[extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett

[Fred C. Moulton]

On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 16:40 -0500, Ensel Sharon wrote:
> The problem is Dennett claiming that harboring X meme is morally negative,
> and that one "owes" it to some third party or parties to either justify
> ones beliefs or change them.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the point(s) that Dennett is
making.  As I read the passage covering this in
 http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html
I think that Dennett is actually making several points and ran them
together in a single paragraph which might be the source of some of the
confusion.  As I read Dennett the points are briefly as follows.

The first point is that persons who advocate a position need to provide
a justification if they want to be taken seriously and be part of an
intellectual dialog.  Thus Dennett has the following sentence:
"If you insist on keeping the myth of the effectiveness of prayer alive,
you owe the rest of us a justification in the face of the evidence."
Note that the evidence that Dennett refers to is the Benson study at
Harvard to which he had just referred.  Consider what would happen if I
started a new thread with a message that I was convinced that eating a
diet high in salt, fat and sugar would lead to a long and healthy life;
I expect that there would be a call for me to justify my statement
particularly since it flies in the face of current evidence.  That is;
the list members would feel that I owed them a justification for my
assertion.  Note that if you do not want to use the phrase "that I owed
them a justification" then you can easily construct an alternative
wording, but the use of the term "owing a justification" is commonly
used in this context.  Thus the first point Dennett is making is about
intelligent discourse.

The second point Dennett is making is that propagating a false idea can
undermine  the respect for what Dennett calls "the very goodness I am
thanking"; that is all of the medical staff, those who developed the
medical tools, etc.  A moral problem of hypocrisy arises when an
individual wants to hold one standard for themselves and a different
standard for someone else.  That is why Dennett has the discussion about
suing when there is an adverse outcome in a medical setting.  Note also
Dennett's example of the drug company whose response to a problem with
their drugs is that they prayed really hard.  I think that perhaps
Dennett might have constructed his examples a little more clearly and
with more explanation so that they would be more readily grasped.  Also
implied but not as explicitly stated is that undermining the rational
approach to medicine could cause persons to avoid proper medical
treatment for a disease such as cancer.  Thus this second point is about
the practical implications of promoting a false idea and the possible
moral problems that can arise.

A third point that Dennett is making is that prayer for the purpose of
causing a deity improve his health is a waste of time and effort and
Dennett is criticizing wasting time and effort.  Now there are those
that would claim that prayer is actually for the benefit of the person
offering the prayer rather than the object of the prayer.  But this is a
bait and switch because as far as the object of the prayer is concerned
either prayer works and is useful or it is a waste of time.  [Note that
for the moment we are not considering the case when the object of the
prayer actually believes that prayer works; that would lead us into a
long discussion of everything from faith healing to Voodoo.]  [Also note
that any possible benefit (or harm) to the person offering the prayer
are a different discussion.]  Thus this third point is about being
frugal with our resources and not wasting them praying for Dennett.

I hope I have read Dennett correctly and have clearly explained my
interpretation.  My feeling is that the services of a good editor would
have helped with Dennett's essay.  But I will cut Dennett some slack
since he has been through a tough medical situation.  At least he did
not try to denounce those who believe in prayer by referring to the
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ website which often comes up in these
discussions.

Fred