Re: virus: Re: virus-digest V1 #50
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:20:10 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Reed Konsler wrote:

> >From: "Hakeeb A. Nandalal" <>
> >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 05:13:59 +0000
> >Why is it that a few people who are
> >brought up under identical circumstances with everyone else tend to
> >reject the "God meme" and are hence called atheists? Given that about
> >every 1 in 10 Americans is an atheist [according to David Leeper], it's
> >simple arithmetic to say that the probability that a newborn American
> >will become an atheist is 0.1. If we have more data like the ratio for
> >geographical location or demographic groups, the figure could be more
> >specific and vary accordingly.


> Religion is obviously very sucessful at propogating. It's like saying:
> what is the probability of life arising on Earth. Well, obviously, it's
> pretty damn near unity: given that we are having this conversation. What
> is the probability that a fit organism will continue to procreate given a
> similar environment? Pretty good, as well. What is the likelyhood that a
> fit meme-complex will continue to propogate...also good, maybe about 90%
> huh?

After-the-fact probabilities are VERY different than before-the-fact

> What would be interesting to explain is under what circumstances a fit
> meme-complex or organism is not successful. The two that come quickly to
> mind are a radical change in environment and competition (which, come to
> think of it, is just a subset of the previous circumstance).
> I think that's why David calls this a church. We are designing a
> meme-structure capable of out-propogating the "God meme".

Or at least incompetent versions of the "God meme". Of which there are a
lot of out there. Personally, I find the "God meme" one of the most
insidious forms of idolatry a religious/spiritual person can fall prey to.

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd