Breaking the Spell - Dennett

[Iacchus]

Dennett as quoted from this page ...

I have absolutely no doubt that the secular and scientific vision is right and deserves to be endorsed by everybody, and as we have seen over the last few thousand years, superstitious and religious doctrines will just have to give way.

Again, does Dennett know something here that the rest of us don't know?

 

[articulett]

Dennett as quoted from this page ...

Again, does Dennett know something here that the rest of us don't know?

Well, I do think his position makes more sense than yours. What sort of god is he supposed to believe in? Whose version, and how should he measure this invisible entity? You might feel strong in your belief, but it isn't based on evidence that anyone can examine. I think it's safe to say you were indoctrinated and you're afraid to examine or lack the skills to examine what god is. I don't think it's arrogant to assume there is a God...I think it's the default for most people raised in our culture--but I do think that believing deeply in such an undefinable, untestable, "magical" entity despite all evidence that increasingly shows how unlikely this all is--I think that's gullible.
I think that if you understand all that has been gathered in reference to DNA and you still buy the presto magico creation story, that's ignorant. Such beliefs might be well intentioned or out of fear or to make you feel good. But why would you consider it arrogant not to believe in a god that you can't define and a god that can't be measured and a god that isn't evident in any except as an explanation to that which religious people don't comprehend?
Whose god should Dennet believe in...and how can anyone make themselves believe in something so nebulous and goofy without incurring brain damage?
What is it you think Dennet should do--believe in YOUR god? I think what Dennet is exploring is how such delusions can get so lodged in the heads of people like you that such people become impervious to logic. What the heck is your god doing for you?

 

[Iacchus]

Well, I do think his position makes more sense than yours. What sort of god is he supposed to believe in? Whose version, and how should he measure this invisible entity? You might feel strong in your belief, but it isn't based on evidence that anyone can examine. I think it's safe to say you were indoctrinated and you're afraid to examine or lack the skills to examine what god is. I don't think it's arrogant to assume there is a God...I think it's the default for most people raised in our culture--but I do think that believing deeply in such an undefinable, untestable, "magical" entity despite all evidence that increasingly shows how unlikely this all is--I think that's gullible.

I have my own means of telling -- and no, it isn't simply a matter of what I've been indoctrinated into -- it's too bad he doesn't.

 

[articulett]

stop the woo woo

I have my own means of telling -- and no, it isn't simply a matter of what I've been indoctrinated into -- it's too bad he doesn't.

Too bad what? He didn't have fairy test sprinkled on him? Too bad that he doesn't have his "own means of telling"--which seems to equate with "deluding himself"?

You want people to give you some sort of respect because you have a magic secret of knowingness that lets you know there is a real god? I don't think Daniel Dennet's book is really for those under the spell of religious delusion...

I hope you are young...and I hope you don't teach public school children...

 

[CFLarsen]

I understand that Dennett would like everyone to believe as he does. If atheism is simply a matter of "lack of belief," then why promote it? Has he actually proven that God does not exist? Whereas what if He does?

I didn't ask what Dennett thinks or does. I asked you.

Do you find them equally arrogant?

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

If you accept the existence of an unvisible even unverified god, for the sake of consistency; you must also accept Professor Bertrand Russell's unvisible unverified teacup too which is alleged to orbiting the planet venus! If you say that I believe in God not the teacup, because he is more likely to exist, then you have made a scientific statement about existence and is on the science turf which require evidence to be believed! If you have no evidence why don't you reject him?

 

[JamesDillon]

(I bet if we just ignore Iacchus, he'll go away and let us discuss what Dennett's book actually says without rehashing the same old theism/atheism discussion that exists on half the threads in this forum).

I would like to address a point that IllegalArgument sort of raised in the opening thread, and that seemed to offend Hal Bidlack at TAM more than it should have. The theory of memetics views all memes as units of culture transmitted among individuals in a pattern analagous to viral DNA. There is nothing pejorative or condescending from the memetic perspective in referring to an individual as "infected" with religion; one could also be "infected" with political liberalism or the English language or any other memeplex, to use Susan Blackmore's helpful term.

On a related note, I just finished Darwin's Dangerous Idea and loved it; the last chapter is a brilliant treatise/manifesto on skepticism and the promise of uplifting human culture through science.

 

[Iacchus]

I didn't ask what Dennett thinks or does. I asked you.

Do you find them equally arrogant?

And what I'm saying is that I happen to find Dennett's views arrogant. If, for whatever reason you happen to agree with them, then I guess that applies to you to.

 

[Iacchus]

(I bet if we just ignore Iacchus, he'll go away and let us discuss what Dennett's book actually says without rehashing the same old theism/atheism discussion that exists on half the threads in this forum).

Go for it. I'm through here.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And what I'm saying is that I happen to find Dennett's views arrogant. If, for whatever reason you happen to agree with them, then I guess that applies to you to.

So, disbelieving in god, in your view, automatically is an arogant view?

 

[CFLarsen]

And what I'm saying is that I happen to find Dennett's views arrogant. If, for whatever reason you happen to agree with them, then I guess that applies to you to.

I didn't ask what you think of Dennett, me or others. I asked if you find them equally arrogant.

Answer the question, Iacchus.

 

[articulett]

(I bet if we just ignore Iacchus, he'll go away and let us discuss what Dennett's book actually says without rehashing the same old theism/atheism discussion that exists on half the threads in this forum).

I would like to address a point that IllegalArgument sort of raised in the opening thread, and that seemed to offend Hal Bidlack at TAM more than it should have. The theory of memetics views all memes as units of culture transmitted among individuals in a pattern analagous to viral DNA. There is nothing pejorative or condescending from the memetic perspective in referring to an individual as "infected" with religion; one could also be "infected" with political liberalism or the English language or any other memeplex, to use Susan Blackmore's helpful term.

On a related note, I just finished Darwin's Dangerous Idea and loved it; the last chapter is a brilliant treatise/manifesto on skepticism and the promise of uplifting human culture through science.

I can understand Hal's upset...I think that the word "infected", like "infested", implies negativity. Maybe injected is better? I think if I was a believer this word would irk me. But Dennett raises a good qustion--why do things get stuck in peoples heads. I read a study that said people are more likely to give credence to something if it rhymes e.g.(more people agree with "early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise" then to the equivalent statement "going to bed early and getting up early is good for you"). (This might be a factor in the "if the glove don't fit" debacle.) Songs get stuck in your head--why would that b?. Fads are memes...ideals...and religions are memes. Commercials hope to inject a meme. And I think it is important to ask why most people through most recorded time on history have God/soul type memes despite a lack of evidence. I think that part of it is because we feel separate from our bodies--like a soul. We feel like we are more than our brains. And evolution has made us into entities very interested in "cause and effect"--superstition is a shortcut--religion is an "explanation" when no other explanation can be found. Plus, once we got to a certain level of intelligent, we humans realized that one day we would (gasp) die. BUT religion promises everlasting comfort and reunion with the dearly departed if you BELIEVE...and bad, horrible, hellish things if you don't. I'd say that's a pretty good incentive plan right there--at least for a kid... Plus, religon is a good way to control people. And it's been referred to as an opiate of the masses. I've religious people presume that because so many people believe in some god, it must be true in some way. But that's clearly a dumb reason in light of the fact that people believed the earth was flat for eons because it sure looked that way. Plus it took a certain degree of scientific knowledge to understand that it was moving even though it felt still and that this movement kept us from falling off and the oceans from spilling out. I think religion also sticks because no one wants to feel like they've invested their hopes, prayers, money, etc. foolishly. There's the Pascal's wager factor. Also, smarter, educatied, atheistic, people produce a much smaller number of children on average. Plus, who doesn't want to be on the all powerful super daddy's good side? Maybe "infused"...would that be less offensive? I think a lot of people believe, because they are trusting, they never thought to question their leaders and they were taught it was arrogant to question God.
If you have a belief in god that you want to hang onto, maybe any words used to turn it into an "unfounded belief" as opposed to a "mystical truth" would be offensive. I suppose people need to believe that they've somehow stumbled upon a special nugget of comforting truth, and they don't want scientists, etc. to take it away... it's a security blanket of sorts.

 

[articulett]

And what I'm saying is that I happen to find Dennett's views arrogant. If, for whatever reason you happen to agree with them, then I guess that applies to you to.

That's okay. I suspect Dennet would find you ignorant, Iacchus. But that's okay too.

 

[JamesDillon]

I can understand Hal's upset...I think that the word "infected", like "infested", implies negativity.

It might be taken to have a negative connotation in common parlance, but my point is that memeticists refer to all memes as infecting agents, so Dennett wasn't picking on religion when he used the term in that way. The problem with changing the terminology to something like "infused" is that it weakens the viral analogy, which I find quite useful in talking about the spread of memes through a population.

But Dennett raises a good qustion--why do things get stuck in peoples heads.

I agree with most of your analysis as to specific reasons why religions proliferate, but I think the answer can be stated more generally: memes evolve adaptations that facilitate their reproduction, just as genes do. From the memetic perspective, "catchiness" of any variety is an adaptation by which the meme increases its chances of reproduction. Susan Blackmore gives a good discussion of this in The Meme Machine.

And I think it is important to ask why most people through most recorded time on history have God/soul type memes despite a lack of evidence.

I'm not sure that belief in God and souls has always been irrational, or lacking evidence. Before Darwin and Newton, for example, it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of the observed universe could have supported belief in a supernatural Creator. At the moment I'm reading Tom Paine's Age of Reason, in which Mr. Paine articulates a stinging rebuttal of Christianity but also argues in favor of deism on the basis of the apparent intelligent design of the universe. I've never read a better piece of critical reasoning, despite the fact that scientific advances over the past 200 years have undermined Paine's argument for deism.

 

[TJ]

I told people repeatedly that if they saw a book, they shouldn't wait to buy it, but get it right away.

We had sold all but 3 copies of "Breaking the Spell" before Dennett gave his talk. He had three other books, and two of them sold out as well.

I bought one! I was sly and had him sign it before his talk. I'm looking forward to reading it, but I haven't yet. Thanks for the review, Illegal.

By the way, did you save a copy of the photos I took of you and Duppy? I was fond of how those turned out.

 

[articulett]

infected, infested, injected, infused, marinated in...

It might be taken to have a negative connotation in common parlance, but my point is that memeticists refer to all memes as infecting agents, so Dennett wasn't picking on religion when he used the term in that way. The problem with changing the terminology to something like "infused" is that it weakens the viral analogy, which I find quite useful in talking about the spread of memes through a population.

I agree with most of your analysis as to specific reasons why religions proliferate, but I think the answer can be stated more generally: memes evolve adaptations that facilitate their reproduction, just as genes do. From the memetic perspective, "catchiness" of any variety is an adaptation by which the meme increases its chances of reproduction. Susan Blackmore gives a good discussion of this in The Meme Machine.

I'm not sure that belief in God and souls has always been irrational, or lacking evidence. Before Darwin and Newton, for example, it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of the observed universe could have supported belief in a supernatural Creator. At the moment I'm reading Tom Paine's Age of Reason, in which Mr. Paine articulates a stinging rebuttal of Christianity but also argues in favor of deism on the basis of the apparent intelligent design of the universe. I've never read a better piece of critical reasoning, despite the fact that scientific advances over the past 200 years have undermined Paine's argument for deism.

I agree with all you've said...I've been comfortable with the idea of memes for some time--Did you ever read "Virus of the Mind" by Richard Brody? But I also really, really like Hal. I just wouldn't want people to avoid exploration of this important topic because they feel defensive. I think memes are a great concept, and a wonderful tool for understanding human culture and the evolution of knowledge. Memes are somewhat akin to the programs, photos, and data you put on a computer--some are great tools...some stuff generates garbage and wastes space (and time) and some stuff is useless or harmful (like computer viruses). They all can spread from one computer to another, on purpose or by accident or as a hijacker. Some stuff spreads because humans find it funny or profound...other stuff spreads because it tricks humans into clicking on something for a "prize"....other stuff spreads through chainmail...some stuff spreads because it works really well at whatever it was designed to do. I think it behooves people to take a look at what data and programs they have in thier brains and get rid of the viruses and spyware and detrimental or useful stuff on occasion, so that the brain functions better--it can do more...faster. Most computers and brains contain a lot of outdated stuff that is no longer useful even though it once may have been. I think that notion might be less threatening to people as they take baby steps away from the indoctrination of their youth. (It's like being afraid that you might delete something really important and vital in your computer overhauling zeal)

Hal responded to the word "infected"...I can see why. It doesn't bother me. I feel like I was "infected" with the "soul/god" meme in my youth (the Catholic strain). But I can see how the word might cause people to close their ears or presume Dennett arrogant--and, thus, miss out on his very thought provoking discussions. I joke that my house is infested with cats (I have 4) and dogs (I have two).

It's easy for many on this board, to perceive religion as a virus type "thought infection"...mostly because we've thought our way over to that notion in a step by step process on our own--we are familiar with the way it tricks a person into fighting for it via the "faith is good" vector...we're "prepared" to add information of this sort to our knowledge. For most people this probably took a lot of time and reading and questioning...plus there was always that threat of hell to contend with--so I try to use gentler words and questions to move people off their comfortable perches if they seem hungry for truth and knowledge. I'll take my truth, hardcore, but I'm willing to sugarcoat it for the more sensitive. My understanding of the world was not an epiphany--more of an evolution. And religion has built in defense memes (e.g. "it's arrogant to question god"), so I have empathy for those taking the first steps. If the goal is to educate rather than inflame, it might be more effective in some people to use a different type of analogy or gentler language. Calling a kid a "baby" might encourage them to take the training wheels off their bike, but there are kinder, equally effective methods, I think. I try to think back to the person I was when I was a believer in assorted supernatural things...and I try to imagine how such statements would make me feel--but I can't remember that person too well. My journey was more private...through reading and posing questions. I was never put in a position where I felt the need to defend my views.