Comments by Sturmunddrang

Comment #136296 by Sturmunddrang on February 29, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Dr. Dawkins seemed to mess things up when the host mentioned that so many people believing that the world is only 6000 years old is a flaw of the educational system. It is NOT a flaw of the education system. It is a result of religious indoctrination. I thought this was so obvious and Dr. Dawkins should have pointed it out. The question is, where did this belief that the world is only 6000 years old COME FROM? It came from religious thinking and religious people. To blame our education system is just dishonest, ignorant and ridiculous.

52. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #132139 by Sturmunddrang on February 24, 2008 at 9:41 am

Whodatninja,

you said: "I've been going back through and watching some of the debates posted on this site, and Harris certainly seems to be the most poised of the bunch. My response to many of Wolpe's claims would have been snarky (and quite true) a la Hitchens, but Harris' quiet approach here is masterful.

On the other hand, you can't beat Hitch when it comes to pure entertainment..."

I think you summed it up nicely. I think very similar things about the debates. I think that I would also add that one could say Sam Harris, in the way he speaks/presents himself, is probably the best example of "reasonableness" out of all of the debaters we have seen on this site.

53. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #125035 by Sturmunddrang on February 10, 2008 at 6:55 pm

"Wow! now you have me interested! Excellent stuff! My question here is: When I feel pain, I think "ow! why did I feel that pain? What it is about me that gets me into these painful situations". A monkey just thinks "Ow, what gave me that pain?" (is that right?) Agency is a big part of our mindset and it makes our thoughts fabulous. Without that, I think people would soon forget about getting raped or beaten without too much anguish."

I mean, I should say that I see it as a tool to help with suffering. Obviously, even with mindfulness, one is encouraged to avoid physical pain. It's partly a matter of what we can and cannot control. If I get cancer and I am getting treated, but I still feel physical pain, then that would be the time to apply these kinds of skills. To see the pain as part of my overall experience of life, to be aware of it as it is without assigning all of these other unnecessary values to it, can help me get through the experience. Buddhist philosophy, mindfulness and meditation seem to be good for those kinds of situations. Obviously, there is a certain amount of physical torture that most of us just cannot stand and the kinds of thoughts I mentioned would be hard to avoid in those situations. Another thing the aforementioned concepts can help with are everyday mundane situations like cleaning a toilet. Normally, one might really want to do anything but cleaning a toilet, but trying to apply the concepts I mentioned in my last message can help us to actually be present the whole time, being effective rather than focusing on how wrong it is that we should have to clean a toilet. One form of meditation is walking meditation, which helps to apply the mind state to everyday experiences. When you walk, you are just walking. When you eat, you are just eating. It's about being fully present and fully aware of what you are doing at the time. Obviously, there is more to it, which I already mentioned, but that is a major part of it to. It's been helpful for someone like me who tends to over analyze things:) Having said that, after my discussion here, I think that I am not going to join the local meditation center I attend. I don't appreciate the worshipful attitude that the members take toward the head teachers (hero worship). I think I will keep going there and meditating though as a way of motivating myself for practice and bouncing ideas off other people regarding meditation. Thanks for the feedback and discussion. It's been helpful for me as I don't often get to talk to skeptics about such things.

54. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124962 by Sturmunddrang on February 10, 2008 at 2:00 pm

"I brought it up more because I wanted to think about whether even if meditation led to certain wonderful mindstates, elightenment, whatever, it was useful outside of the experience. Whether it was in fact just fun for the meditator. I'm still not sure about that."

Well, there are terms for this in the discourse of meditation. For instance, people who meditate have described "rapture" which is a not uncommon experience wherein a person meditating has a boost of energy and an intense happiness. Then, there is another form of just "pleasure," which I cannot remember the term for. It is often after this rapture, when you calm down more. It is a deep sense of happiness and peace. It is a sense of calm. However, if you study the philosophy, these are not the overall objects of meditation. If you get attached to them, then you miss the point. In fact, I was just reading about that. You are not the first to wonder about this. There are ancient sutras from the buddha/his disciples, which directly address this issue. The idea is that, if you get attached to these states, then you miss the point. Part of meditation is accepting impermanence and not getting attached. You accept that things in life are ever changing. The rapture and pleasure do not last forever and we are not to attach to them. Yes, we enjoy it when it comes, but we do not think "this is it! eureka!" It's just another part of the experience. The more important part of it is the awareness. It is about awareness of each arising present moment without attaching judgments to it. When we meditate, we do not think in terms of dichotomies, such as "that's bad" or "that's great!" We just experience things as they are. Pain is pain. One of the main points of Buddhist philosophy is to get rid of suffering. Suffering in the context of Buddhism is not the same as physical suffering. It is actually a state of attachment and confusion. It is also a state of mental despair. You can feel physical pain without this kind of suffering. The idea is that we create a lot of our suffering. When I feel pain, instead of just experiencing it and letting it pass, seeing it for what it is, I attach all kinds of meanings to it. For instance, I could say "I can't STAND THIS!" or "WHY did this happen to me??? This should not be happening!" The idea that we cause most of our suffering is actually something used in one of the most effective forms of psychotherapy, Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis (two cognitive-behavior therapy originators) both got inspiration from Buddhist philosophy and the philosophy of Epictetus (a stoic philosopher with some similar ideas). So, I will say again, it is not just about getting "high" on meditation. It is therapeutic and it is also a skill. You are controlling your mind in a profound way. You are becoming one with everything and accepting impermanence. You are eliminating the "I" vs. "world" dichotomy. You can use the state of mindfulness, which is a form of meditation, throughout the day. Anyway, does this illuminate any of the differences between meditation and drug use?

55. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124952 by Sturmunddrang on February 10, 2008 at 1:24 pm

"Sturm: I would like your opinion. There are some very unpleasant mental states that can be reached by introspection and experimenting with consciousness (even without drugs); which may include derealization and depersonalization. Some people may find such states interesting or even attractive, but for others they can be a source of intense anxiety. I guess it is like flying - for some people it is exciting, for others, it is terrifying.

So I am cautious about people experimenting with consciousness - what do you think?"

I could see what you are saying. Perhaps meditation or altered states of consciousness are not for everyone. I've definitely met people who find the idea of losing their egos scary as hell (or just useless). This is a researchable thing, though. I think my opinion is that we need to do more research on the subject to see what kinds of people would not benefit from meditation and what kinds of people would. Here is a link to the personal website of a clinical psychologist who I had some correspondence with when I was considering applying to the PhD program at the university he's a professor for: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~dfresco/Resources/mindfulness_readings.html

I gave you the link because there are a bunch of readings (for free) on some of the work that has been done on mindfulness in clinical psychology. It is interesting stuff, in my opinion.

56. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124939 by Sturmunddrang on February 10, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Peacebeuponme,

"Though I agree with you I just find talking like this uncomfortable, because its only one slight wrong turn before it gets all religious. If you haven't experienced "enlightenment" and knowing that its impossible to desctibe, how do you know its there?

btw - I would recommend a pile of ecstasy if you want to experiment with consciousness. Not in the most intense stages, but the peace while its wearing off. I doubt its anything like your meditative experiences, but its...interesting."

Yes, I can see the potential for dangerousness here when we talk like this. Perhaps enlightenment is not a useful term. However, developing a higher awareness and thinking that some people may have more of this awareness does not seem unreasonable to me. Operationalizing mindulfness is possible, but operationalzing enlightenment might be more tricky. I think it could just be a matter of degrees. Someone who is "enlightened" is simply VERY good at mindfulness, very compassionate and very aware. I agree though, it can get dogmatic there when we throw around those terms and have a ritualistic process wherein one is dubbed "enlightened."

To reply to your comment on ecstasy: I've tried LOTS of different kinds of illicit drugs. In fact, my first real interest in "spirituality" or altered states of consciousness involved an exploration of psychedelics. I have tried ecstacy, mushrooms, acid, ketamine, dextromethorphan, pot, cocaine, heroin, various pharmaceuticals, jimson weed etc etc. I find meditation to be extremely different. We simply do not have drugs that produce the same state at this point. Granted, on acid, I have had similar kinds of experiences. I have felt a sense of oneness, a loss of "self," a recognition that the self is an illusion etc. I am not against using drugs to explore altered states and "spirituality." I guess in my case, I just went overboard and the exploration became self-destruction. That is a personal issue though:) You are not developing a skill of concentration and awareness when you take a drug. At least, not in my experience and research with the current drugs available.

57. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124924 by Sturmunddrang on February 10, 2008 at 12:25 pm

"I found the Buddha to be quite arrogant. Maybe it is time to investigate more."

It is a revealed religion in the end. The prophets or leaders in all revealed religions have some arrogance to them. I feel the same way. At the same time, if mindfulness, compassion and a deep level of awareness are somehow interrelated mind states, skills that we may develop, then there will be some of us who (for reasons of their hard work and/or genetics) seem to be at a higher level in these skills than the rest of us. It's like the way Sam Harris compares meditators to athletes. There could literally be a "Tiger Woods" of compassion. Granted, we may eventually have a drug that you could take to achieve the same mind state, but for now, it is a skill (perhaps also a trait or series of traits) that must be developed. I have no problem admitting that there are those who are WAY ahead of me in being keenly aware of each passing moment in their lives. I do certainly have a problem with some priest claiming he knows something special about god or some other imaginary being. For example, Timothy Jackson, though he claims that these are "faith issues," is basically doing just that: claiming that he has a special privilege of knowledge of god. In the case of a "Zen master," while I would not worship one, I think that there is a skill that the person deserves recognition for his/her achievement in. It is SO hard to not think in dualistic terms and just exist. Pure consciousness is difficult to experience. I think it is possible as I have had times when I had small glimpses of a deep level of awareness and peace while meditating. I refuse to claim that I ever experienced anything like enlightenment, though. Those glimpses give me confidence that there is something real there, though. There is a real, different, amazing experience to be had in the practice of meditation.

58. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124874 by Sturmunddrang on February 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

"The short version is that I agree with most of what Sturmunddrang says. I feel it is down to semantics: "Religion" vs "Dogma" and Buddhism as "religion" or "philosophy". For me religion is dogmatic at its heart. If there are forms of Buddhism that are not dogmatic then I would not call them religious."

It's interesting, I almost forgot to mention that Richard Dawkins refers to Buddhism (wrongly, I think) as a "philosophy" more than a religion in The God Delusion. I say wrongly because, again, it depends on what type of Buddhism you are talking about. If you want a brief overview of Buddhism, a widely recommended book (recommended by Buddhists and many university East Asian Studies departments), read What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. He talks about the similarities and also the vast differences between the different forms of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, is VERY different from Japanese Zen Buddhism. They are so different that they often barely look like they are even related. The Dalai Lama is really significant to Tibetan Buddhists. He's sort of like the pope is for Catholics. Most Zen practitioners aren't all that impressed with him. Tibetan Buddhism is much more of a religion than Japanese Zen Buddhism. However, I still think that, the more I think about it, there more I realize that even Japanese Zen Buddhism functions like a religion. My question is this, and it is conceptual (as opposed to just semantic games):

If a religion, such as Japanese Soto Zen Buddhism, is at its core not based on dogma, but instead philosophy/exercises and the members happen to start treating it like other religions (e.g. being worshipful of Zen Masters), is it the religion that is the problem or the members of it in that case? I think that the case could still be made that dogma and religion are not necessarily synonyms. Saying that they are might be as ignorant as saying that Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. If you do not get my question (the English is bad, but I don't feel like fixing it), then I could reword it or elaborate.

59. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124819 by Sturmunddrang on February 10, 2008 at 10:21 am

"However, I want to be careful with comments like "some it its teachings are not poisonous", since that claim can be applied to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The distinctions can only be based whether it posits any truth claims requiring faith, or does not keep itself to itself."

Consider the saying that if you meet the Buddha on the street, kill him. That saying is basically anti-dogma. Granted, lots of Buddhists STILL engage in hero worship, worshipping the Buddha or Zen Masters, talking about lineage and all of that nonsense. However, at least there are pieces of the teachings which are actually anti-dogma. This anti-dogma aspect is worlds different from anything I see in the Abrahamic religions. In certain sects of Buddhism, there is an understanding that the most important things are meditation, mindfulness, awareness, and enlightenment. There is an understanding that anyone can achieve these states of mind. There are specific directions taught for how to achieve these states of mind.

Unlike theology, something like mindfulness is a measurable subject of study. It has a meaning (unlike studying god). In fact, in the field of clinical psychology, as we speak, there are psychologists doing research on mindfulness. The reason? They have formed (still working on all of the details) an operational definition of mindfulness. They have rough drafts of measures of mindfulness (probably more now, as it was years ago when I last checked on it). Mindfulness is already being used in clinics for pain management and in Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, such as Dialectical Behavior Therapy (In decent research studies, DBT has been shown to be effective for many patients with Borderline Personality Disorder). The research on prayer is not like this. They simply talk about scripts for people to read when they pray and they measure if there is any effect when they pray. However, the mind state that one is trying to achieve when praying is 1) not really clear 2) not as important to Christians as the act of talking to some supernatural being that doesn't exist. We cannot really operationalize the mind state of prayer as it is a totally different thing. I am annoyed when it is compared with meditation. Meditation and mindfulness do not require faith. To my knowledge, there is no holy book of Buddhism that claims we must all convert everyone to Buddhism. Yes, certain sects go wacky now and then, but then again so do lots of political regimes (hence why I think dogmatism is the main culprit here).

Also, evolutionary psychology could play a part in offering explanation here in that people might be tempted by the ideas of unseen agents or ancestor worship even when they are engaging in just meditation. Humans might be prone to do things like the disciples of Dogen did in that book I mentioned, claiming to know things they don't based on bad evidence. The teachings in that case were not necessarily to blame, but the disciples and their biology may have been. Anyway, I hope that I made my point that certain religions have teachings which are vastly different from this faith-based, conversion nonsense.

There are implications from what I said above. One of those implications is that, if we all thought like Hitchens about religion, we might miss out on learning about certain important mindstates, such as mindfulness and meditation. I just wonder if calling ALL religion "poisonous" is helpful. We could close ourselves off from experiences that I myself have found extremely helpful. The practice of mindfulness and the practice of meditation can be used scientifically. I think that we may be able to distill any dogma out of these practices using science and reason. We can figure out the best way to achieve the mind states using science so that they can be more widely used by anyone, regardless of their beliefs. If we just group all religion together as poisonous and ditch it completely, then we may lose out on some important things. By the way, I think the Dalai Lama is a douche bag and there is way too much Buddha worship nonsense in Buddhism. You know, maybe it is religion that is the problem. The more I explore it, the more I realize that I have a problem with anything religious about Buddhism (putting the Buddha on a pedestal, the belief in reincarnation, karma etc). If it was just about meditation, then it would not be a religion, would it? Yes, we can find redeeming qualities about Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but as a whole, the structure of those religions is crap. Perhaps the overall structure of Buddhism is no different...

60. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124488 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Steve Zara,

You said:

"I also am pretty sure Dan Dennett would approve of the principle of Anatta (no self)."

I totally agree. I left a comment about that in a thread on here when I was talking to someone about Dennett's philosophy. When I was reading Freedom Evolves, I kept thinking again and again about Buddhist philosophy and possible parallels. Dennett's materialism, naturalism and monism seem to go well with the idea that some separate, magical "self" is an illusion. Contemplating Dennett's philosophy makes the principle of Anatta more digestible to me. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that about Dennett:)

61. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124455 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 2:26 pm

"I think he is wrong about many things (especially about Buddhism - I agree with what Sturmunddrang says on that subject), but he is always worth listening to."

I agree that he is worth listening to. I have watched several debates with him. He does offer a more political side to atheism, which does have its value. He may appeal to certain people more than other atheist authors do. With Buddhism, I should qualify what I am saying by mentioning that there have definitely been instances when Buddhism was not benign. I mean, there is that one book "Zen at War" about how Zen was used during WWII. I also remember reading about Dogen and his disciples in a historical book called "Soto Zen In Medieval Japan." In one of the historical accounts of his disciples, they apparently claimed to witness several supernatural occurrences during a ceremony and they all corroborated the silly story. They spoke of celestial bells in the background and seeing Buddhist mythological creatures before their eyes. I lost a lot of confidence in Zen Buddhist teachings after reading that. It is a revealed religion and they have Zen "masters" who often seem to be like prophets. There are bad aspects to the religion. I think that the bad aspects involve blind faith and dogmatism. So, in some ways, Zen Buddhism is a lot like other revealed religions. I think that the difference is that there are some teachings you can find in various forms of Buddhism (e.g. meditation instruction), which are quite different from teachings in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I do not think that some of the teachings are poisonous. There are certain aspects of religion that we simply cannot experience through the kind of spirituality that Dawkins or Hitchens might suggest. Meditation is an empirical, specific experience with specific instructions. I think that many people, regardless of their beliefs, can learn a lot from it and we would be fools to just group it together with prayer or belief in anything supernatural. It is an experience in itself, which is highly valuable and not poisonous.

62. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124445 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Diacanu,

"Well, write a book like that.
You can be the good cop to Hitchens's bad cop."

This is where I am humble enough to admit that I am not as intelligent as Hitchens. I am also not a good enough writer to bother writing a book about such things. It is easy to be a critic (like me). It's much harder to form your own solid arguments and organize them. Comte-Sponville has already made some of the points I mention for me in a much more intelligent way than I probably could. I just notice a problem I seem to have with Hitchens, as opposed to the other "Four Horsemen." I'm processing it here and seeing what other people's views are. That's all.

63. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124444 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 1:10 pm

"In Chapter 5 of "God is not Great", Hitchens' talks about Occam's Razor and belief in God just being one of many possible options. I think he is clear enough."

Perhaps it is just another case of a Christian debater who didn't read the author's book closely enough. As Richard Dawkins often points out, the statements made by lots of people who are hypercritical of his books indicate that they probably have not read them.

64. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124442 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Peacebeuponme,

"That seems a strange way of differentiating extreme from not extreme. I could say "Christians are all lunatics", which would then be even less extreme than Dawkins because it is even more specific.

As to Buddhism, I take your point, but they still have their "hungry ghosts" and reincarnation. Nevertheless, I think when Hitchens talks about "Religion" it is as generally understood and I think his points are valid on that basis."

Perhaps I am nit picking. I think it is almost like Michael Shermer said in one of his speeches, it depends on your goal. If your goal is really to reach people who are religious or on the fence regarding religion, then you have to be careful with your strategy. Hitchens just seems like someone "preaching to the choir." It is sometimes good to appear more informed about religion and more open minded. If you show that you have studied religion a fair amount and you recognize the distinctions among religions (e.g. you don't just cover the Abrahamic religions and group all of the other religions in with them), then I think this gives you more credibility with religious people in the world. It also gives you more credibility among intelligent people who are unsure of whether or not they want to be religious.

"I think that is grossly unfair. Hitchens' historical and political knowledge far outweighs the other three and that is what he brings to the table in his book. In fact that is what pleases me most about the Four - that they have their own unique areas of expertise, be it Philosophy, Neuroscience, History and Politics or Biology and science generally.

In any case, religion is a general subject affecting us all. Anybody with a certain degree of intelligence should feel comfortably able to debate."

Perhaps I was being an elitist. Maybe it is something about his personality that bothers me. I know that this is not an argument. I am just exploring critically what it is that bothers me about Hitchens.

65. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124437 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Diacanu,

You said:

"Yeah, you can nitpick at the meaning to want it softened, but "okay, by religion, I mean in it's most dogmatic and pernicious forms, and in these forms, it touches on all aspects of our life and society, and this to me, has a poisonous effect", is a bit long and pedantic to cram onto a book cover."

Actually, how about "How Dogmatism Poisons Everything."? I like the billboard from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which states "Beware of Dogma." It encompasses a very wise message. It is something a lot of people can relate to. What I mean to say is that we need to be truly rational. I am not nit picking. It's a huge difference. Hitchens often sounds childish and misinformed by making statements like "How Religion Poisons Everything." It doesn't poison everything. I am just talking about the quality of the arguments here. When we are talking about things that are in the realm of the social sciences, where there are so many different variables at play, we need to choose our variables wisely. Dogmatism is a variable that I think encompasses much more of the problem. It is more specific and more fine tuned. It covers the problems with Stalin, Hitler and also various religious atrocities. I happen to enjoy certain practices that are straight out of religions. For instance, I just started being involved with a local Shambhala Meditation Center and I plan on meditating daily for 30 minutes. The style I use is derived from Buddhism. However, the dogma has been stripped away. It has been secularized. Many might still call it religion, though. I was into meditation before I ever read Sam Harris, but he renewed my interest. There are certain aspects of religion (for example, certain spiritual experiences) that are quite valuable and they are anything but poisonous. I would like to see an argument that meditation is somehow detrimental.

66. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124434 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 12:29 pm

"See, that was the point of my original post: Jackson brought these things up and tried to win small skirmishes far from the main battlefield. Jackson could not defend (and did not really try) against Hitchens'important points about religious truth claims."

I thought it was a question from someone else. Let me also mention that I am not just siding with Jackson for the sake of it. Hitchens did make some good points. Jackson made lots of bad points. I was just saying that, when I look at the debate and I try to be non biased, I am not very impressed with Hitchens's logic.

"Actually, calling all believers deluded is something Dawkins has had to defend against. It could be seen as more extreme than Hitchens' title. Though in my opinion both are pretty much statements of fact."

Not all religions even involve a belief in a god. So, Dawkins is talking about something specific. Yes, I could see how it could be viewed as extreme. I think it is less extreme than using a word like religion. Also, not all religions involve blind faith (e.g. certain forms of Zen Buddhism actually teach against such things). So, to talk about the end of faith is still not necessarily talking about religion generally. It is a specific thing. It's a specific problem with religion. If we are to be rational responders to religion, then I think that the burden is on us to make sure that we are indeed rational. It is supposed to be what we do well. I don't think that Hitchens does it well. He just doesn't strike me as a very reasonable guy.

"Hitchens went to great pains to clarify that this was not his position."

Then he should have been more clear about it in his book. He's good at getting the spotlight on himself, I will give him that. That is something that the other major atheist thinkers lack. However, I just think he needs to think things through more before opening his big mouth. I think I am trying to illustrate the difference between Dennett, Harris (philosophically trained), Dawkins (scientifically trained) and Hitchens (a critic, journalist guy).

67. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124414 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 11:42 am

Peacebeuponme,

You said:

"Except he didn't claim to know the mind of King, but instead made some interesting inferences based on his life and character - it would be fairly uninteresting if our comments on famous characters were limited to what we 100% know about them. Any biography would be pretty worthless."

Well, I agree with making inferences in the context you describe. However, for the purposes of this debate, I really don't think his arguments are that important. They don't hold much weight and it was a waste of time in my opinion. Who cares if Martin Luther King Jr. may secretly have been a Humanist? Why not just mention the doctors who are not religious at all and who dedicate their time to helping poor people get medical care in other countries? That is a much more relevant, important and strong argument indeed. Yes, I know he was replying to a question from an audience member and it was about a point made in his book. I am saying that he should not have bothered making that point in his book and he should have atoned for doing so foolishly by not spending so much time on the issue in the debate.

You said:

"His comments only seem extreme because of the special pass we give religion."

You are talking to an atheist who is a life member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. So, please, don't give me that. I meant "extreme" in that Hitchens makes statements like "How Religion Poisons Everything." This is extreme in the same way that a statement like "There is absolutely NO limit to human free will" would be extreme in the context of a philosophical discussion of free will. Do I think that the title "The God Delusion" or "The End of Faith" are extreme? No. Not in the same sense. They are talking about very specific things, faith and god. Those titles are not referring to "religion" generally. I think that this is an important difference. As Sam Harris points out, we should be talking about specific points where religions fail in order to be more intellectually honest. "Religion" generally is a blanket term, too broad to really get at what the problem is. I recommend the book "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" by Andre Comte-Sponville. He gives a much more sober and well thought out account of what is wrong with certain religions. He focuses more on dogmatism as the culprit, not religion. Dogmatism is what is wrong with the Catholic Church and Nazism. It is a much more worthy adversary. I dare say that I often wonder if Hitchens has fallen prey to dogmatism. To suggest that god has been disproved is just silly.

68. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124397 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 10:47 am

Timothy Jackson actually made some intelligent, rational points regarding the way in which Christopher Hitchens talks about Martin Luther King Jr. It is indeed dogmatic to claim that I know what someone was really thinking even thought the person is telling me something different. As a psychotherapist, I run into this problem all of the time. I have seen therapists who claim that they just KNOW that a client has been sexually abused in the past even though the client explicitly denies it. They cite "evidence" in terms of the client's behavior, which is in line with behaviors of other people who are sexually abused. However, if the client does not say explicitly, "I was sexually abused and it is bothering me still at this time," then we are doing the client a disservice to assume we know that he/she was sexually abused despite no report from the client of this. I guess the fact that Hitchens likes Freud is telling in this regard. Freud is just the kind of therapist to base assumptions about other human beings on bad evidence. So, Hitchens really made himself look like a fool by claiming Martin Luther King Jr. was a Humanist secretly.

In addition, Hitchens never addressed the issue Jackson brought up about his statement in his book that belief in god is false (or even disproven). Perhaps Hitchens should think more before he speaks or writes. Unlike Sam Harris, he does seem to be interested in being provocative for the sake of it. Extreme statements should be used sparingly. Hitchens pops them out by the dozen. Even the title of Hitchens book "How Religion Poisons Everything" is embarrassing to me. It is simply too extreme and general. It is a book about Abrahamic religions, but he applies the problems with those religions to all religions. I think that this is intellectually a bad idea. As Sam Harris said, we should not talk about all religion like it is one thing. There is great variety in religion. Extremist Jainists do not scare me as much as extremist Muslims. I am really hoping that Hitchens does NOT become involved in The Reason Project. I don't think he is as concerned with reason as he is with being provocative and making extreme, emotional statements. That said, sure he can be funny and he can be moving at times. Strategically, it would be better to have him debate certain people than, say, Daniel Dennett, due to his personality. However, I think he does more harm than good on an intellectual level. He makes atheists look bad in my opinion. Harris, Dennett and Dawkins do not. They seem much more reasonable and interested in the truth in their approaches. I appreciate their more gentle nature. They are good role models.

EDIT: Dammit, Hitchens IS involved in The Reason Project as an advisory board member!

69. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124385 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 9:56 am

I prefer the way Richard Dawkins handles totalitarianism. Richard Dawkins also is more sophisticated in his approach to whether or not god exists. I think that Dawkins would have had better answers to these questions in this debate.

70. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124380 by Sturmunddrang on February 9, 2008 at 9:37 am

Hitchens should have highlighted dogmatism as a major problem and religion as a major proponent of dogmatism. That is all he needed to do when Hitler and Mao were brought up.

71. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121586 by Sturmunddrang on February 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm

ianmkz,

You said:

"I noticed that Dr Simmons' publisher identified him as a director of Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity. Does this august body know of his oddball position? Unfortunately... yes. PSSI are subtitled PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM. Their membership list is depressingly long - 500 or so."

Think of it this way... Medical doctors are not trained in research, they are really just sophisticated technicians, not scientists. At the same time, one needs to take a class in organic chemistry to meet requirements for medical school. It's hard to imagine someone taking a class in that and passing it without believing that evolutionary theory is true. Still, I think it is easier for a medical doctor to reject evolutionary theory than it would be for a biologist. It is indeed shameful, though. I agree with another person who posted on here that commented he would not let the doctor in this debate check his pulse. My primary MD actually scares me a bit. He asked me if I ever saw the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" He proceeded to lecture me about the movie... This made me consider changing doctors. My point is that there are unfortunately a lot of quack doctors out there. I argue that there are more quack medical doctors than quack biologists due to the difference in focus of their training. I could be wrong, though.

72. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121550 by Sturmunddrang on February 3, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Dinah,

You said:

"Thank you Sturmundrang for this information. I am now more confused than ever. Along with AfraidToDie I do not understand the tactics behind behind Simmons' denials that he's a Christian and a Creationist and what advantages these denials are supposed to confer. While he may well feel they give his arguments more credibility among the uncommitted it doesnâ€™t say a lot for his Christianity and Creationism if he is isn't prepared to own up to them and defend them and certainly won't endear him to his fellow Cs and Cs. Plus he risks being labelled untrustworthy by people whatever their views on this issue. Perhaps he's just a pathological liar."

I agree that it is confusing. However, I think that part of it might involve these people actually knowing that it's not a good thing to base your scientific or philosophical views solely on dogma. They know that it is discrediting to say that you disagree with a scientific theory because the bible told you to. So, they try to mask it and present themselves as though they are just genuinely interested in the truth. They try to send a message that "hey, I'm not just another fundamentalist Christian trying to convert everyone. I am a professional who has reasonable/scientific objections." It's a similar kind of tactic as that used by ethical "philosophers" who try to give logical objections to abortion or embryonic stem cell research while claiming that they are just concerned philosophers. Invariably, if you probe far enough, you find that they are religious. Granted, I have heard of one person who is against abortion who is an atheist. The point is that it is a similar tactic, but it is just in a different field, ethical philosophy. These kinds of Christians can be found everywhere. They know that to base all of your worldviews on scripture is a bad idea and it is not really credible, so they mask their views as genuine logical arguments (as opposed to saying "GOD DID IT" or "GOD TOLD US SO!!! SO THERE!!!"). That's my theory anyway. Does it make sense?

73. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121398 by Sturmunddrang on February 3, 2008 at 11:03 am

I appreciate the approach of Dr. Meyers in that he fully admits "WE DON'T KNOW" regarding lots of aspects of the physiology brain. However, he also states that this does not automatically mean that there is some magical supernatural force guiding things along. It simply indicates that the brain is damn complex and we have a long way to go in trying to understand it. He rightly points out that scientists are making remarkable progress. When I took classes on behavioral neuroscience, psychopharmacology and evolutionary psychology, I was astonished with the amount that we DO know. If you study what we actually know about the brain at this time, then I think you would have to be religious to not stop and think "I have confidence that we will eventually figure this out!" Only the religious are looking for gaps in our knowledge to say, "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!! IT'S A SOUL!!! IT'S GOD!!!" We need to open our minds to the idea that the brain is VERY complex, but it doesn't mean that we cannot gain a scientific understanding of it. It's like Richard Dawkins once mentioned regarding groundbreaking research of a scientist mapping the neural impulses of a certain species of snail (I might be remembering it wrong, so forgive me if I am). Dr. Dawkins mentioned that if we thought like some of these religious people do about the brain, then that scientist studying that snail's neuron may have just said "DAMNIT!!!! IT'S JUST TOO COMPLEX! i GIVE UP!! IT'S GOD OR A SNAIL SOUL!" Did he do that? No. We should be glad that he didn't do that, too. We need to stop being post-modernist or religionist regarding the brain (it seems many atheists are tempted to these perspectives toward the brain). Our fears seem to be that free will might not exist or that consciousness will lose its preciousness if science explains it. If these are your concerns, then maybe you could try reading a book like Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett. He might help to dispel your fears as he describes how to reconcile free will, determinism and naturalism. Anyway, good video. We need more talks like this.

74. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121374 by Sturmunddrang on February 3, 2008 at 10:11 am

Dinah,

You said:

"I am confused (not an unusual state of affairs). This bloke Simmons doesn't believe in evolution, but stated he wasn't a Christian, didn't believe in the biblical account of creation, and wasn't an Intelligent Designer. So according to him how did we get here? He spent the whole time trying (unsuccessfully) to rubbish the arguments of PZ Myers but never actually spelt this out. Or did I miss something?"

I apologize if you already know this and I understand that your questions are mostly rhetorical. However, I just wanted to point out (in case you were not familiar with it) that Simmons is a member of the Discovery Institute, which is a creationist organization. They call themselves Intelligent Design advocates, but if you study the Dover, PA trial, then you will see that they are creationists who cloak themselves in different garb. They are also Christian. They are just intellectually dishonest, which frustrates me to no end. They do not play fair in SO many ways!

75. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121328 by Sturmunddrang on February 3, 2008 at 8:27 am

Vinelectric,

I just noticed your most recent comment about free will. I highly recommend Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett. I read it and I found it to be extremely original, thorough and convincing. There is free will, materialism, naturalism AND determinism. At least, according to Daniel Dennett, all of these things coexist. If you have not read his book, then I I highly recommend it after reading your comment about free will being an "illusion."

76. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121313 by Sturmunddrang on February 3, 2008 at 8:09 am

Dr. PZ Meyers,

If you read this: I just wanted to say that, after reading your comment about why you did this, I listened to the program. I think that after reading your explanation and listening to the program, I am convinced that there are some situations where scientists may be doing a great service by debating these "issues."

I found it telling that the two radio guys suggested having another debate with an audience. I wonder if it would be a smart move to get involved in such a debate. It seems that, when an audience is involved, the creationists flourish by constantly appealing to the "common sense" of audience members with catch phrases. The audience's reactions make it look to others as though there is some truth to what the creationists are saying.

I think that the forum here, a radio show where it is just you debating this creationist with limited time for each response, is MUCH better. Not to mention that the hosts moderated it much better than moderators in debates I have seen at many different universities.

One more thing, your strategy of ATTACK was refreshing in that I think a lot of academics take a more gentle approach, getting crushed by the creationists' attacks. You chose to fight fire with fire and, in this case, it seemed to work quite well. You challenged him and put him on the spot, which is exactly what scientists need to do. It's sad, but I think it's true. One problem I had with your approach was that you used words like "infantile." The ignorant comment seemed appropriate and warranted as I cannot really think of a better way of describing it. I think it is just important not to fall into the stereotype that creationists use of "arrogant" scientists. I hope you know what I mean when I say that. I think that many people's ears might turn off if they think you are just another one of those "arrogant" scientists. Otherwise, the aggressive approach seems unfortunately rare among scientists, but extremely important (speaking with conviction, a "no nonsense" attitude and not being afraid to put them on the spot).

77. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120392 by Sturmunddrang on February 1, 2008 at 3:02 pm

The title of this post just makes me feel like I see no point in listening. What an absurd waste of time. Perhaps it might be fun listening to someone like PZ Meyers crushing a creationist's "arguments." However, the debate should not have to happen at all. It's a joke... " Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?" is a joke. The only time that this kind of debate should happen (between a scientist and a creationist) is when they are threatening education directly. For example, Ken Miller served an honorable role when he served as an expert witness in Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. Granted, one could argue that we should not let it get to that point. However, I like Richard Dawkins's approach to such things. He has stated that he refuses to debate with such people. I think that this is a better approach for scientists. Scientists simply should not grant creationist ideas so much credence.

78. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #113654 by Sturmunddrang on January 20, 2008 at 9:53 am

Hey everybody,

I was thinking... if you run into a creationist on this site or in general, try referring them to this book written by some of our government's science advisers (The National Academies Press):

Science, Evolution and Creationism

Authors:
Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

Here's a link to the website for it:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc

It, of course, takes a similar stance to that taken in the Dover, PA trial. Meaning, the authors promote the "Non-overlapping Magisteria" myth. However, it seems to address most of creationists' concerns and it is from a source other than Richard Dawkins. My main reason for mentioning it is to pass the buck off onto experts in the field so that they can do the work for you. There is even a short 8 page pamphlet explaining the purpose of the book if anyone is interested.

79. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107752 by Sturmunddrang on January 5, 2008 at 7:11 am

Ok, I am getting annoyed having to sift through the comments in order to find replies to mine. Does anyone know how I can get email notifications of direct replies to my comments? How can I quote someone directly or reply to someone directly? Just wondering, because I am tired of seeing comments as long as short books written by Wooter (or whatever creationist site he copies and pastes from).

80. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107539 by Sturmunddrang on January 4, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Artifactorfiction,

You took time away from this message board to sleep? How could you do such a thing!? I'm offended...

"When I first mentioned 'Free will' I was talking of the concept normally understood by most people by those words not Dennett's extension/redefinition and so perhaps I have misrepresented his viewpoint."

Yeah, like I said, I think we agree. I did not mean to nit pick. Like I said, I just get excited about his free will concept as I think that it is original and quite reasonable. I like the comforting effect his approach has and I try to highlight it. Meaning, he sort of says "what you've been afraid of all of this time is really nothing to worry about after all! Here's why..." But this is not to say it is wishful thinking. It's obviously a reasonable approach.

"Perhaps I am wrong but my reading of Dennett is that the Joe Public's view of Free Will doesn't exist (I'm sure Mr Joe public would insist that Free Will means a complete unrestricted choice of what to do next etc), but that there is a Kind of Free Will (worth wanting) that provides ethics and morality (and doesn't just fade to dust when examined in the light of scientific advances)"

Yes, I agree with that. He IS saying that Joe public's view of free will doesn't exist in that a separate, special, magical, quantum weirdness or otherwise "outside of EVERYTHING else" self doesn't exist. That self is not necessary to have free will. Determinism does not imply inevitability. We still have choices, it's just not a matter of some magical self interfering with the world, assuming ULTIMATE responsibility for the consequence of every willed action.

"Clearly he has no problem in principle with the concept of a conscious robot. I think such a robot would have Dennett's 'Kind of Free Will' (if it killed a human or a similarly enabled Robot it would be a crime and should be punished by the legal system - as opposed to a toaster that electrocutes some unfortunate user )."

I agree and although I have not read consciousness explained yet (I have a copy), I came to the same conclusion about robots based on Dennett's views put forth in Freedom Evolves. It's good to hear that I wasn't completely off base with that conclusion.

"Still I think Joe Public would argue 'But look, I can step through the robots executing code, look at registers, view the state of flip flops, see the state of every single bit - in fact, in principle, determine the exact next state of the entire system (assuming all inputs at that point in time are known) - thus the robot has no Free Will'."

Yeah, Joe public might argue that. However, if we develop a robot with a huge set of vague predispositions and the ability to learn and send it out into the world, then the robot takes on a life of its own, making its own choices as it learns new things and confronts new situations. If it takes on sufficient complexity, then it would be just as hard to track its next action as it would be to track a human's.

"On a similar point - there's been a few references to the Mind's I (Dennett/Hofstadter) - bits of this are stunning - I'm particularly fond of 'A conversation with Einstien's brain' and 'Prelude....Ant Fugue' (both Hofstadter) but the book is riddled with gems (and only few dull bits)."

Ah, thanks. I should check it out. I have not read that one either! Oh, one more thing, I was wondering what you thought of Sam Harris's take on Dennett's views of free will and consciousness toward the end of The End of Faith. He seems to suppose what many others do about Dennett's views on free will, that inevitability IS the consequence of determinism. I wasn't convinced by him. Were you? Also, Sam Harris's infatuation with Buddhist meditation and philosophy strangely seem almost in line with some of the thinking Dennett puts forth. I mean, my take on Dennett personally might be different in this sense then what Dennett actually states. But tell me if you agree with this:

Dennett engages in an activity in Freedom Evolves that seems similar to what Harris describes the activity of meditation as. Namely, Dennett looks for this separate "self" (our normal conception of a self) and turns up unable to find it. Being someone who meditates, I found Dennett's views on consciousness and free will to strengthen my sense of oneness to what is around me more than Harris's views of consciousness. It seems easier to lose the sense of a separate "I" by taking on Dennett's philosophy than it does by taking on Harris's. Harris seems to be an agnostic with respect to whether or not consciousness is the result of an organic computer. In a very technical sense, I am as well. However, the alternative to a natural computer, a soul, seems utterly ridiculous. Just as I do not bother calling myself an agnostic with respect to a god, I do not call myself an agnostic with respect to souls. I think that the chances of a soul existing are quite small. I guess my question is about why Sam Harris seems to give more credence to the idea of souls than he does to god. He also entertains the idea of psychic phenomena and reincarnation. Could he be entrapped in Buddhist superstition? Could he actually be more scientific/reasonable in his "Eastern" spirituality if he stopped being so ambivalent about dualism? He talks about a scientific approach to spirituality wherein we needn't assume anything false about the universe to be compassionate and engage in exercises such as meditation, but I think that the parallels I am drawing here show that he may fall short. Am I making sense or am I way off in left field? I guess I am suggesting that meditation could be like a form of therapy for a "seemingly innate" human predisposition toward a sense of dualism and whatever suffering that causes us. Even on Dennett's organization, The Center for Naturalism's website, there is mention of a naturalist spirituality involving a sense of oneness. Harris seems to reject naturalism in the arena of consciousness and free will, which contradicts his discussion of religion throughout much of his book. Does this make any sense? *steps down from soap box*

81. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105135 by Sturmunddrang on December 30, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Artifactorfiction,

You said:

"But I think they do share a lot of fundamentals - from Freedom Evolves Dennett says (Page 224) "I think Wegner's account of conscious will is the best I have seen. I agree with it in almost every regard. And I've discussed with him the awkwardness-from my point of view-of his title. I see him as a killjoy scientist who shows that cupid doesn't shoot arrows and then insists on entitling his book 'The Illusion of Romantic Love'. But I appreciate that there are people who will insist that Wegner's title is just right: He is showing that conscious will is an Illusion. Wegner eventually softens the blow by arguing that conscious will may be an illusion, but responsible, moral action is quite real. And that is the bottom line for both of us.'

This is just a point of view - don't go talking it as a declaration of war - is it always this heated in here :) "

Fair enough. I just think it is important that Daniel Dennett states with certainty "Yes! There is free will even with naturalistic determinism!"

When you said:

"I can see why you say Dennett believes in Free Will as the book sets out to show that a kind of free will exists (and has evolved) - but I don't think its what Joe public would call Free Will"

Isn't that the whole point of his book though? I mean, isn't he trying to change the way Joe public talks about free will? I think he wants us to call that "kind of" free will what it is without feeling that it is a cheapened version of free will. By this I mean that for free will to seem "cheapened" or a "lesser kind" of free will probably means that one is viewing it in dualistic terms. If we stop looking for sky hooks and moral levitation, then Dennett's free will is indeed free will. It's not an illusion. It's the real deal. So, if I was explaining it to the average person, I would not say that we are less free than we actually think. I would more focus on where our freedom comes from, how it works and what it is not.

I think that we agree on all of this, though. I just really like his thoughts on free will, so I get excited about making sure that they are properly represented. I think I partly like Dennett's writing so much because he doesn't buy into all of the metaphysical BS that so many philosophers seem to love (e.g. the essence of X). But I stray... :)

82. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105119 by Sturmunddrang on December 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I think that people are looking for the wrong things in this article. First, people should remember that Daniel Dennett is a philosopher and he proudly calls himself one. He does not hide that he is a philosopher and he does not pretend to be a scientist. He does claim to understand the science that he talks about, though. As a philosopher, he may speak in a way that a scientist would not.

Second, his style of philosophy is about asking questions and changing the way we think about things (e.g. with terms such as intuition pumps and sky hooks). He dissects different concepts other philosophers or scientists have about various things. That is one of the things he does most and I think he does it quite well.

Third, his article here is about whether or not there COULD be a Darwinian account of human creativity, not HOW such an account would look. There is a huge difference here and it should be highlighted. If you are more interested in HOW human creativity would have evolved, he provides you with further readings at the bottom of the article. For example: Mithen, S. J. 1998, ed. Creativity in human evolution and prehistory. London; New York: Routledge, 1998.

If you have a problem with his writing style, then you probably would HATE most philosophers' writings. I was a philosophy minor in undergrad and I admit that there were some essays that I just never bothered completing due to the way they were written. Really, it's (for better or worse) the way philosophy is and has been for a long time. I actually think that Dennett is a much more clear writer than many other philosophers. This does not say much about him as a writer, but I think it does say a lot about him as a philosopher. Namely, he is less pretentious, more down to earth and more willing to stop trying to be so lofty.

Anyway, I think that a large part of what he is trying to say here is that we needn't worry so much about some special, magical part of ourselves being sacrificed by explaining creativity in evolutionary terms. Lots of people (including philosophers and scientists) are SO worried that we will lose the things we hold most dear (the things that make us uniquely human) by explaining certain things naturalistically in evolutionary terms. Dennett wants to get rid of this fear as he thinks it is unfounded.

Our creativity is no less wonderful even if we can explain it in evolutionary terms. Dennett is challenging you to think to yourself about WHY you might have a problem with the idea that something like creativity is explainable in evolutionary terms. I think that often, even though a person is ordinarily an atheist scientist naturalist, the person can become disturbed at the prospect of evolutionary theory touching such topics as free will or creativity. I think that the reason is often that the person secretly has a belief in some supernatural/magical part of him that is somehow OUTSIDE of natural processes. Really, I found myself often retreating back to the ghost in the machine concept or an otherwise dualist framework when reading Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. The BEST thing that Freedom Evolves did for me was to expose my secret dualist thoughts and totally reframe my way of viewing free will. If that's not good philosophy, then I do not know what is.

83. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105097 by Sturmunddrang on December 30, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Artifactorfiction,

You said:

"If you are into all the Consciousness stuff, Daniel M. Wegner's "The Illusion of Conscious Will" is an excellent read - much less philosophical than Dennett, but essentially covering similar ideas from the perspective of researched Psychology."

I have a question for you, have you ever read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett? In it, he talks about that book you mention by Wegner. Dennett separates himself from Wegner in important ways. Both thinkers are actually quite different in their views of consciousness and free will. Basically, Dennett states that Wegner is buying into the concept that "you" must be in some separate, special part of the brain... the idea that "you" cannot be both the conscious and unconscious processes in your brain. Dennett basically identifies "you" as something larger than Wegner does, allowing for freedom of will in spite of what Wegner states. This is an oversimplified explanation, but Dennett goes over his reasons for disagreeing with Wegner in chapter 8 of Freedom Evolves and in other parts of the book. Dennett believes in Free Will and he argues for it. He also argues for moral responsibility. At the same time he argues for naturalism and determinism. Wegner argues that free will is an illusion because of his distinctions of space and time in people's decision making processes.

To summarize Dennett's take on it, at the end of chapter 8 in Freedom Evolves, Dennett states: "Exactly when and where do we make decisions? When we look at a person's conscious decisions, we discover that this quest for spatio-temporal precision breaks down, creating the illusion of an isolated, powerless self. We restore power, and hence the potential for moral responsibility, to the self by recognizing that its duties are distributed in both space and time in the brain."

I just wanted to make sure that other people were clear on how Dennett views Wegner and how they are different. If anyone thinks that I have done this issue an injustice and they can explain it better, then please do so.