The Human Question

To propose as RD does that religion is a kind of "bad virus" (memetically speaking, of course) requires that one grant that there could be "good viruses" as well. But such viruses are judged good or bad only in light of how they affect the well-being of the affected organism(s). So in speaking of bad viruses RD is to bring memetics into conflict with his genetics (that is, with SelfishGeneTheory). For according to the latter, everything that an organism does is to be evaluated as if it existed ultimately for the sake of enabling the gene to duplicate itself. When memes, as viruses, are judged as good or bad, however, they are evaluated not on the basis of how they affect the reproductive success of their possessors, but on on the basis of how they affect their possessors' experience well-being. To speak of good and bad viruses, therefore, is to depart from natural science and enter into the realm of ethics. One may object to the above analysis by claiming that...

In a debate with Alister McGrath, Dennet proposes that, far from being beneficial to humans, religion is a virus to which we adapt. It occurs to me that Dennet, like Dawkins recognizes that religion is part of the human condition but doesn't want to grant that it is beneficial. But if one can argue that religion is a virus, can't someone else argue that democracy is one as well? At which point, we need to drop meme talk and rely on an insightful discussion of the evidence for/against belief in God.