Regular Network Norwich and Norfolk columnist James Knight looks at how cultural ideas are passed on and influence our behaviour - and why some people think this is why Christianity endures.

Memes could aptly be described as packets of information that are passed on from person to person in the population. They have characteristics that lend themselves to being preferentially duplicated or repeated. In the sense just described, memes are somewhat analogous to genes in biology; that is to say, they act as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures. In actual fact, one can quite easily with some justification extend evolutionary principles to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena, but only to a degree. Examples such as catchy melodies, catchphrases, religious beliefs, superstitions, jokes, clothing and fashion, and science and technology give evidence of the memetic propagation of language, terms and ideas. Given that anything that can be transmitted from mind to mind qualifies as memetic, some atheists have seized an opportunity to argue that this phenomenon explains why our faith-based belief systems have endured for so long. But there is, as we shall see, absolutely no justification for any atheist singling out faith-based or religious belief for criticism in this way.

 

 

Just as genes team up in combinations of chromosomal sets to influence living organisms' phenotypes, sets of memes give rise to culture and influence living organisms' voluntary behaviour. For genes there is selection for the fittest organism, whereas for memes there is selection for the behaviour that the organism finds the most satisfying. Suppose we have two memes with regard to girls’ hairstyles; meme 1 involves a girl tying her hair in a pony tail, whereas meme 2 involves a girl tying her hair in beads. If tying one’s hair in a pony tail induces comfort, happiness and positive feedback, then meme 1 will be duplicated and repeated with increased frequency.  If, however, tying one’s hair in beads induces more comfort, happiness and positive feedback, then meme 2 will be duplicated and repeated with increased frequency. The point is that as a general rule a meme will spread depending on how its characteristics affect the organism. The mark of a good meme is one that is often expressed in voluntary behaviour, relative to other memes, due to the fact that it has left the organism feeling rewarded.

 

So given the foregoing example, meme theory can be useful in explaining the fluctuating frequency of any kind of voluntary human behaviour over time. Even as I observe the first few pages in today’s daily newspaper, meme theory seems well suited to describe the cycles observed in fashion trends (in today’s case, the rise and fall of skirt lengths depending on whether girls would rather be modest or feel suggestive), or the popularity of certain belief systems (in today’s case, the popularity that Buddhism is gaining as a reaction to the hectic pace of modern life, and the popularity that both Scientology and Kabbalah are gaining due to the celebrities that endorse them).

 

We have seen that a meme comprises a unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, and that such units or elements transmit from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena – however, as I said a moment ago, some atheists, most notably Richard Dawkins (it is in his brilliant book The Selfish Gene where the term ‘meme’ is first coined), Dan Dennett in various essays and Susan Blackmore in her popular but hugely flawed book The Meme Machine) argue that this explains the existence of ‘deluded’ people’s religious beliefs. The argument they posit is that because such methods of communication are simply the inevitable unit or component of transmission through which all information is passed, the inheritance of religious belief is a by-product of this information sharing, and is therefore highly questionable. This is quite obviously a spurious conclusion to reach - after all, atheism itself is equally susceptible to the same cognitive conditions and would be as attributable to the same memetic activity and information as theism. 

 

Not wishing to invoke any ‘conscious thinking’ to memes (at least, not in the sense we are discussing here), but if one sees memes as packets of information looking to get themselves copied through various kinds of receptacles (computers, newspapers, magazines, billboards, radios, letters, and most of all, brains themselves) there is no reason to single out religious belief in the way that many atheists do - it only goes to show how thin their thread of credibility really is. Moreover, as I have just said, any general application cannot preclude the fact that atheism itself arrived by the same memetic methods as everything else, so the theory breaks down on that point as well.

 

In one sense, I think it is – at least, I certainly think atheistic philosophies bear much more of the hallmarks of a virus than Christianity. In actual fact, if one wants to be a little more intrepid in criticising closed-minded atheism, one might justifiably say that it has all the symptoms of a pretty dangerous philosophical vacuum - the symptoms of being so sure that you’re right that you would ignore, disregard or overlook any contra contentions by their tincture alone. Imagine how the meme idea affects atheism. You begin to believe in an impersonal universe and suddenly reality lends itself to such a feeling. As this progresses, the tendency to lionise science, permissive liberalism and other secular practices forms at the expense of theological enquiry. To those with less confidence, science and permissive liberalism are the big new lads in the school playground with whom one can make friends for protection against the theological bullies. 

 

Believing as I do that atheism requires its adherents to divest themselves of a critical form of discernment and close their ears to certain illogicalities that underpin their position, I would go as far as to say that I think atheism is its own version of the meme virus - that is to say, I think it affects their minds a little like a virus spread through computers. In fact, I think ‘computer virus’ is an appropriate metaphor because a computer cannot in the strictest sense be self-critical, and I think that many atheists struggle in a similar way as they fail to be critical of their convictions. The trouble with such a virus is that some of its marks protect the atheist against the very things that can help provide a cure - that is, features of the virus are, to name but six…

 

 

And of course one could point out that in recent times many Christians became rather meeker and more diffident in the presence of militant atheism - the latter increased in confidence as it became the dominating voice. This is not the first time we have seen falsity produce eagerness to compensate with zeal and aggression, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. It is up to us Christians to proclaim the gospel with equal passion and enthusiasm. 

 

And to emphasise the point more emphatically, where would those over-confident atheists who are so easily pleased with meme theories seek solace - where would they find some like-minded people? Yes you’ve guessed it - the new self-established, partially self-proclaimed voices of atheism - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett, Phillip Myers, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, etc etc (I say ‘partially self-proclaimed’ because many of their pliable fans have helped lift them onto their ‘Horsemen of the Counter-Apocalypse’ podiums - largely, I’m sorry to say, because their zeal is greater than their logic). One can easily embrace the impressive scientific achievements of Professors Dawkins and Dennett, and the impressive political achievements of Christopher Hitchens (the others I’m not so impressed with) without falling for the atheist veneer virus.  Yes, that is what has been happening - the virus was about to spread even more vigorously - a cheap form of pseudo-intellectualism was about to take root - the one that casts out all religious believers as deluded - and this virus has a very alluring side-effect - it makes one feel rather proud and haughty - it makes one self-congratulatory - proud at not getting sucked in to anything faith-based.

 

If many of these good folk came out of their glass houses they would see the wonderful complexities of faith and logic, and how much they affirm the deep and mysterious nature of cognition and sentience, and how nothing in the outer realms of existence can contain its own explanation apart from God Himself. Moreover, I think it is also true the mental structures which seek to expunge Christianity are themselves open to question and deep scrutiny when such tactics are employed. 

 

The summary of my point - to the atheist, is that if they, conscripters of these disciplines, concentrated less on making a style out of their reputation mongering, and coveting a place in the philosophical pantheon, and constantly looking to be secure about making assumptions that are backed up by fan base quid pro quo affirmation, and of fiddling with a perceptive toolkit by making it less amenable to genuine self-surrender to God, along with various other behavioural affectations, they might find progress easier and elicit reduction in their rather sardonic approach to Christianity. To be fair to the atheists, much like the Jews who Jesus said would remain willfully ignorant after seeing a miracle, I can understand the deep insecurities with regard to the subject of theology, and I am very mindful of the implicit self-referencing that occurs as a result of the virus that atheists have contracted, but it does no one any good to dwell in the realm of illusion for too long. The irony of memetics is this: it is because it is a biteback of Richard Dawkins’ own theory that so many have become infected by this atheistic virus in the first place – it is not so different to the way that false religions spread like a virus throughout countries where there is a paucity of Christians and good Biblical influence and teaching.

 

If religious belief is memetic simply because the brains are information receptacles, one might argue that knowledge of how to avoid walking into people in a busy street is memetic; for it is certainly a concept that spreads from human to human. This is the principal reason why Dawkins’ meme theory is not only misguided but disingenuous too. In one sense, any piece of information has the potential to be passed on like a meme, so long as there is a reason for it to be passed on. When a new landlord takes over our local pub, his name (the small packet of information) is passed around to the locals either by first hand or second hand dissemination. But what marks information such as the landlord’s name from a virus like religious propagation is its role in relation to a larger context; what distinguishes the learning how to avoid fellow pedestrians in a busy street from a religion virus is that the former takes part in a wide symbiosis: without the nifty footwork and instinctive awareness on busy streets we would struggle to get by; without, say, the website address to Ebay.com life wouldn’t be very much different - so the extent to which information passing becomes relevant is nothing to do with the information itself, but a study of the processes by which such passing or sharing occurs. Some information is essential, some isn’t, but that we share and pass on information has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Christianity is true or not, and should never be used as an argument to add weight to the atheists’ cause. 

 

Having seen, I hope, the futility with which the atheists present the the meme theory, I want to finish by saying that the cure is there in Christ; He will rid atheists of this virus and give them clarity. In the case of knowing God, clarity comes when one submits to sensible reasoning. Richard Dawkins thinks that the God of the Old Testament is barbaric; he thinks that Christ dying on the cross for us is disgusting and immoral, and worst of all, he has no concept of the Aseity of God as he frequently asks ‘who created God?’ or ‘who designed the designer?’. And here is the irony - every Christian I know does not believe in such a God either - in fact, every Christian might justifiably say, ‘I do not believe in the God that Richard Dawkins does not believe in’. The God I know is not barbaric, He is not disgusting and immoral, and He certainly does not need creating. It would be good for the many atheists that speak so confidentially to find out a bit more about the subject they are rejecting before they criticise so stridently - after all, I think that half the battle in progressing from atheism to Christianity is acquiring a better understanding of Christianity itself. I do not believe that any who came to understand what Christ’s death really and truly means for us could possibly reject Christianity; for in my view, to reject it is to misunderstand its true power and God’s true love and grace. Beliefs may well be passed on from person to person in the form of ideas and communicating information, but these are only secondary methods of contemplating the realities of the Christian faith. The primary nature of belief in God comes from God Himself; for He is the One who imparts to us His blessings and wisdom, and the deeper realities of a relationship with the risen Christ.

 

If God exists there is bound to be a difficulty for many atheists in distilling both the true nature of His power and the true wonders of His love and grace without some experience of knowing Him. But God is eager to reveal Himself to any who wish to know Him - to any who can see this illusory ‘horsemen’ elitism for what it really is - a veneer, set on making inconspicuous a lot of vacuity and half-baked displacement tricks. If God really is personal and relevant to our existence, then the moment one is in the right frame of mind to ask Him for some wisdom and clarity in understanding His true nature, one can justifiably expect some wisdom from Him (James 1:5-8) - and that, as every Christian who has ever asked will tell you, is precisely what happens.