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.
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?
Exactly. Specifically, what is the scientific basis for the biological "abnormality" atheism?