So, the basic fallacy of memes lies in this. Whereas genes require no conscious adjudicator to evolve, their ability to survive or not is purely decided by the factual constraints of their existence, memes require a conscious adjudicator to reproduce, modify, and also to be negated.

Dawkins vision of the meme paints us as passive receptacles for our ideas just as we are passive receptacles of our genes. The fault should be readily apparent. Whereas I have absolutely nothing I can do about the genes that I have in my body, I actively choose which ideas I adhere to, which ones I bother to propagate, and which ideas I reject and fight against. I choose this. This "I" is my consciousness. And even if this I is reducible to deterministic parts, the self-referential capacity of people's minds to modify and monitor their own internal content is not something which should be passed over so lightly or surrendered so readily as the argument for memes would have us do.

Memes also differ from genes in that memes are non-verifiable. You cannot isolate a meme. You can't test for it. You can't even define it. How much of an idea is a meme? Dawkins tries to cover this by broadening the concept to cover "meme-plexes" Well, this makes as little sense as memes. We arrive at the same question. What is a memeplex? How can you isolate it? How do you even begin to define what one would be in reality? As a scientifically unverifiable concept, it is strange that it should be introduced by an author who has a reputation for scientific rigor.

Origin of the above quotes can be found here:

http://anamericananti-theistabroad.blog ... -meme.html

A critic uses the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Genetic
(emphasis mine)

I will be less dismissive of what Interbane is arguing in an honest attempt at clarification:

Dawkins (and Carrier, I suppose) is in fact attempting to discredited the validity of religion by appealing to an explanation of its origin. In this case, the idea of religion as a type of byproduct of evolution.
If the idea of religion can be explained naturally, it does not follow that a naturalistic explanation falsifies the truth of an idea.

Why would the scientifically unfounded assertion "a meme that is physiological in nature falsifies the truth of religion" hold as sound reasoning?

If I need to clarify my question more, let me know. I'm in a hurry.

I think ant is keeping on topic here.
It is Carrier assertion of religion as a virus like meme that it's about and not evolution.
This whole meme theory lacks scientific foundation and that's the problem.For someone like Carrier to use it polemically while claiming to be rationally methodological is revealing, though no surprise.
It looks very like pseudo science and I think it is just that.

Flann wrote:If speciation takes place in decades why do we not have innumerable, living intermediate species between existent animals now?

There are not innumerable intermediate niches. Notice that in each and every case mentioned above, there is a reason speciation occurred. Those "reasons" are identified as niches, loosely understood. Not only must the niche exist, but there must be some phenomenon that fragments a smaller population from the general population. This is known as isolation, and can be of habitat, time, behavior, mechanical(key/lock), and gametic.

Isolation is needed because species tend to mate towards the means of their population, which stabilizes traits. Stability in this fashion can last for millions of years. Unless some manner of isolation manifests(and a similar yet different niche exists for the fragmented population), the species will remain stable.

The one I'm most familiar with in this list is the finches but I'm guessing they "diverged" into finches and not giraffes?

Right, the process is gradual. One species will not leap into the form of a distant cousin, let alone an entirely unrelated species.

The evangelical writer you linked goes with neo-Darwinism but falls back on the; it takes too much time to see it argument.

Hmm. It truly does take too much time. This isn't an argument. It's a fact. You confuse me with this one. Why call it an argument?

The whole question of what a species actually is doesn't seem agreed on and clear.

It isn't clear at all, which leads to a great deal of misunderstanding regarding evolution. Take a step back and consider the reason that identifying what a species "is" is problematic. It's an age old boundary problem. Nature is smooth, with no actual boundary between species. The distinction is a human invention, for understanding and classification. What "joint" do we chop to demarcate one species from the next? Should it be based on reproductive isolation? Or phenotypic differences? On variations in genetic code?

Each of these factors could be plotted on a line graph for each and every difference between species. You'd have one long continuous spectrum from bacteria through elephant. The issue is, some species are close on one spectrum, but distant on the others.

In some cases, the ability to mate within species is impossible, while in other cases, different species in the same family or genus are able to mate. In some cases, grossly different looking animals exist as part of the same species(chihuahua/mastiff). Yet in other cases, the most minor of phenotypic differences is the only thing that separates one species from the next(many varieties of ants).

Identifying the best way to demarcate one species from the next is a problem that I don't think will ever be adequately solved. You can't chop nature at the knees.

ant wrote:Dawkins (and Carrier, I suppose) is in fact attempting to discredited the validity of religion by appealing to an explanation of its origin.

I believe they would both say that religion is still valid, depending on what it's valid "for". If they are saying that religion is false because of it's origins, then it is potentially a fallacy. If the truth of religion depends on it's origins(was it the word of god, or a fabricated story), then the origins are relevant, and no fallacy is committed. In other words, the origins of Christianity are relevant to the truth of Christianity.

Flann wrote:This whole meme theory lacks scientific foundation and that's the problem.For someone like Carrier to use it polemically while claiming to be rationally methodological is revealing, though no surprise.
It looks very like pseudo science and I think it is just that.

Yeah, the whole evolution tangent was my fault.

The idea of memes isn't really like a theory that can be falsified(I don't think). I could be wrong. It's just another name for "idea". You also have "groups of ideas" or "belief systems" or "worldviews". Those would be "meme-plexes". These are real things that are being referred to, but the language is different.

Regarding the idea of "viral" memes. We know there are viral ideas. It's the same thing. When a video has a million views overnight, it has gone viral. It has one of the "sticky" characteristics I mentioned above.

What Dawkins is referring to is that some ideas are believed for reasons other than whether or not they are true. Urban myths take this form. They are false, but are also widespread and difficult to eliminate.

Carrier uses language like religion being a virus that kills the mind.He entirely concurs with Dawkin's view of the "meme."
And what is in question is the validity of this theory of memes.
In the article on memes that I linked the writer refers to an essay by Daniel Dennett who seems to function as Dawkin's philosophical spokesman. Dennett uses the analogy of larvae and the brain as a dunghill to indicate the incubatory aspect of "memeplexes" Nice choice of images!
And "meme nests" to indicate parasitic aspects.

But memes whatever they are do not possess the concrete reality of viruses and this also assumes a kind of passivity in humans in relation to ideas. Dennett who wrote "Darwin's dangerous idea" might have the same problem with this "meme" and be the unfortunate victim of viral infection by this dangerous "meme"
Of course all ideas and beliefs are not true, but these apologists want to characterise religious belief as viral "infection" of "hosts" minds and their own as entirely un virus like.
So religious people are zombies controlled by these science fiction parasites.

Carrier's whole book is an exercise in contrasting his superior methodological naturalism with unthinking religious belief.

But as I've already said his own belief in the multiverse ,mythicism and meme theory can be well explained on all too human grounds and not his vaunted methodology.
Just to provide an example of a Christian response to ideas such as Carrier's about memes and religion,I'm going to provide a review of Dennett's book" Breaking the Spell.Religion as a natural phenomenon"; by David Bentley Hart. He critiques Dennett's ideas on this subject, not to mention the book.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007 ... -the-snark
If you think he misrepresents Dennett's views maybe you could show where and how?

Flann, I rewrote part of your post:

Carrier uses language like religion being a virus that kills the mind.He entirely concurs with Dawkin's view of the "idea."
And what is in question is the validity of this theory of ideas.
In the article on ideas that I linked the writer refers to an essay by Daniel Dennett who seems to function as Dawkin's philosophical spokesman. Dennett uses the analogy of larvae and the brain as a dunghill to indicate the incubatory aspect of "belief systems" Nice choice of images!
And "sticky ideas" to indicate parasitic aspects.

Your resistance to the idea of a meme is based on entirely the wrong thing. You're incredulous that they're talking about a real thing. Which means you're incredulous that ideas exist. Or that ideas are sticky. Or that ideas are often believed for reasons other than their truthfulness.

The only thing the conceptual definition of "meme" has over idea is that a meme can also represent a style or behavior. But that is not relevant to what you say above, so in every way, "idea" can replace "meme".

But memes whatever they are do not possess the concrete reality of viruses and this also assumes a kind of passivity in humans in relation to ideas.

The characteristics of both memes and viruses that were being compared had nothing to do with whether or not they were physical or informational. It doesn't matter to the comparison that they are physical or informational. That isn't relevant to the analogy. The analogy has to do with the "sticky" nature and tendency to propogate of both these things, which is a characteristic that applies to both viruses and ideas.

The analogy also neither implies not assumes a passive acceptance. People are active when they listen to stories of UFO abductions, and those ideas are sticky; they stick even while the person who believes them actively processes them.

If you resist the idea that a meme is an idea that can "go viral", how do you explain people's belief in the bermuda triangle, or Roswell, or bigfoot, or any one of thousands of internet videos that accrue millions of views overnight. Or is it that you'd rather use the term "idea" than "meme"? I can appreciate that.

I understand what you are saying Interbane,
It does seem to me that Dawkins Carrier and Dennett are saying something more than idea and it seems to have been adopted by evolutionary psychologists to explain cultural phenomena in Darwinian terms.
I would accept that some ideas are more powerful than others.Marxist thought was very influential in the 20th century as an example. I think a lot of what passes as viral on the internet is not sticky at all but fleeting and amounts to globalised gossip or some oddity.But in this world people are a bit like butterflies moving on quickly to the next quirky thing and forgetting the past ones.
Anyway not to labour the point I think meme theory is more than even sticky ideas and the attempts to make it look scientific with Darwinian language are vain.

It does seem to me that Dawkins Carrier and Dennett are saying something more than idea and it seems to have been adopted by evolutionary psychologists to explain cultural phenomena in Darwinian terms.

They are saying that a meme is more than merely an idea. It's also a behavior or a style, or anything that can be considered a unit of cultural information. With respect to the previous post of mine, everything in the quote of yours was an idea. The concept of a meme was perfectly exhangeable. The fact that it also refers to behaviors or styles changes nothing with how it can be exchanged with Dennet's words.

A meme can also refer to trends in style. People's wearing of MC hammer pants or bowties or courduroy. A meme can refer to a behavior as well. A behavior is also a packet of cultural information, such as the way beevis or butthead laugh, or armpit farts, or dragon ball Z haduken actions.

Ideas and behaviors and styles are exchanged in ways that we can refer to as packets or pieces or lumps of cultural information. There is no reason we can't. But rather than using three words to refer to the things within this category, we give the category a name; meme.

I think a lot of what passes as viral on the internet is not sticky at all but fleeting and amounts to globalised gossip or some oddity

This is simply quibbling over the way to express the same thing. A viral internet video has "sticky" properties, but that does not mean the stickiness is lasting. It is good for a one time use with most people, since one thing that factors into a meme's stickiness is novelty. Once no longer new, it fades.

Anyway not to labour the point I think meme theory is more than even sticky ideas and the attempts to make it look scientific with Darwinian language are vain.

The propogation of ideas and styles and behaviors can be studied using the methods of science. What makes you think they can't? I think you have an emotional resistance to the whole meme thing that is not based on an actual understanding of what it entails.

We know that some ideas spread exponentially faster and with greater integrity than other ideas. This isn't just a popularity thing, with marxism as an example. Some ideas spread thousands or millions of times faster, and nearly every detail is retained. It's a remarkable thing that is also an observable fact. The ideas in question also spread for many of the same, easily identifiable reasons.

This is also true of many styles, as well as many behaviors. Some styles and behaviors spread incredibly fast, while many are forgotten as the silly idiosyncracies of a person who isn't a trendsetter.

It's obvious when we observe the characteristics of these sticky ideas and behaviors and styles, that they have much in common with regards to what makes them propagate. They are all units of cultural information, so why not refer to them in this way using a single word?

O.k Interbane,
Your memes win. My memes have killed my mind and powers of reason.
Dennett thinks Darwinism explains everything.That's ridiculous.Even Darwin didn't think that.
Some of their applications are unintentionally humourous. Dawkins says to Dennett on one occasion that celibate Catholic Priests are denying their Darwinian function! To which Dennett gravely nods assent.
Their brains seem saturated with Darwinism.

Dennett thinks Darwinism explains everything.

Everything?!?

The evolutionary algorithm is a powerful thing, but it doesn't apply everywhere.

My memes have killed my mind and powers of reason.

If you believe something is true in spite of proper method, then that belief could be said to quell proper reasoning. Not kill, but subvert/quell/influence.

I don't think your comment is far from the mark. Your reasoning is motivated toward belief, rather than motivated by adherence to method. You seek conclusions, then pick and choose whatever method gets you there, rather than using the entire toolbag and concluding the output.

I suppose Carrier's thinking is not motivated? He talks about method. I don't for a second believe that the prominent atheist apologists with their obsession with undermining belief in God are motivated by pure reason. Or that their own beliefs are dispassionately reached.
There are plenty of good reasons for belief in God.