Dennett’s attitude towards religion

[BradStevens]

This article lists some of the high points (not even close to enough, in my mind) of Dan Dennett’s thought.

10 Brilliant Insights from Daniel Dennett

A glimpse of a mind jammed to the rafters with ideas.

nautil.us

On religion:

Religion doesn’t need to be abolished—merely fixed
Does religion “poison everything,” as my dear, late friend Hitch [Christopher Hitchens] insisted on saying? Only in a very attenuated sense, I think. Many things are quite harmless in moderation and poisonous only in quantity. I understand why Hitch emphasized this view; as a foreign correspondent he had much first-hand, dangerous experience with the worst features of religion, while I know of all that only at second hand—often from his reportage. I, in contrast, have known people whose lives would be desolate and friendless if it weren’t for the non-judgemental welcome they have received in one religious organization or another. I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

No, we shouldn’t abolish churches. We should just change them until they are no longer “caught in the trap of irrational, and necessarily insincere, allegiance to patent nonsense.”

Thats pretty damned arrogant. That sounds a lot like the attitude Europeans had when they encountered Native Americans.

 

[snarlcakes]

This article lists some of the high points (not even close to enough, in my mind) of Dan Dennett’s thought.

10 Brilliant Insights from Daniel Dennett

A glimpse of a mind jammed to the rafters with ideas.

nautil.us

On religion:

Religion doesn’t need to be abolished—merely fixed
Does religion “poison everything,” as my dear, late friend Hitch [Christopher Hitchens] insisted on saying? Only in a very attenuated sense, I think. Many things are quite harmless in moderation and poisonous only in quantity. I understand why Hitch emphasized this view; as a foreign correspondent he had much first-hand, dangerous experience with the worst features of religion, while I know of all that only at second hand—often from his reportage. I, in contrast, have known people whose lives would be desolate and friendless if it weren’t for the non-judgemental welcome they have received in one religious organization or another. I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.

It’s incredible how many atheists deep down are just tyrannical statist who get off on controlling others.

 

[BradStevens]

It’s incredible how many atheists deep down are just tyrannical statist who get off on controlling others.

I don’t understand that logical leap. Dennett isn’t advocating the state charge religion, I don’t think.

 

[snarlcakes]

I don’t understand that logical leap. Dennett isn’t advocating the state charge religion, I don’t think.

“I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene”.

What am I to make of this? It seems he would be ok with the state ending churches if they come up with a good alternative.

 

[Bowlmania]

This article lists some of the high points (not even close to enough, in my mind) of Dan Dennett’s thought.

10 Brilliant Insights from Daniel Dennett

A glimpse of a mind jammed to the rafters with ideas.

nautil.us

On religion:

Religion doesn’t need to be abolished—merely fixed
Does religion “poison everything,” as my dear, late friend Hitch [Christopher Hitchens] insisted on saying? Only in a very attenuated sense, I think. Many things are quite harmless in moderation and poisonous only in quantity. I understand why Hitch emphasized this view; as a foreign correspondent he had much first-hand, dangerous experience with the worst features of religion, while I know of all that only at second hand—often from his reportage. I, in contrast, have known people whose lives would be desolate and friendless if it weren’t for the non-judgemental welcome they have received in one religious organization or another. I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.

You're an atheist, you posted this, so I assume you agree with it.

I don't give a shit that you're an atheist. You certainly have plenty of company here. What does bother me, though, is when atheists haughtily dismiss and/or mock the faith of believers as stupidity. This guy goes a step further, suggesting that you brilliant atheists should "assist in transforming [churches] into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational and ... insincere allegiance to patent nonsense."

F*ck off with that nonsense.

 

[BradStevens]

“I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene”.

What am I to make of this? It seems he would be ok with the state ending churches if they come up with a good alternative.

No. In fact I think he started a group called the Brights that were supposed to be a model for how to fill this role. I’m pretty sure he wants it to develop culturally, not through state force.

 

[BradStevens]

You're an atheist, you posted this, so I assume you agree with it.

I don't give a shit that you're an atheist. You certainly have plenty of company here. What does bother me, though, is when atheists haughtily dismiss and/or mock the faith of believers as stupidity. This guy goes a step further, suggesting that you brilliant atheists should "assist in transforming [churches] into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational and ... insincere allegiance to patent nonsense."

F*ck off with that nonsense.

 

[mcmurtry66]

She looks good here but honestly is mid. You’d think eh not bad if you saw her at target

I’m a hopeful catholic but sadly on a polygraph an agnostic

 

[UncleMark]

No. In fact I think he started a group called the Brights that were supposed to be a model for how to fill this role. I’m pretty sure he wants it to develop culturally, not through state force.

There used to be a lot of secular organizations that filled this role: fraternal organizations, benevolent societies, bowling leagues, service clubs, you name it.

 

[snarlcakes]

No. In fact I think he started a group called the Brights that were supposed to be a model for how to fill this role. I’m pretty sure he wants it to develop culturally, not through state force.

Gotcha. We’re not going to agree.

 

[snarlcakes]

There used to be a lot of secular organizations that filled this role: fraternal organizations, benevolent societies, bowling leagues, service clubs, you name it.

Pickleball took over is what happened.

 

[BradStevens]

There used to be a lot of secular organizations that filled this role: fraternal organizations, benevolent societies, bowling leagues, service clubs, you name it.

Not the whole role, but part of it.

I think Dennett agrees that religion provides some people with meaning for life, and that is a universal human desire, for example. Not many of those organizations you listed do that.

The Social Justice Identitarian (Woke) movement probably does this too and it is why it is so strong and why so many gravitate to it. Some like McWhorter and I think Michael Shermer call it a religion, and they have a point.

 

[Bowlmania]

It's irrational to post controversial and provocative content and not expect blowback.

Good to know, though, that you're apparently cool with someone who arrogantly dismisses the faith of believers.

 

[BradStevens]

Gotcha. We’re not going to agree.

I wasn't expecting the religious here to agree. I was posting it to show a hardcore atheist with a softer stance towards religion than Dawkins and Hitchens, who think religion overall a net negative, not a positive, for mankind.

It might be a place where rational, thoughtful theists and non-militant, culturally sensitive atheists could find some common ground.

 

[UncleMark]

Good to know, though, that you're apparently cool with someone who arrogantly dismisses the faith of believers.

I wouldn't be so high and mighty if I were you. I've seen how you can be so dismissive of VPM's particular brand of belief.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I wouldn't be so high and mighty if I were you. I've seen how you can be so dismissive of VPM's particular brand of belief.

we’re going to hold a dream team annual at his church some year. You can come. But act right.

 

[BradStevens]

I wouldn't be so high and mighty if I were you. I've seen how you can be so dismissive of VPM's particular brand of belief.

I'm guessing most here dismiss the "faith of believers" of billions--in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, Amish, etc.

Don't think the quoted piece from Dennett does it arrogantly, though. Hitchens and Dawkins? OK, fair criticisms. I'll let @Mark Milton defend them.

 

[snarlcakes]

I wasn't expecting the religious here to agree. I was posting it to show a hardcore atheist with a softer stance towards religion than Dawkins and Hitchens, who think religion overall a net negative, not a positive, for mankind.

It might be a place where rational, thoughtful theists and non-militant, culturally sensitive atheists could find some common ground.

Softer stance? He calls religious people irrational idiots who believe in nonsense, but he’s ok with keeping us around, as long as he gets to change us. Bless his heart.

It would be like calling my wife a fat whore before we start a difficult discussion and then claiming I took a softer stance when we end up in an argument 🤣

 

[snarlcakes]

She looks good here but honestly is mid. You’d think eh not bad if you saw her at target

I’m a hopeful catholic but sadly on a polygraph an agnostic

I understand being agnostic. I consider atheism dumb.

 

[Bowlmania]

I wasn't expecting the religious here to agree. I was posting it to show a hardcore atheist with a softer stance towards religion than Dawkins and Hitchens, who think religion overall a net negative, not a positive, for mankind.

It might be a place where rational, thoughtful theists and non-militant, culturally sensitive atheists could find some common ground.

You do this all the time. You drop a link, and/or a quote from an article, without offering an opinion, at least not initially. It's usually implicit that you're in agreement with the author but, for whatever reason, you're typically reluctant to come out and say so. It's as though you're first trying to take the temperature of the room so you know which way to go.

Another of your tactics is if you disagree with a poster, you won't explicitly say that you disagree, but rather you'll bombard the guy with a bunch of questions, requiring him to support his position to your satisfaction.

I don't know what the objective is. Maybe you simply have the time to engage in extended philosophical debates, and you really enjoy that with a few willing participants. Maybe you simply want to prove that you're the smartest guy in the room. Maybe none of the above. Maybe all of the above.

This is a message board. Most of us have jobs and lives and don't have the luxury of spending hours a day in extended back and forths. I try to provide credible links that pertain to whatever it is I'm talking about, and my opinion is never in doubt. I'll agree or disagree in a couple of posts, but then it's back to my life. But I guess as long as you have an audience for your style of posting, good for you. Have fun.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

It's irrational to post controversial and provocative content and not expect blowback.

Good to know, though, that you're apparently cool with someone who arrogantly dismisses the faith of believers.

What believers? Your brand or all believers?

 

[mcmurtry66]

You do this all the time. You drop a link, and/or a quote from an article, without offering an opinion, at least not initially. It's usually implicit that you're in agreement with the author but, for whatever reason, you're typically reluctant to come out and say so. It's as though you're first trying to take the temperature of the room so you know which way to go.

Another of your tactics is if you disagree with a poster, you won't explicitly say that you disagree, but rather you'll bombard the guy with a bunch of questions, requiring him to support his position to your satisfaction.

I don't know what the objective is. Maybe you simply have the time to engage in extended philosophical debates, and you really enjoy that with a few willing participants. Maybe you simply want to prove that you're the smartest guy in the room. Maybe none of the above. Maybe all of the above.

This is a message board. Most of us have jobs and lives and don't have the luxury of spending hours a day in extended back and forths. I try to provide credible links that pertain to whatever it is I'm talking about, and my opinion is never in doubt. I'll agree or disagree in a couple of posts, but then it's back to my life. But I guess as long as you have an audience for your style of posting, good for you. Have fun.

You really need a gummie. Want me to send you a box? And this jobs and time - don’t you have a phone? Multitask? I’m sitting on the couch watching clarkson’s farm texting and responding on here. Takes two seconds. In an entire day it might be fifteen minutes

I’ll tell you bowl this board is full of morons. Hyper partisan dolts. Genuinely dumb people. Uninformed. Misinformed. Those with a middle school ability to relate and joke. You’re not one. You’re smart and can contribute but you have to stop getting so personal. We need you. There aren’t many decent posters. If you want to unload do so on the dolts. For yucks. But not thoughtful posters and/or smart/critical posters

 

[UncleMark]

I understand being agnostic. I consider atheism dumb.

Agnostics are nonbelievers who are afraid of commitment.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Agnostics are nonbelievers who are afraid of commitment.

Negative. I want to believe in god but have a hard time believing that if there is a god he’d be doing this to me

 

[UncleMark]

Negative. I want to believe in god but have a hard time believing that if there is a god he’d be doing this to me

Not hard for me.

 

[snarlcakes]

Negative. I want to believe in god but have a hard time believing that if there is a god he’d be doing this to me

Yeah, God was an a#% for giving you a baby arm for a penis.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This article lists some of the high points (not even close to enough, in my mind) of Dan Dennett’s thought.

10 Brilliant Insights from Daniel Dennett

A glimpse of a mind jammed to the rafters with ideas.

nautil.us

On religion:

Religion doesn’t need to be abolished—merely fixed
Does religion “poison everything,” as my dear, late friend Hitch [Christopher Hitchens] insisted on saying? Only in a very attenuated sense, I think. Many things are quite harmless in moderation and poisonous only in quantity. I understand why Hitch emphasized this view; as a foreign correspondent he had much first-hand, dangerous experience with the worst features of religion, while I know of all that only at second hand—often from his reportage. I, in contrast, have known people whose lives would be desolate and friendless if it weren’t for the non-judgemental welcome they have received in one religious organization or another. I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.

​

I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.​

​

I don’t understand the point.

I’ll accept his “residual irrationalism” comment as simply the product of the mind of an atheist. I don’t get this part of the quote a pasted above. Is he saying religion is caught in the trap of irrational and insincere nonsense, or is he describing secular successor organizations? I disagree if he is talking about religion. Religion is not intended to be an expression of intellect. Any successor organization intended to fix the “irrationalism” problem will a fortiori be insincere.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yeah, God was an a#% for giving you a baby arm for a penis.

At first blush you’d think it’d be a blessing but in truth it’s been a curse. Oversexualized. Preoccupied. Uncomfortable. On and on.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Negative. I want to believe in god but have a hard time believing that if there is a god he’d be doing this to me

Job: "God, why have you treated me so?"

God: "Because you piss me off."

 

[BradStevens]

Softer stance? He calls religious people irrational idiots who believe in nonsense, but he’s ok with keeping us around, as long as he gets to change us. Bless his heart.

It would be like calling my wife a fat whore before we start a difficult discussion and then claiming I took a softer stance when we end up in an argument 🤣

He doesn't use the word "idiot" and he doesn't believe all religious people idiots.

He does say that religious people believe nonsense--and you would say this about millions of Muslims who think they're going to receive multiple virgins upon death in Paradise for being a martyr. Or a billion Hindus who believe that cows are sacred and in reincarnation.

But Dennett believes all, or nearly all people believe "nonsense" (e.g. in free will) but that that does not make them idiots. (you can pick up on that in the article I linked).

 

[BradStevens]

You do this all the time. You drop a link, and/or a quote from an article, without offering an opinion, at least not initially. It's usually implicit that you're in agreement with the author but, for whatever reason, you're typically reluctant to come out and say so. It's as though you're first trying to take the temperature of the room so you know which way to go.

Another of your tactics is if you disagree with a poster, you won't explicitly say that you disagree, but rather you'll bombard the guy with a bunch of questions, requiring him to support his position to your satisfaction.

I don't know what the objective is. Maybe you simply have the time to engage in extended philosophical debates, and you really enjoy that with a few willing participants. Maybe you simply want to prove that you're the smartest guy in the room. Maybe none of the above. Maybe all of the above.

This is a message board. Most of us have jobs and lives and don't have the luxury of spending hours a day in extended back and forths. I try to provide credible links that pertain to whatever it is I'm talking about, and my opinion is never in doubt. I'll agree or disagree in a couple of posts, but then it's back to my life. But I guess as long as you have an audience for your style of posting, good for you. Have fun.

Some people can have rational discussions about hotly contested topics and keep their cool. Some people can analyze things from multiple angles and have varied opinions, and might not come down 100% for or against any position, but advance their understanding through discussion. You're not one of those people.

In terms of board decorum, maybe stop trying to psychoanalyze every poster who you don't agree with and ascribing bad motives to them, and then sliding in backhanded, passive-aggressive slights?

It's very transparent, you're bad at it, and it's not very Christian.

 

[jet812]

You do this all the time. You drop a link, and/or a quote from an article, without offering an opinion, at least not initially. It's usually implicit that you're in agreement with the author but, for whatever reason, you're typically reluctant to come out and say so. It's as though you're first trying to take the temperature of the room so you know which way to go.

Another of your tactics is if you disagree with a poster, you won't explicitly say that you disagree, but rather you'll bombard the guy with a bunch of questions, requiring him to support his position to your satisfaction.

I don't know what the objective is. Maybe you simply have the time to engage in extended philosophical debates, and you really enjoy that with a few willing participants. Maybe you simply want to prove that you're the smartest guy in the room. Maybe none of the above. Maybe all of the above.

This is a message board. Most of us have jobs and lives and don't have the luxury of spending hours a day in extended back and forths. I try to provide credible links that pertain to whatever it is I'm talking about, and my opinion is never in doubt. I'll agree or disagree in a couple of posts, but then it's back to my life. But I guess as long as you have an audience for your style of posting, good for you. Have fun.

Your only tactic seems to be to whine like a little girl.
Thanks Brad for finally finding a way to get him to stop bleating about Trump.🤣

 

[DDE-6-20-23]

I try to provide credible links that pertain to whatever it is I'm talking about, and my opinion is never in doubt.

I find this fascinating!

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Agnostics are nonbelievers who are afraid of commitment.

Wrong. Agnostics don’t buy the current scripture but say “hey maybe this wasn’t all random.”

 

[BradStevens]

​

I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.​

​

I don’t understand the point.

I’ll accept his “residual irrationalism” comment as simply the product of the mind of an atheist. I don’t get this part of the quote a pasted above. Is he saying religion is caught in the trap of irrational and insincere nonsense, or is he describing secular successor organizations? I disagree if he is talking about religion. Religion is not intended to be an expression of intellect. Any successor organization intended to fix the “irrationalism” problem will a fortiori be insincere.

He wants organizations that fill all the roles of religion, without the belief in the supernatural or the irrational. A close analog might be modern day Jews--many are atheists but still participate for the meaning, culture, etc.

 

[BradStevens]

At first blush you’d think it’d be a blessing but in truth it’s been a curse. Oversexualized. Preoccupied. Uncomfortable. On and on.

I can testify that the size of the penis has no bearing on the sex drive. I mean, that's what I've heard. From others. Who are not me.

 

[snarlcakes]

He doesn't use the word "idiot" and he doesn't believe all religious people idiots.

He does say that religious people believe nonsense--and you would say this about millions of Muslims who think they're going to receive multiple virgins upon death in Paradise for being a martyr. Or a billion Hindus who believe that cows are sacred and in reincarnation.

But Dennett believes all, or nearly all people believe "nonsense" (e.g. in free will) but that that does not make them idiots. (you can pick up on that in the article I linked).

“I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.”

If I ever say this to you, it means you’re idiot.

 

[BradStevens]

“I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.”

If I ever say this to you, it means you’re idiot.

What if I told you he was an avid bitcoiner????

🦍 🦍 🦍 🦍 🦍 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I love religion and I think we should encourage it. As long as it fits with the following:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”