1. Comment #428437 by mordacious1 on October 31, 2009 at 1:03 am

"If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well". So that's why most preachers suck at their jobs. Haha

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #428442 by mordacious1 on October 31, 2009 at 1:33 am

This was an excellent talk, which is not unusual for Professor Dennett. (crap, now I'm afraid of making a deepity)

Nice job again, Josh. These lectures posted here don't quite make up for not being able to attend, but they help.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #428447 by prolibertas on October 31, 2009 at 2:18 am

I think Zen in particular is an example of a religion composed almost entirely of deepities, in the form of their 'koans', i.e. 'The boy tried to understand the sound of one hand clapping, until he eventually reached a soundless sound'. This koan says absolutely nothing, but nevertheless it provokes the sense of 'Ahhhh' that they take to be 'transcendent wisdom'. So much for the 'religion of no religion' (Ahhhh...).

Other Comments by prolibertas

4. Comment #428448 by j.mills on October 31, 2009 at 2:39 am

Stops at the very point when he's at his most interesting! Great stuff though, and he's by far the most avuncular horseman. :)

Other Comments by j.mills

5. Comment #428449 by InYourFaceNewYorker on October 31, 2009 at 2:50 am

Great video!

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

6. Comment #428456 by crusader234 on October 31, 2009 at 3:47 am

Fantastic! Dan Dennett is a joy to listen to.
I love that he quoted Andy Goldsworthy, my all time fav sculpure/land artist who inspired my own efforts...



Other Comments by crusader234

7. Comment #428457 by alovrin on October 31, 2009 at 4:11 am

"Philosophical theology is a pseudo sophisticated mugs game
Full of wilful obscurities and wilful use of deepities."



"Just like beetles, or for that matter palm trees. Religions can benefit from adaptations that neither they nor anything else understands. The understanding comes later in the analysis not before in the process of creation."


What a wonderfully funny and concise(as in getting to the heart of a matter) orator Dan Dennett is.
Bravo.

Other Comments by alovrin

8. Comment #428460 by romeo2009 on October 31, 2009 at 4:28 am

Somehow I feel that the word "Deepity" will live and flourish.
Thanks Dennet for the enlightening lecture

Other Comments by romeo2009

9. Comment #428464 by glenister_m on October 31, 2009 at 5:03 am

"If we want to extinguish religion"

Made me immediately think of the movie "Pitch Black" where Vin Diesel's character asks a religious character "How many of your sons have to die before you stop believing in your god?"

Unfortunately for many that would only strengthen their faith as they couldn't handle having to lose it as well.

Other Comments by glenister_m

10. Comment #428470 by Spinoza on October 31, 2009 at 6:17 am

I love how easily he makes Karen Armstrong look silly. Use-mention errors are completely ingrained into English vernacular, and this irks me constantly.

Other Comments by Spinoza

11. Comment #428471 by GOTT MIT UNS on October 31, 2009 at 6:18 am

Great presentation delivered with profound atheist compassion, humanitarianism and - a typical for Dan Dennett's - dry humor.
I would happily adopt him as my granddad.
He is very much a cross between Santa Claus and Charles Darwin.


Dan Dennett's wise words changed my views on militant atheism.

The ordained people/priests/seminarians/"religious professionals" trapped in a religious lie must not be ridiculed or condemned. They need our understanding and support. Of course I have in mind those people who want to be helped.

I hope Herr Ratzinger is watching this video as we speak.

Other Comments by GOTT MIT UNS

12. Comment #428481 by Jos Gibbons on October 31, 2009 at 8:45 am

The great thing about talks by Dan Dennett is that they make original points from which I learn a lot. (Maybe that's my ignorance showing, but I'm grateful to learn whether from him or anyone else.) I appreciate the string theory dig too. Does any rationalist actually defend it? I'm a physics undergraduate who expected to find someone defending it in my university with whom I could discuss it, but I can only find other sceptics, the most humourous exchange being when I was talking to another sceptic and a third sceptic mistook the second sceptic for an advocate and started digging in to him, only to be quickly corrected on his error. I don't know if I'd say string theory is a religion ... yet, but I am fascinated by the shortlist of people who find it somewhat unconvincing.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

13. Comment #428491 by Friend Giskard on October 31, 2009 at 10:14 am

That was brilliant.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

14. Comment #428495 by MMAtheist on October 31, 2009 at 10:59 am

Excellent!

I've waited quite a while now to hear from Dan Dennett again. It's always a treat.

Other Comments by MMAtheist

15. Comment #428497 by stephen.stallebrass on October 31, 2009 at 11:02 am

"Theology, particularly philosophical theology, is a pseudo-sophisticated mugs game full of wilful obscurity and deepities."

EXACTLY! xXx

Other Comments by stephen.stallebrass

16. Comment #428498 by UncleJJ on October 31, 2009 at 11:07 am

Dan is so insightful, I always learn something or gain a new way of looking at an old idea. The book (or was it a report?) that he and the lady interviewer he's co-operating with, are writing will be most illuminating. I have long suspected that many of the clergy don't really believe in all the theological nonsense and I can sympathise with their predicament, trapped by economic and social pressures.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

17. Comment #428503 by GOTT MIT UNS on October 31, 2009 at 12:09 pm

So called theologians and other religious professionals are loosing intellectual and moral battle with 21 century reality and reason...and they know it.

Other Comments by GOTT MIT UNS

18. Comment #428507 by Sally Luxmoore on October 31, 2009 at 12:39 pm

Richard: "I never listen to a talk by Dan Dennett without my mind racing and exulting in the sheer joy of intellectual exercise"

Yes.

Wonderful talk.

Flying Goose - why don't you contact Dan? I think you are one of those who could help in his project - and it might help you too.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

19. Comment #428531 by Follow Peter Egan on October 31, 2009 at 2:23 pm

That was a treat with breakfast. I always like to hear Dan talk, and have been lucky enough to see him in person. I understand his ideas much more in lecture form, as, whilst I enjoyed Breaking the Spell, I found Darwin's Dangerous Idea quite difficult to follow and a bit of a slog.

I've studied the history of Christianity myself, and though I was already an atheist by then, it's hard to imagine anybody could still believe after they know how cobbled together over hundreds of years the whole thing is.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

20. Comment #428546 by nother person on October 31, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Let me add my voice to those celebrating Dan’s excellent talk. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

But having said that (and meaning it sincerely!) and after thinking over his talk, it occurs to me that what he is talking about is a special case of a general rule. That is, many different kinds of employees find themselves in this very same trap for these very same reasons. It is glaringly absurd when the company’s product is belief, for one of the sales team or one of the production crew to not believe in their product, but when the product is, say, auto transmissions, we don’t think twice about it. No one would bother to remark that Joe six pack feels stuck in his job due to considerations of his family and finances. And no one thinks twice about whether Joe believes in the work he does or not. Belief is not a requisite for working in any field, except the belief that the paycheck will come at the end of the week. Why should religion be an exception?

Those who focus their criticism only on religion may not care about the larger lesson here. But to me, it seems there is an implied indictment of the general culture in Dan’s talk, whether he intended it or not.

[edit for grammar]

Other Comments by nother person

21. Comment #428554 by kederer on October 31, 2009 at 4:11 pm

nother person, I'll try and explain the difference between Joe six pack and a preacher.

Joe isn't supposed to set an example of actually doing what he preaches (sells), nobody is expecting Joe to use the auto transmission he's selling, but everybody is expecting that a preacher will believe in God and the tenets of religion that he preaches (sells) to his audience.

I really think that a *lot* of priests don't truly and literally believe what they preach during sermons.

Other Comments by kederer

22. Comment #428556 by A on October 31, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Richard seemed very strident at the start of the video, or loud, or something - I am easily confused.

By the way Josh . . . . great video, nice grading, the yellow wash is gone !!!

:)

Other Comments by A

23. Comment #428557 by SaintStephen on October 31, 2009 at 4:14 pm

Corollary to the Panikkar Conjecture:

Buggering altar boys is so great that the greatness precludes existence.

-or my personal favorite-

Monogamy is so great that the greatness precludes existence.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

24. Comment #428562 by Sonic on October 31, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Spinoza, thank you, I didn’t know there was a name for this until right now -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction

It seems to me that “use-mention error” or “UME” is a basic thing people should be taught to be aware of as citizens in a democracy. I would love to live in a democracy where one politician could point out another politician’s use-mention error, and we could expect the public to follow what this means. Maybe that’s too much to ask, but I wish my public education here in the US had made UME explicitly clear as a phenomenon I should watch out for.

One of my favorite things in the book Your Religion Is False is

Chapter 3. A few words about religious language
Partly to defray criticism, and partly to mislead potential believers, religions routinely twist language to the point of incomprehension. . . . In fact, pretty much all religions use euphemisms to disguise claims and practices that everyone would consider outrageous if only we called them by their descriptive names. As you read through this book, never forget that each religion re-appropriates words to mean whatever it finds most convenient. If something doesn’t make sense, that’s probably why (as opposed to any fault of the author [Joel Grus]).

Incidentally, I typed “Karen Armstrong” plus “use mention” into Google, and Google returned your post from this thread from about 10 hours ago at the top of the list. Freaky!

Other Comments by Sonic

25. Comment #428571 by nother person on October 31, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Kederer, thanks. You make an interesting point. Are you saying that Joe is not expected to have integrity but preachers are? I think it is the expectation that preachers are supposed to have integrity that highlights the absurdity of non-believing preachers. And Dan did include in his description of the trap a bit about not disappointing people (who are expecting you to have integrity) which creates a double bind in which you opt for the appearance of integrity over the real thing because to actually have integrity requires you to admit that you don’t... : )

The point I was trying to make is, why is it not important for Joe to have integrity? Why do we value it for some people but not for others? Why do we think preachers ought to have it, but it’s optional for Joe? Why is it OK for Joe to sell something he doesn’t believe in and doesn’t use?

Other Comments by nother person

26. Comment #428593 by the great teapot on October 31, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Philosophers should spend less time thinking and more time ironing new shirts.

Other Comments by the great teapot

27. Comment #428601 by the great teapot on October 31, 2009 at 6:41 pm

Dan Dennett isn't really a philosopher.
He just talks common sense.
real philosophers are normally french or german and speculate on the nature of being offering only pompous half baked opinions

Other Comments by the great teapot

28. Comment #428642 by DarwinsDad on November 1, 2009 at 12:09 am

IMHO coining the phrase 'deepity' deserves an 'Emperor Has No Clothes' award. Hope that Dan will soon come forward with the name of his friends' daughter so someone can suggest her.

Other Comments by DarwinsDad

29. Comment #428655 by j.mills on November 1, 2009 at 2:29 am

nother person asks:

Why is it OK for Joe to sell something he doesn’t believe in and doesn’t use?

As a first run at it, I would say that what the preacher is selling is belief itself. Somebody can sell you a car, with both you and the salesman understanding that it's your decision and your assessment that finally counts. But it makes no sense for an overt atheist, for instance, to try to convert somebody to christianity. The car salesman can say, "You should buy this one because it meets your needs." But that line doesn't work for religion, because the only reason to buy one religion over another is that it is true. So if the salesman himself doesn't believe it's true (or profess to) - no sale.

But you have raised an interesting question...

Other Comments by j.mills

30. Comment #428658 by cornbread_r2 on November 1, 2009 at 2:50 am

Thanks to RD net for making this available!

My brother is a Roman Catholic priest and my sister is a nun. We used to discuss religion and theology, but the more I learn about both subjects (thanks to this and other sites) the less inclined they are to engage me. The looks on their faces, like the look on George Coyne's face during the referenced RD interview, tells me that I'm touching philosophical nerves that they would prefer to remain permanently anesthetized.

Also, I'm fairly certain that they would continue to function as clerics even if they stopped believing in God for the simple reason that belief in prayer and an after-life brings comfort and hope to the people occupying the pews. I'm not saying that such intellectual dishonesty would be right, I'm just saying that it would be terribly difficult to tell a dying woman, for instance, that the baby Jebus probably wasn't really waiting to reward her for a lifetime of self-sacrifice and devotion.

Other Comments by cornbread_r2

31. Comment #428659 by Quine on November 1, 2009 at 3:05 am

Why is it OK for Joe to sell something he doesn’t believe in and doesn’t use?

OK or not they are going to continue to do so as long they can, and they can because it is considered insulting to walk up and ask if it is true. I hope Dan can get this study published to wide enough media such that many others write about it. When the faithful find out that their clergy are holding back on them, some will start asking about it, and the jig will be up.

Other Comments by Quine

32. Comment #428662 by j.mills on November 1, 2009 at 3:40 am

cornbread_r2 said:

I'm just saying that it would be terribly difficult to tell a dying woman, for instance, that the baby Jebus probably wasn't really waiting to reward her for a lifetime of self-sacrifice and devotion.

Well, as soon as a preacher comes out as an atheist, s/he ain't gonna be a-preachin' no more. So s/he won't be in the position of telling the dying woman anything at all; it will be somebody else's job. Surely your clerical siblings, on achieving atheism, would recognise that they weren't the best people for that particular job anymore?

Other Comments by j.mills

33. Comment #428665 by cornbread_r2 on November 1, 2009 at 4:48 am

j. mills:

I wasn't referring to them publicly coming out as atheists. But I do think it's possible to entertain serious personal doubts about God while still seeing, and even delivering, the benefits belief in belief brings to the typical church goer, e.g. Mother Theresa. If my mother was dying (and didn't know that I was an atheist) I'd be very hard-pressed not to sit there respectfully while she plied her rosary beads and checked out in peace.

Other Comments by cornbread_r2

34. Comment #428667 by GOTT MIT UNS on November 1, 2009 at 5:15 am

Guys,

Please, do not compare car salesmen with "religious professionals".
At least car dealers sell you a concrete product, which you can test drive before you buy it...


Priests could be compared to crooked travel agents/holiday planners who sell you a promise of eternal, celestial vacation .
Well... people still buy it.

Other Comments by GOTT MIT UNS

35. Comment #428669 by Akaei on November 1, 2009 at 5:31 am

"god is being itself"
"...existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their god..."
"god is so great that the greatness precludes existence."

I feel compelled to play devil's advocate here (or god's, assuming there's a difference). If the knowable universe, the aftermath of the big bang, the space/time that is our home, is only a portion of something greater, then things "outside" our space/time might not be limited to (or even fall within) the concept of existence.

The limits of language make it difficult to justify this argument but if something exists or might exist outside our universe (P-branes for example) they don't exist in our universe and could be said not to exist. If god exists (existed) outside our universe (a requirement, I think, to have created our universe) then the elements of matter, energy and dimensionality that we require to define "existence" probably would not apply. Or if our space/time universe is merely an aspect of an entity of which (and within which) our universe was created, then can the aspects of that entity that permeate but are not limited to our universe be described as existing or are those intangible aspects undeserving of the terms like "exists" or "is."

Using a very loose, general definition of "existence" a god (or gods) quite clearly either exists or doesn’t. In this sense god is real, true and factual or god is imaginary, false and fictional. But given (1) the criteria we use to determine the existence, the reality, of everything else in our universe, (2) the metaphysical nature of god that makes the hypothesis of god untestable and (3) the minimum qualifications/specifications of an entity capable of "creating" our space/time matter/energy universe, it seems unlikely that such an entity, as a whole, could be described as "existent" using the same metrics we would use to classify anything else of/within our universe as "existent."

As for the quotes above, it is easy to discard them as cop out rationalizations or forms of deepities (deepitys?). And my arguments look very much like special case pleading. But if there are "things" or "entities" "outside" space/time I would not anticipate them conforming to our expectations of measurable "existence."

I feel obligated to point out I am not a theist, deist or agnostic. I realize as an atheist I'm taking the wrong side of the argument. And I may be subjecting myself to some form of cognitive dissonance. But given my limited understanding of cosmology, if there is a god (and I have no reason to conclude or suspect there is) the quotes at the beginning of this post may contain more sense than nonsense.

Other Comments by Akaei

36. Comment #428684 by ridelo on November 1, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Brilliant!

Other Comments by ridelo

37. Comment #428688 by Ballardian on November 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

'I think that theology and particularly philosophical theology is a pseudo-sophisticated mugs game... willful obscurity and I think willful use of deepities. So instead what we should think about is the evolution of the God meme.'

To me there is no advance here. He was doing so well before he completely contradicted his previous argument by talking about a made up, unscientific concept that is at least as fictional as the concept of God. He poked fun at someone writing a book on the evolution of God, but feels it's okay to talk about the evolution of a God meme. They are both equally meaningless. By his own logic, he should only ever use the word meme within quotation marks, or at least explain he is talking about the concept of the meme, and not the meme itself, which is as real as the Easter Bunny.

He made some good points before that, but I think he is very inconsistent when it comes to memes. They do have some value as an idea, but when one makes a living out of attacking the irrational and championing the scientific, it's probably not best to rely so heavily on what is essentially a half-hearted, explain-all concept with no scientific value.

Other Comments by Ballardian

38. Comment #428692 by HappyPrimate on November 1, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Fabulous talk. I remember a cousin of mine, years ago, attended a catholic seminary only to leave it before the end of the first term. He was totally disgusted with it. The behavior of his fellow students as well as the instructors was shocking to him. He left religion completely upon learning what was behind it. If only more average folks could be exposed to the deceptions. Sort of like exposing how a magic trick is done. It doesn't seem like magic any longer, just a silly trick.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

39. Comment #428694 by SaintStephen on November 1, 2009 at 3:29 pm

35. Comment #428669 by Akaei on November 1, 2009 at 5:31 am

The limits of language make it difficult to justify this argument but if something exists or might exist outside our universe (P-branes for example) they don't exist in our universe and could be said not to exist...

Comment ranked as Excellent.

An admirable, pseudo-scientific stab at a topic that literally defies description – by your own admission, no less. I was tempted to respond with with my usual wackiness, because you left the Humor-Door (humidor?) wide open with your mention of “P-branes” not existing in our universe. Something on the order of

Pea brains most certainly exist in our universe, Sir. By the millions.

But if there are "things" or "entities" "outside" space/time I would not anticipate them conforming to our expectations of measurable "existence".

Why I have trouble with this “inside” versus “outside” stuff, is because it appears to be an infinite loop. When an observer or entity is “outside” of another object, my human brain automatically wonders Well ok, then what’s outside of the outside observer? And when you get that one rumbled, tell me next what’s outside of “it”.

It’s a never-ending regress of questions that proves my pea brain exists, that’s for certain. Thanks for bending it a little bit this morning. A nice, spacey Sunday sermon.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

40. Comment #428695 by Ruggles on November 1, 2009 at 3:41 pm

I agree with much in Dennett’s presentation and I welcome his kind and sympathetic appeal towards practicing clergy who are no longer able to maintain a literal belief in what they profess. However, while I think he is right to identify God as a concept, I don’t think that means that this concept is unworthy of study. Indeed, I think that as Gods are concepts that gather together the values and beliefs of a culture, this makes these concepts fertile ground for those who wish to understand something of human values or wish to see how different cultures have come to understand and give meaning to the human condition. These meanings usually take a narrative form, with a Christian narrative holding ascendancy in the West. This narrative should be allowed to change with the changing beliefs and values of cultures.

Literally vs. Literarily:

Continental theologians explore these narratives in a literary and poetic way. Some people find it gives their lives rich meaning to submit to the "play" of Christianity in a similar (but longer lasting) way to that in which players submit to playing Shakespeare, or players submit to playing a game of football. That is: they abandon their individuality to the structure of the play (“there is no I in team”). Fundamentalists and literalists do not understand the play and believe the concepts are real. These are the kind of people that believe pro wrestlers really do hate each other, and are in fear for their favourite athlete, or are football hooligans believing that there is a qualitative difference between humans in a red shirt and humans in a blue. They raise their children to believe the play is literal and put the fear of good literature into them every Sunday.

I am doctoral student of English and I teach English and Philosophy at a top research department. In many ways I might pass for an atheist but I do find this poetic and literary exploration of Christian mythology to be interesting. A great deal of subtle and poetic thought has come from European theology over the last 200 years. I think that theology should be a literary, interpretive discourse and I believe that it offers literary and poetic insight into human values and the human condition. I disagree with Dennett that one can get away with a priori rejecting the need to read theological texts before criticising them, and I urge those interested to read something like Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method as a starting point.

I think a lot of hostility towards theology comes from the fact that it is conflated with apologetics. I think analytic philosophers, like Dennett, and scientific rationalists, like Dawkins, become understandably aggrieved with what they call “sophisticated” theology because they think it claims to be understood scientifically, or literally. It is telling, for example, that Dennett identifies “use mention errors” in such discourse. To me, that’s rather like going through Joyce, Pound and Eliot and scribbling “UME” in the margin every time they talk about God and then grandstanding about how you’ve “really showed up the deepities” of those stupid people in the literature department.

Another concern, I think, is departmental funding. I suspect that if theology departments were amalgamated with English, History and Philosophy departments there would be less hostility towards those working in this field.

Finally, it may be the case that the literal mindedness of fundamental Christianity means that any attempt to work poetically with this mythology risks attracting more people to the Hell Industry, which I don’t doubt has many living in fear, wrecking their lives with self-loathing and paralysing guilt. I understand that argument. However, I think that literary theologians are actually “detoxifying” this kind of religion by moving it away from rabid fanaticism and declarative intransigence. Indeed, the entire thrust of modern hermeneutics is to promote restrained dialogue by understanding the Other (culture, person, argument, viewpoint) in accordance with its context (location, background and tradition), and your own interpretive horizon. It is certainly not a scientific approach, but I do believe it is an important one, and maybe even essential for human relations and understanding.

Other Comments by Ruggles

41. Comment #428701 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2009 at 3:57 pm

More Dennett fun.

I wonder if any of those clergy view themselves as sorts of double agents? Not so much pro atheist, but rather anti bad religion, i.e. anything beyond Love 'n' Niceness. They stay put to see it transformed (or eviscerated as true believers would have it). I suspect many would be happiest to move into charity and counseling work if push came to shove. Can't wait for the paper.

It struck me that these people would like their Holy Books provided in the age of Twitter. No chance for dangerous dogma then. (Well you wouldn't headline the hatred stuff, would you? Or, "You're all fucked. Now get down and give me twenty.") You'd take your PR's advice and have something snappy and approachable... "God is Love. Yay for Love!" Holidays could still be pretty grim though-

(right imagine a link here to the Love Day celebrations in Simpsons S09 E22 "Trash of the Titans" Bloody miserable Fox!)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

42. Comment #428702 by SaintStephen on November 1, 2009 at 4:00 pm

37. Comment #428688 by Ballardian on November 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

He made some good points before that, but I think he is very inconsistent when it comes to memes. They do have some value as an idea, but when one makes a living out of attacking the irrational and championing the scientific, it's probably not best to rely so heavily on what is essentially a half-hearted, explain-all concept with no scientific value.

The scientific value of memes will most likely become evident when brain-scanning technology improves to the point, a few decades from now, where real-time data can be taken, from billions of channels simultaneously if necessary, to observe clearly the patterns of neuronal and synaptic activity that result when people think about things.

Memes are these patterns.

According to Ray Kurzweil and others, the brain is a massively parallel pattern-recognition machine, not unlike an extremely advanced computer. The DNA that encodes brain structure is apparently simple, and the brain grows in a fractal manner, like many plants, to become more complex. I wouldn’t be so hasty, Ballardian, to assume that directly observing memetic-type behavior in the brain is not merely a function of being able to adequately and scientifically observe this behavior.

(Did that last sentence make sense? Yes, I think so. Better sensors = better data = better science.)

Other Comments by SaintStephen

43. Comment #428703 by alovrin on November 1, 2009 at 4:03 pm

However, I think that literary theologians are actually “detoxifying” this kind of religion by moving it away from rabid fanaticism and declarative intransigence. Indeed, the entire thrust of modern hermeneutics is to promote restrained dialogue by understanding the Other (culture, person, argument, viewpoint) in accordance with its context (location, background and tradition), and your own interpretive horizon.

I guess its kinda like trying to neuter a tomcat by telling it doesnt have to spray in every corner of the house.
Hey I'm all for respectful and restrained dialogue, it probably works up there in Vermont.
Waziristan might be a different story.

Other Comments by alovrin

44. Comment #428704 by TCM on November 1, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Really good talk, but it occured to me that we have no way of knowing whether the interviews are real or just completely made up, since they are annonymous. I'm not being a conspiracy theorist, but I wonder how they'll write a paper on it given that it's not really scientific evidence.

[memes] do have some value as an idea, but when one makes a living out of attacking the irrational and championing the scientific, it's probably not best to rely so heavily on what is essentially a half-hearted, explain-all concept with no scientific value.

They're not a well-defined scientific concept, but it's a useful word. We all accept it to mean something roughly like "an idea which spreads from person to person in proportion to how appealing it is" and that's a useful thing to be able to express. He doesn't use it in nearly as precise a way as one would use the word 'gene' because he recognises that it's not as well-defined.

Other Comments by TCM

45. Comment #428711 by Mark Smith on November 1, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Really excellent talk. One element I felt he missed at the start though was the 'non-rational' reasons why the atheist preachers might stay where they are. Once people commit themselves to a particular group, their biology pressures them to remain with that group, and even when after a time they no longer share the same beliefs, they have a loyalty that is hard to shake. Feelings of guilt and fear reinforce the desire to stay in the group. At least that was part of my experience when giving up Christianity.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

46. Comment #428714 by Mark Smith on November 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Ruggles
It seems likely to me that what is of value in the writings of people like Gadamer is the philosophy. I suspect those things can be said without any theological 'axioms' and would be more clearly said without them. (Disclaimer: I've not read Gadamer, but have read some continental theologians.)

Other Comments by Mark Smith

47. Comment #428730 by Mark Smith on November 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Ballardian

unscientific concept that is at least as fictional as the concept of God.

You've made precisely the mistake he was highlighting: the concept of God is not fictional (whereas God is).

He poked fun at someone writing a book on the evolution of God

No. He poked fun at someone who made out that writing about the evolution of the God-concept was the same as writing about the evolution of God. You appear to have misunderstood Dennett's argument which has led to you critiquing what you thought he said, not what he actually said.

but feels it's okay to talk about the evolution of a God meme. They are both equally meaningless.

'The God meme' is not meaningless. Memetics is a fairly well-defined hypothesis. It may be incorrect, but it is not meaningless.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

48. Comment #428739 by j.mills on November 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Akaei (#35):

But if there are "things" or "entities" "outside" space/time I would not anticipate them conforming to our expectations of measurable "existence."

All you've done is restrict the meaning of the word "existence" to those things accessible to our detection methods. Who uses the word that way? You're holding out (albeit hypothetically) for a god that exists, yet can never be proven to exist. Big deal: that's a very different thing from a god that doesn't exist at all.

Ballardian (#37):

He was doing so well before he completely contradicted his previous argument by talking about a made up, unscientific concept that is at least as fictional as the concept of God.

"At least as fictional"? Are there degrees of fictionality then? Can a god half-exist?

Dennett uses "meme" as a shorthand for an idea that spreads from mind to mind, whose success at spreading may be unrelated to its utility (as is obviously the case with an advertising jingle, for instance). There's nothing remotely controversial in that. He devotes an appendix of Breaking The Spell to a clear explanation of the careful way he uses the term. If you're going to object to it, be specific in your objection.

Other Comments by j.mills

49. Comment #428740 by j.mills on November 1, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Ruggles (#40):

this makes these concepts furtive ground for those who wish to understand something of human values

I am doctoral student of English and I teach English and Philosophy at a top research department.

...which is worrying for somebody who uses "furtive" when he appears to mean "fertile"... :)

More to the point:

Some people find it gives their lives rich meaning to submit to the "play" of Christianity in a similar (but longer lasting) way to that in which players submit to playing Shakespeare, or players submit to playing a game of football. That is: they abandon their individuality to the structure of the play (“there is no I in team”). Fundamentalists and literalists do not understand the play and believe the concepts are real.

Are you saying that the first group don't actually believe there are gods? (In which case why call them christians?) And that the second group are foolish to do so, even though that's exactly what their scripture says?

'Playing' inside a mythology is arguably what Trekkies do. But they don't believe the mythology. They do not respond to real-world crises by asking Scotty to beam them up. Theists, on the other hand, take actions, from prayer through to 9/11, that are prompted by the belief that their mythologies are real. This distinction can't be brushed under the rug.

If a piece of theology isn't about real gods, then gods are superfluous to it: any insights it may contain must belong under other branches of thought, like psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. If it IS about real gods, it remains forever provisional, pending evidence of not just gods but the particular gods in question.

Other Comments by j.mills

50. Comment #428747 by Ruggles on November 1, 2009 at 7:49 pm

"...which is worrying for somebody who uses "furtive" when he appears to mean "fertile"... :)"

I often do things like that. I think I may be very mildly dyslexic. I've never been able to spell very well and I sometimes confuse words with one another. It's one of the things that stops me being much of a writer.

As to your second point, I think that when people are bound up in play - whether it be football, Shakespeare, or Star Trek - the faculty of judgement is suspended such that no conscious decision is made regarding the reality of the play (In a certain sense, a game of football plays the players). It's like Coleridge said: when we are dreaming we are not in state to judge the reality of the dream. A good novel functions similarly. Even though we know the characters are not real, this knowledge is suspended while we become emotionally invested with their struggles. "Suspension of disbelief" is the mechanism for all artistic cathexis.

I think you see this in Richard's interview with father Coyne.

I agree that theology should be studied under the name of other disciplines, but it remains distinct from historical and scientific approaches where it opens up the mythology of religion to literary and poetic discourse. Theology is never satisfying where it moves by declaration.

Other Comments by Ruggles