Religions as evolutionary memes

Reading Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins on religion, I began to think of different religions as evolutionary memes. Perhaps it is possible to analyze different religions and atheism as competitive organisms which may be better or worse suited for survival. A scary thought is that Islam is better at expanding and replicating itself so like a successful gene it will be more likely to survive and dominate the future. Certain aspects of Islam that I find the most objectionable such as the denial of the right to convert to another religion (recall the Afghani who was almost executed because he converted to Christianity) or the emphasis on Jihad may help Islam spread and find more converts. It's possible that what's good for the survival of one religion is not good for humanity as a whole. Thus, is it possible that the religion that is destined to spread throughout the world will end human progress and freedom and lead to a dismal future for mankind. Is it possible that atheism though true is not the most effective deterrent to the spread of a pernicious religion? Thus, a moderate Christianity is preferable because it can hold its own against Islam. These are just thoughts. I'm not sure what the answer is. I do think that history shows that Islam as it has developed through the centuries is not compatibility with modernity or freedom. All of the scientific advances that are attributed to Arabs date back to the early centuries of Islam and perhaps were the heritage of the civilizations that were conquered by Arabs. Of course, Islam may one day reform itself. I'm not holding my breath though. The emphasis on the Koran as the word of God makes it difficult to moderate or change.

Iraq Vote

The Senate stayed up all night debating Iraq. The Democrats want to force a vote on withdrawing. I don't know the best way to get out of Iraq or salvage something out of the whole project. However, I don't think that panic and immediate withdrawal is the answer. No one knows what the result will be if we withdraw. Maybe it will be a bloodbath. Maybe things will sort themselves out. Why not wait until September as was originally planned when the surge started and see what General Petraeus says. Basically I think we have to let Bush fight his war for the rest of his presidency. The country elected him as commander-in-chief. It may be we have to begin to reduce our forces in Iraw by the Spring because the the military is stretched so thin. We can only try our best until then.

More Atheism

I am listening to an audio book of The End of Faith by Sam Harris. His prose lacks the wit and eloquence of Christopher Hitchens and he seems a bit more hysterical. He has an apocalyptic sense that civilization is doomed because of religion. As a result, I get the impression that he is not content to just argue against religion but would like to actively repress it. He would like to have a world government that bans religion and allows abortion and stem cell research and legalizes recreational drug use. His screed is a reaction to events since 9/11. I think someone writing at the height of the cold war would not identify religion as the probable cause of the annihilation of humanity but rather the competition between Communism and the West. Although Iran getting the bomb is worrisome, I doubt that it means that the end is around the corner. Just look at their crumbling economy and the riots that recently occurred due to gas rationing. I tend to agree with his view of Islam which I think has severely retarded the progress of the Arab and Muslim worlds as well as fueling violence and terrorism. However, the thought that mankind will completely abandon religion is just not a realistic solution. Eventually the recent increase in fundamentalism will wane. Terrorists acquiring a weapon of mass destruction would probably hasten the decline in fundamentalism because it would provoke such a huge response from the West.

I'm also reading Daniel Dennet's Breaking the Spell which presents interesting speculation on the evolutionary origins of religion. It's a much more even handed inquiry into religion that either Harris or Hitchens. Dennet is willing to explore the benefits of religion and tries to understand how it developed. He is clearly not a believer but at least he approaches the subject without the animus or paranoia of the other atheist writers. Personally though I can do without his "bright" label.