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

[logician]

"You can never overestimate the stupidity of people;"

How true, the most classic case is the re election of our war criminal POTUS Bush.

[Escéptico]

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.

And why not? The believers themselves are only there so that their behavior can perpetuate the religion. To use Dennett's own analogy, the behavior of an ant dancing atop a blade of grass is evolutionarily inexplicable until you realize it's infected with a bacterium that reproduces in a cow's stomach. The ant is just there to expedite the process.

In the same way, belief-in-belief makes believers profess and act a certain way not for their own good, but for the good of the self-perpetuating construct of faith.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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

Dennett anticipates this objection, which he characterizes as a convenient smokescreen. With it, the believer attempts to discourage study of an area by researchers who may not be totally sympathetic to the belief system.

Why, though, should we assume that any human phenomenon cannot be understood objectively? Would we accept such a declaration about language or sexuality? Why the certainty that this sphere of human activity is by definition untouchable by scientific methods?

I just finished Part 1 and, so far, there's a lot of demagoguery, sophestry (sic), and no real substance.

[Storm]

Stop the presses, Esceptico, I agree with you.

For the most part. Religion, like anything else, can only truly be understood on its own terms.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Storm

Stop the presses, Esceptico, I agree with you.

What have you done with Storm, you impostor?

For the most part. Religion, like anything else, can only truly be understood on its own terms.

I'm not disputing that. But we can understand its terms objectively, can't we? The same methods we use to study language and sexuality should be of use to the study of religion as a human phenomenon, right?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

I'm not disputing that. But we can understand its terms objectively, can't we? The same methods we use to study language and sexuality should be of use to the study of religion as a human phenomenon, right?

Yes. I just wanted to be clear.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Storm

Yes. I just wanted to be clear.

Sorry, I need to add a caveat.

It depends on what you mean by religion. The terms of theology can be understood objectively.

However, if you consider the mystical experience to be one of the "terms of religion," no. I don't believe it can be understood from the outside, and the reason is simple: it can't be communicated effectively. Language fails. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Storm

However, if you consider the mystical experience to be one of the "terms of religion," no. I don't believe it can be understood from the outside, and the reason is simple: it can't be communicated effectively. Language fails. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

The way the experience feels may be difficult to communicate. But the neurochemical basis and the psychological effects should be accessible to research. There's no difference between this and the way we study sexuality or language. We might have difficulty getting consensus about how people feel, but that's no reason to consider research into the subject futile.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

The way the experience feels may be difficult to communicate. But the neurochemical basis and the psychological effects should be accessible to research. There's no difference between this and the way we study sexuality or language. We might have difficulty getting consensus about how people feel, but that's no reason to consider research into the subject futile.

That's just the mechanism, not the experience itself.