-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives And Culture
- Thread starter Aught3
- Start date
Was one of their stronger episodes I thought!
But I was wondering how historical events get mixed in with religon. For example (we are assuming jesus existed) how the teachings of Christ got mixed in with him coming back to life after having died.
But I was wondering how historical events get mixed in with religon. For example (we are assuming jesus existed) how the teachings of Christ got mixed in with him coming back to life after having died.
RyuOni1989
New Member
Have to agree, a stronger episode.
I'm also looking forward to the episode with AronRa in it =P
I'm also looking forward to the episode with AronRa in it =P
I really don't like how this metaphor is being used to state that religious people are 'sick'. Sure their beliefs don't really make sense and have no evidence to support them but we can't be gnostically sure of our own position and can therefore not be so arrogant with it.
Confidence is good, arrogant isn't.
Confidence is good, arrogant isn't.
MaliceJones
New Member
MRaverz said:
Second that part.
As much as I disagree with religious people, I do my best to make positive points for my views - or factually question theirs, instead of trashing them. That only causes animosity and counterattack - which is pretty useless IMO.
The exception is of course when you are forced to interact with total nutjobs, say... VFX or his likes.
However, they are not in the majority and thus, the generalized 'sick' label is inappropriate.
BUT - I would go so far as to say that fanatism & fundamentalism (as opposed to 'just normal' religion) actually are like a disease that infects and endangers social structures.
Just my bit of change.
I don't think the virus metaphor extends to thinking of religious people as 'sick', at least is wasn't mentioned in the show to my recollection. In fact one viewer called in asking how Dr. Ray would try to 'cure' the god virus and he quickly backed off from the metaphor saying it wasn't something he thought people should try to do. The difference between the god virus and an actual virus is that one is a set of ideas and the other is a set of nucleic acids (or codes). Religious people aren't 'sick' with their ideas, but the ideas do attempt to get into people's minds, try to spread/propagate, and are resistant to removal. I think that is as far as the metaphor can be pushed.
Stovetop32
New Member
I think it's a fascinating metaphor.
Biologically speaking, a virus is just a set of instructions (DNA/RNA code) which replicates through (usually) parasitic interaction with a host. The host provides all of the means for the survival and reproduction of this set of instructions. A religion operates in much the same way, as it would not have any weight without many subscribers promoting it and believing in the various tenets it may hold.
In biology/medicine, the symptomatic response to a viral infection is what is usually recognized as sickness. In very simple terms, your body's immune response is what actually causes many of the unpleasant effects that we recognize as sickness. So it is our response to a stimulus, not the stimulus itself which is the real problem.
In the case of religion, the "sickness" is pretty obvious - Fundamentalist violence, restrictions on human rights, demands for censorship, theocratic authoritarianism, etc. on down the line. Again, we see that the problem is the interpretation and response of the original "instructions" provided by religious movements. So... I would say that in general the metaphor holds true - Religion definitely does behave as though it were a virus. People are just hosts, and collectively manifest the sickness in society as a whole.
I think that the problem with the metaphor is in how it is viewed by the public. "Virus" carries a certain malaise, and applying the term to religion is potentially insulting, despite being fairly accurate, IMO.
Biologically speaking, a virus is just a set of instructions (DNA/RNA code) which replicates through (usually) parasitic interaction with a host. The host provides all of the means for the survival and reproduction of this set of instructions. A religion operates in much the same way, as it would not have any weight without many subscribers promoting it and believing in the various tenets it may hold.
In biology/medicine, the symptomatic response to a viral infection is what is usually recognized as sickness. In very simple terms, your body's immune response is what actually causes many of the unpleasant effects that we recognize as sickness. So it is our response to a stimulus, not the stimulus itself which is the real problem.
In the case of religion, the "sickness" is pretty obvious - Fundamentalist violence, restrictions on human rights, demands for censorship, theocratic authoritarianism, etc. on down the line. Again, we see that the problem is the interpretation and response of the original "instructions" provided by religious movements. So... I would say that in general the metaphor holds true - Religion definitely does behave as though it were a virus. People are just hosts, and collectively manifest the sickness in society as a whole.
I think that the problem with the metaphor is in how it is viewed by the public. "Virus" carries a certain malaise, and applying the term to religion is potentially insulting, despite being fairly accurate, IMO.
monitoradiation
New Member
Aught3 said:
Well it is also pertinent to mention that you may be a carrier of a virus and display no symptoms. Many viruses have hibernation periods, and some people pass by their life with immunities or carry the virus around with them.
I think it's a fantastic analogy - though I do have to agree that the connotation that religious people are somehow sick could be misinterpreted.
Stovetop32
New Member
I suppose it depends on how literally you want to take it.
A virus usually infects it's host and then follows one of two paths:
1. The Lytic Cycle: Characterized by rapid destruction of the cell and presentation of anitgens to the immune system. The virus begins actively replicating and then lyses the cell to become free-floating before infecting further cells.
2. The Lysogenic Cycle: Characterized by a "dormant" inclusion into the host's DNA. The virus doesn't replicate, but rather ligates or inserts it's code into the host's genome. Then, when certain stresses arise, the virus is "activated" from this dormant state and begins the Lytic process above.
That is how I would characterize the "asymptomatic" populations of believers. The instructions are there, but they aren't acting upon them in ways that would create symptoms of a sickness in the population as a whole. This could be due to a lack of threat to their religion, for example. Some peaceful religious groups become active and violent when their beliefs are challenged in some way.
A virus usually infects it's host and then follows one of two paths:
1. The Lytic Cycle: Characterized by rapid destruction of the cell and presentation of anitgens to the immune system. The virus begins actively replicating and then lyses the cell to become free-floating before infecting further cells.
2. The Lysogenic Cycle: Characterized by a "dormant" inclusion into the host's DNA. The virus doesn't replicate, but rather ligates or inserts it's code into the host's genome. Then, when certain stresses arise, the virus is "activated" from this dormant state and begins the Lytic process above.
That is how I would characterize the "asymptomatic" populations of believers. The instructions are there, but they aren't acting upon them in ways that would create symptoms of a sickness in the population as a whole. This could be due to a lack of threat to their religion, for example. Some peaceful religious groups become active and violent when their beliefs are challenged in some way.