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

[mball1297]

Like I said, I have no problem with a scientific study of religion. It might even do some good

If he thinks religion can be understood from the outside, he's wrong, ill-informed and stupid

I think this contradiction speaks for itself.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I think this contradiction speaks for itself.

I know it sounds like a contradiction, but once you understand that religious concepts and the social repercussions of religion are the outward manifestation of an inner reality and--in my view--the outside needs to be burned away by the refiner's fire in order for the light to shine through, the contradiction disappears.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I know it sounds like a contradiction, but once you understand that religious concepts and the social repercussions of religion are the outward manifestation of an inner reality and--in my view--the outside needs to be burned away by the refiner's fire in order for the light to shine through, the contradiction disappears.

Do you really believe this stuff you're saying?

[Rolling_Stone]

That you would see a contradiction where there is none shows ignorance as to the real nature of religon (no disrespect intended). Some religious authors say, and I agree, theism is indebted to atheism.

[mball1297]

So, your saying that science investigating religion is fine and can be a good thing doesn't contradict your saying that the thought that religion can be understood from the outside (read: science) is stupid, wrong and ill-informed?

[Sunstone]

Dennett's notion that religious memes thrive independently of any use they might have to us is intriguing, methinks.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Dennett's notion that religious memes thrive independently of any use they might have to us is intriguing, methinks.

It may be a simplistic way of modeling complex cultural phenomena, but it has real utility. We could assume that religion has developed because every individual believer throughout history has made a conscious choice to affirm the stated tenets of his chosen religion. Or we could admit the likelihood that religion has developed as a self-perpetuating system, and ultimately the beliefs and believers are only incidental to the process.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by mball1297

So, your saying that science investigating religion is fine and can be a good thing doesn't contradict your saying that the thought that religion can be understood from the outside (read: science) is stupid, wrong and ill-informed?

Not quite. What science can study is the outward manifestation and I think doing so would benefit real religion. So, obviously I don't think the thought of doing so is stupid and ill-informed. Dennett is stupid and ill-informed. Science is a way of investigating an object; religion is a way of life--a relationship. Like I said, you can't isolate a part of life and call it religion without distorting religion and disintegrating life.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I spoke too soon. Dennett is not a good writer, after all, and proves one of my aphorisms: You can never overestimate the stupidity of people; just when you think you've seen it all, someone comes along who's more stupid than you imagined possible--and people who think they're intelligent.

What is PROJECTION?

Thank you, Alex, I'll stick with Psychological Defense Mechanisms for $400.