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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 3, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Ensel Sharon wrote:

>
>
> (FYI, I am agnostic on the subject of God / religion)
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: (Daniel Dennett  
> speaking actually)
>
>> But isn't this awfully harsh? Surely it does the world no harm if  
>> those who
>> can honestly do so pray for me! No, I'm not at all sure about that.  
>> For one
>> thing, if they REALLY wanted to do something useful, they could  
>> devote
>> their prayer time and energy to some pressing project that they CAN  
>> do
>> something about. For another, we now have quite solid grounds  
>> (e.g., the
>> recently released Benson study at Harvard) for believing that  
>> intercessory
>> prayer simply doesn't work. Anybody whose practice shrugs off that  
>> research
>> is subtly undermining respect for the very goodness I am thanking.  
>> 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. Pending  
>> such a
>
>
> Wrong.  They owe you NOTHING.  If they wish to think about hooters  
> girls
> and sports cars, so be it.  If they want to direct their time and  
> thought
> energy to their hamster, so be it.  If they want to pray for your
> well-being[1] (or perhaps for you to mind your own business), so be  
> it.
>

I don't believe Daniel Dennett said that anyone owed him anything.  So  
what are you yelling about anyway?  He says that he is not sure the  
practice does no harm.   In the sense that it keeps a lot of folks  
befuddled and thinking they are doing good when they are doing little  
but further befuddling themselves he has a point.  He does not say  
above that people should in any way be forced to do anything other  
that what they wish to.


>
>> justification, I will excuse you for indulging in your tradition; I  
>> know
>> how comforting tradition can be. But I want you to recognize that  
>> what you
>> are doing is morally problematic at best."
>
>
> Wrong.  No thought whatever is morally problematic.  The time,  
> energy and
> will that I expend are my own and require no justification - from me  
> or
> anyone else.
>

Not wrong.  It is morally problematic to ignore reality and instead  
engage in feel good fantasies and it is especially problematic to  
claim that doing so is "good".  He did not require anyone to justify  
anything.  He also has the right to voice his opinion about the  
choices of others.  He is not "Wrong" to do so.  It is actually a very  
good thing when people speak out about collective unsane behavior.


> If Dennett is such a fucking genius, why doesn't he recognize the  
> problem
> of labeling things "thoughtcrime" ?

He never did any such thing.  When you get through foaming at the  
keyboard perhaps we could have a better discussion.

> Further, how dare he suggest that I
> do anything with my time and kilowatts, or dispose of my own  
> property in
> any way, other than exactly as i see fit ?

Where did he do that?

> The notion that he would
> impose upon others some kind of minimum acceptable level of function  
> and
> efficiency in their thoughts and actions is absurd.  If certain time,
> energy and kilowatts belong to me, I will dissipate them in any way  
> I see
> fit, and as efficiently as I see fit.


Where did he do that?

- samantha