Am I Using The Word 'Meme' Correctly?

Of all the things to criticize Woolee's nonsensical post about, his use of the term "militant atheist" would be last on my list. According to Webster's, militant means: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative" Definition of MILITANT I don't see anything nonsensical about the term "militant atheist". Most atheists are content not to believe in God, but some, like the so-called "Four Horsemen" (now three; RIP Christopher Hitchens) see it as a cause to proselytize others in their disbelief. The label fits Dawkins like a glove. For Dawkins, proselytizing atheism has become his primary claim to fame and livelihood. He doesn't do much science anymore, just as some scientists of Christian persuasion have made careers out of Christian apologetics ( e.g., the late Duane Gish, biochemist and Young Earth creationist ; Hugh Ross, astronomer and Old Earth creationist; Daniel Dembsky, the statistician and ID proponenmt; and Michael Behe, biologist, also a major proponent of ID). I'd certainly consider the latter to be militant Christians. I, for one, am glad that Dawkins and the others have given atheism their best shot, since reading their books has given me new insights into my own Christian faith.

Looking at the rest of Woolee's word salad, "Oxford were the ones who gave "meme" a real definition, and there is no "unit of heredity". Say, what? Isn't that what genes are? I know there is a scientific debate, as usual, over the nature and structure of genes,
Do genes exist?
It’s the End of the Gene As We Know It
https://psmag.com/environment/genes-obsolete-dna-science-genome-80573
But to dismiss their existence so cavalierly without further evidence and argument seems a tad dogmatic.
Genes
Genes: Function, makeup, Human Genome Project, and research
What is a gene?: MedlinePlus Genetics
Of course, genes have been central to Darwin's theory of evolution, so creationists are eager to use any evidence questioning them. Is that what Woolee is up to? We can only guess, since his Delphic pronouncements, like those of the Pythia, are hard to decipher.

The Oxford Dictionary, which I quoted supra (Post #18), was simply restating the definition Dawkins gave when he coined the term: "a unit of cultural transmission"—the cultural equivalent of a gene. I don't understand the reference to a "unit of heredity". Heredity is a biological concept that has nothing to do with memes except that the latter is an analog of the former. There are certainly lots of critics, including scientists and atheists, who take exception to the "meme" concept and its utility, some in terms resembling Woolee's. Dawkins' old rival, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, dismisses the term as "a meaningless metaphor". I agree with the "metaphor" charge, but still find it a useful analogy. For example, identifying and quantifying he specific memes that make up the original Christian religion would be Mission Impossible, but noting that early on it was divided into different competing strains, and that the success of the ones that triumphed had much to do with their superior ability to adapt to the environment of the fourth century Roman Empire can be useful. Christianity spent the first century of its life being passed on orally via stories about sayings, miracles, happenings, etc. Scientists who are into quantification would find it hard to identify discrete units which could be studied in a manner comparable to the human genome project. Its value, if any, is mainly heuristic, but that's not chopped liver. I do find the notion that memes are "selfish" to be dangerouly anthropomorphic. But it gets the basic point across that survival of the meme is the priority, however harmful it might be to the individual believer. Psychologist Susan Blackmore (2000) illustrates its utility in The Meme Machine. Dualism is certainly debatable, but to call it a "lie" without further argument is bluster, and its relevance to memes is obscure.

 

This is the internet, where militant atheists are infamous for trolls. Identifying who is lying to you, and baiting you, is what I do. Welcome to my reality.

 

You're defiinion is too narrow. Webster's defines proselytizing as including to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause." Atheism is Dawkins' cause. Or we might go with the oxford Learner's Dictionary: "to try to persuade other people to accept your beliefs, especially about religion or politics."proselytize verb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com Dawkins certainly is into trying to persuade other people to accept his beliefs, especially about religion--the fact that he's against it.

Come on, Meagain. He's actively trying to convert more atheists. It's his mission in life, and what he's famous for. The God Delusion is polemic, and he operates a website that's more of the same. And that's not just my own opinion.
Richard Dawkins | Biography, Books, The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, & Facts.
https://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1502/1502Watson/
How do other scholars view Dawkins’ The God Delusion? « SMR blog

Now I wouldn't deny that Dawkins is an active atheists but to call him an aggressive militant, like some religious fanatic who firebombs a black church, is ridiculous and is an attempt to discredit him and his views on religion.

Dawkins was raised in the Anglican Church, has a Doctorate in Zoology and has taught at the University of California, Berkeley, and at Oxford, and is now an emeritus fellow of Oxford and is a professor at the New College of the Humanities...and he holds 34 honorary degrees and awards.
He has written 18 books, 3 I believe on religion, and 13 documentaries.
His latest book Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution, 2021; is about....flying.

Currently I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale, 2016; and I find it fascinating with no reference to religion at all.

So I don't think his primary claim to fame and livelihood is being a "militant atheist".
Seems to me his primary claim to fame and livelihood is science.

So yes, the term "Militant Atheists" is in itself nonsense and an embarrassment. It just shows a shallow understanding AND an attempt slur a renown scientist who dares to speak his mind.[/QUOTE]

your defiinion is too narrow. Webster's define proselytizing as including "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause. Atheism is Dawkins' cause. Or we might go with the oxford Learner's Dictionary: "to try to persuade other people to accept your beliefs, especially about religion or politics." proselytize verb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com Dawkins certainly is into trying to persuade other people to accept his beliefs, especially about religion--the fact that he's against it.

Come on, Meagain. He's not merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies of religion in the search of truth. He's actively trying to convert more atheists. The God Delusion is polemic, and he operates a website that's more of the same, like an atheist Hip Forums. And that's not just my own opinion.
Richard Dawkins | Biography, Books, The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, & Facts.
https://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1502/1502Watson/
How do other scholars view Dawkins’ The God Delusion? « SMR blog

You must have an understanding of the term "aggressive militant" that's different from mine. A firebomber is certainly extremely aggressive militant, but most militants aren't firebombers. I'd call William Lane Craig a militant Christian apologist. Like Dawkins, he's engaged in "the active application of logic through argument and discussion", but more than that, he's a salesman for Christianity, in the tradition of Justin Martyr--and he's a formidable debater. Duane Gish was in the same role. I don't regard "militant" as necessarily a bad thing. I also have lots of Dawkins in my library. He's actually been an important influence in my own beliefs, which are grounded on biological and cultural evolution. Unlike Woolee, I don't think those are bad things.

 

If by "primary" you mean the first listed in the dictionary, of course the most familiar definition is in the context of religion. Atheism is, so far, the position of still a minority of the human population. But the second, more general, usage is also legitimate, and I think appropriate in the context of this discussion. To say that an atheist can't possibly be militant cuz only religious people can seems absurd. And I didn't "redefine" the term. I got my definition right out of two standard ones.

I think that's patently false. Atheists come in different varieties. There are the "soft", "weak" or "negative" kind, who say "I don't believe in God."
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
The Presumption of Atheism
Dawkins clearly falls into the "hard" category, and he's not content just to hold that position but he is one of its most prominent, well-know champions--in books, articles, speeches, panel discussion, etc. As Columbia University philosophy prof. Philip Kitcher, puts it: "Militant modern atheism, whose most eloquent champion is Richard Dawkins, provides an effective and necessary critique of fundamentalist forms of religion and their role in political life, both within states and across national boundaries. Because it is also presented as a more general attack on religion (tout court), it has provoked a severe reaction from scholars who regard its conception of religion as shallow and narrow."(BTW, Kitcher gives a balanced analysis of both sides of that debate.)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2010.00500.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2010.00500.x
You might also be interested in Dawkins' TED talk under the heading of "militant Atheism". Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science As the lead-in explains: "Biologist Richard Dawkins launches into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education. Dawkins’ scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience; some stood and applauded his courage. Others wondered whether his strident approach could do more harm than good."

Do I understand you as saying that because atheism isn't a belief, an atheist preaching atheism can't convert others to it? I beg to differ, particularly with regard to a "hard atheism" like Dawkins'. He isn't just saying "I don't believe in God. He's saying there probably is no God, and it's harmful to believe in one. See his Ted talk supra. That certainly fits the definition of belief, by any accepted definition: 1. a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing; 2. something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion; 3. conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. Definition of BELIEF

Oh, but he is. Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Not quite. Sagan challenges the miracle claims and the superstitions associated with The Demon Haunted World, but I don't recall him making a direct, explicit attack on religious belief in general.

Where did you get that idea? I happen to be something of a Dawkins fan, and think he's doing the Lord's work in challenging those claims! Obviously, I don't agree with him completely, since I'm a Christian, but I think he and the other atheist "horsemen" are useful in challenging the superstition that has infected Christianity almost since its inception. I think religious fundamentalism is among the most serious threats to the survival of our democracy and the welfare of the planet! I agree with Sagan (and Hume) that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"--which is why I'm skeptical of virgin births, walking on water, ascension into heaven, etc. Believe it or not, there are and have been plenty of Christians who also don't believe those things--e.g., Marcus Borg, Bishop Spong, John Dominic Crossan, the members of the Jesus Seminar, etc. Bishop Spong asked about Jesus' ascension: "Did He go into orbt?" My only complaint about Dawkins is that, as Professor Kitcher says, he doesn't distinguish between the fundies and the progressives in his broad brushed attacks. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2010.00500.x Atheist Sam Harris thinks we progressives are "enablers", but I think the fundies rightly regard us as one of their biggest threats!

Don't quite know what you're getting at here, but it's true those are my primary interests. That's why I find Dawkins' theory of memes useful. He doesn't apply it himself to religion, and my use of it is largely impressionistic. I don't think it's possible to identify, let alone quantify, all the memetic units making up early Christian belief, but I think the general notion of competing ideas being passed on, mutating as they do so, and succeeding or failing, depending on their adaptability to their environment provides a plausible account of the evolution of the religion. The earliest Christians seem to have been observant Jews who worshiped in synagogues along with non-Christian Jews, followed Torah, kept kosher, insisted on circumcision, and regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and the adopted Son of God, but basically a man who wasn't God Himself. How did it go from that to the hierarchical church that taught Jesus was God's Son from the beginning of time, and was sent to sacrifice Himself for our redemption.

 

Any linguist would laugh their head off listening to Dawkins. He spouts 12 kinds of rhetoric in front of the cameras, then says he's not preaching or proselytizing.

 

I was responding to your claim that atheists can't possibly be "militant" cuz they have no beliefs, only non-beliefs. That is antics with semantics, but certainly doesn't apply to the strong or hard form that Dawkins exemplifies--a definite statement that God probably doesn't exist. It has nothing directly to do with militancy, but does address the notion that atheists have no belief on the subject.

Okay. And specifically include Dawkins as someone for whom the label is appropriate.

You're welcome. I thought you might enjoy it.

This strikes me as antics with semantics. The "thing" he has confidence in is the notion that God doesn't exist. That's a positive statement about something. And it's obviously his opinion. And certainly it is a statement about the reality of some being or phenonmenon--i.e., God; the notion that (S)he isn't real.

And that's why he's at a podium explaining why there is no God and why religion is a destructive force. And why the talk appears appears under the title "Militant Atheism". And why there is a YouTube summary/trigger warning that "Richard Dawkins launches into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education. Dawkins’ scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience'. And this was just his debut: "Dawkins went on to publish The God Delusion and become perhaps the world’s best-known atheist." Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science If the shoe fits...

Exactly!

Congratulations! You've finally come out of the closet!

Philosophical Christian is acceptable, but doesn't quite get at the intensity I feel toward God. I'm actually something of a mystic, as well, and a card carrying Methodist, a church which includes progressive Christians as well as fundamentalists in its ranks; I regard that as my spiritual home. "God" is a multi-faceted concept, of possibly infinite complexity: the Ground of Being, Ultimate Meaning, Mysterium Tremendum et Fascinans. My concept of God is whatever is behind the laws of physics and the summation of human idealism, as embodied in the teachings of Jesus and the other great prophets of the world's religions. As I've so often said, "nothing is certain, not even that", but I've opted to bet my life on it and to follow it as best I can.

 

More semantic games. he is advocating dis-belief in God--which qualifies as his belief that there probably is none.

You seem to be saying that since atheism is simply a non-belief in God (which in Dawkins' hard atheist case is not true) atheists can't be accused of preaching or proselytizing anything. Being unable to get thru to you on this point, we can only leave it to anyone who's following this to judge how convincing this is, but it reminds me of those who argue persecuted minorities can't ever be accused of being racistthemselves. A cagey semantic attempt to shield your position from criticism.

Have you read The God Delusion? That is hardly an academic exposition of just the facts. It's a polemic, filled with strong opinion, vitriol, and straw man arguments to expound his controversial opinions.
Terry Eagleton · Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching: Richard Dawkins
Biologist H.Allen Orr writes : "Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins’s work, I’m afraid that I’m among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur." A Mission to Convert | H. Allen Orr
Dawkins gives short shrift to the more sophisticated concepts of God in favor of fundamentalist stereotypes. Like religious fundamentalists, he interprets scripture literally, and ignores alternative possibilities and any good religion has done: charities, hospitals, etc. I enjoyed the book, but it's certainly flawed and not a dispassionate treatment of the topic. A professor who did that often might face problems retaining his/her position. Philosopher Robert Wright comments that at a time evolution in the schools is under attack, the last thing we need “is for the world’s most famous teacher of evolution, Richard Dawkins, to be among the world’s most zealously proselytizing atheists. These atmospherics only empower your enemies.” The Anti-God Squad (2009).

I rest my case. Further discussion with you on the subject is futile.

 

To much interwebz .................short story it means good luck/wishes to all.

Happy weekend

Mzzls

 

I agree. Militant doesn't mean espousing violence or radical action.

It depends on how it's done. First of all, let's get right and wrong out of the picture. Proselytizing isn't necessarily wrong, nor is it inherently wrong to be militant. It would be hard to get militant about the importance of not believing in unicorns, but if someone made that a cause and went around the country exhorting people not to believe in them, yes it would be militant--but in a good way. And I hope Democrats will be militant in challenging trump's "stop the steal" lies and other destructive disinformation via active campaigning. That's a cause, and a worthy one to be militant about.

Getting angry about being questioned is unwarranted. Getting angry about having someone distort a favored topic(e.g., Trump calling Democrats communists; immigrants non-human, or Biden "sleepy Joe", can be objectionable.

In sum: A-theists have no belief in gods, but when they (you included) deny there are any they are expressing a belief that they need to defend, and when they take to the media to convince others of that, they're being militant--which is not a bad thing. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have done us a service in bringing the God issue into prominence and getting people to think about it. I'd call that a good thing.

 

I stopped believing in Santa long ago. And am aactually a hard dis-believe on the matter. But if I went around the country trying to convince the kiddies he doesn't exist, i'd be promoting a positive belief about something not to believe in. That would be pretty militant. Capish?

If you haven't read it and have gone on this long about how Dawkins isn't militant, I suggest you do so. That's his best known work, and one of the best examples of his militancy. I haven't the time, nor do I think it the place, to write a book review on the subject. Read the book. Anyone who has will understand why he's called militant.

Because it is: cherry picking cheap targets.

If he is, it doesn't show. And you'd be surprised. There are plenty who take it literally. OlderWater Brother, where are you when we really need you?
And he ignores alternative possibilities that any good religion has done, like the famous at least he got the trains to run on time?

Good! Bye