Are religions viruses of the mind? I would have replied with an unequivocal "yes" until a few days ago when some shocking data suggested I am wrong.
Why?
From a conference on “Explaining religion,” she cites the following reasons.
1. Religious activity correlates with more children.
And, no others.
Yep, that’s it.
First, despite her noting her previous mea culpa over believing in the reality of paranormal phenomena, it shows Blackmore might still lack intellectual rigor in some areas.
This is a prime example. She didn’t even look for additional information, like average lifespan of children from religious vs. nonreligious families.
Nor did she take a look at a single datum of cultural evolution that might be connected.
Nor did she acknowledge this might be an issue of cultural evolution trumping genetic evolution.
Shoddy, shoddy.
Beyond that, she didn’t even ask the most pertinent question:
Shouldn’t this put another nail in the coffin of “strong” theories of memes, at least?
Answer? Yes.
And, shouldn't this column show that Susan Blackmore is overrated as a skeptical thinker? Absolutely.
If not, this should.
When Blackmore first developed the "meme" idea, within biology, epigenetics was barely on the horizon. Now, a decade-plus later, I've not seen her (or Dawkins, or others), improve the analogy to include something analogous to epigenetics. (And I haven't even thrown out the issue of what might be an analogy to prions.)
On modern mind analogies in general, I think we just don't know enough about the mind right now to throw out ANY analogies, though. Years ago, it was an engine or motor. Then, a computer. Then a parallel processor. Now, a quasi-biological replicator. Our analogies rise to the level of our technological advancement, but no higher, and so none of them are that strong in either direction.
If it doesn't, the vapidness of her "third replicator," "temes," as inarticulately discussed here, definitely should. It's so inarticulate she can't even really explain the analogy to memes, let alone to genes, very well.
Back to her skeptical starting point, though, her "repentance" of early thoughts over psi phenomena. What if, per the idea of one skeptical blogger, she never really rejected her original beliefs, but just said that psi phenomena weren't falsifiable?
Well, if that take is correct (and I can at least "see" that, yes) maybe she never should have been put on a skeptical pedestal in the first place.
That said, I have gotten some meditation and affirmation insights from ideas she put together after a Buddhist retreat. But, especially in light of this column of hers, would I ever consider her either a scientific or a philosophical "go-to" person on cognitive matters?
Big no on that.
Meanwhile, I can't wait for the Christian version of a Pop Ev Psycher to actually cite this column.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.