“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously,” was composed in the 1950s by Noam Chomsky, as an example of a sentence which was grammatically correct, and yet unlikely ever to have been spoken.
This is not as is sometimes claimed a sentence that has no meaning. It has no inherent meaning, but It is capable according to context of being understood in many different ways. A fact more than adequately demonstrated by a competition hosted by Stanford University in 1985, where entrants were asked to create contexts in less than one hundred words which made the sentence meaningful.
Some of the entries can be read here.
The different interpretations are possible because words such as colorless and green have more than one meaning, and because metaphor is a recognized way of communicating ideas.
Because green is sometimes used as a synonym for Irish, this inherently meaningless sentence can be linked to the myth that St Patrick drove all the snakes in Ireland into the sea, where the mythical beasts became the currents around our shores. Colourless green memes sleeping, sometimes furiously.
The story of St Patrick and the snakes is a metaphorical account of the ancient Celtic religious beliefs of Ireland being driven out by Christian beliefs. It is obviously not literally true, and it isn’t metaphorically true either. The ancient memes weren’t driven out, some of them were incorporated into the new belief system, others remained as myths and legends, part of a system that enabled people to derive meaning from the world around.
The world is like Chomsky’s sentence, all syntax and no obvious semantics, structure without meaning. It is the stories we know, the memes we bear, that determine how we understand reality. And what new stories we tell about it.
A True Metaphor
Richard Dawkins has argued that memes (ideas) should be regarded as lifeforms whose natural habitat is the human mind.
This strikes me as a rather good way of describing what is happening. Just as the world provides a range of different habitats, so does the mind. The lifeforms that evolved in Australia are different to those that evolved in Africa, or South America. The Life forms of the Jurassic are different from those that evolved later. But where there were niches to fill, organisms evolved to fill them.
So it is with culturally transmitted memes, there are niches to fill in the habitat of the mind. Within different cultures these niches are filled in different ways.
But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe, would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place.
Richard Dawkins Viruses of the Mind 1993
Richard Dawkins is of course right that the religion you hold is pretty much an accident of birth, or at least the society you find yourself in. The same is true for any other culturally transmitted view.
Belief is not a choice. It creeps in unannounced, as does unbelief.
Richard Dawkins was not the first to note that ideas spread by epidemiology. A very similar point was made by Mark Twain in an essay, which he wrote in 1901, although it wasn’t published until 1923, after Twain was dead.
Morals, religions, politics, get their following from surrounding influences and atmospheres, almost entirely; not from study, not from thinking. A man must and will have his own approval first of all, in each and every moment and circumstance of his life — even if he must repent of a self-approved act the moment after its commission, in order to get his self-approval again: but, speaking in general terms, a man’s self-approval in the large concerns of life has its source in the approval of the peoples about him, and not in a searching personal examination of the matter. Mohammedans are Mohammedans because they are born and reared among that sect, not because they have thought it out and can furnish sound reasons for being Mohammedans; we know why Catholics are Catholics; why Presbyterians are Presbyterians; why Baptists are Baptists; why Mormons are Mormons; why thieves are thieves; why monarchists are monarchists; why Republicans are Republicans and Democrats, Democrats. We know it is a matter of association and sympathy, not reasoning and examination; that hardly a man in the world has an opinion upon morals, politics, or religion which he got otherwise than through his associations and sympathies.
Mark Twain Corn-Pone Opinions 1901
Mark Twain argued that the epidemiology was being driven by an instinct for social conformity.
Richard Dawkins and his friend the philosopher Daniel Dennett, both argue that memes have been liberated from their biological substrate, and it is the meme and not human instinct, that is in control of the relationship. As is illustrated by the following sentence, part of a passage from Daniel Dennett, that provides the introduction to Viruses of the Mind.
The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes.
Daniel Dennett Consciousness Explained in Richard Dawkins Viruses of the Mind 1993
Mark Twain’s theory is simpler. We already know that instincts control the behaviour of other animals and there is no reason to believe that memes have the creative powers being attributed to them.
It is Mark Twain’s theory and not Richard Dawkins’ that satisfies the demands of scientific method.
The Serpents of the Mind
Scientific ideas, like all memes are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. …….
Richard Dawkins Viruses of the Mind 1993
(Note that in the above passage the entities being exonerated, because of the intercession of Scientific Method, from exhibiting, ‘self-serving behavior,’ are the memes not people. Note also that the adjectives, pointless and self-serving, which he uses to describe the behaviours, are mutually exclusive.)
Scientific method allows us to make increasingly accurate models of reality , which can then be used to make predictions, and suggest further avenues for research. It can never give certainty but is an excellent way of finding out about the probable structure of the world. This is not how Richard Dawkins is using it. For him it has become a saving myth, a St Patrick driving snakes from Sacred Ground.
And just as the old Celtic myths were not driven from Ireland, but became incorporated with the new beliefs, so the old myths, including that which theologian Peter Rollins identifies with a belief in the Big Other, are incorporated within new atheism.
The Big Other:
Without getting too caught up in the specifics of what the term means in psychoanalysis, its theological significance relates to the, often unconscious, belief in some Thing that will bring wholeness and overcome anxiety.
Peter Rollins You Don’t Need to be an Atheist to be a Christian February 2015
Richard Dawkins references scientific method as the saving Big Other. And just as the theologians of Christendom, seem to have felt free to disregard the teaching and example of Christ, when developing their theologies, so in developing his ideas on the Selfish Gene and Meme, Dr Dawkins by his own admission ignored the ‘exacting well-honed rules’ that are used to scrutinize scientific ideas.
I want to argue in favour of a particular way of looking at animals and plants, and a particular way of wondering why they do the things that they do. What I am advocating is not a new theory, not a hypothesis which can be verified or falsified, not a model which can be judged by its predictions. … Rather, I am trying to show the reader a way of seeing biological facts.
Richard Dawkins The Extended Phenotype Chapter 1 1982
In this way Richard Dawkins has been able to accommodate within atheism people, probably himself included, who intuitively feel that the complexity of nature is such that it must be an act of intentionality. Rather than quote them something like the following passage, and tell them to get over themselves, their intuitions have no rational justification:
The design stance and the intentional stance are useful brain mechanisms, important for speeding up the second-guessing of entities that really matter for survival, such as predators or potential mates. But, like other brain mechanisms, these stances can misfire. Children and primitive peoples, impute intentions to the weather, to waves and currents, to falling rocks.
Richard Dawkins The God Delusion 2006
He merely uses it to argue that the god botherers have been deceived. And offers them the allegedly scientifically endorsed view that there really is a purpose. Everything is being driven by purposefully acting memes and genes seeking their own survival.
The old niches have been filled. The purposeful creators, the genes and memes. The saving myth- scientific method, saving us from our creators, and the chosen people – the intelligent. The duty of the saved – to mock and ridicule as irrational those who fill the niches differently.
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
David Hume A Treatise of Human Nature 1739-40
The Scottish philosopher David Hume regarded the desire for truth as a human passion. This is something that I wouldn’t disagree with, but there are other drives also. There is for instance the desire to prove that you are right, and the perhaps the even more powerful one, to prove that other people are wrong.
Scientific method evolved as a way of protecting the search for truth, from the noodly many tentacled deceiver, that psychologists identify with the unpoetic label, Confirmation Bias: the instinct that makes the brain, as Voltaire remarked, a wonderful organ for enabling a man to continue believing whatever it is he wants to believe.
Science is an effective way of finding out how the world works. It can help us produce increasingly accurate models of reality, but it cannot imbue it with either purpose or meaning. It provides the syntax not the semantics.
Meaning and purpose are the gifts of passion not rationality.
The Meme Bonded Ape
We are social animals who bond on shared ideas. Crazes and fashions have no depth and last only a short time, they cannot be the basis for a stable society.
One way of acquiring strong within group bonds, is to label those who hold different memes, as evil and dangerous – those evil awful people over there. i.e. factionalism
It is possible that factionalism was once a useful adaptation, that caused our species to spread across the world, so that when bad times came, all our eggs, so to speak were not in one basket. And it may in part explain why our species survived, when all the other species of hominid (upright apes) became extinct.
Those of us living in Northern Ireland have good reason to understand just how dangerous such factionalism can be, in our crowded modern world.
Some atheists such as Richard Dawkins; and Lawrence Krauss, who can be seen here debating with Peter Rollins, believe that the problem lies with religion (the meme).
Lawrence Krauss argues that we don’t need religion, but should bond on the truth of science. Arguing that the wonder and awe that he feels for nature is better than anything that religion can give because it is based on truth.
And this could well be so, but this isn’t what he suggests people actually bond on. He suggests rock concerts or music, not science.
The activity that he acknowledges engaging in, is the ridicule of religious believers, to demonstrate how ridiculous this minority are, to the “vast middle the rational people.” Basically he is encouraging people to bond on how rational they are compared to those ridiculous god botherers.
The laugh of this being that the most ridiculous belief of all is that we are rational animals. There is, as real world economist Dan Ariely demonstrates scientific evidence that man is not a rational animal. The best science can tell us about the possibility that the Universe has a Conscious Creator, is that there is no reason to believe it. Probability arguments don’t hold in infinities.
The human passion for truth is not as all compelling as the search for community. Science is a way of finding out the truth about the world. It can give us the world’s syntax but not its semantics. It is a very useful tool, but it is too shallow to provide the glue required to hold communities together.
Like Noam Chomsky’s sentence, reality has many possible interpretations. We can bond in many different ways. What Northern Ireland theologian Peter Rollins argued in his debate with Lawrence Krauss is that the truly dangerous beliefs are those that scapegoat others as those evil awful people, the people who have the problem, while we have the solution.
For him the function of religion, as far as I understand it, is to come to grips with the human realities, the reality that we are all broken and that none of us have the answer. And he argues that this is the ultimate reality that can be found in Christianity.