RE: virus: Science and Religion

Chelstad, Erik (
Tue, 24 Sep 96 15:57:00 PDT

Reed wrote:

> Science DIFFERS from religion and mysticism in that it is a proven
>functional and predictive process for manipulating ones environment.
>Bending spoons with ones mind is not generally useful, or telekinesis would
>obviate the need for automobiles. Praying doesn't stop plauges or such
>faith would have obviated the need for medicine.

Maybe it's just that I'm new to this forum, but from the debate I've seen so
far, religion and science are forcibly and wrongly, divorced.
When they are taken down to their components, are they not both merely
collections of memes?
Isn't it a bit like comparing the merits of dogs and cats when the topic
is internal organs? Think of your own body, not as a unit, but a collection
of atoms clinging together to form molecules, to form cells, which clump
together as organs (and much more!) and perform in a symbiotic manner
to propagate themselves. As a side effect, a consciousness is created.
An evolution, not of the species, but of the innards.

And, since I'm possibly offending all participants, why not take it a step
Why force the idea of Virus as a religion, or replacement thereof?
As a tool, memes create an interesting and useful model to examine
the social world and it's patterns. Users of the tool gain insights that
might make certain concepts (like religion or history or morals) seems silly
outdated, but it hardly stands to replace them.
If all you want is a religion that is "continuously integrating better (more
more useful) concepts while ensuring the survival of its believers," you
as well jump on the Christianity boat, as it seems to mutate and evolve to
with the times. Granted, the old fights the new (Irish Protestants vs.
Catholics), but
as a whole, the core memes survive from one generation to the next, whether
a celibate (altarboys aside) old man or a lesbian preaching.

Memes can supersede all of this, so why pile into the hole with everyone

Looking forward to your responses,