Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett (Darwin, beliefs, doom, evolution)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

The rise of more objective forms of inquiry eventually usurped religion's role in explaining natural phenomena. No longer were supernatural explanations needed for biodiversity, the weather, heredity, or other subjects once considered the domain of the divine.

It’s a common error to think religion even wants to do any of those things. Religious people, certainly, but it’s rare when outsiders try to understand how a religion is designed to function. There is a difference between what religious people do/believe (a good example is the Crusades) and what the religion teaches.

As far as I know, most religions don’t have any official doctrines on biodiversity, weather, flat-earth, or any of that. Most of what is believed isn’t intended to explain natural phenomena. It’s just religious people attaching meaning further then what there religion does. That’s all it is and I think this is often missed.

[Rolling_Stone]

I read the commentary on the book very carefully and if it's accurate, I must say Dennett is either an idiot or myopic--a creationist on the other side of the same stick. Truely pathetic.

The *belief in belief* is central to understanding his critique.

Mine, too. In fact, many religionists criticise belief in belief. "When theology masters religion, religion dies" is one of my favorite quotes.

The rise of more objective forms of inquiry eventually usurped religion's role in explaining natural phenomena.

Praise be to God for science!

God can be a big magic guy or a transcendent power or a `a basis of all being.'

Anthropomorpism? It survives, but only among the ignorant and intellectually lazy. Calling God "a transcendent power or a `a basis of all being' " is more accurate, but it's like calling the ocean a tide pool.

religion survived, because it had an important adaptation that kept it safe from its competitors in the meme pool: its insistence on unquestioning acceptance, the notion of faith.

"Wrestling with God" isn't part of religion? What planet does he live on?

[Escéptico]

Victor,

Dennett was pointing out that at least in its initial incarnation, religion meant to convey the meaning of natural phenomena to a pre-scientific populace. The wisdom of the OT concerning diet and disease wasn't meant as mere moral guidance, it was intended to be followed without question, for the benefit of the individual and the tribe. Obviously most believers nowadays have no problem accepting scientific theories that explain natural phenomena like disease or weather (and Dennett isn't trying to claim otherwise), but our ancestors didn't have that luxury.

[Random]

Dennett is just a devilish magician like the priests: he wants you to swap spells, to fall under a new spell - dispel the religion spell, and fall under the science spell.

He can shove his atheistic materialism up his rear. If find it funny such an intellectual retard with NO IMAGINATION whatsoever should be held in so high esteem in the academic world.

And yes, I've read the book. It's about 100 times dumber than Consciousness Explained, and that's a near miracle...

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Random

And yes, I've read the book.

Of course you have. And I'm Lady Nelson.

Dennett is just a devilish magician like the priests: he wants you to swap spells, to fall under a new spell - dispel the religion spell, and fall under the science spell.

Your reading of Dennett's book must have been ever so careful. The "spell" in the title doesn't refer to religious belief.

He can shove his atheistic materialism up his rear. If find it funny such an intellectual retard with NO IMAGINATION whatsoever should be held in so high esteem in the academic world.

This is such a probing, thought-provoking assessment of Dennett's work. It's refreshing to hear such a well-balanced, insightful review.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

Victor,

Dennett was pointing out that at least in its initial incarnation, religion meant to convey the meaning of natural phenomena to a pre-scientific populace. The wisdom of the OT concerning diet and disease wasn't meant as mere moral guidance, it was intended to be followed without question, for the benefit of the individual and the tribe. Obviously most believers nowadays have no problem accepting scientific theories that explain natural phenomena like disease or weather (and Dennett isn't trying to claim otherwise), but our ancestors didn't have that luxury.

I understand that, I'm just trying to point out that it's important to make the distinction between the religious vs. the religion. I haven't read the book but if it's anything like Sam Harris The End of Faith it seemed they use them interchangably to make there points.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Victor

I understand that, I'm just trying to point out that it's important to make the distinction between the religious vs. the religion. I haven't read the book but if it's anything like Sam Harris The End of Faith it seemed they use them interchangably to make there points.

You should read the book. He isn't bashing religion. He is a modern philosopher who spends time looking at philosophy of psychology and philosophy and its relation to science, mainly biology and is really skilled at presenting multi-tiered /complexed theories in down-to-earth terms. He is an atheist for the record, but the vast majority of philosophers alive today are non-theists. A great into, I have been told, though I haven't read it, to his works is the essay "Elbow Room"

Breaking the Spell, isn't saying "dump religions" but more looks at the culture/religion paradigm and how it affects perception of reality. Overall, his writing-style is very academic oriented as opposed to agenda-based.

Dennet is really popular among people who like to read modern (living) philosophers and that book is a great read. If you (or other theists) can feel comfortable with someone an atheist reviewing their belief process there can be a lot of insight to gain from Dennet who is really gifted at conceptual thought and relaying it more understandable jargon to people (like me) who don't have a degree in philosophy.


footnotes:
Elbow Room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (Daniel Dennett)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by robtex

You should read the book.

I plan to.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

This is such a probing, thought-provoking assessment of Dennett's work. It's refreshing to hear such a well-balanced, insightful review.

Glad you enjoyed it!