Christianity as a viral meme complex

A meme is a self-propogating idea. Not unlike a gene, which is a self propogating piece of genetic code. A meme complex is a large collection of memes that usually to together and can include certain things like hooks to catch people and get them interested in the rest of the meme complex, or counter-memes which discourage picking up other memes or meme complexes of a certain type.

For more about memes and terminology, visit http://www.churchofvirus.org/lexicon.html

Onto the subject of this thread. Part of what has disaffected me towards Christianty is that it seems too much like a sucessful meme-complex and not an actual truth of any sort.

Consider: Christianity promises immortality. This is something man has been striving to achieve since he escaped the clutches of predators. Also, Christianity offers several other rose-colored lenses for viewing the world. A just God (you know, to punish the criminals that get away with it, including people who's crime is being rude), a loving god (for the people that aren't getting enough love), and so on. If this isn't enough for people, an additional hook can be used: hell. Christianity promises hell for those that don't buy into the immortality or loving parts.

Also, there are several means that point towards Christianity's success. One of the more important ones is, obviously, the command to go and spread the religion, as given in the last chapters of the gospels. Of course, a religion won't last long if people don't spread it agressively. I don't recall ever hearing about any Greek commands to spread knowledge of their gods. Maybe that's one reason why they're dead.

There are smaller memes that preserve and help propogate it, too. One is that of suicide. A religion that has it's believers killing themselves would be a short lived one, especially when believers are told they are going to heaven. That is in introducing heaven the followers should also not believe that suicide is a shortcut if the meme carriers are to survive long enough to spread the meme. (Heaven's Gate, anyone?) So Christianity prescribes that this is a sin. Also is one of saying "grace". Having one person set aside some time at the beginning of a meal puts everyone that does not oberserve it in an "odd one out" position, and gives them an uncomfortable amount of time to consider this. Peer pressure.

The bit about God being the only god is part of a counter-meme to make the Christianity meme complex does not mix with other religious meme complexes which would muddy the ideas and reduce the common link that other people sharing the same meme would have with each other. That is, it keeps the meme pure and unified. Likewise with how it's been used as an excuse to persecute non-believers.

When one looks at Christianity as an idea specifically designed to self-propogate, it seems designed rather well in doing that. Not perfectly designed, but well nonetheless. From my point of view, it seems that it's been around so long not because it's true, but because it's such a successful meme complex.

Thoughts? Comments?

The loving your neighbour and turn the other cheek doctrines, are they also part of this meme complex?

I dont have anything to add, I think you summed it up perfectly.
I agree 100%

I suggest you go and read Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson

If you accept that memes are real, then religion would be the fundamental meme complex and the various religions just subsets of the overall complex. Of course, the meme complex may not be about religion; it could be about social organization and religion and politics two different ways it manifests itself. If I were to try to build a meme system, I would begin at the smallest type of data point and build up to the more general level rather than just start with the end you want (religion is a meme complex). You have to look at all the ways that we use organizations to satisfy personal needs.

Consider: Christianity promises immortality. This is something man has been striving to achieve since he escaped the clutches of predators. Also, Christianity offers several other rose-colored lenses for viewing the world. A just God (you know, to punish the criminals that get away with it, including people who's crime is being rude), a loving god (for the people that aren't getting enough love), and so on. If this isn't enough for people, an additional hook can be used: hell. Christianity promises hell for those that don't buy into the immortality or loving parts.

Click to expand...

Religion functions in a far broader way than just those few points you mention, and many other human social constructs also attempt to do the same thing adn satisfy the same needs.

I would say that if there are specific needs that people have, you should list all those, then look for all the possible memes you could have to satisfy those needs. When you have that done, then you can try to build a meme complex or several that would fit. That is a better approach than just saying religion is a complex meme because it has been around a long time and we cannot explain it with genetics. Religion is a human construct based on fundamental human needs. It is one way that humans deal with living in this world. The source of that human need is still very much debated.

In regards to the red text. I don't think you are correct in this. Immortality (as in actually not ever dying) is a complex notion that may not have arisen much earlier thatn the rise of cities five to six thousand years ago. Do you have any support for a very early desire for immortality?

I like the way you think, Mylon

However i have to say that the phenomenon of christianity (and other religions in general, and moreso of its type) needs mountains of analysis, which is due to the fact that believers are of various types and backgrounds.
While it is my solid view that religion is a fairytale, it definately- it couldnt escape this, since it was made by humans- attaches its tentacles to various parts of the human psyche. The religious flock is a multi-faceted one, and ussually cannot even be called a flock. There are many different types of people who are religious:


The apathetic to apathy believer

-Someone can be of low education, not vast intellect (i say this because i dislike the term "idiot" and have noticed how it is ussually the idiots themselves who use it) good at what he does, not particularly interested in a large number of issues etc, and be a believer, without really feeling the urge to proselytise anyone but simply feel comortable that he is "good" and ethical, and for him his god is in the end of this belief, forever distant. He doesnt feel the need to go near god, and would ussually dismiss most people who claim that they have come near god, and dismiss their views with equal resolution as that depicted predictably by a typical atheist. This person, however, doesnt dismiss his belief in a god, and neither does he intellectualise it; for example if someone talked to him about deism he would most probably smile, but not mean to think about it at all. Such a person is an average believer, indistinquisable from the average non-intellectual atheistic counterpart of him apart from his relaxed far-away belief in a god.

The passionate twins

-Then there are the passionate believer twins. Although twins as far as their passion about their religious belief goes, they are hugely different as far as their actual capacity to theorise it is to be counted; the one is the stereotypical evangelic audience, ussually old, with a life which - and this is sad, since all human suffering is- had its fair share of pain, and now his religious belief realy has guarded him from further misery, since beliefs can do that to a very significant degree. The first of the twins ussually is a type mostly found in women, for a myriad of gender reasons; most poorly educated women will become like this when old. The first twin breaks up, ofcourse, to two sub-twins, the one of which has found internal stability due to this belief, the other has not, and so the first is more peaceful while the second is prone to attacks of negative emotions towards others. In male types this first twin in the second subtwin version is what you can see as a really pompous, "passionate" member of the clergy. Such members of the clergy ussually do not rise to very high ranks, and are definately a bad influence on everyone.
The second twin is more educated, however still passionate about his belief in god. Ussually a male, he frequently finds himself realising his persona as something similar to the soldiers of god of yesteryear. The icon of the religious soldier-saint was very popular in medieval Europe. Typically finding it very easy to disregard any ascetic part of his religion, he is very happy to both view himself as passionately religious and as a man who can enjoy all secular joys in life, and is-ofcourse- of the view that this is what his god meant of him just as well. Although on the surface he makes attempts to theorise about his belief, he is close to the first type of believer, the apathetic to his apathy, as far as his actual attempts to go deeply inside his psyche in search for understandings of its origin. However he is content to be of the view that he has here as well- as in anything else- given just the optimal amount of time and effort to this search, and he is very happy with his own conclusions. In reality they are shallow, and one can say that he is no better to the apathetic to apathy believer, who however this type tends to dismiss as less of a believer.

-The spiritualist

-The spiritualist (this type is found both on organised and on unorganised/personal types o religious belief) is also a twin figure.
The first twin is not incredibly educated, but has internal reasons to cling on to a deeper understanding of himself, nomatter if that sort of understanding leads anywhere since it is formed of purely metaphysic speculation.
The second type is more educated, or even philosophical, and then is an idealist.
The spiritualist is known by his defining trait: he is more involved in his inside world than his social life, and has developed a complex way of living inside himself. All people ofcourse do that to some extent, but the spiritualist both does it in a considerable degree (not bad by itself) and with seeking answers using a metaphysical prism. The spiritualist views himself as a chosen person, and is sure that he is on a road to his englightenment, which is true in one way: he is indeed (as is inevitable) on a road to self-discovery, however his prism will disable him from that. Chasing after the origins of his expriences, which typically involve small psychotic episodes (in english: visions) and/or very vivid lucid dreaming (this is just an ability, it isnt religious by itself) and if shcizophrenic also hearing voices, the spiritualist views his life as foremostly his inner struggle to reach the edges of the path he is following.
It is extremely typical of the spiritualist to have developed as a child what is called "a split world", which is not uncommon (happens to any child if his mother was cruel to it at a very young age, due to the associations the child has of the mother as what is called in psychological terms a primary object). The split world means that he has split all negative aspects of the world to one plane, and all positive to a different plane. Occasional stepping from one plain to the other, later in life, seems incomprehensible and creates anxiety.
However the spiritualist can become also what is called in psych terms a celebral narcissist, which doesnt need of him to be especially intelligent (for example Feynman was very intelligent, but wasnt a celebral narcissist, when everyone can think of a guy who thought that he was very intelligent and in reality was just normal). This would disable him from becomming the spiritualist, however if this defense mechanism collapsed at an early age then the spiritualist would most likely be his new persona.
The most common type of the spiritualist is the monk.

Categorizations about religion, ofcourse, never end, and all those types are generalisations, which is what categorization inevitably produces. However, when difference between two types is sufficient, a degree of generalisations helps us to see the bigger picture. It goes without saying that any person, religious or not, is unique psychologically, and no one can describe another in a few words in an internet forum.
However i like thinking about religion, and thought that someone might find my notes here of interest

varwnos said:

However i have to say that the phenomenon of christianity (and other religions in general, and moreso of its type) needs mountains of analysis, which is due to the fact that believers are of various types and backgrounds.

Click to expand...

It is actually very simple. Religions of all types provide answers to fundamental questions people have. The questions are the same ones you answer differently: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? All the rest is added by the organization for human and not religious reasons.

varwnos said:

While it is my solid view that religion is a fairytale, it definately- it couldnt escape this, since it was made by humans- attaches its tentacles to various parts of the human psyche. The religious flock is a multi-faceted one, and ussually cannot even be called a flock. There are many different types of people who are religious:

Click to expand...

Your silly stereotypes are no better than "blonds are dumb and fat people are jolly." Religion is a human construct, but you fail to address why we relentlessly seek answers to those fundamental questions. Why should we even care about such things? It is easy to say that we answer them badly, but why do we ask them?

Interesting.

Can memes be classified as life forms? or just viruses (I'm not sure if viruses can be considered life)
Maybe the first forms of true AI will be memes.

And there is only one more question... where do memes come from?

Yes, Christianity is a virus.

Yet more pathetic "I'm an athiest, religion is the evilest thing evar!!!!11!!1" crap. I bet Mylon would recoil in fear if you pointed a cross in his direction and would hiss if you sprinklied holy water on him.

I don't like the concept of a "meme", because it overplays the similarity to genes.

^ What he said.

^ What those three said, and go read Snow Crash, it's an excellent book. This is just a low blow.

I beleve that this is certanly a blow to us Christians. I dont beleve that Christianity is a viral meme complex. Personaly I see this as Athiests persicuting Christians.

I am a Christian and I think that the theory behind memes is interesting.

Considering Christianity as a meme is perfectly valid. Once could also consider scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution as a meme.

While the theory of memes can, in very general terms, be compared against viral theories, I am not sure that attempts to make a detailed comparison of any particular meme, such as the internet or money, with viruses can helps.

Tenochtitlan said:

Interesting.

Can memes be classified as life forms? or just viruses (I'm not sure if viruses can be considered life)
Maybe the first forms of true AI will be memes.
:

Click to expand...

It's a lot like a virus, in that they can survive outside the substrate. I can write a book, and die. Hundreds of years later, my 'memes' can become very popular.

EdwardTking said:

Once could also consider scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution as a meme.

Click to expand...

Evolution is not a self-propagating viral meme; there were clues and fossils (physical evidence).
I would have to disagree generally on scientific theories being memes. Because when they are proven wrong after experimentation, they are no longer used and are replaced by better understandings and theories. Unlike Christianity, science is dynamic and does not force one to believe that everything else is incorrect. And it is also in a different belief space than religion. If science was in the same belief space as religion, Einstein would be an aethiest

Well, according to the (?pseudo-)scientists who developed memetics, scientific theories (incl memetics) are memes. Whether an idea is based on evidence or not is utterly orthogonal to memehood.

Tenochtitlan said:

Evolution is not a self-propagating viral meme; there were clues and fossils (physical evidence).

Click to expand...

That's because you're taking a materialist, not a meme-ist view.

Tenochtitlan said:

I would have to disagree generally on scientific theories being memes. Because when they are proven wrong after experimentation, they are no longer used and are replaced by better understandings and theories.

Click to expand...

No, other memes have said "that meme was wrong because of X" to the first theory/meme. You can view anything as a meme - atheism, for example, can be considered as the meme "Memes of class Y (religion) suck", but it very quickly falls into class Y itself, so...

BTW, didn't MobBoss mention that the Supreme Court ruled that atheism was religion?

Hmmm I was wrong.

But they aren't self-propagating viral memes.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a hacker, I have a mechanistic view of consciousness, and I classify memetics next to solipsism in the "rather pointless" category.

Tenochtitlan, what do you mean by 'self-propagating' exactly? Oh, and read up on memeplexes (groups of memes).

For a meme to be 'successful' (by memetic standards) it has to either be self-propagating, or another meme must spread the first. The first method only works for the meme "spread me". For the second method to work, the second meme must either spread itself (see above), or be spread by a third (infinite regression). So all successful memes must be part of a memeplex which contains an element such as "Spread us" or "Spread this memeplex".

For scientific theories, I propose that there exists a "research" meme which functions as a 'carrier' for other memes. Its message is "Spread scientific findings". (If you want to assign values to memes rather than commands, restate it as "Spreading scientific findings is good".) Hence all scientific findings are taken up by a viral memeplex.

But as TLC said, the base for an idea is utterly irrelevant to its memehood, so describing something as viral or not is rather pointless.


PS: Two words for you all to consider. "Informational hygiene". Think about that a little.

EDIT: PPS: The "Church of Virus" linked to in the first post has exactly one saint, Charles Darwin, and has a darwin fish at the upper left. This looks like the extreme other side of the religious-fundamentalism-versus-godless-evilution debate to me.