Dennett on religion

[OK_Computer]

@Phaedrus

If you have even the faintest trace of knowledge of those two religions you’ll realize that Jesus & Mohammed are not held to be the same person. Boy, I bet those involved in the Crusades wouldn’t felt like dummies if they were!

Sure, you can spin fantasies where words and terms don’t ever mean what they mean. But if you create a bizarro world where you can claim your dick is huge, if by huge you mean tiny and enormous are the same, then why bother discussing anything at all?

If all religions are identical but just use different terms, and worship the same entity but don’t know it, at least you could save a lotta time and just stay home and worship the TV.

Doesn’t the Quran (Koran) recognize Jesus Christ as a separate person, doesn’t it recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet?

[Phaedrus]

I hesitate to make a lot of definative statements about Jesus status to Muslims, but yes, that much is true. Many Muslims hold him as a prophet, but a lesser one. Christianity was already roughly six centuries old when Muhammad was born, so it’s pretty obvious that the two aren’t the same person.

One must also mention that to a Christian, Jesus is actually God and is divine. To Muslims he was merely a human prophet second in importance to Muhammad.

[OK_Computer]

@Rounder

http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/07/dan_dennett_on_.html#

Watch the video, unless of course you can’t stand constructive criticism

I look forward to more videos from this guy, or TED conferences in general

[Phaedrus]

Yes, me too. I will look for his book tomorrow.

[Obw]

More of DD along with RD and others:

reitstoen.com/dennett.php

reitstoen.com/dawkins.php

I love the intro to his latest book…

[Obw]

@Phaedrus

Bear in mind, neither Bennet nor I go so far here as to call religion itself evil; he just points out how bad things tend to happen when their original doctrines are perverted by those who do use them to justify evil deeds.

He actually thinks religion is very important right now and he and dawkins always disagree on this point. Dawkins wants it got rid of and Dennet thinks people still need it, and that we shouldnt destroy these illusions just yet.

[Phaedrus]

Yes, that’s pretty much my take on his video. I used to agree with him but events of the last decade make me question the wisdom of keeping it around. To me it’s like the frozen vials of Anthrax & Smallpox we keep around just in case only to see it smuggled out to terrorists. Maybe the benefits are finally starting to be outweighed by the risks.

[jeffl]

@Phaedrus

If you have even the faintest trace of knowledge of those two religions you’ll realize that Jesus & Mohammed are not held to be the same person. Boy, I bet those involved in the Crusades wouldn’t felt like dummies if they were!

Please re-read; i won’t re-state.

Sure, you can spin fantasies where words and terms don’t ever mean what they mean. But if you create a bizarro world where you can claim your dick is huge, if by huge you mean tiny and enormous are the same, then why bother discussing anything at all?

Whhhaaa?? Try diet.

If all religions are identical but just use different terms, and worship the same entity but don’t know it, at least you could save a lotta time and just stay home and worship the TV.

Actually, TV was an integral part of my one week flash.

I’ve said; i’m the luckyest man in the world.

[Phaedrus]

I picked up a few of Dennett’s book today, “Breaking the Spell,” “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” and “Freedom Evolves.” I’m anxious to explore his ideas in greater depth. Thanks again for a great link.

[Tab]

Excellent link. Thanks Rounder. So nice to hear somebody else use the word ‘meme’ without blushing.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Tabula Rasa

Excellent link. Thanks Rounder. So nice to hear somebody else use the word ‘meme’ without blushing.

'Twas quite good.

[jeffl]

@Phaedrus

Denial is an interesting response.

The people who ‘stay’ tend to be those who face the relevant facts. Those who deny the facts ultimately have to ‘move on.’ It’s an evolutionary truth.

If someone uses lies, violence, and the murder of innocents to steal a homeland, it shouldn’t surprise them that they have to endure same to keep it.

I like Dennet’s cow/ant/parasite example better than the cat/mouse/virus example. The question is; how does it relate to the human condition? Dennet’s perspective contains a great deal of forgiveness; the just and continuous evolution of the various social structure are neutered; or are they? Religious structures are neutered, but civil and economic structures persist.

Freedom is a delicate thing; a steering of habit, it has been suggested. Before a habit is discarded, its relationship to life must be thuroughly considered. Thru that, if it proves to be relevant then perhaps it ought to be retained. If it tells you that; well then, that’s just amazing. There is less forgiveness in myown position, than there is in Dennet’s.

[Club29]

@Rounder

@Phaedrus

Wow, thanks for a simply awesome link. I’d really like to hear more from him, and I think I’ll pick up his book. His views echo the sentiments that I’ve formed over years, namely that religion is normal, natural, has a genetic basis and is dangerous. Hard to tell in 1/2 hour, but I think he implied necessary/useful with some dangers.

You are welcome, yes he did imply that it was necessary/useful with some dangers. Phaedrus if you loved that talk I can garuantee you will love the book. Dennett has taken the natural phenomenon explanation to a whole new level. You can almost see how proto religions of some tribes can evolve into the modern branches we have today. Folk religion was like folk physics, both useful for getting around when we had little understanding.

@tfdmissmatch

I do not agree with Dan Dennet’s assessment of the Intelligent Design movement as a hoax. Dennet correctly realizes the elements of intelligent design but incorrectly attributes them to domestication.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Heres the link for the 139 page decision by Judge Jones in the Dover trail. Now remember this Judge is a Bush appointed church going christian. What it says, and what it says with a vengence is that intelligent design is simply religion posing as science. There have been similiar cases, this one was the most hard hitting though due to the judges beliefs.

@tfdmissmatch

I think that intelligent design is evident in the observable universe and that natural, random processes alone are not sufficient explanation for the immense complexity and design which is so apparent.

That quote is intelligent design in a nut shell.

You think that the universe is too complicated, ipso facto there must be a god, and that is religion. Religion has been used to explain what man can’t understand since the dawn of homo sapien. The heavens used to be filled with gods(for some tribes they still are). I don’t want to have a long discussion about this because it will go on indefinitely, but simply not understanding something is not a good reason to posit the existance of a supernatural being, especially when there are other explanations afoot. Such as the natural evolution religion.

@tfdmissmatch

Although Dan Dennet asseverates a mastermind and brilliancy about world religions, he fails to claim any as his own. Dennet professes to be an atheist and to be capable of being a good person. What is the value of a religious belief in the context of evolutionary framework? What is the standard in evolutionary fundamentalism for the determination of what is a ‘good’ person?

This is the worst arguement, and unfortunatelyit keeps cropping up. Bottom line is if you believe in the arguement it works against you.

Line up an atheist, and a christian. They both do a good deed, one because he wants to get into heaven, and that is how he is supposed to act according to written law, the other acts because he wants to be a good person. Who is the more moral man? Slave morality is for cowards, and thieves.

Replying to your last question here. You are ignorant as to what actually gets you to heaven. Good works will not get you heaven…if so there would be no reason to believe in God.

Now if I left that out, and asked which was the better man…well they’re most likely the same. Unless however the atheist really truly cared for a person…but what reason would he have to? We’re all selfish and most of us do good deeds to help ourselves.

The Christian who truly knew what he was doing and knew good works don’t get him to heaven, would be a good man because he’s doing it for God, to please him…So basically you can leave Christian and Atheist out and just simply put it “which man would be morally better, the selfish? or the caring?” And I’m pretty sure you’re smarter enough to answer that for yourself.

[Gobbo]

Unless however the atheist really truly cared for a person…but what reason would he have to? We’re all selfish and most of us do good deeds to help ourselves.

That’s an erroneous statement.

Just because we all are affected by the selfish gene to a degree doesn’t mean an Athiest can’t truly care for someone. That’s absurd.

[thirst4metal]

WTF?

Am I missing something? The whole fucking video the guy was leaving huge gaps in his explanations. He kept saying we could get to this or to that but didn’t actually get there.

-Thirst

[Gobbo]

Am I missing something?

Yep.

Well, at least it made perfect sense to me.

Then again I’m… me.

[thirst4metal]

I should go out and get high then…

-Thirst

[tfdmissmatch]

@thirst4metal

WTF?

Am I missing something? The whole fucking video the guy was leaving huge gaps in his explanations. He kept saying we could get to this or to that but didn’t actually get there.

-Thirst

We are suppost to believe him because he has ‘good’ credentials.

I think you should all watch the video at TED by Rick Warren. Warren also does something similar as Dennet, but it is much more entertaining to watch. Warren isnt as arrogant.

[Club29]

@Old_Gobbo

Unless however the atheist really truly cared for a person…but what reason would he have to? We’re all selfish and most of us do good deeds to help ourselves.

That’s an erroneous statement.

Just because we all are affected by the selfish gene to a degree doesn’t mean an Athiest can’t truly care for someone. That’s absurd.[/quote

How so? If you would read I said but what reason would an atheist have to care? And both Christians and atheist are selfish and most of us “do” good deeds to help ourselves…

Do you still need help comprehending that? I don’t believe I EVER said an atheist couldn’t truly care for someone did I. READ PLEASE.

[Gobbo]

what reason would an atheist have to care?

Their moral code?