Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

If one were to say "some religions are just memetic control mechanisms," one would have to make a lot of assumptions about the people who belong to these religions, such as they can't think for themselves.

Claiming that an entire group (consisting of billions of people) are deluded is a very serious accusation.
 
BenW said:
That is intellectual surrender...
Click to expand...

Call it that if you want. The only way to understand it is to experience it. The supernatural has made my life extremely meaningful and has taught me many invaluable things in my life. Can I explain it in a way you will understand, appreciate, or accept? Nope.

Jana is right, that is Ni, and it is something that can't be explained. Your Ti just despreratly want's something concrete made out of something that can't be made concrete.
 
BenW said:
The "evidence" I've seen for the existence of God generally is composed of false and poorly constructed first-day Apologetic arguments against abiogenesis, biological evolution, or the big bang theory. Or my personal favorite, vague statements about how something so complex as life/Earth/the universe could not have arisen by means of anything other than intent.
Click to expand...

Those are just "intelligent design" or creationist arguments, used in the context of a false dichotomy between apatheistic science and the whole package of doctrines about God's nature and will. There are many other arguments more specific to Christianity, mostly focusing on miracles and purportedly fulfilled prophecies. The one most commonly discussed in scholarly circles is that of the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. (While the conclusions drawn seem absurd on a broader scale, it is admittedly difficult to explain the early success of Christianity without the resurrection.)


Ketsugi said:
If one were to say "some religions are just memetic control mechanisms," one would have to make a lot of assumptions about the people who belong to these religions, such as they can't think for themselves.
Click to expand...

One can think pretty well for oneself and still carry some memes. The whole idea of memes is that they evolve to be easy to transmit. If they play well to our cognitive biases and avoid easily disproven claims, we as sane and intelligent people can hold them with little notice.
 
TheLastMohican said:
Those are just "intelligent design" or creationist arguments, used in the context of a false dichotomy between apatheistic science and the whole package of doctrines about God's nature and will. There are many other arguments more specific to Christianity, mostly focusing on miracles and purportedly fulfilled prophecies. The one most commonly discussed in scholarly circles is that of the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. (While the conclusions drawn seem absurd on a broader scale, it is admittedly difficult to explain the early success of Christianity without the resurrection.)
Click to expand...
Either way, that's not at all empirical.
If God really existed, one would think he'd have left some tantalizing concrete hints laying around.
Of course, that goes against the idea of faith.

IndigoSensor said:
Call it that if you want. The only way to understand it is to experience it. The supernatural has made my life extremely meaningful and has taught me many invaluable things in my life. Can I explain it in a way you will understand, appreciate, or accept? Nope.

Jana is right, that is Ni, and it is something that can't be explained. Your Ti just despreratly want's something concrete made out of something that can't be made concrete.
Click to expand...
*pukes*

Thank you for reminding me why I hate MBTI.

This is an example of people using it as an excuse to act a certain way, rather than to understand themselves in greater depth.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Jana is right, that is Ni, and it is something that can't be explained.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's right to assign that feeling a Jungian function. Supposedly I am supposed to have at least auxiliary Ni, yet I do not understand what you and Jana are talking about.

BenW said:
Either way, that's not at all empirical.
Click to expand...

It's based on historical analysis, as are many other opinions. That separates it from delusions, which are created within the mind and cannot be precisely shared.
 
I can see why the believers in this thread are feeling kinda beleaguered.
 
From reading over the course of this thread I'd like to make a few points...

1. I think it is pretty clear that religion can exist as a memetic control mechanism. However, it is unlikely that it exists within all people who choose to follow a certain religion. Some people follow a religion but choose not to let it control how they think or view the world.

2. Believing in some greater power is not a meme in itself, nor is it necessarily a delusion as it may very well be based on human instinct. In other words, believing in God is not necessarily the same as following a religion.

3. Asking the question of whether or not religion is a memetic control mechanism is not an act of intolerance but of critical reasoning. Millions of people fall for fads and chain letters, which are clear forms of memes. It is no inconceivable that billions of people could fall for memes that have evolved to the point that some religions have.

4. Political ideology could itself be considered a meme as I explained earlier. There are many people willing to die to protect this country's way of life just as there are many people willing to die to protect their religion's way of life.

5. Concepts like science and atheism can themselves be memetic control mechanisms if taken only on faith.

6. What should be taken away from this thread is an awareness of how systems of thought can control you as opposed to you controlling them. As just me said, people have the power to use their own "mind, body, and soul" to interpret the world and come to their own decisions. As long as you are aware of how a memetic control mechanism may be influencing your thinking, you can see past it and form your own view of the world.

7. It is inevitable that as some memes are threatened with their own extinction that they will go to extreme lengths to survive. Be forewarned that as people become increasingly aware of memes, and as a result various religions begin to wither, that memetically influenced violence will undoubtedly increase.
 
I must say today will not allow the time I would like to spend regarding this thread.

The word "parasite" is still, though, abrasive in its very own little quiet way, no matter how one looks at it. "Teachings" may have been better acceptable, but would not have fully portrayed the anti-religious mente.
Throwing the abortion and homosexual arguments out of this is commendable, but they represent a certain mindset that is anti-religious,
and a certain agenda to undermine laws and religious beliefs to make those arguments better acceptable. The media has exploited it to its fullest degree.

I wish those that seem to be spiritual in some manner that feel somewhat offended to know I used to be offended, too. I feel it a challenge to stay the race without becoming offensive, though obtuse may better explain the thought. I now try to discuss things without the strong emotional feeling of trying to stand up for my beliefs. It is obvious where I stand, so I no longer feel the need to try and explain those feelings. There was a saying: "To communicate is the beginning of understanding." Cannot remember who said that, but it wasn't just me. To openly discuss things helps others to understand, if nothing else but understand how to better communicate. As said here over and over, most people are not going to change. The truth be known, more people might be influenced than one might think when reading or watching things.....there are young ones coming up with inquiring minds watching the TV and news. Do not take lightly what we are teaching them.

Yes, I agree the people to be more the problem than anything else on both sides of the coin. People can say the darnedest things, do the meanest things, and hear only what they choose to hear. I ask those that are offended to stay the course. Do not become overly upset if you can help it. Everyone's input is important in a discussion. I also ask everyone to be careful with word choice; I, too, am not fond of being called delusional, though can take it without changing course. Blaming wars on religion or on things other than religion is not helping, either. I was always taught when one points a finger at someone else, he is pointing the other four at himself(though I think it would be three). "Blame" has never been one of my favorite words; neither has "fault": the sooner we fix something the less we have to focus on blame.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
Throwing the abortion and homosexual arguments out of this is commendable, but they represent a certain mindset that is anti-religious,
and a certain agenda to undermine laws and religious beliefs to make those arguments better acceptable. The media has exploited it to its fullest degree.
Click to expand...

Abortion and Homosexuality are not the same as the Politics of Abortion and Homosexuality. The distinction needs to be made. To be homosexual does not mean you accept all the politics associated with homosexuality. Yes, there are some anti religious elements to politics associated with homosexuality, but that has nothing to do with homosexuality itself.

That said, I have learned to accept certain things being spoken or typed on a forum on the web. If running down religion is for the sole purpose of trying to lift oneself up because of a different lifestyle one has chosen, I feel it to be selfishly done. If one must step on someone else to stand up higher, one may be standing in the wrong place altogether. Just more food for thought. Good day and see you tomorrow!
Click to expand...
Ah, why must you try to make this personal? I've simply asked a question. Do you or do you not believe that religion can be a memetic control mechanism? What about my arguments would lead you to believe it is not? Instead of arguing that I'm trying to "drag people down" because I'm gay, why don't you consider how out of place your accusations are in this thread. Start by reading the post right above yours, and see how baseless your accusations really are. If giving people the tools to decide for themselves is considered "dragging them down so I can stand on them" then we must have very different perceptions of the world.
 
Last edited:
BenW said:
*pukes*

Thank you for reminding me why I hate MBTI.

This is an example of people using it as an excuse to act a certain way, rather than to understand themselves in greater depth.
Click to expand...

If you think that I don't understand myself at a greater depth, and do so every chance I get, you are sadly mistaken. I just do this in a different way then you to. This doesn't make it right or wrong.

TheLastMohican said:
I don't think it's right to assign that feeling a Jungian function. Supposedly I am supposed to have at least auxiliary Ni, yet I do not understand what you and Jana are talking about.
Click to expand...

That's because we use primary Ni. There is a difference between primary Ni, and secondary Ni. I am using it to make a point that when it comes to things like this (supernatural / spiritual things) it is near impossible to explain it. Even more so to a T type without it getting torn to shread and being turned into something it is not.
 
Last edited:
I removed that paragraph and apologize, especially after your post above mine was read more clearly as time permitted. Please forgive.
I acknowledge the difference in the politics of those subjects. You may do the same with your copy if you will...

or not if you so choose, it seems.
 
Last edited:
IndigoSensor said:
That's because we use primary Ni. There is a difference between primary Ni, and secondary Ni. I am using it to make a point that when it comes to things like this (supernatural / spiritual things) it is near impossible to explain it. Even more so to a T type without it getting torn to shread and being turned into something it is not.
Click to expand...

But surely you cannot say that all those who have dominant Ni will share that spiritual feeling? Especially if you consider the supernatural "real" (rather than a figment of your own imagination), it does not make sense to say that you have special access to it by virtue of your personality type, which is merely a human ordering system used to talk about mental processes. (Additionally, if I am an INTJ after all — therefore with dominant Ni, like yourself — your explanation fails.)
 
TheLastMohican said:
But surely you cannot say that all those who have dominant Ni will share that spiritual feeling? Especially if you consider the supernatural "real" (rather than a figment of your own imagination), it does not make sense to say that you have special access to it by virtue of your personality type, which is merely a human ordering system used to talk about mental processes. (Additionally, if I am an INTJ after all
Click to expand...
 
Satya said:
I actually have to agree with Indigo. One of the most annoying things when debating with INTJs is that they have almost the same instinctual basis for believing their respective political ideologies as INFJs do for believing their respective spiritualities. INTJs may gather a hoard of evidence to support their instincts, but it largely comes down to those Ni feelings.
Click to expand...

So Ni is the intuitive certainty, which is applied to politics by Ts and spirituality by Fs?
 
Shai Gar said:
Ou ou ou! Do Ne applied to politics by T's.
Click to expand...

What would be the point? You could never pin down anything conceived in such a way with a label. Ne users are frightfully comfortable with ambiguity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top