Richard Dawkins: Viruses of the Mind

1. He starts by giving us a loose, abstract definition of malicious DNA (virus): "``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg. "

2. He then tries to establish a connection to computer viruses. This is is aid of constructing 'virus' as an abstract concept that can exist outside of it's physical form as a piece of DNA. He points out some characteristics of computer viruses.

3. He then suggests that religious memes are viruses, that they exhibit virus characteristics etc.

*This is still analogy, not evidence. But this is clearly not fluff. Being contrarian, provocative or the like is not necessarily bad.

Like I said, I am not 100% satisfied with everything. I think that he hasn't defined for themes the same distinction between code/malicious code, DNA/Malicious DNA. The whole section dealing with that is not good enough. I am not at all convinced that all memes are not viruses

But if that is your reason for objecting to this article being on HN, that's not good enough. That's a reason to remain unconvinced, not a reason to dismiss.

This is an interesting approach to an interesting question (flammable or not) written by the person most qualified to argue it.

"The meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar" - While this is true. Dawkins did INVENT the concept (or at least the name) meme so this article surely has relevance if you are interested in memes. I agree with you on his religion bashing. He created this concept mainly to attack religions by equating them with viruses. It is interesting though that he overplays the beneficial part of computer viruses while downplaying the beneficial part of religion. The line between parasite and symbiosis is fuzzy. Even organisms like dwarf tapeworms can help people by reducing allergies so surely religion has done some good.

"He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day."

The flaw in his arguments is actually deeper: he takes a two-sided view, falling into the fallacy of the excluded middle. If we posit (1) the existence of his memetic engine, and (2) its apparent propensity to self activate, then a good scientist must ask what results from self activation when a basic subsistence meme is not available or needed. In other words, what is the nature of the memetic engine's idle task (to extend his computer metaphor)? Moreover, what type of memetic idle task might be designed by a community of rational minds whose basic survival needs are being met?

We might reasonably predict that the non-subsistence meme pool would fall into a stable pattern that is self-consistent, simply for the sake of having a stable self-consistent framework upon which other social activities can be installed. I would expect it to look like a typical computer programming framework, with a great deal of intricate structure, much of which is not susceptible to trivial performance analysis.

We can even amuse ourselves by looking for other religion-software analogies. Are there any religious patterns analogous to a fixed-point combinator? Introspection? Debugging?

>>Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead.

Well, Dawkins doesn't believe in brainwashing defenseless children to believe things without testable basis.

(If you consider that a strange position, well... it do say something.)

At least these days, the kids probably don't have a large risk of getting mental problems for life by being sexually abused by the religious teachers...