Replies

I love the King James Bible. [BUT???] My own spirit recoils from a God Who is He or She in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free; it will kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages too....

Second-class status of Catholic women? Whatta bunch of claptrap -- all of it!!!

In the above italics, it seems that Dennett clearly indicates that he doesn't much mind religion(s), except the ones that point to a personal God. That is, God as Person, or (as in Christianity), of Three Persons in One God. That is, pretty much he thinks that monotheist religions are dangerous to the public and can be justly restrained.

But Buddhism, say, would be just fine with him, in a way that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not. The dude is simply a religious bigot. His particular animus is reserved for Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics. (How very, very fashionable of him.)

In any case, I have my doubts that Dennett has any serious religious persuasion, and is simply a materialist, and possibly an atheist to boot. Trying to source his cherished memes to purely "natural processes" would be the tip-off here.

Getting back to Buddhism being OK with Dennett: Not only does it not have a God Who is Person, but its god is immanent -- not transcendent. So that's a two-fer!

Plus its cosmology is the eternal universe model: No beginning, nor end. Just a universe that always was, going through the cyclical process of waxing and waning forever.

It's hard to find a basis for morality in a "system" like that. I guess maybe that would be its "third charm."

I'd say perhaps you ought to read your source here with greater attention. But then, I wonder what good that would do.

In either case, lately I've begun to notice that what a man says is not the important thing. It's what a man does that tells you who or what the man is.

Anyhoot, it's Christmas. Didn't mean to pile on Dennett necessarily. However he does seem to provide a model -- Dennett as the "representative man of his age," as Voegelin termed it -- that many people around here follow. FWIW

I hope you have a joyous Chrsitmas, CGM, and a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2006!

[ Getting back to Buddhism being OK with Dennett: Not only does it not have a God Who is Person, but its god is immanent -- not transcendent. So that's a two-fer! ]

Buddha was a protestant Hindu.. he used to be a Hindu when young.. and held to some Hindu ways and concepts.. Buddhism, Hinduism, same thing basically, only different.. and other religions came from those.. with engrams of Brahmanism as does Hinduism.. and the others.. Even animism makes more sense then those systems.. Worshiping a rock is simpler and much cheaper unless you get a shaman then animism gets expensive too.. thats what twisted Buddha que, paying off the priests..

" Second-class status of Catholic women? Whatta bunch of claptrap -- all of it!!!"

Lots and lots of women priests are there? :) You noticeably centered on this, but didn't mention his condemnation of the status of women under Islam.

"In the above italics, it seems that Dennett clearly indicates that he doesn't much mind religion(s), except the ones that point to a personal God."

No, he minds religions only when they decide to infringe on people's individual rights. He says so explicitly. Did you even read what he wrote?

"The dude is simply a religious bigot. His particular animus is reserved for Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics."

Nonsense. That is not what he said. You have to be looking to be offended to read that into what he said. You forgot to add Islam to your list too, since he mentioned it clearly.

"In any case, I have my doubts that Dennett has any serious religious persuasion, and is simply a materialist, and possibly an atheist to boot. Trying to source his cherished memes to purely "natural processes" would be the tip-off here."

So? He never said he wasn't an atheist.

Now, if you read this the way it was written, it is obvious that he is talking about religions that try to force people to follow their tenets. Or religions whose tenets are no longer compatible with modern standards of individual rights, and whose support will just wither at the light of reason. In a nutshell he is saying that all religions will have to adapt to the intellectual environment or they will go extinct. If you read the entire chapter of the book (which I had handy, enabling me to fill in the gaps from those quotes) you would know this.

Merry Christmas!