Topic: The Mighty Cop: Daniel Dennett: Breaking the Spell (Read 1393 times)

Copernicus · « **on:** August 18, 2008, 10:45:12 PM »

Daniel Dennett: Breaking the Spell

I am currently working my way through Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. If you are a Christian, you will likely have the same reaction to it that Leon Wiesletier (requires registration), a book critic for the New York Times, does. I have to say that the book that Wiesleter read seems completely different from the one that I am reading. Most of Dennett's book has little to do with Christianity or Christian concepts of God. Rather, it is a study of the phenomenon of religion, and it is based on research that he undertook in support of philosophy classes that he teaches. Unlike Dawkins, in his well-known book The God Delusion, Dennett does not confine himself to an attack on Christian views of God. What has surprised me is that I think Dennett has done a far better job than Dawkins at exploring the evolutionary bases for religion in the human species. Dawkins is the evolutionary biologist, but Dennett seems the more thoughtful and objective evolutionary thinker. Perhaps it is because Dennett is not really engaged in a polemic. That is, while he makes the occasional polemic remark, he is for the most part concerned with just trying to understand what it is about religion that makes it so ubiquitous in human society.

The thing about Dennett's book is that he constantly asks the Latin question "Cui bono?" (To whom is the benefit?). This is the essence of evolutionary thinking, because evolution is design by what Dennett calls "free floating rationales". That is, there is no intentional designer with a rationale. There is just a free-floating benefit to replicators that happen to be lucky enough to be in the right place when the conditions are right. Religion is an expensive form of behavior. It requires people to devote large amounts of their time to maintain and promulgate it. Vast resources are expended to defend various competing religious doctrines. Quite often it leads to strife and warfare, causing members of the species to die off prematurely. So why would it have emerged as such a common form of behavior in human society? To answer the question, Dennett takes the view that there must be some payoff somewhere to make religion such a species-wide phenomenon. What do people get in exchange for all that effort to "keep the faith"?

There is no simple answer to this question, because evolution is always messy. There are usually many factors that come into play to support specific behaviors. Evolution is a "substrateless" phenomenon in that it always requires 3 ingredients: 1) Replication (a copying process), 2) Variation (mutation), and 3) Competition (natural selection). It is not just about DNA and genetics. There may be no single gene that causes humans to be religious, but there is likely a complex of genes that favor the creation and replication of religious "memes" in human society. For example, we are all programmed to believe in and obey authoritative sources of information. Children in particular benefit from this programming, because it favors their survival to take advantage of the experience of more mature members of the species. Ancestor worship is a form of authoritarianism, and ancestor worship seems to form to basis of many religious myths, e.g. the Gilgamesh epic. So these are the kinds of issues that Dennett analyzes and critiques in his very detailed analysis of the ubiquity of religion. I highly recommend this book, but only for people who have the stomache for provocative thinking. Dennett never tries to hide his atheist bias, but he also allows for the possibility that atheism may not be the best answer to our survival as a species.

http://naastika.blogspot.com/2008/08/daniel-dennett-breaking-spell.html

End Bringer · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2008, 11:44:42 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 18, 2008, 10:45:12 PM

I am currently working my way through Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. If you are a Christian, you will likely have the same reaction to it that Leon Wiesletier (requires registration), a book critic for the New York Times, does. I have to say that the book that Wiesleter read seems completely different from the one that I am reading.

That should be nothing new to you given your "anyone can interpret anything from the Bible" arguement. I guess we must then conclude Dennet's book is contradicting and with no coherency, huh?

Of course, Dennet is essentially the same as Dawkin, with simply a different attitude. An adherent to another form of faith and makes his analysis and his line of thinking based on his a priori belief. It even becomes more clear when such titles as Breaking the Spell is put together with such books as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and The End of Faith. One can see a theme here.

Indeed, as Sntjohnny has taken Ragnar to task with his "picking up money and lying about ownership" scenerio, one then really wonders how the Bible's emphasis of not doing what would clearly be to a person's benefit can be reconciled with Dennet's evolutionary thinking. Or how the historocity of religions are to be taken into account (Heaven forbid religion be based on actual events) with such thinking. When one considers the matter from that angle, it's problably for the best Dennet didn't focus on Christianity, as a religion with it's basis in reality, rather than benefit, would be awkward in such a book.

Copernicus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2008, 12:28:36 AM »

EB, only someone as proud in his ignorance and religious dogmatism as you would have the chutspah to criticize a book that you have never read and an author that you know nothing about. Perish the thought that you should ever think to use the brain that you believe your God gave you.

End Bringer · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2008, 12:08:54 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 19, 2008, 12:28:36 AM

EB, only someone as proud in his ignorance and religious dogmatism as you would have the chutspah to criticize a book that you have never read and an author that you know nothing about. Perish the thought that you should ever think to use the brain that you believe your God gave you.

What criticism did I give Dennet's book? The only thing I criticised, other than your loss of rationality when it comes to reading the Bible, was Dennnet's approach to the issue. What does benefit have to do with anything if the events really happened? One can criticize that no matter if one reads a book or not. The rest were simply statements of fact given Dennett is a New Ager along with Dawkins and Harris.

Copernicus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2008, 01:49:11 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on August 19, 2008, 12:08:54 PM

What criticism did I give Dennet's book? The only thing I criticised, other than your loss of rationality when it comes to reading the Bible, was Dennnet's approach to the issue. What does benefit have to do with anything if the events really happened? One can criticize that no matter if one reads a book or not. The rest were simply statements of fact given Dennett is a New Ager along with Dawkins and Harris.

You didn't criticize the book, but you criticized Dennett's "approach" in it. Thanks for clearing that up.

And we can, of course, dismiss everything someone says if we can put a label on that person and heap scorn and contempt on them. Dennett has a wonderful chapter, "Belief in Belief", that discusses the various methods by which people avoid allowing their core beliefs to be challenged. You represent what I would call a textbook case for that chapter.

End Bringer · « **Reply #5 on:** August 19, 2008, 03:09:55 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 19, 2008, 01:49:11 PM

You didn't criticize the book, but you criticized Dennett's "approach" in it. Thanks for clearing that up. And we can, of course, dismiss everything someone says if we can put a label on that person and heap scorn and contempt on them. Dennett has a wonderful chapter, "Belief in Belief", that discusses the various methods by which people avoid allowing their core beliefs to be challenged. You represent what I would call a textbook case for that chapter.

That would be true, if it weren't for the fact that New Age atheism is simply old arguements with a different attitude. If an old arguement has been addressed the first time, one need not give it much consideration another time simply because it's packaged differently. My criticism is no less legitamite however. When one asks "To whom is the benefit?" it is telling that someone already has an answer and is looking for a question, when the real issue is: Is it true or not?

And your comment brings a smile to my face when I think of your attitude to the historocity of Christ, and the counters to evolution as "creationist tripe". I guess when an atheist answers challenges they are being intelligent and rational (no matter how far fetched the answer), but when a Christian answers them they are somehow being threatened.

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2008, 12:15:05 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on August 19, 2008, 03:09:55 PM

And your comment brings a smile to my face when I think of your attitude to the historocity of Christ, and the counters to evolution as "creationist tripe". I guess when an atheist answers challenges they are being intelligent and rational (no matter how far fetched the answer), but when a Christian answers them they are somehow being threatened.

I don't recall ever accusing you or anyone else of "creationist tripe". I think that you are confusing me with one of the other atheists, but I suppose that we all look alike to you.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2008, 11:07:31 AM »

Quote

EB, only someone as proud in his ignorance and religious dogmatism as you would have the chutspah to criticize a book that you have never read and an author that you know nothing about.

I am willing for the moment to accept this statement as true. Check out this thread:
http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,1963.msg38515.html#msg38515

Replies 95-99 I think illustrate the same criticism. I wonder who the culprit is in that case.

Quote

There is no simple answer to this question, because evolution is always messy. There are usually many factors that come into play to support specific behaviors.

Oh dear. It is ok if there isn't a 'simple answer'? A complicated and 'messy' answer isn't so bad, after all? Does anyone else get to acknowledge that things might be 'messy' or is it just you, Cop? What, pray tell, is the difference between 'messy' and 'convoluted'?

Quote

Actually, it's you who need to be making the case for the more convoluted explanation.

See: http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,2854.0.html

If you want more rope to hang yourself, just give me your address, and I'll send you more.

End Bringer · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2008, 11:29:34 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 20, 2008, 12:15:05 AM

I don't recall ever accusing you or anyone else of "creationist tripe". I think that you are confusing me with one of the other atheists, but I suppose that we all look alike to you.

Quote

This guy claims to have an MA, but he is nothing more than a creationist hack without a single scientific publication to his name.

Quote

You ought to actually read the original article instead of anti-evolution screeds on the internet.

Italics mine. It was more a summation of your general attitude on the issue than an actual quote anyway.

Copernicus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2008, 01:15:56 PM »

EB, my comment wasn't meant to deny that I've said bad things about creationism. It was just that you quoted me as using the expression "creationist tripe", which was not an expression that I have ever used. If you want to quote me, then quote me accurately. Don't paraphrase what I said and make it look like I used your words.

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2008, 01:32:58 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 20, 2008, 11:07:31 AM

...Replies 95-99 I think illustrate the same criticism. I wonder who the culprit is in that case.

Boy, you really have a thing for dredging up out-of-context claims about threads that went differently from our different perspectives. From my perspective, you were the culprit in that one. You were critiquing a book you hadn't read on the basis of a very different version that had been written decades earlier. I see nothing hypocritical in my criticism of EB, and I'm happy that you agree with it.

Quote

Oh dear. It is ok if there isn't a 'simple answer'? A complicated and 'messy' answer isn't so bad, after all? Does anyone else get to acknowledge that things might be 'messy' or is it just you, Cop? What, pray tell, is the difference between 'messy' and 'convoluted'?...

And there you go again. You pull something I said in another thread out of context and insert it here to try to show an inconsistency in my statements. My criticism of you there had zero to do with my point in the OP. Apples and oranges. But that's all you've got here--an attempt to discredit statements in the OP by mining other threads for comments made by me elsewhere that you think make me look inconsistent or hypocritical. This kind of attack is easy to make, a common cheap shot in internet debate threads, and it makes no substantive comment on the OP.

Quote

If you want more rope to hang yourself, just give me your address, and I'll send you more.

Hey, man, I understand. You've got an oversupply of the stuff from having been handed so much of it by others. Just use what you've got and don't worry about the excess.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2008, 02:13:23 PM »

"From my perspective, you were the culprit in that one."

Your perspective is in error. :) I wasn't critiquing a book at all. I repeatedly and asked you to reproduce from your book the salient facts and pieces of evidence to support the arguments you were making. Your response was simply to re-submit the book over and over again, When I followed suit by producing a book that presumably countered your book, you summarily dismissed it.

"I see nothing hypocritical in my criticism of EB, and I'm happy that you agree with it."

It surprises me not that you don't see your hypocrisy. However, since you clearly think that you can comment on a book without reading it and not be 'proud of one's ignorance' and a 'religious dogmatist' your accusation doesn't apply to him, either.

"And there you go again. You pull something I said in another thread out of context and insert it here to try to show an inconsistency in my statements."

Try nothing. I nailed you. Again.

"This kind of attack is easy to make, a common cheap shot in internet debate threads, and it makes no substantive comment on the OP."

I wasn't interested in commenting on your OP. I was interested in commenting on your hypocrisy, insolence, and overall inconsistency. I can add to that now your complete inability to notice when you are engaged in such behavior.

"Hey, man, I understand. You've got an oversupply of the stuff from having been handed so much of it by others. Just use what you've got and don't worry about the excess. Wink"

I decided to forgo the rope. Now I'm going to send you a fork so you can keep eating your cake and having it too. :)

Copernicus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 20, 2008, 05:38:46 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 20, 2008, 02:13:23 PM

I wasn't interested in commenting on your OP. I was interested in commenting on your hypocrisy, insolence, and overall inconsistency. I can add to that now your complete inability to notice when you are engaged in such behavior.

Well, that pretty much says it all. You go for an attack on character rather than an issue of substance. This is an election year, so I suppose we Americans are getting reinforced with the idea that character attacks are what pass for acceptable public debate. Mud-slinging reflects more on the slinger than the slingee, and I can add to that your complete inability to notice when you are engaged in such behavior.

End Bringer · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2008, 05:42:00 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 20, 2008, 05:38:46 PM

Well, that pretty much says it all. You go for an attack on character rather than an issue of substance. This is an election year, so I suppose we Americans are getting reinforced with the idea that character attacks are what pass for acceptable public debate. Mud-slinging reflects more on the slinger than the slingee, and I can add to that your complete inability to notice when you are engaged in such behavior.

Would the "only someone as proud in his ignorance and religious dogmatism as you" statement reflect on you then?

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2008, 06:46:19 PM »

EB, I'm sure that we all have many character flaws that we could all spend endless hours pointing out to each other. Such exchanges seldom lead to any useful insights. Let's move on to topics that are more interesting.

End Bringer · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2008, 06:50:30 PM »

But I find your avoidance to admit your own hypocriscy very interesting.

Copernicus · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2008, 08:24:26 PM »

EB, I don't normally admit to that which I don't feel guilty of.

End Bringer · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2008, 08:28:57 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 20, 2008, 08:24:26 PM

EB, I don't normally admit to that which I don't feel guilty of.

And white slave owners didn't feel guilty of suppressing human beings (in truth they felt they were helping them). See how much someone's feelings means to me?

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2008, 11:38:09 PM »

EB, have I ever accused you of caring about anyone else's feelings?

End Bringer · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:45:54 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 20, 2008, 11:38:09 PM

EB, have I ever accused you of caring about anyone else's feelings?

You brandish "feelings" and "conscious" often enough to make it seem evident it's meant to have some significance to readers. In truth I find it's simply a way for you to kid yourself. Man having an endless capacity for self-deception and all.

Author Topic: The Mighty Cop: Daniel Dennett: Breaking the Spell (Read 1393 times)