http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/07/dan_dennett_on_.html#
Watch the video, unless of course you can’t stand constructive criticism
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.
How many civilizations or cultures in our recorded history do we know about that don’t have some sort of belief in the supernatural? It does seem hardwired into our species. I, too, see an unseen hand at work planting this seed in us; like him, I don’t see it being God but natural selection.
Again, a fascinating video.
I too would like to thank you for that video.
I agree with Dan Dennet’s ideas about education. Dennet recognizes the signifigancy of religion and notes that it is more or less a product of intelligent design. He advocates a system of education for the public schools and schooling in general that would teach only the facts of every religion - the belief system of the world religions. I am a Christian, but I agree that one should make an informed decision about one’s worldview. I do not support the brainwashing that is so common within the Christian community. I think it is the parents job to be a steward of their children. I think that the parents should emphatically support their particular religious/atheist worldview to their children. In addition, I would also support a general religious education as I believe that it is possible to gain valuable insights from other religions (unlike many of my ‘Christian’ peers.)
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. 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.
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?
I want to thank you for that amazing link as well. Great insight into some very reasonable ideas, that I too, agree should be applied to current educational outlets for our up and coming generation.
I don’t hold faith or belief in any of the major organized world religions, or the basic premise of their ideas (which are typically associated with Monotheism), but based on the fact that religion is reflected by belief, and I am not of Theist belief, I believe that chaotic processes can be attributed to the formation of our current existence (which I could expound upon my reasoning for such beliefs if anyone feel it necessary or interesting).
To try to give a rebuttal to your last sentences tfdmissmatch, I think Dan was trying to assert that most religious beliefs don’t have to be employed within the evolutionary framework, due to the nature of such. Beliefs of events are typically associated with religion (derivatives of each other, in essence); The Big Bang Theory doesn’t fit with Christianity, Christianity doesn’t fit well with Evolutionism, and if Intelligent Design is taught along with Evolutionism, no interference occurs. With that said, it doesn’t affect his ideal to employ facts of all religions, especially if they are just that, facts, nothing more.
I think the best definition I’ve came upon that will cover the definition of a ‘good’ person, and not conflict with the majority of the world religions, is summed up in the following:
“Do nothing to halt or slow down the evolution, facilitation, and benefit of the human condition of others.”
This encompasses the basic ideas of most religions (and is surprisingly similar to the Christian rule ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’). If one murders another, this halts the facilitation and evolution of the human condition by taking ones life, the reverse of ‘helping’, which is considered ‘good’. Theft, certainly not benefitting the person whom experienced the theft. This can be said about any of the crimes that come to mind, and would react accordingly. The worse the halting of human evolution/facilitation/benefaction, the worse the penalty (ten years in jail for theft and two months for murder obviously don’t sound right, which makes this rule all the more useful and logical with this rule).
The only problem with such a rule is the potential arguments it could create which conflict with our current system. Drugs for instance would be useable as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the freedoms of others. Which would create, as you can understand, much controversy.
Changing the rules of how religion is used in the educational system is to ultimately change the rules of the country. Monotheistic beliefs have influenced the rules of the country quite a lot; we didn’t get God out of state affairs until, what, a couple years ago (one nation, under , with liberty and justice for all)? And I doubt you still put your hand on a Bible to swear the whole truth in court. Things change with mass beliefs, and this would profoundly impact our country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Phadreus quote - His [Ted’s] views echo the sentiments that I’ve formed over years, namely that religion is normal, natural, has a genetic basis and is dangerous
Huh? Which part of the following is dangerous? I’m sure we’d like to hear your answer 
Jesus said - "Hungry and you fed me,
Thirsty and you gave me drink,
A stranger and you took me in,
Naked and you clothed me,
ill and you tended me,
In prison and you visited me.
When you did this to others,
you did it to me"(Matt ch 25)
it’s not religion that’s dangerous… well, not ONLY religion. It’s any idealogy. Any idealogy can be dangerous, in fact most are, because they all are based on someone else’s truth, which for most of us is a lie.
Thanks for an informative link, Rounder.
I did a philosophy of mind course back in the late 80’s, and The Mind’s I was one of the texts we used.
That Dennet acknowledges Truth is good; and if God claims chance as an aspect of His voice, then i’d say it’s a done deal.
Sadly, Mick, religions aren’t just their pretty platitudes and noble aspirations. They’re also the assholes who follow them. It’s not just helping the meek, loving your neighbor and donating to the poor, it’s also beating your fellow man to death for being a “faggot,” denying women basic human rights and stoning them for committing adultery.
Religions aren’t musty books, they’re living institutions made up of deeply flawed human beings. Their basic idealogies may be good, but sadly, like most human institutions, they work better in theory than in practice.
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.
Btw, don’t worry Mick- it’s the other guys religions that are dangerous.
Their is no perversion, the original doctrine was perverted.
You’re saying the doctrines of all religions were originally perverted? That seems pretty unlikely given the thousands if not millions of religions that have ever existed.
Education about all religion being standardized is an excellent idea.
It’d give insight into the mentality and the “spirit” of many nations, if they tought it with insight.
I’m a little dubious of his suggestion. Not that it’s a flatly terrible idea, I just have a few reservations about it:
-
Is it the best use of limited resources? With education costs increasing and test scores falling (supposedly), is the best response to shift time & money away from math and the sciences towards the study of religion? We can only accomplish so much in the space we’re given, and I wonder if thisis the best use of our system.
-
Is it legal? I’m of the opinion that the modern, superseparation of church and state is an intellectual and social fiction, but some question remains in my mind as to whether the courts would rule this constitional. Ironically, the people who’d probably see their agenda advanced the most are the first that would cry foul- atheists.
-
Who would decide the facts? Some bits of info are probably pretty standardized, but some would be very controversial. And which religions would be included? I have a hard time believing we could cover them all, even if we curtailed language education and the arts.
If these issues could be addressed to my satisfaction I’d be all for his proposal. As it is I think it has some merit.
His analogy…
A parasite which invokes suicidal submission.
Dennet has a hidden motive, as he speeks, and I see it clear-as-daylight.
[size=75][I also saw the hidden movites in the addvert, after the video.][/size]
Once children see that most religions claim to be perfectly right, and they see the same-old-game in all of its many forms, they will be far less enchanted by it.
That’s precisely why atheists should be clamoring for this, as I mentioned in #2 above. Once you see that all religions have very similar but incompatible assertions about the nature of God, and that all claim to be the only correct one, those claims to absolute truth begin to look dubious. As theys should.
Off the top of my head, i can’t think of any that are as you suggest.
Any references?
Sure. Allah is the true God and Mohammed is his prophet. But the only way to God is thru Christ. Since those two pretty clearly aren’t the same person, we have a problem- at least of them must be wrong.
Or some very different & incompatible ideas… How 'bout this one: we’re born once, die once, and once are judged. Or we’re reincarnated again and again until we quench the flames of wanting.
Not if Allah and Christ are ultimately the same guy. As long as Mohammed is a prophet, and he looks like one to me (i’ll admit there’s quite a distance between us 
), there isn’t an issue.
Different audiences, maybe? Or maybe we’re reincarnated but our memories aren’t; so if you look at it from the perspective of perspective, you’re born once and die once, etc.
My point is only that it’s easy to divide them; the challenge is putting them back together.
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.