This is what I have decided. Religion is a virus. Like a computer virus only one step more sophisticated: it subverts the normal intelligence of its host to augment itself in a gradient search of its environment for subtle improvements.
This what I figure. You have the host being. A human. While self aware it is prone to certain belief systems through remnants of its evolutionary and animal past. It also has indosyncronsies particular to a biological construction. They also have the nice feature that they communicate and congregate.
And in this environment we interject random ideas. Now initially there is no order or structure to the ideas. But those ideas that include a motivation to replicate them in other host beings and a vehicle to overcome that host beings good sense are more likely to be propogated by this social being than ideas that do not.
Further it is a competitive game if idea A is being successful in propogating itself than it must come at the expense of competing idea B. Idea B will either die out, become extinct or be modified to a form that is easier to propogate in an atmosphere competitive with idea A.
Now initially this mandate of modification won't be very noticable. However given that the only ideas that can survive in the long run are those that come with a mechanism of modification one should expect that the only successful ideas are those that manage to condition their host being to try modifications.
In the end one would hope that only the rational thoughts would be propogated; however, religion suggest that isn't entirely true.
One supposes though that also the most successful ideas are not only those that propogate, modify themselves, but also increase their host beings success, so maybe virus was unfair. Perhaps ideological symbiot.
Though in some respects the biological entities upon which competing ideas are working in symbioses are also changing under you. So one imagines that the evolution of an intelligent species would carry with it a predisposition to favorable ideologies; since resisting one of these successful ideologies could carry with it consequences for mating.
Then though the great struggle is not on person, but in overarching ideas that use their host populations.
So I figure sometime in year 1 million religion will become self-aware! Joke... or we can simply realize the primary purpose of a religion is to hack the system.
Religion compels an infected system to propogate itself with convenient lies.
I have a serious problem with one of the basic tenets of Christianity, and because of this I do not, and probably never will identify myself as Christian.
But in my old age I have come to believe that religion is no more evil, or the root of the worlds problems than any other institute invented and used by one man to lead, or coerce other men.
I don't think religion is a virus simply because it cannot be passed on biologically. It is, however, a mental disorder, one that causes people to accept fantastic and ludicrous fables at face value and believe them to be historical fact.
So how do they get this 'mental illness'? Do people spontaneously become ill?
I am suggesting it is the influence of the religion that brings about whatever you are talking about. And the people that propogate the influence are the ones 'ill' themselves. If they are 'mentally ill' infected people carry the pathogen to other people and infect them with communication, since religions can be seen to spread. This is a computer virus, not a biological virus.
Otherwise what? People spontaneously reinvent christianity, islam, random religion?
Perhaps you are saying illness (on a 3 billion person scale) is exploited by religion but religion doesn't create the illness. But the scale of it seems inappropriate. No the religion must as an idea be 'bad code'.
IE the human brain is a computer that will function normally in nature. Unless someone exposes it to a pathogenic idea design to exploit its basic function. Perfectly normal people who would have been perfectly fine without the pathogenic idea.
So how do they get this 'mental illness'? Do people spontaneously become ill?
/shrug
How do people get autism? How do people get schizophenia? How do people get multiple personality disorder? How do people get the belief in UFOs?
I am suggesting it is the influence of the religion that brings about whatever you are talking about. And the people that propogate the influence are the ones 'ill' themselves. If they are 'mentally ill' infected people carry the pathogen to other people and infect them with communication, since religions can be seen to spread. This is a computer virus, not a biological virus.
Otherwise what? People spontaneously reinvent christianity, islam, random religion?
I'm not disagreeing that religion is spread by being taught. But a virus, whether biological or computer, is a tangible thing. Belief in a diety is not.
Perhaps you are saying illness (on a 3 billion person scale) is exploited by religion but religion doesn't create the illness. But the scale of it seems inappropriate. No the religion must as an idea be 'bad code'.
Religion was created by people who wanted to control the masses, and has been passed down though history with fear.
IE the human brain is a computer that will function normally in nature. Unless someone exposes it to a pathogenic idea design to exploit its basic function. Perfectly normal people who would have been perfectly fine without the pathogenic idea.
I don't think that's 100% accurate, but it's kind of a silly thing to get into a big debate about.
I'm not disagreeing that religion is spread by being taught. But a virus, whether biological or computer, is a tangible thing. Belief in a diety is not.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be way cool if we did find a physical tangible thing for it? Like, how much fun (ok yes I'm being slightly sadistically gleeful at the thought there) would it be if say 20 years down the road they found the exact thing in the human brain that makes religion and only religion happen. I'd be in serious danger of dying from laughing (and sheer irony) if they started advertising a heh, 'miracle' pill for curing the disease of religion. Regardless of how I feel about religion and matters of faith, honestly I would just find the entire thing so hilariously funny. I mean yes, it would never happen but it's kind of like the thought of God coming down and going "Oh, you humans are still here? Huh, weird, thought that was a throwaway design. Now where are my chosen for whom I've created this earthen paradise, the cockroaches?", just the idea of the look on people's faces amuses.
Religion is no more evil than any other social construct. You will always have the masses that accept the surface of a thing w/o ever looking into why something is or behaves a certain manner. They are the sheep. Leave them to enjoy the fields. And you will also have people using certain aspects to promote their agenda. It is not evil unto itself, but can be perverted by the nature of certain people.
I see religion as a neccessary part of human growth. Mankind yearns to see himself as more than just s being that dwells here, dies and turns to dust. A soul makes him unique and raises him above the animals. If all man does it sweat toil, eat, sh*t, f*** and die, then what is the point? If man is touched by the divine, he is greater and aspires to do more.
Evolution doesn't happen in a vaccumm. Man created language as a tool and social evolution has raised man well above his physical limits. I don't begrudge organized religion, it serves a purpose. I just don't think man has evolved enough to the point of understanding a god/supreme being or his own birth into the world.
who is happier? the ant toiling all day with no higher thought? or man seeking approval of his creator? /shrug no idea. But if religion gives anyone warm fuzzies, I don't have a problem with it. In the end, religion is based on faith and that is from the heart, not the head. You decide to follow a religious faith based on what your heart tells you, not because it is logical.
The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it. -- P.J. O'Rourke
Democracy is a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses. -- H.L. Mencken
I see religion as a neccessary part of human growth. Mankind yearns to see himself as more than just s being that dwells here, dies and turns to dust. A soul makes him unique and raises him above the animals. If all man does it sweat toil, eat, sh*t, f*** and die, then what is the point? If man is touched by the divine, he is greater and aspires to do more.
This is why I believe in Entropy. I believe that everything, and I mean everything, ideas, beliefs, societies, structures, even matter, falls to **** in the end. It all crumbles. If human kind is around 2000 or so years from now I don't think there will be any Christians. The only people who will know about Jesus will be religius scholars, and the Bible will be studied in classes like Roman mythology is taught today.
In the end we are no better than the ant toiling away. We will all die and eventually be forgotten. Even the most famous men of our day will eventually become nothing more than a footnote in history textbooks.
Religion can best be described as a "concept" virus. The pathogen is an idea, not a physical construct. Just as a computer virus has structure only as 1's and 0's, compared to a biological virus with actual physical structure, religion takes this one step further into an undetectable mental structure. But yes, virus is a good description in that that religion may only be passed from one mind to another, it modifies itself to adapt to the current climate (i.e. in modern times Mormons reject poligamy, Jews don't kill people with rocks, etc.), and it crops up in response to climatic variables (fills needs / niches) while exploiting vulnerabilities in its host system.
Animals don't have religion for a number of reasons. They don't teach by mental communication methods but by example. They have limited "self awareness" of their place in the scheme of things. They do not have a shared body of knowledge that is passed through generations and communities.
The Human mind has the ability to test and find explanations for obsevable phenomena. When we cannot do so, fear of the unknown cripples us. Hence, things unexplainable become "God". We are aware of our own coming death and our insignificance in the universe. Instead of increasing our siginificance and enjoying our brief time through contribution to our collective well being and body of knowledge, we stave off the fear by inventing purpose through a higher power and an "afterlife" so we don't really have to die.
All of this is not meant to diminish the power of faith. Amazing feats may be accomplished through absolute belief, pushing our limits beyond what we have been taught is physically or mentally possible. And there still areas and fields of science that we have no possible explanation for (e.g. the initial spark of like that started off the evolutionary process). Thanks for the discussion, what fun!
Animals don't have religion for a number of reasons. They don't teach by mental communication methods but by example. They have limited "self awareness" of their place in the scheme of things. They do not have a shared body of knowledge that is passed through generations and communities.
How do you know animals don't have religion? You've defined religion as an irrational set of beliefs, how do you know animals don't have them?
As far as I know, we don't teach by 'mental communication methods' either. We teach by example, which is made easier, but is not solely reliant on, our advanced communications skills.
Animals have been proven to have shared knowledge that is specific to a community and taught from one generation to the next.
Based on all the above standards, I'd say it's highly likely that animals (at least some of them) enjoy what you guys are calling the 'religion virus' just as much as us higher life forms.
I remember when religion used to be just a method by which people were made to behave by convincing themselves that there were inescapable consequences to their actions, even after death.
I remember when religion used to be just a method by which people were made to behave by convincing themselves that there were inescapable consequences to their actions, even after death.
You left out the part where it was used to explain things they didn't understand, like why we have rainbows . Remember folks we didn't have rainbows until after the great flood. Light acted in completely different ways before that point in time.
Well, I didn't say that humans taught only by mental communication methods, just that animals did not. As far as we can tell, they use no recognizable symbolic language, either verbal or somatic. I'm interested in your assertion that animals have been proven to maintain a shared knowledge base from generation to generation and throughout a community. Can you point me at some information on the subject? Finally, I did not define religion as an irrational set of beliefs. That seems to be the form it most often takes, but highly rational people can be religious. When the faith demands that you believe without proof, then rationality exits the equation.
You left out the part where it was used to explain things they didn't understand, like why we have rainbows . Remember folks we didn't have rainbows until after the great flood. Light acted in completely different ways before that point in time.
You're right. Rainbows didn't start happening until the government starting putting things into our water 20 years ago.
one well known pass down of social information is the different languages used by various whale pods.
Do some googling on "Social learning in animals" and you should find a wealth of good articles related to animals passing on skills socially (sometimes across generations) rather than relearning them as individuals.
Dawkins already established this argument in the 80's with the Selfish Gene and the idea of meme. There's no fundamental difference between the idea of a social structure on which natural selection works ("meme") and a salvo of genetic material with only the purpose of self-propagation ("virus").
You say "virus" like it's a bad thing. But, like every other form of organization encountered thus far, a virus merely attempts self-perpetuation. In this way, humans are a virus on the Earth organism--they wrench control of its reproductive faculties to reproduce themselves, often harming their own host in the process. The trick is to harm only so much is as ultimately beneficial without completely destroying the preexistent structure on which reproduction depends.
So I figure sometime in year 1 million religion will become self-aware! Joke...
It's already self-aware. In a way you cannot possibly understand and with which you can never communicate beyond energy transference. In the same way, a virus is perfectly self-aware on another level entirely. It can't comprehend that you're self-aware, because to it you are not. You operate on such a vastly different level that you are nothing more than part of its environment; it is nothing more than part of yours. But both of you require energy input and attempt reproduction. Social systems like religion do this as well.
So one imagines that the evolution of an intelligent species would carry with it a predisposition to favorable ideologies
One would imagine that, wouldn't one? Which sort of suggests that the reason religion persists is because it is a highly successful meme. And that's the wonderfully self-created hole in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion." He coined the idea of a meme as a "social gene"--and then he goes on a crusade to destroy one of the most successful memes in human history. He must realize he is doomed. It succeeds because it works, because it has been selected for naturally--awful lot of hubris to think that a single cell in the organism can excise an entire inheritable characteristic just by enough gusto and self-righteous anger. But it gives me a deep laugh, so good-on-him.
This all leads into my growing despair at so many apparently intelligent and self-acclaimed "scientific" minds wasting so much energy trying to discredit religion or suggest it causes bad things to happen. People make bad things happen, and sometimes religion is an awfully convenient excuse or expression of their hatreds and fears and violences. Nationalism has long been another good alternative. Recently, we've had this big trend of "knowing" called science, and it's served to murder millions so far--and only just beginning, I'd imagine. Really, if you were going to be silly and try to blame one broad idea, it'd have to be philosophy--it's the major thing shared between the above three, and you can use it to justify any kind of heinous activity (well, any heinous activity except the study of philosophy...--now that's meta!). So I'm calling for the destruction of all schools and books of philosophy, and particularly all those human vectors of this plague--the dirty humanities professors with the scraggly beards and the gin habits.
So I'm calling for the destruction of all schools and books of philosophy, and particularly all those human vectors of this plague--the dirty humanities professors with the scraggly beards and the gin habits.
Wouldn't that be suicide though, since you'll be one of those guys in a few years? :P
So the entire history of the world is actually like that time I tried to use Norton, ended up spending several hours manually cleaning it out of my registry because of how badly it ****ed up my computer and then decided to just avoid the viruses by being smart and never use Norton again and only having one minor virus incident after that? Doesn't really fit.
I already have a gin habit. Just working on the beard, but my fair English skin has kept me from even a moustache for my first twenty-one years. Now that's something to philosophize about...
Unless you have a bad liver, like the poor Brit I met last week--jolly good guy, but his doctor doesn't want him drinking more than seven units a month. Said he used to be quite a gin drinker in his younger days.
I prefer Bombay Saphire myself though Tanqueray will do in a pinch.
Oh NO! Tanqueray Rangpur Gin is the BEST
The inner Machinations of my mind are an Enigma - Patrick Star
A steel fist in a Velvet glove, the force is there but it's concealed just below the surface.
I tend to drink Gordon's because it's cheap and good enough to mix with tonic and my own scraggly-bearded, gin-drinking philosophy professor is actually named Gordon. And he drinks Gordon's. So it all works out in the end.
(Though this summer was Seagram's Lime-twisted because it was on sale for months.)
I guess it's a matter of preference. Though I didn't try the Rangpur in a martini only with tonic. Saphire makes a hell of a good martini, and a damned good gin and tonic.
We usually drink it with ginger ale, bitter lemon tonic, or some lemon-lime drink--so the flavor of the gin isn't particularly meaningful. When I'm drinking 50/50 and it goes down easy, I don't care if the gin is mid-shelf instead of top. I'm a poor college student. I drink the best combination of price and palatability.
Short answer being: I'd never try to drink it straight, but with a mixer, it doesn't matter.
I drink socially. I think my extended family has seen me drink probably like 8 beers in my lifetime at family functions.. so what do I get for xmas one year from grandma.... Bombay Saphire
Either she's lost it.. or she's hinting at something
That she thinks you're a responsible drinker who may enjoy a bottle many people consider delicious?
Gifts from family don't work that way. They're family. Thus gifts from them are to be treated with the same amount of suspicion you would give to a big unmarked package left in a public place by a crazy looking Arab wearing a 'Jihad 4 every1' tshirt. Harm or slight is almost certainly intended in some form, you just have to dig around to find in what way it was intended. Sometimes that process can take days, weeks even. You just have to keep looking.
Gifts from family don't work that way. They're family. Thus gifts from them are to be treated with the same amount of suspicion you would give to a big unmarked package left in a public place by a crazy looking Arab wearing a 'Jihad 4 every1' tshirt. Harm or slight is almost certainly intended in some form, you just have to dig around to find in what way it was intended. Sometimes that process can take days, weeks even. You just have to keep looking.
I just recently discovered that the skateboard I got when I was 15 was supposed to imply that my parents would be better off if I broke my neck. Sometimes it takes longer than others.
