This paper will investigate the parallels and similarities between biological infection and the spreading of ideas and propaganda, also known as ‘memes’. Further, we shall observe how the evolutionary method of ‘natural selection’ facilitates the replication and transmission of these same ideas. We shall observe that these ‘cultural viruses’ are transported and transmitted under certain conditions that favour or limit its transmission and infection. According to many scholars such as Richard Dawkins in ‘The Selfish Gene’ (1976 p. 359), Daniel Dennett in ‘Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon’ (2007, p. 207), Richard Brodie in ‘Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme’ (2004, p. 26), and Susan Blackmore in ‘The Meme Machine’ (2000, p. 4), religion and pseudoscientific beliefs may be viewed in this way, and these types of infection may or may not prove beneficial, according to the subjective point of view one holds. For example the atheist may view religion as harmful whereas the religious person might view atheism as equally detrimental. In the case of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, it seems to have become accepted that these are deep-rooted and widely held belief systems that more or less hold dominion over the inhabitants of our entire planet whether we all believe in them or not, and these religious beliefs are of course several thousands of years old and have now passed into a category of ‘faith’ that is generally considered ‘bullet-proof’, that is to say that we may not criticise these specific infectious memes for fear of insulting entire populations or cultures. We must understand that the very great age of a specific belief system, should not automatically grant it validity, and this paper will discuss the human mind’s ability to accept and spread concepts that are lacking sufficient evidence.

Introduction

This theory of ideas and concepts spreading and evolving among social and cultural groups has become known as ‘meme theory’ or ‘memetics’. The definition of the meme can often be quite complicated, such as that put forward by Richard Brodie in his book ‘Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme’ (2004, p.26) which states:

The meme is the secret code of human behaviour, a Rosetta Stone finally giving us the key to understanding religion, politics, psychology, and cultural evolution. That key, though, also unlocks Pandora’s Box, opening up sophisticated new techniques for mass manipulation that we may soon look on today’s manipulative TV commercials, political speeches, and televangelists as fond remembrances of the good old days. (Brodie, 2004, p. 26)

This paper will discuss the meme theory in broader terms, using an amalgam of the concept according to the many writings and lectures of eminent scholars of memetics such as Richard Dawkins in ‘The Selfish Gene’ (1976), Daniel Dennett in ‘Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon’ (2007), and Susan Blackmore in ‘The Meme Machine’ (2000). As Blackmore states:

When you imitate someone else, something is passed on. This ‘something’ can then be passed on again, and again, and so take on a life of its own. We might call this thing an idea, an instruction, a behaviour, a piece of information… but if we are going to study it we shall need to give it a name. Fortunately, there is a name. It is the ‘meme’. (Blackmore, 2000, p. 4)

A meme as this paper will discuss it, is a cultural virus able to generate and replicate using human hosts; it survives through the generations, infecting populations and cultures. Not because it is necessarily true, but because it provides comfort and support in order to thrive.

It should also be noted that memes often form meme complexes, groups of memes mutually supporting each other and replicating together. The dividing line between a meme and a meme complex is often unclear, but according to Dan Dennet in ‘Consciousness Explained’ (1991, p. 207), the human mind and sense of self are created by the interaction of memes. Not only are meme replicators comparable to genes, fitting the evolutionary model, but the human consciousness itself is the product of memes and meme complexes. Dennet shows how memes compete for dominance in our minds and makes us the individuals that we are. As he puts it:

The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artefact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. (Dennett, 1991, p. 207)

However, this paper shall address the concept of ‘core memes’, ‘meme complexes’ and ‘supporting memes’ only briefly and where relevant.

The research methodologies used in this paper will primarily consist of cultural anthropology, scientific methods, and consciousness studies, including social and historical lines of communication and critical reflection.

Development of the meme theory

In his 1976 book ‘The Selfish Gene’, evolutionary biologist professor Richard Dawkins created the concept of the meme by shortening the word ‘mimeme’, which derives from the Greek word ‘mimema’ meaning ‘something imitated’ (1976, p. 359). Dawkins explains that a meme is an idea, like a gene, that can replicate and evolve, it is a basic unit of cultural information that can be transferred from one person to another (1976, p. 359). While trying to reduce the process of biological genetics to its most fundamental unit, i.e. - the gene, Dawkins (1976, p. 206) suggested other parallels that might classify as replicators such as ideas in a mind. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool through the reproductive process, memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by transferring from mind to mind through oral and written words. Dawkins claims slogans, advertising jingles, music, catch phrases, and fashions are spread in the same way, but so are ideas such as the making of pots and the building of arches. Humans are not born with this knowledge innately. In order to know how to build an arch, we must experiment and research.

Memes, as Dawkins explains, (1976, p. 206) do not only influence behaviour to promote replication, but many of the most successful memes have other side-effects, for example, being able to invoke emotions or promote their replication by being useful, or through other features such as attaching or ‘parasiting’ themselves to other memes, as in the case of parody or imitation. One could say that these symbiotic memes spread mainly via the beneficial characteristics provided to the host, while parasitic memes compel the host to spread them irrespective of positive or negative effects. Brodie continues this theme, (2004, p. 26) explaining that this compulsion may or may not be subtle, ranging from explicit orders such as can be found in chain letters for example. A chain letter is an often threatening piece of correspondence (this meme is based in fear rather than benefit) demanding that the recipient forward multiple copies to other people, or suffer some (often supernatural) punishment, such as ‘bad luck’ or a ‘curse’. More subtly manipulative versions may circulate that appeal to a person’s sense of guilt or social responsibility, and might urge that the recipient forward the letter in order to raise awareness of some condition, and in so doing, prevent increased child deaths, for example. These extremely powerful memes further appeal to the implicit influences that are inherent within our attitudes and emotions such as the emotive ‘Save the Whales’ meme as discussed by Douglas R. Hofstadter in his book ‘Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern (Hofstadter, 1985, p. 55).

This paper puts forth the theory that memes are often seen as interchangeable with ideas or thoughts, both are cognitive structures, but an idea is not necessarily self-replicating and can be spread for extrinsic reasons, if it is spread beyond the initial host at all. The difference is sometimes intangible; the idea ‘It is time to eat’ will easily spread in a small group such as co-workers, or family groups, but may not spread well outside the group. For example, commuters on a train would, most likely, not eat at the same time as the connection that is required to replicate and spread the concept of ‘time to eat’ does not exist between all individuals and it will disappear once the question is settled and the individual has eaten. A meme, however, will spread more generally and does not have any limited lifespan so long as it remains stimulating or productive. Therefore, it could be said that a meme continues to replicate and spread due to the continued service it provides, for example, it will (if it is to remain a successful meme) constantly supply that which perpetuates it, such as ‘comfort’, ‘fear’, ‘interest’, ‘loyalty’ or ‘joy’, whereas a more ‘basic’ idea like ‘time to eat’ is an intrinsic biological necessity, it arises, is satisfied and subsides. The viral nature of the meme, and it’s infection and propagation among groups is what makes it so very different to an idea, and it is this concept that this paper aims to investigate.

According to Blackmore, (2000, p. 10) and Dennett, (2007, p. 355) the replication of these memetic germs is similar to evolutionary natural selection, the mutation that proves to be unfit, providing no benefit to the host will remain at the source. Becoming sterile, they eventually wither and die, or if beneficial will result in the spreading of the infection. Dawkins observes (1976, p. 18) that human decisions are part of the memetic selection process; from the perspective of the meme ecology, human behaviour is the equivalent of the ecological and geological environment of biological life. Brodie concludes (2004, pp. 38-43) that from the meme perspective, the meme message evolves into its form in order to encourage people to spread it rather than to say that people have selected or deliberately bred the message into its form – one might argue that not only does the meme adapt to its environment, it also influences the actual environment itself through the manipulation of the host.

This paper observes that it is not unreasonable to also draw the comparison between memetic infection and biological infection. For the replication and diffusion of the viral meme to take place we must necessarily have a germ, a carrier, and receptive surroundings. It is then, as in the case of viral health epidemics, merely a matter of contacts and the successful pollination of germs.

What makes the meme perspective so interesting is that it suggests that some of what we have learned from biology can be applied to human psychology. Dawkins points out that ‘a cultural trait may have evolved in the way it has simply because it is advantageous to itself' (1976. p. 200). One cultural commentator, Dave Gross (1996) reiterates the same point in an online article entitled ‘The Blue Star Meme: Applying Natural Selection Thinking to Urban Legends’ when he states:

The main shift in thinking that needs to take place is to look at the spread of the legend not so much from the point of view of the people who propagate the warning, but from the point of view of the warning itself. (Gross, 1996, p. 1).

The mechanics of memes

In this section of the paper we shall further discuss the basic mechanisms of memetic replication and observe the similarities between this and biological evolution. Futuyma explains (2005, p.126) that the forces that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift. Simply put, natural selection is the process by which organisms produce a genetic mutation, which results in a beneficial or favorable trait and are therefore more likely to survive and reproduce. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions (Gould, 2002, p. 269), and in this same way the meme may adapt to it’s environment and is the key to it’s survival and replication.

Brodie believes (2004, pp. 163-198) that knowledge within the public sphere takes on similar evolutionary tendencies. A scholar, let us use Dawkins as the example, creates a unique understanding of a concept, for example the spread of beliefs and ideas, and this concept of ‘memetics’ may also be viewed as a meme. The scholar spreads the meme through lectures, books and articles. If the idea proves interesting it will replicate and spread, it can be said that the meme has propagated itself by spreading from one consciousness to another. As others accept the concept, it mutates to the needs of the new hosts, where it can then justify other concepts once it has a firm base within the individual. According to Dawkins, (1976, pp. 218-255) typical creators of memes, called ‘memetic engineers’, include scientists, artists and religious missionaries. The memes are spread throughout the public by means of oral and written communication as well as the media. Indeed, there is an institutional base for the propagation of knowledge within the public sphere, i.e. the education system, libraries, Internet, television, and other forms of mass media. A meme of cultural information spreads through the public consciousness regardless of its actual truth. A meme merely needs to establish a connection, either consciously or unconsciously to an already accepted value or a particular interest, thus creating or exploiting vulnerability within the host so that the infection may begin.

Society’s immune system

So far, we have observed the parallels between memes and evolution by natural selection and a viral infection of the body. This perspective may be beneficial as it has provided a framework in which we might better understand our own means of communication, and psychology, and gives some insight into the formation of our own consciousness through memetic replication, as observed by Daniel Dennett previously (1991, p. 207). To focus for a moment on the viral example, how might one go about vaccinating, or building up immunity against a perceived threat from memetic infections? In order to defend against the imposition of propaganda or the penetration of new ideas, immunization and vaccination are essential. In his 1996 book ‘Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society: The New Science of Memes‘, Aaron Lynch explains (1996, pp. 17-41) that the virulence of a given doctrine is attenuated by its adapting itself to its surroundings, of course the truth is that the meme merely settles in a specific area of culture and society that is most receptive. It can even happen that the injection of a reduced dose of that same infection can bring with it immunization against a more active form. To illustrate this point, this paper speculates that the demagoguery of U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950’s effectively immunised the United States from Communism. McCarthy’s unpleasant social and political reforms, directly inspired by the perceived threat itself arguably prevented the communism virus from infecting the United States. Of course this may be perceived as a simplified example, nevertheless it does show how a society may immunise itself against a memetic infection, with McCarthy filling the role of doctor, putting his needle to the arm of society’s uncomfortable and fearful child. A healthy society has its own defenses against infections that might endanger the integrity of its personality, these defences may not always be pleasant but are often effective. The alternative to this kind of immunisation is a vulnerable society that becomes both carrier and replicator, infected with multiple viral strains and succumbing to potentially fatal memes. It must be made clear that this conclusion is merely an observation of this paper, but the analogy appears to fit, making the point that resistance to viral memes can often be unpleasant but necessary. Further, we can see how convenient it might be for an individual or a whole society to accept and follow a trend rather than resist and question it.

The path of least resistance

This paper would clarify that the meme or cultural virus, is in no way driven by any intention of it’s own whatsoever, it is not self motivated, it has neither desire nor plan as obviously it is not a cognisent entity, merely a phenomenon, an event in the same way that, according to Dawkins in his 2009 book ‘The Greatest show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution’, the process of evolution by natural selection has no ultimate agenda for the same reason (2009, pp. 155-221). To use an original analogy to illustrate the point, rain water does not decide to gather in a puddle, it merely collects in a depression in the ground as this is the most unhindered path it may take, the fact that the water will dissipate at a much slower rate, existing in it’s current state (or surviving) for a longer period of time due to it’s greater collective volume is merely a consequence and remains largely un-remarked upon by the water itself. As noted by Susan Blackmore (2000, p. 162) in her book ‘The Meme machine’:

We must resume the meme’s eye view; remembering that all that counts in the life of a meme is whether it survives and replicates. I shall find myself saying that memes ‘want’, ‘need’, or ‘try to do’ something. But we must remember that this is only shorthand for saying that the ‘something’ will improve the chances of the meme’s being copied. Memes do not have conscious intentions; nor do they actually strive to do anything at all. (Blackmore, 2000, p. 162)

Certain doctrines and concepts spread like epidemics, following the same vulnerability and lines of least resistance as our rain-water, these memes often appear to be ‘testing’ societal immune systems in the same way as the aforementioned McCarthyism. This paper takes the view that when the immune system of a culture is weakened by a proliferation of supernatural or mystical belief systems, this can prove to be the ‘thin end of the wedge’, and as Hitchens points (2007, pp. 15-36), this can lead to memetic infection of greater and potentially harmful superstitions that may damage the host. The meme will appear to direct itself, depending on the carrier and the actual germ, towards the main centres of communication and distribution, from which they then spread in all directions, the most prolific of which is arguably what this paper refers to as the ‘super meme’ known as Christianity and the teaching of Saint Paul the Apostle.

The Christianity meme

A primary aim of this paper is to investigate the mechanics and processes by which the replication of memes is facilitated. It is certainly not the intention here to criticise any particular faith, yet any discourse on the subject of meme theory would be remiss without a study of religion, specifically Christianity.

Religion tends to consist of the active transmission of some basic core memes, as set out in numerous publications, one of which ‘Christianity: A Global History’ by David Chidester, states (2000, pp. 207-240) the agenda for Christianity thus - the belief in God and salvation through Christ. These core memes are surrounded by secondary memes, for example how salvation can be reached, ethical systems and the like, finally followed by a plethora of related memes such as religious stories, doctrines, interpretations and dogma. These memes form a symbiotic whole, a meme complex as previously described by Dennett in ‘Consciousness Explained’ (1991, p. 207); the core memes need symbiotic memes to provide a framework or system of reference, and the symbiotic memes reinforce each other and are given legitimacy by the core meme.

The Christianity meme has throughout history been transmitted in many forms, oral stories, books and art, through example and through upbringing. According to Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion’ (2006, pp. 324-344) the transmission of the Christianity meme takes time and is closely linked to cultural understanding, requiring a combination of a concentrated effort to transmit the beliefs (evangelising) or to spread it by cultural diffusion and imitation (upbringing). When a child is brought up in a Christian home, the Christian meme complex is presented as the truth about how the world functions, most, if not all religions necessarily operate in this way (Lynch, 1996, p. 113), but this paper will continue to use Christianity as the example due to it’s proliferation in western culture.

As Christopher Hitchens points out in ‘God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’ (2007, pp. 104-107), Christianity has used the lure of spiritual salvation and eternally blissful life with God combined with the threat of damnation to promote infection. This threat is an often overlooked aspect of the religion meme, fear and guilt can be far more powerful than comfort and hope, and it appears likely that many Christian movements have been spread by implicit factors such as the concept of judgement by an all seeing patriarch rather than by love and salvation alone. It is worth noting that this system of threat and reward is apparently based on the symbiotic memes and not the core meme, (the meme ‘God loves you’ is not necessarily based upon whether or not one is saved or damned) which means their relative prevalence can evolve to fit any given situation and thereby aiding replication, for example the ratio of damnation threats to salvation promises used in sermons may fluctuate depending on the needs of a congregation, society, or particular group, and they can evolve while leaving the core memes unchanged. Again, this is an observation of this particular paper and serves to illustrate the ability of the meme complex to adapt and reproduce.

This Christianity meme spread throughout the ancient world, which was in Roman times, according to ‘A Summary of Christian History’ an exceptionally vulnerable receptor from a spiritual point of view (Baker and Landers, 2005, pp. 72-113). What might we observe if we compare the germ of Christianity to biological infection? The view of this paper is that the initial germ is at Jerusalem, but it may have given rise to a merely local infection, limited to the Jewish society in which Christ is said to have carried out his apostleship. One may speculate that the apostles, good Jews, who no doubt meant to remain within their own religion, would probably not have spread their faith over any great distance. But as Stuart Perowne states in ‘The Journeys of Saint Paul’ (1973, pp. 8-12) there were proselytes among the first Christians, Hellenised Jews and Judaised Greeks, converts within specific areas of the faith. One such convert was Stephen, (later canonised Saint Stephen) the protomartyr of Christianity. After the fanatical orthodox believers stoned Stephen to death, his apostles fled to the coasts of Asia Minor, where Jews and Greeks met in the synagogues. Here they were in surroundings receptive to the diffusion of the doctrine, which Jerusalem had refused to accept, and so, by degrees, Christian centres were founded in Antioch, Tarsus, Ephesus, Thessalonika and Corinth (Perowne, 1973, p. 13). The carriers in this instance were the disciples of Stephen, the converted Judaeo-Greeks, and the missionary apostles, among whom we find Saint Paul, the ultimate meme carrier due to his immense missionary activity. Where the political atmosphere was favourable, churches sprang up; where it was not, the Christian germ remained sterile; this was the case at Athens, where Paul preached to no avail (Perowne, 1973, pp.18-35). In other areas the germ was successful, and in the Mediterranean where everything appeased Rome, it was inevitable that sooner or later the capital of the world should be affected. It seems that from Rome the diffusion became generalised and took on the nature and extent of a pandemic.

Perowne explains (1973, p. – 141) that from this point St. Paul the Apostle sensibly chose the large population centers placed along the most frequented lines of travel, commerce, and communication, making those he encountered more accessible to his preaching. The network of roads and sailing routes obviously encouraged the transmission of concepts and it was natural that he should finally end his days in Rome, crucified at a date speculated to be between AD 60 and AD 67. This paper observes Saint Paul as arguably the most successful memetic replicator the world has known.

This paper would contend that religions might be considered more successful than other meme complexes at connecting with a host and exploiting the receptive area or ‘weak spot’. Religions attempt to explain the world on an emotional level, thereby more fully engaging the individual. Carl Sagan explains (1996, p. 34) in ‘The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark’ that religions appear to provide answers to existential questions, creating a satisfying world model, which then becomes intellectually satisfying regardless of its consistency due to cognitive dissonance. Because religions seldom try to empirically prove themselves they cannot be disproved, which further aids their stability. Sagan also suggests that a religion can spread regardless of the truth of its claims, or lack of evidence therein. Further, the Christianity meme seeks to inspire unquestioning obedience in the schemata of the infected host - no other memes are allowed to compete with this high-level psychological behaviour, as it is often the foundation of a person’s entire personality. This competitive trait is simply enabled according to Christopher Hitchens (2007, pp. 16-34) by rejecting any opposing memes or opinions as against God's will, or sinful, thus removing the requirement to justify or explain itself and securing it’s place of dominance.

Dawkins agrees, stating in ‘The God Delusion’ (2006, pp. 166-172), that like most major world religions, Christianity exists as an explicit missionary order and also in the form of an implicit altruistic world-view, and traditionally, Christians are urged to set good examples to others, which also increases the likelihood of transmission through social learning.

However, rational, materialistic people following secular philosophies seldom even consider whether they should or should not accept scientific discoveries about the world based solely on whether their philosophy approves or disapproves. In the opinion of this paper, one does not usually feel the need to consult utilitarian philosophy about whether to believe the earth orbits the sun. We rarely consult conservative political philosophy about accepting the germ theory of disease. Few people consult Objectivism about accepting the Bohr model of the atom. Daniel Dennett (2007, p. 24) argues that a person who follows any of the religious philosophies might develop intellectually questionable ideas based upon their beliefs, but none so questionable as consulting their religion and it’s ancient writings on whether or not to accept some aspect of evidence based science, such as the age of our own planet earth.

Evidence based memes

This paper supports the argument that the scientific method may be the most effective form of immunisation against these intellectually questionable meme complexes. The scientific method of testing, reproduction of findings, and peer revue reduces the likelihood of reliance upon supernatural thinking and, moreover, that when pseudoscientific beliefs do develop they are more likely to be rejected until sufficient evidence is presented. To be clear, this paper advocates that a meme or belief system be judged solely on the evidence for its claims and not any personal agenda. One is free of course to maintain interest in, and discuss any phenomenon, such as the reported abduction of humans by aliens, so-called ‘Bigfoot’ sightings, or paranormal activity for example, but be advised that most if not all reports of such incidents are anecdotal and should not be taken as factual, no matter how strongly we may desire the phenomenon to actually be occurring. It must also be stated at this point that the ‘scientific method’ itself could, of course be considered a meme, but the argument that this paper makes is that this method of evidence-based information gathering is preferred to purely culturally accepted systems that are not supported by evidence. It is the evidence supporting the meme that this paper is concerned with. For example, scientists no longer accept the concept of ‘aether’, which was according to ‘The Life of Sir Isaac Newton’ (Westfall, 1994, pp. 74-148) a theory of classical science, particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, widely regarded for many years by respected scientists such as Newton as an explanation for the propogation of light, (until Newton’s own use of the scientific method disproved, at least to his own satisfaction that there was no evidence to support the theory) as well as serving as a wider ‘catch all’ explanation for many phenomena which at the time were unknowable. Sagan points out (1996, pp. 304-306) that that modern scientific theories such as special relativity were formulated without the concept of aether. An out-dated theory such as this is known as a ‘superseded scientific theory’, and is a natural part of the scientific process. Sagan continues, explaining that many critics accuse the scientific community of being closed minded or rigid, that physicists and biologists are unwilling to accept certain concepts out of stubbornness or financial motivation, the truth is that the scientific community is generally the most open minded, constantly updating and amending the scientific canon as new discoveries are made, out-dated concepts rejected, and theories that are testable and reproducible are put forward.

The Creationist meme

We might correctly suppose that the Christianity meme provides positive and valuable benefits to the religious believer, and this is perfectly acceptable, the right to a religious existence is fully supported by this paper. However, an extension of the Christianity meme is the ‘young earth creationist’ movement. As young earth creationists believe every word of the Bible to be the literal truth as set down by God, (Locke, 1998, pp. 40-51; Sagan, 1996, pp. 323-326) any scientific discovery that undermines a biblical ‘fact’ would prove otherwise. From this point, secondary memes form and replicate among the creationist community in order to explain a biblical phenomena and are spread rapidly, often through the media, forming an ever increasing protective shell around the core belief system. To briefly illustrate this point, according to Locke, (1998, pp. 159-166) the creationists believe that the earth is less than six thousand years old, and that this was calculated by following genealogies from the Old Testament to the present day. Dalrymple explains, (1994, p. 77) that this is regarded by the creationist community as fact, despite scientific evidence to the contrary establishing the age of the earth to be 4.55 billion years old. The probability here is that if the bible and therefore God is proved by science to be incorrect, (it is the opinion of this paper that if one feels generous, it might be said that man’s interpretation of the word of God might be proved incorrect, therefore eliminating the need to question God himself) then the whole core meme is threatened with destruction should this be allowed to continue. As with any virus, a defence system is then called into action. Unfortunately the defensive memes become increasingly strained as more pressure is placed upon them, and multiple memes are often required to explain a single piece of contradictory information. Situations such as these often benefit from the application of a principle known as ‘Ockam’s Razor’, which is accurately explained by Hitchens (2007, pp. 68-72). Briefly, William of Ockam was a medieval philosopher and theologian, who developed a ‘principal of economy’, which encouraged the disposal of unnecessary assumptions, instead supporting the first sufficiently logical explanation for a given conundrum, Ockam advises:

Do not multiply entities beyond necessity… Everything which is explained through positing something different from the act of understanding, can be explained without positing such a distinct thing. (Cited in Hitchens, 2007, pp. 68-72; Sagan, 1996, p. 211)

In other words we do not need to invent increasingly outlandish theories when we have a single perfectly suitable explanation for a problem. In the view of this paper, that while acceptance of young earth creationism has actually increased, the doctrine behind it appears to be less a search for truth and more an exercise in shoring up a vessel of beliefs that is springing ever more leaks as science casts doubt upon biblical ‘facts’.

However, this paper speculates here about two possibilities:

1 - This increase in fundamentalism may be a reaction against modernism and materialism. That is to say that an established faith-based viral meme system is being threatened by a newer evidence-based system, both are equally powerful and will coexist for the foreseeable future.

Or:

2 – The increase in fundamentalism is in fact the death throes of the old system in the face of the threat posed by the new. Essentially science is acting as a vaccination against the Christianity virus, which struggles before being destroyed.

One can make the point that all of this suggests that religion does not progresses, but it is an opinion of this paper that it does progresses, albeit begrudgingly and under pressure from outside, secular forces rather than any internal acceptance of evidence that would lead to the amendment of it’s doctrine.

In conclusion of our investigation into the Christianity ‘super meme’ this paper submits that clearly there is not only something powerful about religion, but in certain cases, something intellectually harmful. It appears to be the most effective of all memes, we may speculate about the problems of the Christianity meme — an over-reliance on faith, tradition, and authority for example — but it is something that religious communities would be wise to deal with, and to bear in mind that the issue here is that questionable beliefs within the religion effectively ‘poison the well’. This paper supports the anti-creationist arguments of Richard Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion’ (2006, pp. 119-134), and Christopher Hitchens in ‘God Is Not Great’ (2007, pp. 78-90) due to the extreme, preposterous measures employed to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the continued courting of the right-wing Christian media to spread it’s message. As Dawkins points out (2006, pp. 119-134) not a single creationist statement is backed up by a shred of evidence. The mostly benign core system of the Christianity meme may eventually prove too weak to support the highly virulent supporting meme known as young earth creationism, eventually collapsing under the weight of it’s increasingly extreme points of view.

Investigating a popular pseudoscientific meme

As this paper is discussing the nature and ability of the human mind to generate and distribute ideas, concepts and meme systems, let us now examine an example of a specific pseudoscientific viral meme that not only focuses on the brain itself, but also alights upon the subject of neuroscience and the human consciousness, and in so doing we might view this consciousness from complementary perspectives.

In the book ‘Bad medicine: misconceptions and misuses revealed, from distance healing to vitamin O’, Christopher Wanjek (2003, pp. 17-22) discusses a popular meme that states that the average human being uses only 10 percent of their brain. This particularly successful meme is often accepted as another ‘amazing but true’ pronouncement of science and spread as such. References to this interesting ‘fact’ are numerous in the popular culture, and it is also discussed in detail in ‘The Complete idiot’s Guide to Understanding The Brain’ (Bard and Bard, 2002, p. 195) and this paper would argue that there cannot be many people in western society that have not encountered this meme.

The appeal of this idea is clear. If we humans only use a small percentage of our brains, then all of us possess vast untapped potential. What incredible and mysterious abilities might be hiding in the reportedly unused ninety percent of our brains? In ‘Reason To Believe: A Practical Guide to Psychic Phenomena’ (1997, p. 56), author Michael Clark discusses ‘mentalist’ Craig Karges, who charges large fees for his ‘Intuitive Edge’ program, designed to develop natural psychic abilities. Clark quotes Karges as saying:

We normally use only 10 to 20 percent of our minds. Think how different your life would be if you could utilize that other 80 to 90 percent known as the subconscious mind. (Cited in Clark, 1997, p. 56).

Clark goes on to say (1997, pp. 59-68) that spiritualists, psychic mediums, and numerous alternative medicine proponents have utilised this false idea as justification for the belief in all manner of pseudoscientific theologies ranging from ESP (extra sensory perception), telekinesis (moving objects with the mind alone), astral projection (one’s consciousness leaving the physical body), and numerous other supernatural abilities.

As Wanjek continues (2003, pp. 17-22), the history of this particular meme is a little obscure. It is not clear exactly where the 10 percent figure comes from, but it is first recorded at the beginning of the twentieth century. In a 1999 online article for ‘The New England Skeptical Society’, Dr. Steven Novella, an academic neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine, states that at no point have neuroscientists ever believed or speculated that we use such a small fraction of our brains. Novella explains that about the same time that the 10 percent figure first appears, the brain was in the early stages of being mapped effectively for the first time, with certain neurological and mental functions being localised to specific structures and sections within the brain. Bard and Bard state (2002, p. 195) that at one point it was noted that about 10 percent of the human brain had been mapped out in this fashion, and it seems that this statement was misinterpreted to mean that the other ninety percent had no basic function. As Beyerstein states in his online article ‘Do we really use only 10 percent of our brains?’ (2009), if this was truly the case, then human beings should be capable of suffering massive brain trauma due to the tiny amount of brain we actually utilise. As Novella observes, (1999) if we lost ninety percent of our brain function, cognition would be impaired to the point of producing a severe dementia, resulting in a comatose state, with the brain unable even to generate consciousness.

Ad Ignorantium

Novella further explains in the same article, that ‘logical fallacies’ are often utilised to justify one’s belief in a concept despite the lack of evidence. One such logical fallacy is ‘the argument from ignorance’, (originally, ad ignorantium) which states that a specific belief is true because one does not know that it is not true. Defenders of extrasensory perception (ESP), for example, will often wrongly overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain.

In this fallacy, lack of proof for a position, or merely a lack of information, is used in an attempt to support a particular claim. Clark agrees (1997, p. 56) that if it were actually true that the majority of the human brain is unused, this fact alone in no way implies, much less proves, that any extra capacity would provide paranormal powers or unusual abilities. This logical fallacy occurs regularly in paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, and is particularly prevalent amongst UFO and alien abduction proponents. Let us explore a scenario to illustrate the point. Two people might see a curious light in the sky one night. One, a UFO believer asks, “Can you explain that?” The other, a materialist replies that no, he cannot. The UFO believer exclaims; “You don't know what it is, so it must be an alien craft!” This is the staple argument from ignorance, assuming that a currently unexplained phenomenon is totally unexplainable, and that it therefore defies the laws of nature, requiring a paranormal explanation, which encourages the point of view that if one assumes that a particular event is unexplained, and also that the paranormal is unexplained, then logically everything that is unexplained must be paranormal. This Paper argues that tautological reasoning of this kind is illogical and unhelpful, relying on circular logic that ultimately leads nowhere and is not supported by evidence.

The importance of critical thinking

One may wonder why this paper still discussing this particular meme in such detail, but it is absolutely vital that one employs critical-thinking when exposed to information; this paper would encourage the re-examination of beliefs, and learn to distinguish between interest in a subject and belief in the same, therefore avoiding credulity.

Rene Descartes ‘Meditations’, of 1640, deals primarily with the subject of ‘epistemology’, or the study of knowledge. Broadly, Descartes is attempting to establish what it is possible to know. Warburton explains this in ‘Philosophy: The Classics’ (2001, pp. 47-48), and that the first stage in Descartes quest for attaining solid, unshakable knowledge was to reject existing beliefs and opinions and subject them to rigorous testing through analysis and argument, this extreme re-evaluation of one’s beliefs has come to be known as ‘Cartesian Doubt’.

Warburton continues, (2001, p. 48) explaining that Descartes proposes that something should only be believed if one is absolutely certain that it is true, if there is the slightest doubt about it’s truth then it should be rejected, although this rejection does not prove the belief to be false, it renders it unsuitable as a basis for that which is knowable. Descartes realised that this form of doubt is not practical as a day-to-day practice and intended it as a one off experience that would allow the discovery of beliefs that are free from doubt or alternatively show that everything could be doubted.

So, according to Wanjek (2003, pp. 17-22), and Bard and Bard, (2002, p. 195) the evidence against the meme stating ‘we only use ten percent of our brain’, regardless of its origin or psychological appeal, is conclusive. Novella, (2009) explains that in the past hundred years the brain has been extensively mapped out. One classic early technique for brain mapping was to carefully examine patients who had suffered strokes, then, upon death, examine the brain to see which structure had been damaged. If the patient could not speak, for example, and upon autopsy it was revealed that the left temporal lobe was injured by the stroke, then the left temporal lobe was believed to be the center for language within the brain. Later, electroencephalography (brain wave analysis), blood flow studies, and anatomical imaging were used. Today the most sensitive technique is functional MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). With this technique the metabolic activity of the brain can be imaged from moment to moment. When a subject is asked to perform a mathematical calculation, for example, the fMRI image will show that the calculation center of the brain lights up with activity.

Bard and Bard make the point (2002, p.67) that from a physiological perspective, the brain certainly acts as if all or most of it is functioning. The brain is a high maintenance organ, comprising five percent of total body mass but consuming a huge twenty percent of the oxygen and glucose used by the body. Modern techniques to measure the blood flow to each part of the brain, the consumption of glucose, and the electrical activity of the brain, demonstrate that the entire brain has a certain baseline metabolic rate in the quiet awake state, and when specific mental tasks are undertaken, certain parts of the brain will become activated, increasing their metabolic functioning.

As Carl Sagan points out (1996, p. 348), from an evolutionary point of view, the concept that ninety percent of the brain is unused poses severe conceptual problems. Why, for example, would a species evolve a large, demanding brain and then only use ten percent of its capacity. The large human brain also comes at a high evolutionary cost, primarily increased difficulty in childbirth. This problem led to shorter gestations, meaning that humans are born earlier and more helpless than would otherwise be necessary. Bard and Bard continue the point (2002, p. 196) that evolutionary forces would not select the large human brain unless these disadvantages were outweighed by specific survival benefits. This paper would argue that evolution would not select for only ten percent efficiency in such an expensive and vital organ as the human brain, and therefore, would point out that evolution by natural selection suggests that this meme is incorrect. The ‘ten percent of the brain’ viral meme has replicated by natural selection, providing the host with a sense that humans have un-tapped potential, that we are part of more than a merely materialist world. However, with just a little investigation and critical thought, one can find evidence that contradicts the meme, yet it persists, not because it is true, but because it provides something else, whether it supplies comfort, reassurance, or that it acts as a supporting meme for other concepts, it is an ideal example of memetic ‘survival of the fittest’.

Conclusion

This paper concludes that rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons that have little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select concepts that correlate with those that we already believe, and ignore or rationalise away those that do not.

The examination of the viral meme acts as an analogy that illustrates the spread of information through a network, whether it be a single human consciousness or an entire society, it is a tool that helps us to understand certain aspects of human behaviour. As with all analyses, it is not necessarily the best solution at all times. That is why we must equip ourselves with a variety of different psychological analytical instruments, so that we might choose an efficient approach for any situation and employ critical thinking in everyday life.

One may be wary of equating so many aspects of human experience and consciousness with memes, suggesting that it somehow reduces the significance and uniqueness of the human consciousness, that it somehow reduces the mind to a passive system of switches and networks. One may even focus too often on mechanical, materialist explanations, This paper would argue that the importance lies in the realisation that any study of consciousness and the mind-body problem is comprised of many equally valid perspectives, of which memetics is but one. The study of memes provides an insight into the spread of very complex cognitive structures and social psychological phenomenon, such as Christianity, pseudoscience or the paranormal, and as long as one attempts to understand and analyse the belief rather than judge too harshly the believers, the study of viral memes coupled with a solid capacity for critical thinking can prove invaluable in understanding the larger and often (currently) unanswerable questions.

top

References

BEYERSTEIN, B. L. 2009. Do we really use only 10 percent of our brains? [WWW] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10 (28 December 2009).

BAKER, R. A., LANDERS, J. M. 2005. A Summary of Christian History. 3^rd edn. USA: B & H Academic.

BARD, A., BARD, M. G. 2002. The Complete idiot’s Guide to Understanding The Brain. UK: Alpha Books.

BLACKMORE, S. 2000. The Meme Machine. UK: Oxford Paperbacks.

BRODIE, R. 2004. Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. UK: Integral Press.

CHIDSTER, D. 2000. Christianity: A Global History. UK: Allen Lane.

CLARK, M. 1997. Reason To Believe: A Practical Guide to Psychic Phenomena. UK: Avon Books.

Dalrymple, G. B. 1994. The Age of the Earth. USA: Stanford University Press.

DAWKINS, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. UK: Oxford University Press.

DAWKINS, R. 2006. The God Delusion. UK: Bantam Press.

DAWKINS, R. 2009. The Greatest show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution. UK: Bantam Press.

DENNET, D. 2007. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. UK: Penguin.

DENNETT, D. 1991. Consciousness Explained. UK: Penguin.

Futuyma, D. J. 2005. Evolution. USA: Sinauer Associates.

Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. USA: Harvard University Press.

Gross, D.1996. The Blue Star Meme: Applying Natural Selection Thinking to Urban Legends [WWW] http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs/other/tattoo/meme.html (19 December 2009)

HITCHENS, C. 2007. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. UK: Atlantic Books.

Hofstadter, D. R. 1985. Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern. USA: Basic Books.

LOCKE, S. 1998. Constructing ‘The Beginning’: Discourse of Creation Science. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Lynch, A. 1996. Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society: The New Science of Memes. USA: Basic Books.

NOVELLA, S. 2008. Top 20 logical fallacies. [WWW] http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1226#more-1226

(29 November 2009)

NOVELLA, S. 2009. Tracking Down Consciousness. [WWW] http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx (2 November 2009)

NOVELLA, S. 1999. 90% of a Brain Is a Terrible Thing To Waste. [WWW] http://www.theness.com/90-of-a-brain-is-a-terrible-thing-to-waste/ (25 November 2009)

Perowne, S. 1973. The Journeys of Saint Paul. UK: Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited.

SAGAN, C. 1996. The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark. USA: The Random House Publishing Group.

WANJEK, C. 2003. Bad medicine: misconceptions and misuses revealed, from distance healing to vitamin O. USA: John Wiley and Sons.

WARBURTON, N. 2001. Philosophy: The Classics. UK: Routledge.

WESTFALL, R. S. 1994. The Life of Sir Isaac Newton. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

FORTEY, R. 1997. Life: An Unauthorised Biography. UK: Harper Collins Publishers.

FRAYN, M. 2006. The Human Touch – Our Part in The Creation of A Universe. UK: Faber and Faber Limited.

GEERING, L. 1994. Tomorrow’s God: How We Create Our Worlds. NZ: Bridget Williams Books Ltd.

GILOVICH, T. 1993. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. USA: Free Press.

KURTZ, P. 2000. Humanist Manifesto 2000 A Call for a New Planetary Humanism. [WWW] http://www.secularhumanism.org /index.php?section=main&page=manifesto (21 March 2009).

SHERMER, M. 2009. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. USA: Holt Paperbacks.