Selfish religion

Richard Dawkins sold a million copies of his first book, made millions of dollars and his subsequent books fetched him further millions. All of this because he titled his book Selfish Gene.

Well, I am not expecting anything in the millions to accrue to me through this post. But perhaps a couple of dozen hits?

People misunderstood Dawkins. He was not endorsing the selfish gene. He was saying what the truth is, about evolution, what the mechanism is. He identified the basic characteristic of a gene – to be selfish. He used selfishness as a metaphor for how genes establish themselves, come together, compete and cooperate with each other, propagate themselves, and even morph. Genes do not have a personality. But, if they did, no one would hesitate to tag them selfish.

What was there to misunderstand in this simple message, particularly when he said that once we understand how genes operate we can work to overcome the ill effects of their selfishness?

People thought that the author was establishing genetic determinacy of behaviour even when he was nowhere in that neighborhood. Towards the end of the book, Dawkins floated the idea of a second replicator (the function of a gene is to replicate itself), the meme. He suggested that as a cultural meme, but without defining it.

While Dawkins mentioned melodies, fashion and skills learned by copying as memes, he left out religion, for some inexplicable reason. Later, he tagged religion as a virus. I find this strange. A virus has to operate within a living cell, reproduce itself only by parasitizing the host cell’s machinery. On this score alone, religion fails as a virus.

Ask any religious person about religion. The first words out of her mouth, “It is sui generis”. Religion is one of a kind. It has no parallels. It exists of its own. It does not parasitize. Ergo, it is not a virus.

To prove that religion is a meme, a cultural counterpart of gene, I have to show that associated with religions are variation, mutation, competition and inheritance. I am truly embarrassed to be given such a simple task.

In Hinduism, at least among Tamil Vaishnavites, some sport the “Y” mark on their forehead, and others the “U”. If that is not variation, what is? Amongst Tamil Brahmins as a whole, some wear horizontal stripes of ash and others wear either “U” or “Y” of “Holy soil” (Thirumann). Variations doubled.

Coming to mutations, I take you to Christianity. Roman Catholics, various Orthodoxes (doesn’t that sound funny?), Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Anglicans … Amongst Muslims, Shia and Sunny. Even among Buddhists, the original has mutated to Theravada, Mahayana, their offshoots and such. Likewise in Jainism. The cults of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Sai Baba et al.

Competition. Amongst religions. Need I say more?

Inheritance. Religion is inherited from parents. And, it is a Himalayan task to wean a child away from this evil inheritance.

It is now established that religion is a cultural version of a gene – a meme. This was done so easily. A gene does nothing more than replicate itself and the vehicle is the organism. Likewise, religion is a meme that exists only to replicate itself and the vehicle is the human brain. The religious meme is selfish to the core. If it can exist outside of a human brain, it would not care whether the latter existed or not. There is a disconcerting thought behind that statement – will artificial intelligence be invaded by the religious meme? Hope not. I would want everyone working on artificial intelligence to be an atheist!

It is only when the human brain goes extinct can religious meme be extinguished. But, we would not want that, would we? Therefore, we have to live with religion, just as we have to live with genes. And, if humanity is to retain its sanity, it has to continuously fight the religious meme. Dawkins is doing it and I am also trying to contribute.

Genes are selfish and so is the religious meme. When Dawkins called genes selfish, he sold million copies. When I am calling religion selfish, can I expect, say, a score hits?

Raghuram Ekambaram