Have memes been scientifically proven? (page 3)

passwordprotected

But to say that people 'believe' in memes because of 'teachings' of Dawkins shows that you have a fundamental (and quite possibly intentional) mis-understanding of the scientific method. You see it as just another religion no doubt.
A pity.

Is it?

If you can't provide evidence for something you believe in, isn't that a delusion? Do you see what I'm driving at? Before you read Dawkins (and possibly became a Dawkinite) did you know about memes? Or did you read one of his books, found that it struck a chord with where you're at in your life and decided to adopt all of his beliefs and world views as your own, evidence or no evidence?

C'mon, the brush has a lot of tar on it and while you're tarring us you may end up with some on yourself.

passwordprotected

But to say that people 'believe' in memes because of 'teachings' of Dawkins shows that you have a fundamental (and quite possibly intentional) mis-understanding of the scientific method. You see it as just another religion no doubt.

When did you first become aware of memes?

JeffT

Memes exist, we all see them all the time, the concept of a meme boils down to "Everybody (or lots of people) believe XYZ. "Sarah Pallin isn't very bright" and "French waiters are rude" are memes. Have they/can they be scientifically proven is a matter for each meme.

besty

It is possible for an atheist/agnostic to have beliefs which by definition can never be 'proven' scientifically.

(Sidepoint - only pure sciences like mathematics have true proofs attached to them - the other sciences 'prove' stuff in a less literal sense - eg gravity, evolution, anthropogenic climate change etc are 'proven' until some better explanation gains acceptance)

For example I'm happy to believe in the fundamental goodness of human nature. It requires faith (delusory or otherwise) on my part to hold such an un-provable concept, and Im happy to suspend rationality in this instance.

Same goes for memes - happy just to believe in them without needing proof.

Ask me about a magick man in the sky who made everything (and messed it up royally) and now won't talk to us - well I exercise my right to return to the safety of rationality there. That claim is too outrageous to not require massive evidence, memes and the goodness of human nature are not especially outrageous claims so the evidence barrier is set much lower.

besty

bttt for PP

BurnTheShips

Yes, but have they been scientifically proven, i.e. can they be replicated, manipulated, taken apart, put back together, quantified etc etc in a lab?

Memes are ideas. They cannot be quantified this way.

BTS

SixofNine

PP, why don't you define, very specifically and in detail, what YOU mean by "meme"?

besty

What is your point Mark?

I'm assuming you haven't become obsessed with memes all of a sudden and that you do have an underlying point?

passwordprotected

I think my underlying point is fairly obvious. Dawkinites read his most famous book and either form a world view, or amalgamate it into their existing world view based on his rhetoric. They then, without checking sources or available evidence it would seem, brandish the ideology "belief in God is equatable with feeblemindedness because there's no evidence to support your belief".

Some do it more vociferously than others. Some do it while affording the subject of their ire more respect than others (you may notice that it was suggested I have low self-esteem - albeit respectfully - on another thread because I pointed to a study that showed that 40% of scientists believe in a God who answers prayers).

They now exist in a world that has to be explained or proven through science. They will not accept the notion, like the Father of their world view, that science cannot explain everything. They will not accept it when scientists say scientific evidence has led them to believe in (a) God, just like their Father refuses to believe it (he even says such scientists are liars. Why? Because they do not fit in with his world view).

Because they can't see or hear God, and because Dawkins has told them that science has explained away the existence of God with almost all probability (and I love how that little 1 or 2% is left in there just in case), they mock and seek to undermine those who believe they can see and hear God in their life and in the world around them. They say that something should be done about religion and peddle their Father's opinion that teaching children about God should be illegal. They start dreaming of a utopia where any talk of God is done away with, just like their Father has preached to them.

So, my question about memes was simple; have they been scientifically proven? Belief in anything should be scientifically proven first, according to a Dawkinite's world view. The concept of memes hasn't been scientifically proven (and as a side note, do some research into whether Dawkin's hypothesis on genes as put forth in the Selfish Gene is still backed by science as it was in the 70s. Eerily similar to the flip flopping of the WTS), yet Dawkins and many of his acolytes believe in the concept. Whether it's a metaphor to explain an analogy is irrelevant.

And now I'm reading here that;

"It is possible for an atheist/agnostic to have beliefs which by definition can never be 'proven' scientifically."

So such beliefs are faith. And faith is delusional, am I right, according to Dawkins? Or is faith only delusional when it's pertaining to God?

Quite why two disparate world views can't co-exist is puzzling and surely limits the elasticity of human kindness and understanding. If a person wants to believe in something that can't be proven in a lab, then they should be allowed to. And so should a person who wants to believe in God.

If anyone fancies a bit of reading, please click through to the Times Online site which reviews a new book called 'The Selfish Genius'. Note, the website contains what could be considered apostate material;

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article6668427.ece

besty

Mark your post contains the word 'they' a dozen or so times . I'm speaking for me, not 'they'. Nor am I a Dawkinite so again what follows is merely my 0.02.

They now exist in a world that has to be explained or proven through science

I live in a world where the scientific answer is usually better supported and more plausible than the religious answer. Where there is no answer, I'm at peace with that. It seems to me that once you dig into scientific specialities the individuals involved are humble individuals that readily admit they don't have all the answers, but are working on it. Religious leaders are not so humble. Your mileage may vary.

Because they can't see or hear God, and because Dawkins has told them that science has explained away the existence of God with almost all probability (and I love how that little 1 or 2% is left in there just in case), they mock and seek to undermine those who believe they can see and hear God in their life and in the world around them.

I have in the past described myself as a weak agnostic 99.999% sure that God doesn't exist. The 0.0001% is not left in 'just in case' - the ever loving arms of Vishnu or Allah would be sure to forgive me when I meet him - at least I hadn't backed a different horse :-) just no horse at all - eminently more forgivable surely? But I digress. The 0.0001% is left in there for the sake of logical accuracy. I can't be 100% sure and neither can you or anyone else. I hope I don't come across as mocking or undermining people with faith in God - that's their business. But on a Discussion Forum now and again its gonna get rambunctious and people will call BS when they think they hear it.

They say that something should be done about religion and peddle their Father's opinion that teaching children about God should be illegal. They start dreaming of a utopia where any talk of God is done away with, just like their Father has preached to them.

Children are vulnerable. They are hard-wired to accept parental or other adult inputs with less rational criticism than more mature adults. It means their survival. That's why there are laws to prevent child marriage etc - their decision making ability is under-developed. I don't think it looks good for any religion to 'indoctrinate' children with the beliefs of the parents. Likewise for atheism, that should not be the default position either. The rational critical thinking skills the Watchtower is so afraid of will benefit our children more than any one religious belief system. They can figure out which God to worship later on.

So, my question about memes was simple; have they been scientifically proven? Belief in anything should be scientifically proven first, according to a Dawkinite's world view.

I think you may misunderstand what a belief is, ironically enough. Starting with the easier to grasp 'fact', that which is indisputably true. My name is Paul. Fact. Macs are better than PCs. Fact. 'Beliefs' on the other hand are not neccessarily fact-based. They may be. But not always. So a 'belief' can transition to a 'fact' once proven beyond reasonable doubt. The solar system being heliocentric was once a belief and is now a fact. There is no conflict for an atheist to hold certain 'beliefs' - being a good little rational thinker he will not be so audacious to label his 'beliefs' as 'facts'.

I have already described my 'belief' in the goodness of human nature, and that this is faith-based, and that said faith may well be delusional. I see no divergence here from my core agnosticism. (Sidepoint - Dawkins book is called The God Delusion, not The Faith Delusion)

Or is faith only delusional when it's pertaining to God?

I belive self-delusion to be one of several factors contributing to belief in God - see other thread about IQ and religiosity - just teasing ya :-)

Quite why two disparate world views can't co-exist is puzzling and surely limits the elasticity of human kindness and understanding. If a person wants to believe in something that can't be proven in a lab, then they should be allowed to. And so should a person who wants to believe in God.

Indeed - although the children complicate matters - what to do with the little 'uns? To indoctrinate or not?

Have memes been scientifically proven?

Share this