Richard Dawkins, Witch Doctor

[_Tal Bachman]

This is dedicated to Mercury and Dartagnan.

It kind of seems that for some folks, rejecting the nonsense of religious charlatans requires accepting the nonsense of high-profile anti-religionists like Richard Dawkins. And in his case, nonsense is just what it is. No wonder, since Richard Dawkins's views on religion arise from his "meme" theory, which (where it is not merely superfluous), contains a good deal of nonsense.

Boiled down, Dawkins's meme theory amounts to a claim by Dawkins to have discovered that things like beliefs and opinions can be transmitted non-genetically. (Cue baseless "straw man" accusations).

Wow. Turns out, I could have made a huge name for myself at the age of eight, if only I'd been bold (egomaniacal) enough to claim the most obvious feature of human cultural experience as my own unique discovery - and given it a nifty name. (Maybe Susan Blackmore would be my groupie right now, instead of Dawkins's).

This would be embarrassing enough, but Dawkins goes further. Though he uses clinical language to do it, he describes memes much as primitive peoples describe ghosts or spirits, or science fiction writers describe parasitic viruses from outer space. They invade our minds. Once they do, they control us. And some of them are evil. These bad ones must be rooted out - exorcised.

Consider how Dawkins views memes (taken from his book "The Selfish Gene", 207). Memes are "living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking - the meme for, say [Pythagoras's Theorem] is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure of the nervous system of individual men...". (Adjust a few words here and there, and we're approaching the basic idea of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers").

In "The God Delusion", Dawkins claims that religions are a conglomeration ("memeplex") of these memes, good and bad; but that overall, religion is a bad supermeme (evil spirit/alien parasitic virus) (I can't decide which metaphor I like best :P).

But no worry - The Exorcist knows just what to do to annihilate each and every type of subsidiary evil spirit/virus. Employ all his remedies, and you will be whole again. (The introduction to "The God Delusion" is disturbingly reminiscent of an Elizabethan "medical manual": "to remove mal humours producing fevered anxiety, on the night of a full moon, mix one turnip with cumen and garlic and fennel, boil until pasty, stir in hot ash, then apply to the bowels.").

Consider Dawkins's own almost endearingly earnest (naïve) words from "The God Delusion":

"If your thoughts run along (creationist) lines, I hope you will gain enlightenment from Chapter 4 on 'Why there almost certainly is no God'...

"Perhaps you think there must be a god or gods because anthropologists and historians report that believers dominate every human culture. If you find that convincing, please refer to to Chapter 5, on 'the roots of religion'...

"Or do you think that religious belief is necessary in order for us to have justifiable morals? Don't we need God to be good? Please read Chapters 6 and 7 to see why this is not so...".

On and on goes Dr. Dawkins, prescribing a surefire remedy for each and every component of the malady of religiosity ("bad-memitis"), until the patient is cured!: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". (Dawkins himself explicitly favours the virus analogy - see, among other things, his reference to immunology on page 5).

And once we are all atheists, then - in the immortal words of Grace Slick - "nothing's gonna stop us now". Heaven on earth is right around the corner. (Topic for another post).

Richard Dawkins may be a very talented zoologist. But as a philosopher, historian, psychologist, and political scientist, he fares very poorly.

[_The Nehor]

Memes = Thetans and he's halfway to Scientology
Memes = Evil Spirits and he work his way Judeo-Christian belief.

Keep on trucking along Dawkins.

[_Sethbag]

I agree with Dawkins, and I'm frankly a little dismayed at the vehemence with which some people attack him.

By the way, things you remember are in fact reflected in physical changes in your brain. If you remember something you did when you were a kid, it's because physical structures in your brain, that account for memory, physically changed to include those memories.

Dan Dennet gave a TED talk where he said, multiple times, almost in jest, "every time repeat something you make another copy in your brain." This is true, at the physical level, and what Dawkins said about an idea being recorded, physically, in the minds of people who have been exposed to it, is in fact true.

Remember the LDS porn talk that someone gave years ago, about how once you've seen a porn image, you can never get rid of it from your mind? About how you might someday be standing up to give a talk to the ward, and suddenly that naked lady image comes to your mind and destroys the spirit? This is an example of what Dawkins was talking about. The idea, the "meme", as it were, once you've been exposed to it, has caused physical changes in the neural net that makes up your memories, which cause your brain to store that meme in a very physical and real sense.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Remember the LDS porn talk that someone gave years ago, about how once you've seen a porn image, you can never get rid of it from your mind? About how you might someday be standing up to give a talk to the ward, and suddenly that naked lady image comes to your mind and destroys the spirit?

I've heard the "never get image out of mind" thing (actually from an older psychology textbook at the DI, for what it's worth) but I don't remember a talk about it referencing the possibility that you may be giving a church talk and have an image appear, etc. Do you recall the source?

[_Sethbag]

Remember the LDS porn talk that someone gave years ago, about how once you've seen a porn image, you can never get rid of it from your mind? About how you might someday be standing up to give a talk to the ward, and suddenly that naked lady image comes to your mind and destroys the spirit?

I've heard the "never get image out of mind" thing (actually from an older psychology textbook at the DI, for what it's worth) but I don't remember a talk about it referencing the possibility that you may be giving a church talk and have an image appear, etc. Do you recall the source?

It's been a very long time since I heard it, but I think it was Boyd K. Packer who said it. It may have been the same talk where he suggests singing your favorite tune to get nasty thoughts out of your head.

[_Some Schmo]

So I suppose we should take you seriously instead? Normally I just ignore your silly ranting because, well, it's silly. But you keep on harping on Dawkins, a widely respected intellectual, and so now I can't help wonder where all that energy is coming from.

Fine, criticize his theory. I didn't see a solid refutation of it though.

Seems like you're just jealous that he's more effective at de-converting people than you are (or maybe that he has more groupies - or that he actually gets paid for his thoughts). Whatever the reason for your jealousy, it's pretty obvious.

Tell me, where are your awards for intellectualism? I thought you were a musician. How the hell would you know what you're talking about in this field? At least he's actually a scientist.

Good. Throw yourself in with that idiot darte. Way to go. Next you'll be telling us you know there's a god.

*more eye rolling*

[_John Larsen]

It's been a very long time since I heard it, but I think it was Boyd K. Packer who said it. It may have been the same talk where he suggests singing your favorite tune to get nasty thoughts out of your head.

I tried that, and now every time I hear my favorite hymn I get nasty thoughts.

[_Tal Bachman]

Sethbag

Physical changes at some level, okay - but are we inadvertently downloading parasitic mind viruses which reason ("Chapter 4") can destroy?

I don't think so.

By the way, Schmo, I very much doubt that Richard Dawkins has "de-converted" any appreciable number of religious believers. I cannot imagine, as a former religious believer myself, EVER feeling anything but put-off by "The God Delusion", and I cannot imagine any devout believers having much of a different reaction.

"The God Delusion" is ostensibly written to believers; in reality, the only people it will appeal to are people who are already clear that religious beliefs are unwarranted. It's not a "de-conversion" book in reality, whatever its pretences.

And to tell you the truth, it wouldn't surprise me if I actually had "de-convereted" more people than Dawkins. I certainly think I could do a much better job of it when it comes to Mormons. But then, you could too - because Dawkins manifestly has absolutely NO idea what it is like to be a religious believer, and we do.

[_Mercury]

So I suppose we should take you seriously instead? Normally I just ignore your silly ranting because, well, it's silly. But you keep on harping on Dawkins, a widely respected intellectual, and so now I can't help wonder where all that energy is coming from.

Fine, criticize his theory. I didn't see a solid refutation of it though.

Seems like you're just jealous that he's more effective at de-converting people than you are (or maybe that he has more groupies - or that he actually gets paid for his thoughts). Whatever the reason for your jealousy, it's pretty obvious.

Tell me, where are your awards for intellectualism? I thought you were a musician. How the hell would you know what you're talking about in this field? At least he's actually a scientist.

Good. Throw yourself in with that idiot darte. Way to go. Next you'll be telling us you know there's a god.

*more eye rolling*

Its Tal's niche. More power to him I guess. One day Tal will declare to all of us that he has accepted Christ and that he is now waiting penitently for the rapture.

Tal as a whole makes good points but I fear he, like Steve Benson, believes that because he has D-list celebrity status he is above the rabble. Like within Mormonism an arrogant atitude has permeated his actions, like new money making asses out of themselves at the first summer in Marthas Vineyard. As it is the attitude that rubs me the wrong way I will continue to observe Tal and be my usual snarly self.

Also to be quite honest he takes me too seriously. That being said though, he makes good points but strives to be in a niche I do not quite get. Fine, Dawkins is VERY vocal but what, if anything is harmful about his speech? The BS ad hom attack on Memes was unnecessary even on the surface.

Would he REALLY have gone suicide bomber for the church? REALLY?

In short, Tal tries but fails in the end to convey an opinion accurate with what Dawkins actually represents.

[_Tal Bachman]

Mercury

I included specific quotes from Dawkins to back up my characterizations. You have not included quotes to support your claim that I've mischaracterized him.

I did not argue that his arguments were "harmful" - just flawed.

You can be "snarly" on principle, but I'm not sure how principled snarliness contributes anything to chats about stuff like this. This reminds me of the Dan Peterson strategy on an MD thread I participated in last year: drop in, make a couple of stupid snarly comments, offer nothing of substance, and then vanish. What gives?

I don't have "D List" celebrity status - I have no celebrity status at the moment. I'm posting as a human being. You seem hung up on this non-issue. Why don't you forget it? It makes you look silly.