ego. Individuals could now act, believing that their actions represented a sacrifice today for greater happiness in the long run, e.g. making sacrifices today to ensure the well being of their offspring or the survival of the group.

Happiness, of course, exists as no more than a genetically programmed desire for neurochemical release. This does not exclude the meme—the meme co-opts the entire complex of happiness into the larger sense of the ego, ensuring that memetic prosperity remains the end result of un-informed rationality. Ultimately, the process of ‘rational’ thought leads to ever-greater self-sacrifice in the name of the meme. This increasing drive towards self-sacrifice eventually confronts an individual’s lifespan: it wouldn’t seem rational for an individual to sacrifice until death, never to experience the envisioned rewards. Religion, an advanced memetic control mechanism, brought the promise of an after-life, making rational a complete lifetime of “self-sacrifice” to benefit the group’s meme. An eternal afterlife in paradise loomed as the ultimate, rational reward. Under this logic, an individual could justify sacrificing their entire life to hard work, or to willingly die in combat. Throughout history, the promise of eternal bliss has functioned as a powerful motivator.

http://jeffvail.net/atheoryofpower.pdf

So what are your thoughts?

 

[pale rider]

Judging from the word "parasite", I would have to disagree with a brief explanation. I do understand your use of the word and its intent. That said, I can understand how one might interpret "religion" in the analogy used here. Morality or rituals could possibly be viewed as such, but that might possibly negate the use of "faith" as used in the definition. Just to further think along this line, does faith have to be part of this "meme"?

The immediate release of neurochemicals may possibly be necessary for an animal's happiness. I see happiness as a state of mind moreso as I grow older. The short-term immediate happiness does happen often, but ultimate happiness seems to have an art to it. Individuality allows each of us to paint our own personal picture of what we see as happiness in our minds as we mature, regardless of what we are taught. Individuals greatly differ, as we know studying mbti and psychology. Some people are much more easily led down the path of their ancestors and friends than others, just as some people tend to question and try to discern what they feel to be truth or happiness.

Eternal bliss is a great motivator and has been for many moons, but it just doesn't play that big a part in some people's ideals. That ability to see things and feel things the way they are instead of the way they appear or sound will lead some people down a path of helping others, for instance, with no regard whatsoever for that eternal reward; it has become a part of the picture they have painted in their mind to achieve happiness. Their living the way some see as religion is a spiritual mindset based on love for their fellow humankind. Love, too, is and always has been a great motivator.

I would guess love and fear to be the two biggest motivators. If "to love"
in this manner designated one to be spiritual, then they may have garnered what they needed from that which had been taught them into what religion is supposed to be all about. Thus, "feeding" from the "parasite" instead of the "parasite's" feeding from them.
I shall give this more thought. Interesting, to say the least.

 

[Wyote]

Are all religions just memetic control mechanisms?

Yep.

 

[Satya]

Judging from the word "parasite", I would have to disagree with a brief explanation. I do understand your use of the word and its intent. That said, I can understand how one might interpret "religion" in the analogy used here. Morality or rituals could possibly be viewed as such, but that might possibly negate the use of "faith" as used in the definition. Just to further think along this line, does faith have to be part of this "meme"?

In this meme, faith supersedes reason so that humans cannot escape from the "parasite".

Eternal bliss is a great motivator and has been for many moons, but it just doesn't play that big a part in some people's ideals. That ability to see things and feel things the way they are instead of the way they appear or sound will lead some people down a path of helping others, for instance, with no regard whatsoever for that eternal reward; it has become a part of the picture they have painted in their mind to achieve happiness. Their living the way some see as religion is a spiritual mindset based on love for their fellow humankind. Love, too, is and always has been a great motivator.

But people who are infected with this "parasite" generally prefer one way to "help" people, and that is to make them a believer so that they too are infected with the "parasite". What more "love" can you give someone than leading them away from eternal punishment and towards eternal bliss? That way the "parasite" can continue to spread and the infected feel like they have genuinely helped people and shown them their love when in reality they have just spread the "parasite" to others.

 

[Satya]

Yep.

ROFL.

The first link provides a decent argument for why Buddhism may be excluded...

So is Buddhism just another meme?
The meme critique may or may not apply to other belief systems, but does it apply to Buddhism? Taking the above points in turn:

[1 and 2] There are no threats of hell or promises of heaven attached to being a Buddhist as opposed to being a non-Buddhist. The term 'Buddhist' is a mere label and has no inherent existence. The condition of future lives is determined by actions of body, speech and mind and not by religious affiliation. If our religion encourages universal compassion and positive actions and states of mind then it is doing its job. If it causes hatred, fear, division and pride then it isn't working and maybe we should try something else. Buddhism does not make use of the psychological blackmail techniques which are said to be characteristic of memes.

[3] Just sticking the Buddhist label on yourself doesn't automatically make you superior to non-Buddhists. In fact, in most forms of Buddhism the belief that one is superior to others, for whatever reason, is seen as a dangerous delusion.

[4] Buddhism does not attempt to suppress reason by dogma. Unlike most other religions, Buddhism isn't so much about things to believe, as things to do. It is a technology of mind improvement. This is why Buddhists often refer to themselves as practictioners rather than believers. The Buddha told his students to trust their own experience of the effectiveness of the teachings, and not believe things just because he said so.

[5] Buddhism does NOT claim to be the one and only valid spiritual path (a teaching known as 'exclusivism' in other belief-systems). It is NOT based on claims of divine authority. Buddha never claimed to be divine or sent from God. His teachings are to be judged by their effectiveness in promoting peace and spiritual realisations, rather than unverifiable claims to their origin.

Exclusivism

Most religions teach that they are the one true path to salvation and all unbelievers are cast into hell. This is a doctrine known as exclusivism. Buddhism is not exclusivist. Any person guided in their activities by compassion is regarded as following a beneficial spiritual path.

Unfortunately, in Christianity exclusivism went to extreme lengths with many denominations (at one time) claiming that they were the one true faith and the other denominations of Christianity were corrupt (or even in league with anti-Christ). This situation has improved during the past 50 years, but 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ' ( No salvation outside (our) Church) is still the official policy of the Vatican.

However this does raise an interesting scenario. Presumably a Salvation Army officer who devoted her life to rescuing drug addicts and alcoholics would be regarded as damned for all eternity by traditional Catholic theologians. A Buddhist, on the other hand, would regard such a person as an advanced spiritual practitioner - a Bodhisattva or possibly even a manifestation of Buddha Tara . (One of the more surprising teachings of Mahayana Buddhism is that Buddhas can appear in whatever form is beneficial to sentient beings, and Buddhas needn't necessarily be Buddhist!) . So, taken to its logical conclustion, Christian exclusivism would require one Christian to regard a fellow Christian as damned, while a Buddhist would recognise her as a saint.

As a further antidote to exclusivism, Buddhists are required to rejoice in the virtues of all beings - Buddhist and otherwise.


[6,7 and 8] Buddhism does not believe in using hatred, war or terrorism to further its cause and does not persecute former Buddhists who have changed their religion.

[9] Neither does it encourage ecologically disastrous population policies (or lack of policies).

[10 and 11] Buddhists have no need to suppress, censor or misrepresent the teachings of other religions, as Buddhist philosophy is totally rational and quite capable of withstanding criticism from other belief systems. In fact, Buddhism appears to be the only spiritual system which can provide counterarguments to modern materialism. Neither is Buddhism even slightly corroded by what Dennett (1995) claims to be the universal spiritual acid of Darwinism.

 

[pale rider]

In this meme, faith supersedes reason so that humans cannot escape from the "parasite".

But people who are infected with this "parasite" generally prefer one way to "help" people, and that is to make them a believer so that they too are infected with the "parasite". What more "love" can you give someone than leading them away from eternal punishment and towards eternal bliss? That way the "parasite" can continue to spread and the infected feel like they have genuinely helped people and shown them their love when in reality they have just spread the "parasite" to others.

I agree most people may want to do this to show their ultimate "love". There are those that can help others because that is the way they feel they should act, though they may be few and far in between, even knowing the one or ones they are helping will not change the way they feel toward their own given faith.

I feel, mainly from personal experience with self, we are able to use reason with our respective faith, though that may possibly be or not be a rarity.

 

[Wyote]

True, Buddhism is far less dangerous in many respects yet it is still a group which segregates itself. It strives for unity which is a bigger step than most other religions. I should note that Buddhism has been pegged as not really a religion and more a philosophy, which is in part why it is far less of a threat at this point.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

--Albert Einstein

 

[Satya]

There are those that can help others because that is the way they feel they should act, though they may be few and far in between, even knowing the one or ones they are helping will not change the way they feel toward their own given faith.

The argument could be made that humans are inherently kind and empathetic to one another, regardless of whether or not they are infected with the "parasite", and that the "parasite" simply adds stipulations to sharing this natural kindness and empathy by telling the people it has infected that they need to help spread itself to others in order for them to truly be good people. In essence, any help that is provided should be aimed at spreading the "parasite" no matter how small the chance.

I feel, mainly from personal experience with self, we are able to use reason with our respective faith, though that may possibly be or not be a rarity.

That was what the second article was stating. Once a person accepts the premise that there is an afterlife, they can then use their reasoning to justify any sacrifice they make in life towards that end. However, using reason to justify faith still puts faith on a pedestal above reason and ensures the survival of the "parasite". People who do not simply accept the premise of an afterlife and choose to question faith will be considered "unreasonable" by those who do.

 

[Satya]

True, Buddhism is far less dangerous in many respects yet it is still a group which segregates itself. It strives for unity which is a bigger step than most other religions. I should note that Buddhism has been pegged as not really a religion and more a philosophy, which is in part why it is far less of a threat at this point.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

--Albert Einstein

What I want to know is how Buddhism manages to stay alive if it doesn't rely on indoctrination and the suppression of reason. Could its precepts truly be so based on what is that they need no Pascal's wager or illusion of supremacy to be recognized?

 

[slant]

Basically, all of them. I wish there was a religion that encouraged homosexuality and abortion because we really need some population control as well. These religions were established in a time where babymaking was important...now babies can be found on the side of streets in poor neighborhoods.

 

[Wyote]

Seeking truth is the only merit which outlasts all others. The pursuit of truth is the only thing which does not in itself cause harm. Buddhism allows for such devotion. That's not to say that all Buddhists truly strive for it though ^_^

[YOUTUBE]PqJpZOljjG8&feature=fvw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[pale rider]

The argument could be made that humans are inherently kind and empathetic to one another, regardless of whether or not they are infected with the "parasite", and that the "parasite" simply adds stipulations to sharing this natural kindness and empathy by telling the people it has infected that they need to help spread itself to others in order for them to truly be good people. In essence, any help that is provided should be aimed at spreading the "parasite" no matter how small the chance.

That was what the second article was stating. Once a person accepts the premise that there is an afterlife, they can then use their reasoning to justify any sacrifice they make in life towards that end. However, using reason to justify faith still puts faith on a pedestal above reason and ensures the survival of the "parasite". People who do not simply accept the premise of an afterlife and choose to question faith will be considered "unreasonable" by those who do.

That argument could be made, but it negates my prior proposal's trying to infer "even knowing the one or ones they are helping will not change the way they feel toward their own given faith" as being one that had been influenced by a faith-based religion's teachings already; acknowledging they still may have been(and most likely were) inherently kind and empathetic toward one another before said influence.
The reasoning I mentioned was not to justify one's faith, but rather to reason with what one had been influenced with. One must prove in one's own heart, mind, and soul(reason); "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind what is that good and acceptable, and perfect will of God." The afterlife does not come into that equation and, for argument's sake, can become of little if no importance compared to how one treats others based on their new faith.
Self becomes last; others, first.

 

[Satya]

One must prove in one's own heart, mind, and soul(reason); "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind what is that good and acceptable, and perfect will of God."

Frankly, all that argument says is that people are free to choose for themselves. When people are presented with the premise that they will suffer eternal damnation if they choose otherwise, then they will reason with their "heart, mind, and soul" so to speak that they must comply with that choice simply for the possibility because if they don't and they are wrong, then they will suffer immensely. This is an illusion of freedom, generated by the "parasite", for the moment an infected individual questions the other merits of the "parasite", they are shot down by the others who have been infected.

My evidence...

[YOUTUBE]K8hYRN2nBgk[/YOUTUBE]

[youtube]jXug5wioHDM[/youtube]

[youtube]b2UASRoq3HM[/youtube]

 

[pale rider]

Frankly, all that argument says is that people are free to choose for themselves. When people are presented with the premise that they will suffer eternal damnation if they choose otherwise, then they will reason with their "heart, mind, and soul" so to speak that they must comply with that choice simply for the possibility because if they don't and they are wrong, then they will suffer immensely. This is an illusion of freedom, generated by the "parasite", for the moment an infected individual questions the other merits of the "parasite", they are shot down by the others who have been infected.

My evidence...

You need not cite evidence, as the exceptions are more what I speak of than the rule. I will agree most people to be influenced through religion with promises and/or fears regarding the afterlife in a manner to influence their decision-making process through fear and/or desire. As one of the exceptions, it is difficult to argue against the rule. I will state the possibility one of those things you cited from your source to be "illusions" cannot be proven without doubt to be false until the given time might arise. It is therefore a choice to call it an illusion, just as much as it is a choice to believe it. The future is not ours to know.

I fear war, pestilence, famine, hunger, disease, and the likes will keep humanity in check. Abortion is a sad means of contraception and an uneducated excuse for birth control, though I can understand its use in
bizarre rarities like rape, incest, and possible loss of life of the mother.
:sorry: I know those who have had them and am sorry for the way I feel if it hurts anyone's feelings or reminds someone of a bitter past. No spider web: just wanted to argue another side that is not against all abortion.
Sad the "meme" led us to this subject. However, the way I feel is a great example of how a person can reason with their respective religion and come to their own standard or belief.

 

[Satya]

However, the way I feel is a great example of how a person can reason with their respective religion and come to their own standard or belief.

An interesting thing about memes, as you may recall, I said that they follow Darwin's natural selection algorithm. That means that they can mutate and evolve in order to survive. The abolition of slavery and the end to the subjugation of women are relatively recent developments that modern interpretations of Christianity have had to evolve to accommodate. Homosexuality and abortion are modern issues which are forcing the meme to further evolve. Your personal interpretation could simply be a mutation of the "parasite". If the mutation takes, then that kind of "parasite" will prosper and spread whereas the older version will die out much like it did with slavery and the subjugation of women.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Religion becomes a method of control, when it causes individuals who believe it to go out, and control others who don't fall in line with it.

 

[Satya]

Religion becomes a method of control, when it causes individuals who believe it to go out, and control others who don't fall in line with it.

But to what degree of controlling others? Is it really controlling others if you present them with the choice of following your religion or going to hell? They make the choice.

How about if you find people who are in despair and thus vulnerable and offer them your religion as the answer? It's still their choice.

What about if they teach their own children their religious beliefs? Is it controlling for parents to teach their children what they believe is the correct answer in life?

Is it controlling to simply call those who don't follow your religion names like "pervert" or "abomination"? Just calling people names doesn't make them follow your religion.

Is it controlling to offer members of your religion special treatment that you don't extend to those outside your religion? You aren't doing anything directly in that case.

Is it controlling to legislate their morality? After all every citizen has a vote and if you choose to be a part of a representative democracy then you sometimes have to yield to the will of the majority.

Is it controlling to go to war with practitioners of another religion if they are seen as a threat to your nation? National security is important!

And if someone of a religion does go out and beat, kill, harass, torture, or do anything else to someone who doesn't live in accordance to their religion, then all the other practitioners of that religion will just tell you that those kind of vicious individuals were not true practitioners of the religion. Nonetheless, the message gets through. Follow the religion or else the extremists will get ya!

What do you mean by control?

 

[pale rider]

An interesting thing about memes, as you may recall, I said that they follow Darwin's natural selection algorithm. That means that they can mutate and evolve in order to survive. The abolition of slavery and the end to the subjugation of women are relatively recent developments that modern interpretations of Christianity have had to evolve to accommodate. Homosexuality and abortion are modern issues which are forcing the meme to further evolve. Your personal interpretation could simply be a mutation of the "parasite". If the mutation takes, then that kind of "parasite" will prosper and spread whereas the older version will die out much like it did with slavery and the subjugation of women.

Slavery has not vanished from the earth, though it may be "mutating" toward the total abolition of it. It may be more underground than before to try and hide itself. An attempt is being made to end the subjugation of women worldwide, but there are forces out there still fighting for the subjugation of women....unfortunately.
You must forgive my forgetting the Darwin connotation you mentioned, as I do not give that much thought. I can give room for a type of "evolving" in the mente of humankind. I shall attempt trying to hold onto that concept for your thread's sake, if for nothing else.
I do not see the end of the role of women as it was as a forced way of change in Christianity. I will cite, "There is neither Jews nor Greeks; bond nor free; male nor female; for all are one in Christ." I may have to edit that for its proper quote. I am surprised racism was not mentioned.
Homosexuality may never influence religion as much as its feeble attempt to influence law. It was prevalent back in old Bible days: remember Sodom and Gomorrah? There has also been a feeble attempt to influence law regarding the use of illegal drugs and their legalization. Those issues raise the "morality" flag, which is not part of this thread and not indigenous only to religion; though that can be and has been argued in the past with much effort.
Food for thought: could homosexuality and abortion be parasites of some part of humanity trying to force their way on the world and religion to rid the world of religion and/or morality so they can further mutate?
I see this battle joining with other battles as a type of war fought without guns and bombs, further explaining why the fight against guns and bombs has entered the picture. Two views of how life should be are at war, silently being fought in our schoolbooks, courts, media, and our streets.
It may be quite possible each side views the other as parasites, I could guess.

 

[bamf]

I've always questioned the difference between spreading religion and anti-religion...

In essence both kinds are telling people how to live their lives and by what rules.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Controling others as in trying to make them live acording to someone elses will. Mostly by imposing laws in their view of the world (this forcing people to believe a certain way). If someone tell you "you are to believe, or you are going to hell" then that counts as control, because that isn't an option, that is saying "believe or else", which isnt a choice to me, that is fear tactics.

If parents want to teach their children religious belifs that the hold, then it is their choice to do so. Most of the time, if religious zealots try to force it down on their children I feel very angry at them for doing so. Nevertheless, it is not my place to say how they should raise their children, no matter how much I disagree with it. They arent hurting their children, and the children to have an option to believe or not (though that doesnt always happen, and wont happen until they are teenagers or beyond). It is the parents choice and by me telling them to stop, makes me no better then if they had said something to me.

Calling people names and being vocal by saying people who don't believe are "unworthy" or something to that effect, isnt controling. That is being single minded and prejustice against a group. They have a right to believe that (no matter how much I disagee). It only becomes problamatic if they attack me as an individual and try to control me that way, or to try to control us as a group. Of course it is possible people could take it too far and become "overly vocal" and begin distrupting peace. And why would it be wrong to extend special treatment to those in a religious group? All groups give special treatment to those in a group, there is nothing wrong with that what so ever.

The last three examples you listed are methods of control, because that is trying to restrict people's livelyhoods as a group, which is unfair. I do understand that there is no way to see if someone is voting leglisation by their internal religious values or not. However, the outcome of such results usually are. I have no solution to that problem, I do however know that it is wrong. War is a method of control, you know that as well as I do, so is killing, touturing, ect.