Breaking the Spell: Daniel Dennett on religion
|
As the world wages war over geographical, religious and historical turf - a growing number of big note scientists want religious faith put under the microscope. Uber-philosopher of mind and popular provocateur, Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, is one of them. He joins Natasha Mitchell to discuss his latest controversial offering, Breaking the Spell. Be provoked...
First Broadcast 29 July 2006
Show Transcript | Hide Transcript
Transcript
Hello, Natasha Mitchell joining you for your weekly fix of matters of the mind ... here on ABC Radio National Summer
Well, as the world battles over ideological and geographical turf, today putting religious belief under scientific scrutiny.
My guest is perhaps the world's most popular philosopher of mind and a great provocateur, as you'll hear. Daniel Dennett's best sellers include Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Consciousness Explained and, just out, is Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which has generated some whopping feuds this year. He thinks some religions are evolving in toxic ways and that science shouldn't be shy about investigating why. So let's join him then in his cosy office at Tufts University in Boston. where this self-described godless philosopher co-heads the Centre for Cognitive Studies.
Dan Dennett thanks for joining us on ABC Radio National.
Daniel Dennett: Glad to be with you Natasha.
Natasha Mitchell: As you suggest, you want to see religion and religious belief reverse-engineered in a sense. You're trying to unravel religion as a natural phenomenon - what do you mean by that?
Daniel Dennett: It's not a supernatural phenomenon, it evolved. There was a time not so long ago biologically when there wasn't any religion. There's only one species that has religion, it's not as old as language, probably somewhat older than agriculture, but that makes it a really young phenomenon and if we understand how it's changed and why, and why it has the varieties it has, we'll be in a better position to plan for the future.
Natasha Mitchell: What do you make of the sociologist Emile Durkheim's quote and here it is: 'He who does not bring to the study of religion a sort of religious sentiment cannot speak about it. He is like a blind man trying to talk about colour'. Are you that man?
Daniel Dennett: The idea that it takes one to know one, only those who are religious can study religion, is just transparent nonsense. We don't see musicians saying 'if you don't have a great musical ear you mustn't study music because you'll never understand it'. We don't say, 'If you can't be a great artist then you can't study art'. I think that is all hogwash. Sure, you have to overcome the differences, you have to work extra hard. But actually that in itself pays off. I think that the sorts of 'emperors new clothes' questions that somebody will ask who is an outsider are often the best questions. When I hear that line, and it's very common...



You may listen to this interview here:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/

the atheists' zeal to debunk religion is just as weird to me as the religious zealots. Everybody has their religion they just call it different things

so is that kind of like being gay and not knowing you are?

I finally found THE ANSWER!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484

I would surmise that Mr Dennett would say he did not know if god exists or not.

He is rather reasonable.

how does he know he doesn't know. how does he know anything or know if or how anyone knows anything?

i don't think the sceptics or atheists or agnostics have any kind of lock on reason and logic. and i just never like those people, you know?

did anyone see that episode of south park recently where mr garisson (now mrs. garisson) hooks up with an atheist lover and cartman goes to the future where everyone is an atheist? anyway the jokes the had against atheists were really funny and pretty spot on.

life is full of mystery and truely bigger than any of us. i respect religious people more because the basis of their thing is that there is a higher power and that the universe is much greater than us. i always saw atheism as kind of small minded.

How do you know anything?

When a swami tells you?

How does he know?

How do you know he knows?

You must first believe someone can know the spirit soul and that you may also know yourself, otherwise you can’t go on. If you don’t get to know and find out how he knows then you won’t know the self by you own imagination. But you get to apply Krishna’s knowledge on how you perceive your own self.
It is only all about the ‘self’ you know, the science of self realization.
The body, and the consciousness that illuminates it, these are different.
You have to try to apply the ancient science, simple and sublime:
Make Krishna’s eye, your eye, He offers that:
“The senses are superior to dull matter;
mind is higher than the senses;
intelligence is still higher than the mind;
and he (the soul) is even higher than the intelligence.”
“Utility is the principle”
Things called ‘hidden’ means that for one who makes no application of theistic science,
who does not dive deep into God’s infinite reality, there is no proof of even one’s self. The self cannot be known without God’s grace. You are His in every conceivable and inconceivable way. He says this in many ways over and over.
Krishna first of all makes Arjuna know his ‘self’ as soul, and every other proof hinges upon this ground. You cannot know Krishna at all without knowing your self. You fortunately can still hear these things and you may apply them as all before you have done.
Milk.
It looks white
It smells nice
It feels wet and smooth
It pours with the splash of liquid
Do I know milk?
(the answer is milk is really known only by it’s taste)
(the question is did you taste that honey? Or just read the label on the jar?)

First show me a Timingila fish. Then we can discuss the authority of scripture.

I love honey. I just don't think your bees are better because they are Indian.

Scripture is poetics. To undermine the literal truth of it is to miss the point. Atheism doesn't bother me if it's an honest expression of that person's heart but I can't understand those who apply their atheism with a messianic zeal.

Atheism, to me, implies that it is theism that is the non belief.

Not necessarily the negation of god, per se.

So called atheists preach because they often are the ones' who are sufficiently intelligent to see what these theisms bring forth in our little world.

Atheists are the compassionate ones'. They wish to free the mind.

When I see a yellow moon rise over the inlet, and the water shimmers like a giant lake of light – then I know the bliss of creation and the Divine.

you should ask him, many self proclaimed atheists like Richard Dawson are likely agnostic in reality yet they are so angry at religion they think they are atheists. anyway most people are f*cking nuts in one way or another at any any rate, I know I am. at least Mr Dennett is getting some air time. He may be reasonable or a raving lunatic but it doesnt change my life and problems either way. kind of like religion.

yes, just another religion like i said. Take out "atheists" and insert another ism

Even George W sometimes says something reasonable - by mistake or statistical probability.

Or, it could be just the teleprompter.

I say be free, thats all

Behold, a commandment!

yes indeed. why don'y you promote my teachings Homer instead of posting this guy's ideas ?!! Am I less worthy? Am I not reasonable?!

Haf ta wait till yer deed and rise agin.

oh I have risn Homer , thou nodst the eyes to see!

A photograph taken by a bona-fide™ witness will do.

I am reasonable, what better witness than reason?

Humility is haughtiness...

War is peace...

Ignorance is knowledge...

Killing non devotees is compassion...

Precisely.

That is why it does not belong either to the history section or the manuals for living area.

It should be properly on the literary fictional shelf.

How to decide which is literal and which...?

Pick a swami....any swami...puts your money down....and takes your chances...

Chorus:

My swami's better than your swami

My swami's better than yours

My swami's better than your swami

My swami's better than yours

Scripture has one unique nature. That it deals with a subject that is beyond all of the material senses' power to encompass or know. In this way their meaning is called hidden or confidential. Scrirture causes a soul to be able to ponder subjects that would otherwise be off limits to his investation. If they are examined only by our limited senses and intellect, that can only produce limited material result. The subject, God, (adhoksaja), is immeasurable, and infinite. Could you see the infinite with your finite eye, capture Him within your limited mind? You are too tiny, it is a foolish approach to the actual subject of all scripture. Krishna tells us to know ourselves, surrender to Him and He will give you the transcendental eye to know and see Him, He will guide you from within, you can follow His love. Krishna is the only Swami, all others are His servants.

Ask one of the ladies.

If man was created in god's image, then whose image is woman made from?

So what if my teacher tells me that he is the only representative of god™ because his teacher said the same thing?

And my teacher turns out to be a c%$ks**ker (no discourtesy to honest cocksuckers).

And then you walk down the street and you see another Santa Claus.

Mommy, why did you lie to me?

Don't worry darling, it's all symbolic and hidden.

Here, look at 'hidden' Govardhan Hill.

Only special devotees can see it.

I see it! Mommy, I see it!

[quote=dayalu,Jan 22 2007, 05:46 AM]
[/quote]
Scripture has one unique nature. That it deals with a subject that is beyond all of the material senses' power to encompass or know. In this way their meaning is called hidden or confidential. Scrirture causes a soul to be able to ponder subjects that would otherwise be off limits to his investation. If they are examined only by our limited senses and intellect, that can only produce limited material result. The subject, God, (adhoksaja), is immeasurable, and infinite. Could you see the infinite with your finite eye, capture Him within your limited mind? You are too tiny, it is a foolish approach to the actual subject of all scripture. Krishna tells us to know ourselves, surrender to Him and He will give you the transcendental eye to know and see Him, He will guide you from within, you can follow His love. Krishna is the only Swami, all others are His servants.

[/quote]

Why is it so difficult?

I have several Jehovah's Witnesses' visiting every couple of weeks. I enjoy quoting the Babble to them and watch their faces when I mention passages that are so weird and sick that even they are taken aback. The answer they have is that one needs to seek the elders to explain these, more intimate, and difficult to understand sections of their scriptures.

Such as:

Numbers (31:1-54)

Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.)

Same principle. Totally obscure scripture needs qualified brainwasher to wash brain and help one see the inner meaning.

In other words:

BUSINESS.

The Goddess.

I have little or no knowledge of Australian culture but in bookshops over here, poetry is not classified under literary fiction.

my point is I have seen up close how academic religion debunkers operate, and they skirt aeround the same unknowns and speculations and projections. Scientists have found out some cool shit, but adding a few extra years to my existential crisis by stem cell research and pharmaceuticals isnt going to help me today, nor does it prove or disprove G-O-D or some unexplained forces that seem to be operating in the universe.

Mostly they point our how historically there is no empric proof of religions' being real and the stupid and cruel stuff religious morons have done to each other through history, and how sc ience , or what reletively little they know in the grand sceme (although it has growm rapidly in terms of a short period of time) if there is one, is empiric and can be reproduced. Cool things like cloning sheep and black holes iguess.

That is why I am just as sick of know-it-all academics and scientists as the religious bozos. They cannot help me other than drugging me physically, while religion may drug one mentally. So what. Whoope de do. (Read Aldous Huxley for some of his predictions about this drugging of the population in the future). What am I supposed to do, just be happy being a cog in the machine in this artificial 'modern' life that science has helped produce? Look around, innocent people will still die, humans are generally brutish, depressed, and life is still short (no matter how long it is) to paraphrase Bacon, whether we are religious brutes or scientific brutes.

I often see people (like my father) burnt out on religion, get all into the anti-religion of Dawkins and others like it is some new religion (which I maintain it is).

I'd rather smoke a joint and let the religionists and the scientists argue about how little each one of them knows about day to day existence and how to make it happy.

People who rely on scripture always seem to forget that it was written by people not very different from themselves. They can say it was divinely inspired--but if the writers were taking divine dictation, how do we know they didn't make some errors? Or that the entity they took dictation from was truly divine and not just some alternate dimension con artist or sociopath. (Oh look, wouldn't it be amusing to tell these people to kill everyone but the female virgins? Maybe we can also tell them to rub mud into their belly button if they want true spiritual insight.)

My perspective is that they, at least, help some to break out of their fearful mental box.

Virgins indeed.

Why all this fascination with sex and how dirty it is?

And how do people take these lessons as being guides for living a wholesome life in peace and with goodwill?

Hate is Love...

Pain is ecstasy...

Remembering stories is realizing god...

Anyhow, I hope you catch my drift.

No, Homer - my drift is that when something is poetic, it neither fits into a fact or a fiction category.

Is this fiction? -

"I dreamed my genesis in sweat of death, fallen
Twice in the feeding sea, grown
Stale of Adam's brine until, vision
Of new man strength, I seek the sun."
Dylan Thomas.

On another forum I have just read:

"I often wonder, what is the cutoff point for believers? How much contradiction, nonsense, inconsistency, and outright bullshit are they willing to deal with or even postulate themselves in order to maintain the legitimacy of their beliefs? How can reality not smack one in the face at some point? It would be humorous if it wasn't so sad.

Instead of burdening oneself with such pointless questions about hell and it's nature, simply consider the more sensible alternative...that it does not exist..the same as heaven

The first obstacle that you may come up against is that you need a substitute for it. People can't believe that there is nothing...why not?

My honest to goodness take on where we go when we die is precisely nowhere. I don't remember where I read this but it has always seemed such a perfect statement and given me a certain comfort about death:

"I was dead for billions of years before I was alive. When I'm done being alive I suppose it will be no different."

That may not be the exact quote, but not remembering where I read it I can't reference it.
My wife thinks that this is a terrifying statement. I find it to be poetic and extremely comforting and reassuring. It is reassuring of the importance of our lives. It reminds me that what I have in life is all I will ever have and it strengthens my appreciation for it. I will not take the chance of cheapening it by imagining that everything gets better or that my true existence begins once I'm dead. Such a religion is disrespect for life. It also reassures me that I will not long for life when I am dead. I will not miss my loved ones. I will not be in pain. I think the absence of an afterlife is more comforting than the ambiguity of its two extremes, heaven and hell.
I am lucky to be alive, and I am lucky to have love and relationships in that life. I also think that I'm lucky to be able to enjoy these things with a realistic viewpoint and a true, uncluttered appreciation for them. You should try it.
I have just as much if not more motivation to adhere to the golden rule without god looking over my shoulder. I do not expect anyone else to burn in hell of any sort. I do not expect to be rewarded or punished for my actions anymore so than what society or my peers enforce. All of these views balance out pretty well, make for living a good life, and certainly do not leave you wanting for an explanation behind it all. No questions. At least not any that can only be answered by accepting the supernatural. This philosophy leaves me to my own devices. If religious people would only accept the truth about their human nature, they would realize that they are doing the same thing...they are just making up outlandish reasoning behind it.

Finally, god is not love. In some people's eyes, love is god, which I think is different. But love is still love regardless of what you try to parallel with it and god has never come first. I do not know god and yet I know love. Religious people see this as something to rectify, I see it as something to aspire to."


He's gonna burn, for sure.

Understood.

I often think that it would be comforting to know that when I die, I cease to exist, simply because that guarantees no more pain of any kind. And your quote, Homer, reminds me of a topic I wanted to introduce, so I will do so.

Here is another post hot off the press. From a musician site, nonetheless:

"OK, I tried to avoid this whole topic because, well, I really don't care too much about any of it. But someone touched on this and I want a straight answer. And I think I can use myself as an example.

How can one just CHOOSE to believe in something? Either you do or you don't. I go to church fairly often, I enjoy some of the moral lessons of the church, I can recite all the prayers in unison with the congregation. Heck, even when talking to my inlaws, or other pretty seriously religious people, I play the part - Toeing the Christian line.

But in reality, as a free-thinking, half-way intelligent human, I'm just not buying it. Heck, I even WANT to believe, but there are too many contradictions, and obvious human-created elements of Christianity (or any religion) for me to believe in it all. How can I get in to heaven, when my own brain and sensibilities won't allow me to "believe in one god, the father almighty." Am I doomed for an eternity in hell? True Christians tell you that "you just have to believe, and you will have your salvation" or whatever. But HOW do you convince yourself to believe in something that is fairly silly when you examine it logically? I want to believe - you know, so I don't go to hell and what not, but I can't."

Krishna has a great imagination.

I don't have a fearful mental box so I guess thats why I think both the religionists and them are full of horse poop. but I think youre right, they serve a human function just like religions do...I just say its 2 sides of the same coin

Click to view attachment

This person is extremely well spoken. So I hope s/he will have time to make some books before burning time...

His/her statement about the absence of an afterlife being more comforting than heaven and hell, reminded me of a statement I once came across that was a paradigm-shifter for me:

Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we really deserve them?" (Marcus Cole)

Is the nose of this guy a lizard entering his face?

sometimes very sophisticated people reach for the atheistic concept of life in order to "capture the essence of life". they think life will be lived 'for the moment'. yet, all over the world, the so called primitive people, who ACTUALLY live for the moment because this is what their simple life demands and is all about, place great emphasis on religious beliefs and activities... thus we have seemingly come full circle in our human development...

to me it seems like the "primitive" people had it right all along - there is life after death, there are ghosts of our departed family members, there are gods and there are demons - you can experience all of that "supernatural" existence if you open yourself to it. these people did, and none of them doubt such things are real.

How would you know? I mean, aren't you a little romantic about this?

yes, a little romantic. but I do know many such people, and have read about many more from reliable sources (anthropology), and such behavior is an almost universal rule. and my mind gate is open too - even as sometimes I wish I could close it shut to that etherial world.

Oh, you mean like five brothers who marry one wife. Seemed like the right thing to do, in the moment.

Pretty primitive, I agree totally.

Uuuuggga Buuuuggga