virus: Science and Religion

Reed Konsler (
Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:19:38 -0400

>From: "Chelstad, Erik" <>
>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 15:57:00 PDT

>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.

If we are describing organs than many memes which are by accident or design
part of most religions are cancerous. They aren't useful to the organsim,
thet cost energy and reduce fitness. The thing about ideas is you can
choose not to spread them. Religion is so riddled with these problematic
idea I'm for dissolving it as opposed to reforming. Sometimes it's better
to just sit down and start over, perhaps that's what we are doing
here...but I wouldn't call it a religion, I guess I just don't like the
word and I feel language is rich enough that there is another, more
suitable one.


------------------Reed Konsler