Allan Penn
Daniel C. Dennett.
Posted on 01/22/2006 6:22:25 AM PST by Pharmboy
Allan Penn
Daniel C. Dennett.
Q: How could you, as a longtime professor of philosophy at Tufts University, write a book that promotes the idea that religious devotion is a function of biology? Why would you hold a scientist's microscope to something as intangible as belief?
I don't know about you, but I find St. Paul's and St. Peter's pretty physical.
But your new book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon," is not about cathedrals. It's about religious belief, which cannot be dissected in a lab as if it were a disease.
That itself is a scientific claim, and I think it is false. Belief can be explained in much the way that cancer can. I think the time has come to shed our taboo that says, "Oh, let's just tiptoe by this, we don't have to study this." People think they know a lot about religion. But they don't know.
So what can you tell us about God?
Certainly the idea of a God that can answer prayers and whom you can talk to, and who intervenes in the world - that's a hopeless idea. There is no such thing.
Yet faith, by definition, means believing in something whose existence cannot be proved scientifically. If we knew for sure that God existed, it would not require a leap of faith to believe in him.
Isn't it interesting that you want to take that leap? Why do you want to take that leap? Why does our craving for God persist? It may be that we need it for something. It may be that we don't need it, and it is left over from something that we used to be. There are lots of biological possibilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That is intended only metaphorically.
I've always found it interesting that virtually all human societies, from the smallest band of nomads in the bush to the largest of civilizations have worshipped something or another.
The reasons for this are a subject for debate, though. It could be a biological thing, but I think it's more the fact that human beings are intelligent enough to wonder about the world around them.
Almost all religions answer some basic, universal questions: What is this place? Where did it come from? How did I get here? What happens when I die? What's that big light in the sky? That sort of thing.
It stands to reason that humans are going to ask those questions, just as our youngsters continue to ask why the sky is blue, etc.
If biology plays a part, it would be in the source for our intelligence.
But, that's just my opinion, based on a lot of reading and a lot of thinking.
Note that Dennett exempts himself from his own theory. If belief is caused by physical brain events and is therefore questionable, why is his atheism not subject to the same analysis?
atheism must serve some biological function, or possibly it is the remnant of something older.
if, as mankind was evolving, many atheists lacked the religious prohibitions against promiscous sex, the atheists would have reproduced at a higher rate, thus getting more atheist genes into the gene pool.
that might explain why there are so many atheists.
i'm just kidding here.
even though i assume that evolutionary processes account for many things, dennet's biological reductionism seems almost like a caricature of evolutionary theory.
The professor talks about a relationship with God as a hunger, a need. While there are disciples who have couched belief in those terms I have a different view. My relationship with God is based on my relationship to the universe, His creation.
I have absolute and certain knowledge, first hand, of the presence of God in my life and in the world around me. It is not debatable except as an exercise in witnessing to my experience of truth and reality.
Does the good Dr. from my alma mater claim that knowledge is genetic? If so should I assume that his genes are superior or inferior to my own?
There will always be pinheads who spout whatever ideas they think will gain them notoriety. Such, simply, is the case with the good professor.
Go ahead and analyze but be logical about it. Logically, a lack of belief in something that cannot be proved, does not seem to be subject to a lot of analysis. I don't believe there are any naturally occurring blue kangaroos. To hold such an opinion would not seem to require a lot of analysis. If another person believed that blue kangaroos existed, which of us would you think a better subject for analysis?
Quite profound and well said.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Just pinging a few of the usual suspects on a subject that may be of interest...
Notice that the perfessor is wearing the Official Academic Professor Shoes...
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
So Intelligent Design is ruled out of bounds because it is "not science", but faith - but this guy makes the NYT by applying "science" to de-construct religious faith? This sounds like the Christian is being forced to fight with both hands tied behind his back and his mouth taped shut - I guess the NYT would condsider that to be a fair fight.
As a scientist, Dennett relies on the empiricist theory of truth (all that I know is mediated through my five senses) Unfortunatlely for him, this theory is self refuting because it cannot itself be verified by the human senses.
I make no case for atheism. I believe that it is better to hold a position of "Not Proven" than to argue that there is no G-d. It seems to me that atheism is the position that requires the greatest faith as it asserts a null hypothesis. The question is essentially unanswered and may be unanswerable.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
is atheism a lack of belief in God or the belief that God does not exist?
Dennet seems to believe that there is no God, which is a belief, not just the absence of a belief.
if he actually holds the belief that there is no God, his belief can be analyzed just as well as religious people's belief in God.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.