Anyone agree with Richard Dawkins' view of religion (The God Delusion) as a virus of the mind?

Question

that it is destructive than constructive?

Please do not answer if you haven't read the book yourself.

Deus Ex Machina, my question is not about the minds of you or me or the ones that have successfully been able to resist it and endure it for good, rather the minds that cannot and does the damage.

P.S. There is this quote from Robert Buckman's Can we be good without God, "Without religion we will have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but with religion we have good people doing bad things, that sums up my direction of the question.

Music Girl, I suppose Dawkins addresses the concerns you have about Stalin and the like, even then, there are much thoughtful reading to be done in nontheist literature, the likes from Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, Buckman's Can we be good without God.

“Minds are friendly environments to parasitic, self-replicating ideas or information and minds are typically massively infected.” A Devil’s Chaplain—Dawkins

Ideas, good and bad, gets imprinted in the brain. Call these ideas memes or viruses or suspend your belief (or unbelief) in them because as of yet there is no empirical evidence. Nonetheless, the ideas get imprinted, passed on, and acted upon are inevitable, hence cannot be brushed aside, all the more because of bad ideas that lead to chaos, indifference, and alas! destruction.

“The ideas inherent in most religions still have great importance and validity for human behavior whether there is a god or not, for example what Jesus said and did as recorded in the Bible or the thoughts of Mohammad, Buddha, or Moses. There is no doubt of the value of what each said about conduct, foibles, and virtues. We can, by dint of effort and thought, separate the follies that are common t so many religions from the moral teachings and values they contain.

With a bit of effort we can try to remember that we are basically organisms who have evolved with a brilliant and strong limbic system, which unfortunately, from time to time gets the better of even more brilliant neocortex. Keeping that in mind we can perhaps use our rational centers to focus on the meanings of the morals and messages of the teachers without having to take on the literal truth of an external God-the-architect-and-controller.” Can We Be Good Without God—Buckman.

The idea that Mystery is a Virtue so better left unproved, that gives oxygen to ‘unquestionable’ (infallible) dogmas and doctrines like you shall not abort, God ‘promised’ us a land so invade, **** the nuclear warheads for ‘Rapture’ is close, reasoning and disbelief is blasphemy, with us or against us, etc., is a vice and caused, even if hypothetically, by life-threatening viruses cannot be an exaggeration. The danger is even more striking as there are more than one religion chest-thumping to hold the key and way to heaven—Islam and Christianity universally; and Hinduism, in the name of Ram Janmabhoomi (Lord Ram’s land for Hindus, rest depart). It is inevitable, with one religion’s infallibility that outrightly contradicts the other, different religions can never be reconciled and never there can be one universal religion to bring about a balance.

There need not even be a temptation to rationally prove that religion, in light of Cargo Cults banging nail on head, is humankind’s wishful thinking that evolved from prehistoric time for a need of a psychological dependence that there is a divine power ever watchful.

Answer 1

Yes, I think I do, it's an extension of his concept of the meme, really. I think the major strength of the book is to consider theism as a testable hypothesis and attack it, thus negating the idea of Noma, no overlapping magisteria, which many otherwise excellent pundits such as Gould have used as a reason to shy away from confronting religion head on.

Answer 2

An inappropriate and misleading analogy . If we with conscious
minds did not exist the riddle of the universes reality would not be in question but the potential for the question would . Where then would the conclusion of a God as an answer exist as a virus ,not in mans mind certainly !
Not all religions are the same ,perhaps a comparative study would be helpful here , suspending ones disbelief for the exercise?
In an unconscious universe where would the memes be be ?
Some religions are destructive , some constructive , like people in general or some scientists in particular .

Answer 3

No, I don't agree with Dawkins on this one. There are many intellectual arguments for atheism and, I think, equally intellectual arguments for belief in a supreme being, but I don't think this 'virus of the mind' idea is sound at all.

My main concerns about this view of religion are:

1) It is a very 'loaded' definition, since no one will consider a virus a good thing;
2) where is the evidence for this 'virus of the mind'? Isn't Dawkins supposed to be a scientist interested in empirical proof? The analogy with physical viruses doesn't hold up - they can be seen and analysed, but there is no similar evidence for viruses of the mind or, Dawkins' other variation of this, the meme;
3) it is not clear how we distinguish between viruses of the mind and ideas. Are only religious ideas to be considered as viruses? What about atheist ideas? What are the criteria we should use to determine this? Are viruses only ideas that Dawkins doesn't agree with?

I write as someone waiting to be convinced. After years as an atheist, during which time I really didn't think all that deeply about the basis of my convictions, I am now starting to question my opinions. A book such as this one by Dawkins *should* be much stronger, but he seems to descend too frequently into cheap sloganeering, a point picked up on by the humanist magazine 'Prospect' in their review:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?search_term=dawkins&id=7803

I realize that I've not yet answered your sub-question on whether religion is destructive rather than constructive. Yes, it can be, but it can also be constructive - to deny that is surely disingenuous. The thing is that this whole area is complex and cannot be reduced to simple equations. As someone said (I think it was Roger Scruton, but I'm not sure), "The thing about difficult questions is that they are difficult".

Answer 4

I share most of his views, yes.

One thing that I think should be emphasized is that there are TWO realms in which people go a little nuts - religion is the largest and most influential at the moment. The other is politics.

If we were to get away from religion, but not teach people how to think rationally, then I think we would have the same problems emerge in the form of bad government.

There is something to be learned from Stalin - not that atheism leads to genocide, but that politics and government structures can.

Answer 5

There are religions like Buddhism and Jainism that are atheistic in nature. Buddha taught that one should look for salvation from within. So, all religions cannot be clubbed together. Over the milleniums religion, spirituality, culture, folk tradition and local customs have become so intermingled that it is very hard to seperate them.
In very ancient times religion was a science like Hinduism for example. It was an inner science like you have outer sciences e.g physics and chemistry. The same could be said of Buddhism and Taoism.
So, I would say that I agree in some degree with Richard Dawkins as far as conventional practise of religion goes. But a religion practised as a way to enlightenment and raising ones conciousness levels is the need of day!

Answer 6

I am 20 pages from the end of this fasinating tome. I do believe I'm reconsidering my stance on Deism. Thomas Paine knew what he was talking about I think.

Yes, I think it is similar to the "moth to the flame" analogy he uses. Interesting book and it certainly emboldens one to do something to counter religious craziness.

Answer 7

yes religion is destrutive the worst thing on the planet and religion is a virus of the mind thay become adites it is like lsd to the brainwashed christians

Answer 8

Yes, the "virus" view holds up. I have read the book and its clarity is amazing. He makes no attempt to convince us of anything that goes against logic, reason and commonsense.

Answer 9

I don't think that it is a virus, just a phase that life forms go through after they have evolved enough to become sentient.

Answer 10

No. I believe religion exists for a good reason.