Viruses of the Mind

[Borodog]

An oldie but a goody (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml) from Richard Dawkins.

This article is over 12 years old, but it amazes me how much of the content is relevent to practically every thread on religion I read on this board (e.g. the thread recently posted about the Trinity). Well worth reading if you haven't, and worth rereading if you have.

[yukoncpa]

Great article. Here's a couple of paragraphs that I liked:

5. The patient may notice that the particular convictions that he holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, do seem to owe a great deal to epidemiology. Why, he may wonder, do I hold this set of convictions rather than that set? Is it because I surveyed all the world's faiths and chose the one whose claims seemed most convincing? Almost certainly not. If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence.

6. If the patient is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different religion from his parents, the explanation may still be epidemiological. To be sure, it is possible that he dispassionately surveyed the world's faiths and chose the most convincing one. But it is statistically more probable that he has been exposed to a particularly potent infective agent --- a John Wesley, a Jim Jones or a St. Paul. Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea.

[Borodog]

2 & 3 are just brilliant. Read them and then go read the Trinity thread.

"The premise of Zahavi's idea is that natural selection will favor skepticism among females (or among recipients of advertising messages generally). The only way for a male (or any advertiser) to authenticate his boast of strength (quality, or whatever is is) is to prove that it is true by shouldering a truly costly handicap --- a handicap that only a genuinely strong (high quality, etc.) male could bear. It may be called the principle of costly authentication. And now to the point. Is it possible that some religious doctrines are favored not in spite of being ridiculous but precisely because they are ridiculous? Any wimp in religion could believe that bread symbolically represents the body of Christ, but it takes a real, red-blooded Catholic to believe something as daft as the transubstantiation. If you believe that you can believe anything, and (witness the story of Doubting Thomas) these people are trained to see that as a virtue."

[RJT]

From this quote from the link it appears that Dawkins either intentionally misrepresents (I trust not to be the case) or misunderstands (I would hope to be the case) the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation: “Roman Catholics, whose belief in infallible authority compels them to accept that wine becomes physically transformed into blood despite all appearances, refer to the ``mystery'' of transubstantiation.”

When I say he misunderstands it, I am not being precise. No one understands it. It is by definition a Mystery. It can’t be fully understood. What I mean to express is that he is off the mark on his interpretation/representation of the “concept” of Transubstantiation.

His use of the words “physically transformed” in place of the words “That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii)”* seems to me to be where he goes astray.

If I am correct in my read of his (mis)understanding, then his remarks are nonsense.

RJT


*Catholic Encyclopedia

[yukoncpa]

"the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ'"
This sounds like a physical transformation to me. Where am I wrong?

[Bork]

How has he gone astray?
Wine turning into blood is a physical transformation.

He is saying it still looks like, tastes like, and has all the properties of wine, but nonetheless they claim it has transformed into blood.

Its not a mystery how it became blood, because plainly it hasn't actually become blood.

By the way if you believe that the crackers literally turn into Christ's flesh, and the wine turns into his blood doesn't that mean you are eating Christ. Delicious spicy Christ flesh and blood. God damn cannibals.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
From this quote from the link it appears that Dawkins either intentionally misrepresents (I trust not to be the case) or misunderstands (I would hope to be the case) the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation: “Roman Catholics, whose belief in infallible authority compels them to accept that wine becomes physically transformed into blood despite all appearances, refer to the ``mystery'' of transubstantiation.”

When I say he misunderstands it, I am not being precise. No one understands it. It is by definition a Mystery. It can’t be fully understood . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you; his point exactly:

"A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that ``mystery,'' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.

Any impulse to solve mysteries could be serious[ly] inimical to the spread of a mind virus. It would not, therefore, be surprising if the idea that ``mysteries are better not solved'' was a favored member of a mutually supporting gang of viruses. Take the ``Mystery of Transubstantiation.'' It is easy and non-mysterious to believe that in some symbolic or metaphorical sense the eucharistic wine turns into the blood of Christ. The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, however, claims far more. The ``whole substance'' of the wine is converted into the blood of Christ; the appearance of wine that remains is ``merely accidental,'' ``inhering in no substance'' (Kenny, 1986, p. 72). Transubstantiation is colloquially taught as meaning that the wine ``literally'' turns into the blood of Christ. Whether in its obfuscatory Aristotelian or its franker colloquial form, the claim of transubstantiation can be made only if we do serious violence to the normal meanings of words like ``substance'' and ``literally.'' Redefining words is not a sin, but, if we use words like ``whole substance'' and ``literally'' for this case, what word are we going to use when we really and truly want to say that something did actually happen? As Anthony Kenny observed of his own puzzlement as a young seminarian, ``For all I could tell, my typewriter might be Benjamin Disraeli transubstantiated....''

Roman Catholics, whose belief in infallible authority compels them to accept that wine becomes physically transformed into blood despite all appearances, refer to the ``mystery'' of transubstantiation. Calling it a mystery makes everything OK, you see. At least, it works for a mind well prepared by background infection. Exactly the same trick is performed in the ``mystery'' of the Trinity. Mysteries are not meant to be solved, they are meant to strike awe. The ``mystery is a virtue'' idea comes to the aid of the Catholic, who would otherwise find intolerable the obligation to believe the obvious nonsense of the transubstantiation and the ``three-in-one.'' Again, the belief that ``mystery is a virtue'' has a self-referential ring. As Hofstadter might put it, the very mysteriousness of the belief moves the believer to perpetuate the mystery. "

Any nonsensical impossibilities that arise in the course of a particular religion's evolution can conveniently be cast as Mysteries ("Why all the suffering?" "God works in Mysterious ways . . ."), which we are told cannot be understood by definition, so don't even try. Instead, relax, don't think, Believe, and revel in the Mystery.

[RJT]

Dawkins: "A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that ``mystery,'' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.”

Another misunderstanding of the Catholic thought/belief. No one I know thinks of the Mysteries as a good thing or bad thing. Certainly, none revel in their insolubility.

He takes liberties with changing the words used by our Church to his words. In common use of the English language (or whatever language one would be discussing these things) this would appear to be fine. It is in fact not the same expression of the ideas presented by the Church. He uses what seem to be synonyms, but in the context of their meanings are not the same ideas.

I have an analogy in mind to try to express this difference. I will try to formulate it (I don’t have time right now) so that one might better grasp the difference.

In the meantime and in order to confirm that my read on Dawkins here is correct (that he doesn’t grasp the concept of Transubstantiation.), I would be interested in hearing Bluff’s, bigdaddy’s, et al (Peter666 included) views on Dawkins point of view. Notready, even though he does not believe in Transubstantiation, certainly gets the concept behind it. I would like to hear their thoughts on Dawkins here. I could be misunderstanding Dawkins.

RJT

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins: "A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that ``mystery,'' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.”

Another misunderstanding of the Catholic thought/belief. No one I know thinks of the Mysteries as a good thing or bad thing. Certainly, none revel in their insolubility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, although it certainly often appears that way to me. But I'll concede the point, and simply note that defining Mysteries as impossible to understand, as you yourself did, serves the same purpose, yes?

[Borodog]

To develop the idea more fully, you can easily see the usefulness to a religion to define Mysteries to be inexplicable, since the mind, in accepting inexplicability, ceases to be bothered by inconsistencies, irrationality, illogic, and impossibilities.

I think another related meme is the ability to seamlessly transmute language, so that words that have a plain meaning do not mean what they plainly do, for example that "a conversion of the total substance . . the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ" does not mean "physically transformed." This transformation of language is no less illogical than the underlying belief it relates to, but serves a very important purpose in protecting the suite of mind viruses (the religion) from being detected by the host.

[morphball]

I have never read the Catholic Encyclopedia (and I feel sorry for anyone who has), but I did go through Catholic Sunday school for 11 years. Trust me, they are teaching children at my old church that the crackers and wine are physically changed into the body and blood of christ. Now, if this is not the <u>official</u> doctrine of the Catholic Church, then send me PM and I will give you the location. We'll alert the papal police/Swiss Guard at once!

Or I have no idea what you're talking about...

[hmkpoker]

Kind of. They tried to teach us how it works in catholic school. Obviously it's not actual blood and flesh...a simple test would prove that wrong. They claim, though, that God "actually" blesses it, which I guess changes the "spiritual value" of the stuff, even though there is no change evident to any empirical test, and no observable change undergone when it is consumed.

The act is widely hailed as a miracle, even though nothing happens that can't be explained by science.

[yukoncpa]

If Catholics claim that the "spiritual value" is what is changing and that the wine is not literally changing to blood, then the Catholic church has a serious P.R. problem because everybody thinks that a literal transformation is the official Catholic docterine.

[hmkpoker]

*confused*

There might be a miscommunication?

We were taught that the bread and wine aren't turned into blood (as in plasma and hemoglobin) and flesh (as in hair, fat and epidermis). That's just too obviously wrong. We were taught that the "makeup"...whether that refers to the material composition or some spiritual "force" that accompanies it, I don't know...changes to something that is different, and can't be replicated by science. It's stupid, but at least it's unfalisifiable.

If anyone over the age of ten actually believes that the bread and wine actually change into real, literal flesh and blood, I hope a meteor strikes them on the head before they get a chance to reproduce.

[hmkpoker]

Excellent article, borodog. Thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[luckyme]

What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? Some of the first sections are as follows:

CANON I - "If anyone shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure - let him be accursed!"

CANON II - "If anyone shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ - let him be accursed!"

[RJT]

I hesitate to use the following analogy. The reason I hesitate is because it does not do justice to the “concept” of Transubstantiation; and it still might not make my point understandable that one cannot use one’s own choice of words (that might seem like synonyms) to restate Church teachings. But, I will try anyway.

First a few ideas to be used in the context of my analogy. Let’s start with the word “soul” as we Catholics/Christians use the word. I feel safe in assuming that most folk get an idea of what that means to us. If one were to try to restate the word “soul” one might try using words such as spiritual body, one’s conscience, the immortal part of a person. This is fine to do in conversation. Depending on the context, it might serve. But, to use these synonyms in discussing specific theologies does not serve. It is limiting, if not totally incorrect.

My next thought regards the word “Mystery”. When we say things are Mysteries I think there is a fine line between defining the word Mystery as “impossible to understand” (which btw, is not what I said - I said, “can’t be fully understood”) and something that can’t be explained by language. Full comprehension is certainly part of the idea behind our use of the word “Mystery”. I think that language is also a limiting factor, though. Limitations in communication when thinking of our (my) understanding of Mystery should not be ignored.

To illustrate my point, let’s take the word “love”. Can that be precisely defined by language? Can it be fully understood? Should we then say it is a foolish notion? Should we conclude there is no such thing as love? One cannot simply takes words of choice to (re)describe Church teachings in order to fit an argument.

Finally, here is my analogy for the “concept” of Transubstantiation. Getting back to the idea of soul - we say that at some point God infuses us with a soul. Although most find this idea ridiculous, I don’t think many would find the concept hard to understand what we mean. Instead of saying “God infuses us with a soul”, perhaps we can say “When God creates a soul for each of us …‘there is a conversion of the total substance’ of that person”. That there is a “… transition of the entire…” embryo from a state of matter to one of God’s creation/children (whatever term we want to use).

So with this example we can then try to understand the “concept” of Transubstantiation as God infusing Himself (Jesus), His own soul, into the bread and wine. There is not physical change ( as there was not a physical change in the embryo), yet there is a transition of the entire substance (as there was a transition of the entire substance of the embryo).

I am not interested in getting into whether the “concept” of Transubstantiation is valid or not. That is not the issue. (Certainly, I am not interested in defending my analogy - I already stated it does not do justice to the term.) My point is only to show that Dawkins cannot use his own words to make his argument. He changes the meaning of the term when he does that. Once he does that his logic cannot proceed further without being flawed.

RJT

[Borodog]

I appreciate the thought you've put into it, but the length you have to go to in order to explain why the words don't mean what they plainly mean helps make my point. In order to explain things that are irrational, you have to invoke ever more Mysterious unobservable things, which by definition cannot be "fully understood." It's a very effective mechanism.

[CRF250X]

Magick.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the thought you've put into it, but the length you have to go to in order to explain why the words don't mean what they plainly mean helps make my point. In order to explain things that are irrational, you have to invoke ever more Mysterious unobservable things, which by definition cannot be "fully understood." It's a very effective mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the issue. The issue is that Dawkins rewrites the concept in his own words and then proceeds to make an argument to follow.

It is like if we try to translate some foreign words into English. We can come close to their meaning, but some words have no exact translation. We can look at the German/Dutch word angst. We can translate it as fear or anxiety. This is not the exact connotation when Kierkegaard talks of angst. Using Dawkins revisionist language, one could simply dismiss Soren’s thoughts by saying he is anxious and needs to be on Prozac.

And that is fine if one wants to dismiss Soren’s thoughts. But, one would be changing what SK is saying. Whether he actually needs Prozac or not is beside the point. The way one arrived at the conclusion that SK needs Prozac would still be flawed.

That is basically what Dawkins does here. He does not arrive at his conclusion flawlessly. Therefore, what he says is moot.

[tolbiny]

To illustrate my point, let’s take the word “love”. Can that be precisely defined by language? Can it be fully understood? Should we then say it is a foolish notion? Should we conclude there is no such thing as love? One cannot simply takes words of choice to (re)describe Church teachings in order to fit an argument.


NO- but love isn't anything. There are a number of differnet emotions that have been called Love by one person at a time or another. Many people define it differntly for themselves in differnt situations- i love you like a brother, as a friend, i love my dog. When questioned they would clearly note that there are differnces in these relationships and feelings. most other cultures have different words for the different types of love that have relatively few synonyms in english.

Basically what you seem to be saying is that the definition of a mystery is a mystery in and of its self.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notready, even though he does not believe in Transubstantiation, certainly gets the concept behind it. I would like to hear their thoughts on Dawkins here. I could be misunderstanding Dawkins.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to comment on Transubstantiation per se, but I do agree with what you say about Dawkins' statements on mystery. I wonder if he thinks there is no mystery for man? Has science explained everything? Does he think it has? If it hasn't, does he resort to mystery when asked about it?

That entire article is typical of the Dawkins approach. He never justifies his own beliefs and spends an enormous amount of time cherry-picking statements and practices of religious people that suit his purposes. He lumps together Moonies, nuns, Tertullian and Jim Jones, then at least by implication asserts that all Christians are the same. This is a total failure of logic, scholarship, understanding, or even genuine interest in the subject he thinks he knows. All of the attacks he makes on religion that I have read have one common theme. It's an incredibly verbose and overdone repetition of the criticism that says Christianity is harmful because it induces fear since it preaches judgment. I'm reminded of some of the arguments by Russell in "Why I Am Not A Christian". He may even have made that one, but I don't think he spewed for nearly as long as Dawkins. The central truth both miss is simply that if what Christians say is true it's an invalid criticism. It would be like telling someone they shouldn't warn people of the man-eating lion in the next room because it would make them afraid. The first and most important issue is whether or not it's true. Dawkins never addresses this question in any serious way. He simply assumes it's false then tries to show how harmful false beliefs can be.

One example of his ignorance is his certainty that all Christians are only Christians because of the accident of birth. Even that phrase makes a gigantic, unprovable assumption, but beyond that he is totally mistaken on the facts. He tries to escape this by allowing that some become Christians because of the zeal of a John Wesley, St. Paul or Jim Jones, once again making a nasty and illegitimate connection between a looney like Jones, a genuine Christian evangelist like Wesley, and the Apostle Paul. If it is enthusiasm he hates I could mention that atheist enthusiasts have done far more harm than Christian ones - Hitler, Stalin, Mao - does that mean I equate Dawkins with Stalin because they are both atheists? Like Sagan before him he refuses to deal with substance. He draws caricatures, lumps together irrelevancies for the verbal effect, and never bothers to get past a superfical discussion of the really important questions. I think of him as Sagan on steroids.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to comment on Transubstantiation per se, but I do agree with what you say about Dawkins' statements on mystery. I wonder if he thinks there is no mystery for man? Has science explained everything? Does he think it has? If it hasn't, does he resort to mystery when asked about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that science hasn't explained everything does not suggest that the stuff in the Bible is true.

I am sure he doesnt resort to mystery fallacy when explaining his beliefs. The mystery fallacy: it’s a mystery therefore I can think whatever I want. He probably does the scientific thing and just doesnt hold beliefs that include explanations for the things science hasn't explained.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the thought you've put into it, but the length you have to go to in order to explain why the words don't mean what they plainly mean helps make my point. In order to explain things that are irrational, you have to invoke ever more Mysterious unobservable things, which by definition cannot be "fully understood." It's a very effective mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the issue. The issue is that Dawkins rewrites the concept in his own words and then proceeds to make an argument to follow.

It is like if we try to translate some foreign words into English. We can come close to their meaning, but some words have no exact translation. We can look at the German/Dutch word angst. We can translate it as fear or anxiety. This is not the exact connotation when Kierkegaard talks of angst. Using Dawkins revisionist language, one could simply dismiss Soren’s thoughts by saying he is anxious and needs to be on Prozac . .

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that it's not a foreign language. It's Dawkins' native tongue, for which he has received awards for using eloquently. He doesn't "mistranslate" anything. In fact, you are. The one revising the language is you. You are subverting the simple and straightforward meanings of words, because their simple and straightforward meanings belie the irrationality of your belief. So rather than believing that "a conversion of the total substance . . the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ" means what it says it means (which, by the way, the majority of Catholics believe, whether you like it or not), which is obviously nonsense to you, you get around it by changing the plain meanings of these words to mean instead, "be imbued with the Holy Spirit," or some other Mysterious, unobservable thing. And you are happy stopping there, even though you have no idea whatsoever what your "explanation" actually means (if anything), because, as you have told us, you have been trained to believe that by definition Mysteries "cannot be understood."

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The mystery fallacy: it’s a mystery therefore I can think whatever I want


[/ QUOTE ]

Who says that?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is that it's not a foreign language. It's Dawkins' native tongue,


[/ QUOTE ]

What RJT means is that plain language is the only tool we have to describe concepts that are on the very edge of our understanding. It's this very simple idea that seems to be beyond Dawkins. Like a child, anything that can't be expressed in a way that pleases him, he labels irrational. Never mind that he is never able to demonstrate that it is irrational. Just call it that because it sounds so neat.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The first and most important issue is whether or not it's true. Dawkins never addresses this question in any serious way. He simply assumes it's false then tries to show how harmful false beliefs can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of this article is not to demonstrate the reasons why Christian beliefs are false; that's been covered thousands of times over. The article is written as a description of the nature of widespread beliefs, and explains a theory as to how these beliefs circulate.

It is clearly written for an atheist audience.

I think he makes an excellent point. A virus, be it biological or digital, shows two common characteristics: self-replicating behavior, and command-following (or programming).

Christianity does exhibit a lot of self-replicating behavior. It asks the user to spread the word, and encourages procreation. This combination produces children who, at least according to Dawkins' reasonable assumptions in the beginning of the article, are very gullible, and susceptible to new beliefs.

Christian beliefs also protect themselves through some other means. Christianity inspires fear and aversion (in many) in questioning their beliefs. Christianity extols faith as a virtue. And in so doing, the Christian mind is rewarded for maintaining his beliefs, and punished for challenging them. The lifespan of the belief increases.

The second characteric, instruction following, is more obvious: the Christian mind is compelled to do certain things through percieved reward and abstains from other things from percieved punishment. That the belief in infinite reward or punishment can motivate some seemingly bizarre actions needs no demonstration.


The article only makes sense if you assume Christianity is false. If not, your presumably Christian mind would purport different sources for your belief (God/Holy Spirit rather than family/community/church), different reasons for maintaining your belief (perceived truth rather than biased thinking), and a lack of awareness of the belief as a virus, resulting in belligerent aversion, as you demonstrated...at least from an atheist's point of view.


Lastly, you have criticized Dawkins before for having an agenda. This is an invalid argument against him. It's pretty obvious that he has an agenda, and so do most writers. The existence of his agenda is neither helpful nor hurtful to his argument; it's ad hominem. Argue the argument, not the man.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
So rather than believing that "a conversion of the total substance . . the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ" means what it says it means (which, by the way, the majority of Catholics believe, whether you like it or not), which is obviously nonsense to you, …

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe this. You misunderstood me.


[ QUOTE ]
you get around it by changing the plain meanings of these words to mean instead, "be imbued with the Holy Spirit," or some other Mysterious, unobservable thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my analogy. I don’t believe that is what happens. I thought I made that clear when I (twice) said I fear to use my analogy because it does not do justice to Transubstantiation.

[ QUOTE ]
And you are happy stopping there, even though you have no idea whatsoever what your "explanation" actually means (if anything), because, as you have told us, you have been trained to believe that by definition Mysteries "cannot be understood."

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that Dawkins has rubbed off on you. Please stop rephrasing what is said and assuming things like he does, both of which he likes to do. 1) I am not “happy” stopping anywhere. 2) I never told you I “…have been “trained’ to believe…” anything. 3) I said, “It [Transubstantiation] can’t be fully understood.”

[RJT]

Assuming for the sake of argument his premise is true, that Religion is like a computer a virus. The problem is that he tries to prove this by stating things that simply are incorrect. He thus says nothing. He might say it in an interesting way. (And I do find him interesting, btw. Saw him on TV once. He is a very charming person - interesting to listen to.) Nevertheless, he still says nothing here.

[Borodog]

Well, we're going around in circles, so I'll just leave it to the reader to make up their own mind on the subject.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The purpose of this article is not to demonstrate the reasons why Christian beliefs are false; that's been covered thousands of times over.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where? Also, the author's motives are secondary to the evaluation of a piece of writing.

[ QUOTE ]

This combination produces children who, at least according to Dawkins' reasonable assumptions in the beginning of the article, are very gullible, and susceptible to new beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

His point wasn't that it produced gullibility, but that children are naturally gullible and thus susceptible to virus. His criticism of Christianity is simply an invective, not a logical argument. I can make the same invective about atheisim. Gullible children are harmed by atheists who insist they have no soul, are living a meaningless and purposeless existence, have no rational basis for moral behavior, and wink out of existence as if they had never been after a few short years. What a horrible thing to teach innocent children. And atheisim is self-replicating as well. Dawkins' evangelizing efforts are proof of that.

[ QUOTE ]

the Christian mind is compelled to do certain things through percieved reward and abstains from other things from percieved punishment. That the belief in infinite reward or punishment can motivate some seemingly bizarre actions needs no demonstration.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've learned the Dawkins technique very well. These kind of assertions, broadly lumping together wholly disparate beliefs, properly criticizing one of them, then assigning that criticism to all, is a high school debate technique. Sagan used it, Dawkins has refined it, and you seem to be getting.

[ QUOTE ]

This is an invalid argument against him.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't use the fact he has an agenda as an argument to prove he's wrong. I use it because so many atheists claim neutrality, that evolution says nothing about God, that it's harmless whereas ID shouldn't be taught in the schools because it isn't science. The one word answer to that is simply "Dawkins".

[hmkpoker]

You and NR are making the same mistake. Dawkins is not applying circular or meaningless reasoning. That Christianity is untrue is one of the premises upon which he builds his argument that Christianity behaves like a virus. He doesn't assume that religion is like a virus. However, if you believe Christianity is true, Dawkins' reasoning will seem flawed.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of this article is not to demonstrate the reasons why Christian beliefs are false; that's been covered thousands of times over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. There are more written arguments debunking Christian beliefs than are worth counting.

[ QUOTE ]
His point wasn't that it produced gullibility, but that children are naturally gullible and thus susceptible to virus.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I misphrased that.

[ QUOTE ]
I can make the same invective about atheisim. Gullible children are harmed by atheists who insist they have no soul, are living a meaningless and purposeless existence, have no rational basis for moral behavior, and wink out of existence as if they had never been after a few short years. What a horrible thing to teach innocent children. And atheisim is self-replicating as well. Dawkins' evangelizing efforts are proof of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, atheists obviously don't teach that. Secondly, atheism is not self-replicating (or at least far less so than Christianity). Dawkins may be evangelizing, but he is not giving other people reason to evangelize to others; that's the difference. According to Dawkins, Christianity owes much of its proliferation to the fact that instructs others to witness. Atheism and science do not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the Christian mind is compelled to do certain things through percieved reward and abstains from other things from percieved punishment. That the belief in infinite reward or punishment can motivate some seemingly bizarre actions needs no demonstration.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've learned the Dawkins technique very well. These kind of assertions, broadly lumping together wholly disparate beliefs, properly criticizing one of them, then assigning that criticism to all, is a high school debate technique. Sagan used it, Dawkins has refined it, and you seem to be getting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will admit that my last sentence there is useless, since it's directed toward an atheist audience which you clearly aren't. Nevertheless, it's basic psychology, and assuming that Christianity is falls, I feel that it follows logically.

[ QUOTE ]
that evolution says nothing about God, that it's harmless whereas ID shouldn't be taught in the schools because it isn't science.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can believe in God and still believe in evolution. They taught us about evolution when I went to Catholic school.

ID isn't science.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However, if you believe Christianity is true, Dawkins' reasoning will seem flawed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying his reasoning is flawed because of circularity. I'm saying his assumption that Christianity is false isn't demonstrated. Also lumping different religions together as if they were the same thing is incorrect reasoning. As RJT pointed out, another flaw is using the straw man argument, or misrepresenting the position you are attacking.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Come on. There are more written arguments debunking Christian beliefs than are worth counting.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where?

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, atheists obviously don't teach that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. Some do so directly, for some it is a fair implication of their worldview.

[ QUOTE ]

Dawkins may be evangelizing, but he is not giving other people reason to evangelize to others; that's the difference


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you're correct about this but I think it's an extremely minor point. In fact, if atheism is true, shouldn't it be self-replicating? Don't you want the truth to be spread?

[ QUOTE ]

One can believe in God and still believe in evolution. They taught us about evolution when I went to Catholic school.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, tell Dawkins to shut up about Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]

ID isn't science.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither is atheistic evolution.

[Borodog]

That Christianity is false is not part of the argument. Clearly he assumes it is false by the way he speaks of it, but that is not part of the argument.

He merely asks, what would a set of mind viruses concerned with faith (i.e. believing something is true despite a lack of evidence, or even inspite of a fount of evidence to the contrary) look like? He then shows that the features you would expect such a suite of viruses to have bear strong resemblance to the ways in which various religions seem to be built, and uses various examples like Transubstantiation and Jewish dietary rules to illustrate the point.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying his assumption that Christianity is false isn't demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should a professor teaching advanced topics in calculus have to start by explaining addition?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Should a professor teaching advanced topics in calculus have to start by explaining addition?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same type argument Dawkins makes. The issue is the truth of Christianity. That it's false is nothing like that addition is true. It's a false association which is a specialty of Dawkins.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins may be evangelizing, but he is not giving other people reason to evangelize to others; that's the difference

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you're correct about this but I think it's an extremely minor point.

[/ QUOTE ]

To self-replicate, a virus must spawn a belief that attempts to spawn that same belief in others. Part of the belief is the incentive to spread the belief. Spreading the word of God is key to Christian belief; spreading the word of science is not key to any atheist belief.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if atheism is true, shouldn't it be self-replicating? Don't you want the truth to be spread?

[/ QUOTE ]

If atheism is true, it doesn't have to be self-replicating.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming for the sake of argument his premise is true, that Religion is like a computer a virus. The problem is that he tries to prove this by stating things that simply are incorrect. He thus says nothing. He might say it in an interesting way. (And I do find him interesting, btw. Saw him on TV once. He is a very charming person - interesting to listen to.) Nevertheless, he still says nothing here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi RJT

So if some religous claims are incorrect then religon is saying nothing? Even I think that's too extreme /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway you can demonstrate the validity of the mind virus idea and have some seasonal fun. Pick a catchy but annoying tune (not too annoying, some stealth is required) and hum it near people repeatedly.

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is the truth of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That Christianity is false is not part of the argument. Clearly he assumes it is false by the way he speaks of it, but that is not part of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, boro. I went back to the article trying to see what the falseness of xtrianity had to do with it. I read it as a exploration of the nature and spread of memes with a focus on faith-based ones. It's spoiled slightly by the virus analogy, only because people tend to get lost in an analogy in an expectation that they are congruent with the arguments situation rather than mere pointing or shape-giving devices.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
Spreading the word of God is key to Christian belief;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by this. Not all are called to be evangelists, teachers or preachers. We can be Christian without actively engaging in spreading the word. And the truth of Christianity doesn't depend on evangelizing. We evangelize because God's Word tells us to do so, and He tells us to do so because He wants the truth to be spread.

[ QUOTE ]

If atheism is true, it doesn't have to be self-replicating.


[/ QUOTE ]

But shouldn't you want the truth to spread?

[Borodog]

I agree that the viral terminology has unecessarily pejorative connotations that can get in the way of understanding Dawkins' thesis. The idea of the mind virus I don't think is really distinct from the meme. Dawkins even suggests this himself, when he suggests that the entire genome could be viewed as little more than a gigantic colony of viruses. The human mind, at least the part that is learned and not instinctual, is a giant colony of mind viruses, including the idea and precepts science and the scientific method.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a stated issue with Dawkins because he assumes it's false. But that is a false assumption so whether he makes it the issue or not, it is still the issue. If Christianity is true, wouldn't it's truth be an issue concerning what he says about it as a virus?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a stated issue with Dawkins because he assumes it's false. But that is a false assumption so whether he makes it the issue or not, it is still the issue. If Christianity is true, wouldn't it's truth be an issue concerning what he says about it as a virus?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, it wouldn't. As I said:

[ QUOTE ]
That Christianity is false is not part of the argument. Clearly he assumes it is false by the way he speaks of it, but that is not part of the argument.

He merely asks, what would a set of mind viruses concerned with faith (i.e. believing something is true despite a lack of evidence, or even inspite of a fount of evidence to the contrary) look like? He then shows that the features you would expect such a suite of viruses to have bear strong resemblance to the ways in which various religions seem to be built . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a stated issue with Dawkins because he assumes it's false. But that is a false assumption so whether he makes it the issue or not, it is still the issue. If Christianity is true, wouldn't it's truth be an issue concerning what he says about it as a virus?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my advanced calculus/addition analogy, I was debating between using that, or using advanced biology/periodic table. I now wish went with the latter, because there are still people who don't believe in the periodic table.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the viral terminology has unecessarily pejorative connotations


[/ QUOTE ]

That he meant it in a perjorative way is evident from how he contrasts that with science.

[ QUOTE ]

4 Is Science a Virus
No. Not unless all computer programs are viruses. Good, useful programs spread because people evaluate them, recommend them and pass them on. Computer viruses spread solely because they embody the coded instructions: ``Spread me.'' ... But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious...


[/ QUOTE ]

"Science is good and useful"

Implication: religion is bad and useless.

"Computer viruses spread solely because they embody the coded instructions: ``Spread me.'' "

Implication: The only reason people are Christian is because they are infected, not because it's true.

"But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious."

Implication: Christianity is arbitrary and capricious.

"They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior."


Implication: Christianity favors pointless self-serving behavior.

I don't think his choice of the word virus was accidental. I think he wanted to be as perjorative as possible and still be printable.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No, actually, it wouldn't


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean if Christianity is true it's still a virus?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, actually, it wouldn't


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean if Christianity is true it's still a virus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in the same way all memes are mental viruses.

And I'm sure that Dawkins' pejorative use of the term virus was intentional.

[RJT]

Chez,

Welcome back. Hard place to leave (Italy) isn’t it? (Actually that can be taken literally. Trying to get around Italy is one of the things I love about it. Normal everyday things can often be a big challenge. Everything is an adventure.)

[ QUOTE ]
So if some religious claims are incorrect then religion is saying nothing? Even I think that's too extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you know C. S. Lewis already has gone over this. Now of course, if Jesus isn’t God then his “Love thy Neighbor” still says “something“. If nothing else, it might be a good way for society to act. But, basically yes - if Jesus is not Risen then Christianity says nothing.

I didn’t mean literary that Dawkins says nothing. I was trying to show that his example is flawed. Perhaps, I can restate it in the form of a (rhetorical) question: If his example is flawed what does that say?

RJT

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If atheism is true, it doesn't have to be self-replicating.

[/ QUOTE ]

But shouldn't you want the truth to spread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...if we had the truth. Science doesn't have the truth. It just gets closer, and applies better reasoning after an analysis of the increasingly many findings that came before.

I would not want a virus that propagates the current understanding of quantum physics; a hundred years from now, the theory will probably be refined, developed, and more educated. A virus would stop the progress.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't have the truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I can't top that.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If atheism is true, it doesn't have to be self-replicating.

[/ QUOTE ]

But shouldn't you want the truth to spread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...if we had the truth. Science doesn't have the truth. It just gets closer, and applies better reasoning after an analysis of the increasingly many findings that came before.

I would not want a virus that propagates the current understanding of quantum physics; a hundred years from now, the theory will probably be refined, developed, and more educated. A virus would stop the progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't have the truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I can't top that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to the point, and you know that.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If atheism is true, it doesn't have to be self-replicating.

[/ QUOTE ]

But shouldn't you want the truth to spread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...if we had the truth. Science doesn't have the truth. It just gets closer, and applies better reasoning after an analysis of the increasingly many findings that came before.

I would not want a virus that propagates the current understanding of quantum physics; a hundred years from now, the theory will probably be refined, developed, and more educated. A virus would stop the progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was afraid you'd nail me on this one.

My point, which was directed toward NotReady, was that a self-replicating simple belief could prove detrimental if it runs into evidence to the contrary. I guess another way to think of it would be a "classical physics" virus which still exists today and causes people to reject relativity.

Yes, a scientific "virus" would probably include in its programming the belief that one must be willing to change his beliefs based on credible evidence to the contrary. My point was to create an analogy to something with a fixed belief, like christianity.

[hmkpoker]

You do this all the time, NR. There's a simple statement, and you attack it from every obscure angle without actually dealing with it.

A virus is something that self-replicates, and causes the host to follow a certain instruction. Religion (if you don't want to use Christianity, substitute any other religion which strongly encourages others to spread the word) meets these criteria, and therefore is a virus, or viral in nature. Spreading the belief of science is not a key tenant to some atheist doctrine, therefore it is not a virus.

That's it.

[Bork]

Whether Christianity is true or not is tangential to his argument. He picked out Christians because they believe wine is turned it into blood and at the same time will accuse anyone who uses the phrase 'wine is turned into blood', in an argument against them of twisting words, misinterpretation or, 'not getting it'. Seems to me a good example of irrational behavior.

What you egocentric christians appear not to realize is that there are many other religions besides your own. So his argument's premise that religion is false is true for at least 99% of religions.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to the point, and you know that.


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm sure you didn't mean it in a certain way. But it IS the point. Truth is the issue. Everything Dawkins says about virus is predicated on the falsity of Christianity and the truth of atheistic science.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to the point, and you know that.


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm sure you didn't mean it in a certain way. But it IS the point. Truth is the issue. Everything Dawkins says about virus is predicated on the falsity of Christianity and the truth of atheistic science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess arguing this again would be futile.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

a self-replicating simple belief could prove detrimental if it runs into evidence to the contrary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you see you can't escape the truth issue?

[ QUOTE ]

My point was to create an analogy to something with a fixed belief, like christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]


Why do you think it's a fixed belief? Is there nothing "fixed" in science?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

A virus is something that self-replicates, and causes the host to follow a certain instruction.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, take that definition of virus. If the virus is true and good, why wouldn't you want it to self-replicate. Why would that be bad?

[ QUOTE ]

Spreading the belief of science is not a key tenant to some atheist doctrine, therefore it is not a virus.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe science should strive to be a virus. What's wrong with spreading the truth? Dawkins wasn't using virus becuase of the spreading nature, it was because he believes it's false and bad.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn’t mean literary that Dawkins says nothing. I was trying to show that his example is flawed. Perhaps, I can restate it in the form of a (rhetorical) question: If his example is flawed what does that say?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be a shame to get hung up on this example (which I'm ignorant about as well) and miss the sheer beauty and elegance of what Dawkins is talking about [I'm still a wee bit merry so bear with me].

Lets dismiss the unfortunate suggestion that religon is like a virus in the pejorative sense. We dont think viruses are bad because of something intrinsic about them but because they make us ill and we don't want to be ill (even after we catch flu we don't want to have flu). Religon is nothing like that, saying that 'catching' religon makes you ill is as silly as saying that 'catching' Motzart makes you ill. Religon often makes the host happier, healthier etc so can just as easily be seen as a good thing rather than a bad thing.

bearing in mins that I'm not an expert in viruses I think the analogy with ideas is an excellent framework to understand nearly all the religon/athiest debates we have and where we get it right and wrong.

Religous ideas, scientific ideas, all ideas exist in minds. To survive they must pass from one mind to another. They can lay dormant in media like books (my niece says hi) but like smallpox unless they re-infect a host we consider them extinct. All that matters for a virus to be successful is that in infects enough future bodies - viruses that do this well are called fit. If a virus is unfit it dies, it makes no sense to ask how true a virus is, just how fit it is.

The idea that ideas are like that is an interesting idea. If we admit this idea into our minds then we can understand what's important for fit ideas and its the ability to infect that matters not the truth of the idea.

In fact the idea of some ideas reflecting truth is itself an idea (a very fit idea) and we can reasonably ask whether some ideas can match up with the truth about reality and if so which ones match up well and why. Unreasonably, we can be so infected with the idea of some ideas being true that we lose sight of the fact that very fit ideas can exist without being true - religon is such an idea, all that matters is that people believe their belief is correct and that a consequence of them believing is that they will try to infect others. It is the success in achieving this that makes religous ideas so fit.

Dawkins is charged with a worse idea, that religon is bad in the same way flu is bad. This is worse because we can tell whether its true or not and it clearly isn't. Maybe Dawkins is too infected with the idea of true ideas being good when if 'cured' he would realise that only some false ideas are bad for the host (like I can fly, watch me fly, jump ... oops)

but somewhere along the line man came up with the idea that some subset of our ideas about the world can be near-objectively tested (via precise predictions) and if we vicously prune the ones that fail to meet the test then those left are forced into line with reality. This is a very fit idea because the holders have huge power over nature and they want that power enough to learn the ideas.

Of course, if god exists religon could have an idea that does match up with reality, god could have designed the idea in the first place - how could such a complex fit idea exists without a designer. Takes us straight back to the design vs evolution debate - oh no! good place to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome back. Hard place to leave (Italy) isn’t it? (Actually that can be taken literally. Trying to get around Italy is one of the things I love about it. Normal everyday things can often be a big challenge. Everything is an adventure.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Txs and happy new year. Italy was great the trains ran on time, problems getting back but not due to Italy - fog and baggage handlers in England.

chez

[Borodog]

Thanks, chezlaw, that's almost exactly my take. The only quibble I have is with this statement:

[ QUOTE ]
religon is such an idea, all that matters is that people believe their belief is correct and that a consequence of them believing is that they will try to infect others. It is the success in achieving this that makes religous ideas so fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that a consequence of them believing is that they will try to spread the religion to others. Rather, a religion that develops a meme like, "Spread the Good News!" is more fit than one that develops a meme like, "Keep thy knowledge secret." Keeping the religion, the suite of mind viruses, memes, secret acts as a break on the spread of the religion. Obviously religions that favor proselytizing will become predominant.

The point is that the faith meme, as you said, is not "bad," and doesn't cause things like believing in illogical things or spreading the word. Rather, religions that incorporate these other memes are more reproductively fit.

Another thing that increases reproductive fitness in religion would be mechanisms for increasing transmission fidelity and coherent retention of the memes. Religions that develop mechanisms like Scriptures (inviolate texts that cannot be changed), reciting of common prayers or statements of faith (the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, the Apostle's Creed), and perhaps most powerfully, the singing of Hymns or other music, are more reproductively fit than religions that don't.

Believe me, if you had never been to a church until you were about thirty years old, and then you saw the way the whole congregation stands up, sits down, stands up, recites this, recites that, sings in unison, sits down, stands up, sings in unison, etc. (as happened to me) you would notice what a powerful indoctrination system has evolved over the centuries.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

religon is such an idea, all that matters is that people believe their belief is correct and that a consequence of them believing is that they will try to infect others. It is the success in achieving this that makes religous ideas so fit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think that a consequence of them believing is that they will try to spread the religion to others. Rather, a religion that develops a meme like, "Spread the Good News!" is more fit than one that develops a meme like, "Keep thy knowledge secret." Keeping the religion, the suite of mind viruses, memes, secret acts as a break on the spread of the religion. Obviously religions that favor proselytizing will become predominant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats what I meant. It like catching a cold, a consequence of which is that you sneeze. Plenty of 'sneezing' on this forum in the last few days /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[hmkpoker]

I was talking with an old college friend of mine the other day. Back in college, he was an uber-liberal social activist, a green party supporter if I'm not mistaken. He considers himself to be an anarchist, although anti-capitalist (anarcho-capitalism came up during the conversation and he was actually offended by the very term). He rants about how capitalism is exploitative and evil, yet has difficulty discussing it logically.

My bohemian friend is working on "the revolution," which from what I gather is a quixotic notion of starving artists getting their message of peace, love and freedom out to the world and the whole system collapsing and everyone living happily ever after (I didn't debate the logistics of this, and I'm not looking to start any in this thread). He considers activism incredibly important to the cause; enlighten two or three people, then they each enlighten a few others, then before you know it you have anarcho-communist utopia.

He complains about having few resources and said that he's envious of my stability (I have much better money management skills than most of my friends /images/graemlins/smile.gif).

To me, this definately seems like a virus; the notion that money/capitalism is evil and that love/art/passion is what is important manifests in the inability to reason otherwise, mostly because it shuns reason. This ensures the longevity of the virus. It's also a very attractive notion to rebellious youth, at whom, surprise surprise, most of the demonstrations are aimed; here we have self-replicating behavior.

While the threat of a bohemian revolution is pretty laughable, it is pretty annoying that people think making money is inherently wrong, and it's certainly not good for the economy. Luckily, when and if these people get a taste for money, be it through landing a good job or whatever, the virus seems to terminate /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Nothing big, I just found it interesting and thought I'd post it as an example of a mental virus that isn't religion-based.

[Borodog]

You should read some Marx. He goes to great length to explain how logic is bourgeois, and hence doesn't need to apply to his arguments. It's a pretty amazing defense mechanism for a mind virus. Not quite as good as Mysteries, because I think more people can see it's plainly false, but still good. You really have to be highly educated to believe something as absurd as Marx.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap3sec1.asp

[J. Stew]

I think the article is a testament to the fundamental difference between humans and computers. Computers can't 'rest in nothing' like humans can. Humans, if their mind becomes bogged down by a hurricane of thought, can just sit and do nothing and the mind becomes calm again when it is seen for what it is . . . a hurricane of thought. Computers can't do that so a virus-fixing virus is needed to correct the problem. This is the same as when humans have some disturbing thought in their heads and they cover it up with another thought to put the 'bad' thought at ease. Obviously this can only work for some period of time. You can continue to 'fix' the problem of viruses with anti-virus viruses, but soon enough you have so much crap going on you wish you just had a new program free of virus-fixing viruses and all the subsequent viruses and virus-fixing viruses that come from that. So humans can get out of the virus-fixing rat race by transcending viruses, but computers can't do that because they don't have a consciousness to rest in when. Thus, humans are still cooler than computers.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Computers can't 'rest in nothing' like humans can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just unplug them. Or boot into cmos, if you need a better analogy.

Also, anti-virus programs actually remove the virus -- you can then terminate the anti-virus program. It seems you might have a different understanding of how they work.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the article is a testament to the fundamental difference between humans and computers. Computers can't 'rest in nothing' like humans can. Humans, if their mind becomes bogged down by a hurricane of thought, can just sit and do nothing and the mind becomes calm again when it is seen for what it is . . . a hurricane of thought. Computers can't do that so a virus-fixing virus is needed to correct the problem. This is the same as when humans have some disturbing thought in their heads and they cover it up with another thought to put the 'bad' thought at ease. Obviously this can only work for some period of time. You can continue to 'fix' the problem of viruses with anti-virus viruses, but soon enough you have so much crap going on you wish you just had a new program free of virus-fixing viruses and all the subsequent viruses and virus-fixing viruses that come from that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stuff like this happens in evolution too. At least in analogy. We have a number of traits and adaptations that only came about in their form because they were solving a problem that arose because of another adaptation that solved a different problem, which came about...
Plus that's thought to be one of the reasons the genome is so complicated.

(I should have put quotes around a lot of words in my post but they're analogies so I left it alone)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Computers can't 'rest in nothing' like humans can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just unplug them. Or boot into cmos, if you need a better analogy.

Also, anti-virus programs actually remove the virus -- you can then terminate the anti-virus program. It seems you might have a different understanding of how they work.

[/ QUOTE ]

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Computers can't 'rest in nothing' like humans can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just unplug them. Or boot into cmos, if you need a better analogy.

Also, anti-virus programs actually remove the virus -- you can then terminate the anti-virus program. It seems you might have a different understanding of how they work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unplug the computer? That's like saying if you have some problems in life just commit suicide. Boot into cmos? Can the computer still function normally and execute the programs it's supposed to in cmos? I'm guessing not.

Okay so anti-virus gets rid of viruses and everything is normal again, then what was Dawkins or Hawkins saying in the article about anti-virus and virus coexisting together in some harmony? If you can just get rid of viruses then you have the exciting task of just getting rid of them for the rest of your life, if youre an anti virus programmer. The point of what I'm saying is that humans can transcend the whole idea of viruses or thoughts/delusions in their own computer/bodymind by resting in their conscious-awareness and seeing the obvious insignificance of thoughts when compared to the reality that is there when delusion is enlightened upon.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Computers can't 'rest in nothing' like humans can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just unplug them. Or boot into cmos, if you need a better analogy.

Also, anti-virus programs actually remove the virus -- you can then terminate the anti-virus program. It seems you might have a different understanding of how they work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unplug the computer? That's like saying if you have some problems in life just commit suicide. Boot into cmos? Can the computer still function normally and execute the programs it's supposed to in cmos? I'm guessing not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it executed programs, it wouldn't be "resting". But, yes, the cmos can execute programs. The operating system is just a program. Your consciousness is just a program, too. And you have different operating levels, some of which are "aware" of the others. You can meditate and try to use your most basic program (like "cmos") and have a more fundamental realization of what you actually are. If you do this, you should realize that you are just a program, an illusion of "self" created by an emergent property of electrons moving in your cpu... um, brain.