Information Theory & Gods

[moogoob]

Good day all. I was responding to another thread ("ask the Atheist" in non-Christian religions forum) and came upon an idea that interested me. Here's what I posted:

This also comes down to definitions of "god" as well. For example, to the ancient Greeks, Athena was a popular and powerful god. Many parts of Athena's archetype was therefore present in her followers. In that case, (an information theory and memetics one) Athena was her followers, and therefore very much real.

Any thoughts? Just as biological organisms have genes, informational ones (like gods) would have memes, the spread of which through a population of people would cause the information organism to prosper. Just like biological creatures, gods can mutate and evolve (Protestantism is an offspring of Catholicism evolved into a different niche), die out (Naziism and Social Darwinism) or even breed together (Baha'i and Unitarian Universalism).

This has fascinated me for a bit. Any thoughts?

 

[Tormac]

It seems reasonable to look at religions as evolving social constructs.

Of course I don’t think that very many adherents of the various religions share that view of religion in general (or at least no their particular religion, although I suspect most assume every other religion is just a bunch of made up stories).

 

[Silent Enigma]

Isn't it an obvious that religions, like other aspects of culture, change over time?

 

[Blackguard_]

This has fascinated me for a bit. Any thoughts?

You've seen "The Never-Ending Story" too many times.

Besides, ideas about a thing do not affect the thing unless you assume the thing to not exist. If no one believed in Deism, would Deism then necessarily be false?

Did E equal MC^2 in the 19th century, or did Einstein make that be the case through some sort of mathematical wizardry?

You can only say gods change an evolve through ideas becasue you don't believe gods exist. Isn't that what the guy who made up the whole 'meme' thing in the first place believes? The ideas can change yes, but that doesn't mean God or the Gods does with them.

It seems reasonable to look at religions as evolving social constructs.

partially agreed. I'd say 'changing" since they can devolve as well, and would say "institution" since 'construct' as far as I can tell, carries a connotion of 'necessarily false'.
To say like the OP the gods change because the ideas do is madness.

 

[moogoob]

1.You've seen "The Never-Ending Story" too many times.

2.Besides, ideas about a thing do not affect the thing unless you assume the thing to not exist. If no one believed in Deism, would Deism then necessarily be false?

3.Did E equal MC^2 in the 19th century, or did Einstein make that be the case through some sort of mathematical wizardry?

4.You can only say gods change an evolve through ideas becasue you don't believe gods exist. Isn't that what the guy who made up the whole 'meme' thing in the first place believes? The ideas can change yes, but that doesn't mean God or the Gods does with them.

I've numbered your lines for reply.
1. Probably more like "reads too much Neal Stephenson".

2.No, you're right. My argument, however (might it be poorly worded?) was that it is possible for something not real to be made so in the minds of their followers. Take my example of Athena. Was she real? To the ancient Greeks, of course she was. made real through her followers.

3.Yes it did. Try suggesting Einstein's theory of General Relativity to a 17th century alchemist or something and see how they look at you, though.

4.I'm sorry, the end of my post went into stream-of-consciousness mode and my little rant veered from gods per se onto religions. And I agree with you. The gods themselves don't change, as they are usually based upon universal human archetypes. Athena, for one, is still around today. We simply don't call her Athena.

 

[Tormac]

(in relation to the quote of me that religeons are social constructs)

. . .
partially agreed. I'd say 'changing" since they can devolve as well, and would say "institution" since 'construct' as far as I can tell, carries a connotion of 'necessarily false'.
To say like the OP the gods change because the ideas do is madness.

I have no objection to substituting "changed" to "evolved" Blackguard, and I think that to call religions social "institutions" has almost the same meaning as to call then social "constucts".
I would like to point out though that something being a social construct does not equate to it being false. The term only means that the construct is something that does not exist naturaly, but is created by a society. A business corperation, for example, is a social construct, but I would not say that it is false.
The same holds true for religious institutions. I do not think that there is any compeling evidence for the exsistance of anything supernatureal. As such I do not think that any religion is a good litteral description of the natural world, but I do think that all religeons play useful roles in the societies where they reside, and it would be a stretch to call one false. Its just that, as institutions, they are not perfect, and when they butt heads with other institutions, it is possible to loose something that is true for something that is dogma.