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

[Russell Wallace]

On 11/6/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> Did you actually read the piece?  It is beyond me how you go from the gentle thoughtful ruminations on actual good that just saved this man's life as compared to the claimed good of religious acts like prayer to the evils of communism.   There in nothing whatever of force in Dennett's remarks yet you act as if there is.
>
>

I did not claim there was anything of force in Dennett's remarks; in the
text you quoted, I was agreeing with Eliezer that the most precise analogy
would be with "a theologian who *peacefully argues with you*, for what he
conceives to be your own benefit, that you are committing a mortal sin by
denying the existence of God."

> As for who's being more irrational, whatever your opinion of religion, it
> worked. Look at the results once religion is gone: the prime examples of
> evolution in action are precisely those who believe in evolution. If I
> believed in God I'd say He had a wicked sense of humor.
>
>
>
> What do you mean "it worked"?  What worked exactly?  I am really at a loss as to what you meant by this paragraph.
>

Religion worked for survival. Look at what happens to modern cultures where
religion is gone: they fall apart into self-hatred and nihilism, birth rates
plummeting below extinction level, their people rapidly headed for oblivion.
The greatest civilization that ever existed on this planet is dying, in what
should have been its hour of triumph - dying not of any external threat, but
of its own parasite memes; and who will pick up the torch once we are gone?

Really?  I know an awful lot of atheists who are very delighted with
life and this universe and consider life extremely full.
>
>

If that works for them, great, though I will note that most people who give
up belief in God, in order to find meaning in life, need to substitute some
equivalent belief: aliens, the Singularity, reincarnation or whatever.

> What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may wonder? Why,
> some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, Dennett.
>
>
> This is beyond the pale.
>

I'm sorry it offends you to see things called by their right names.

Preach?  There is no rational reason for believing in God that I am aware of.
>

There's no rational reason for believing in the Singularity either (yes,
like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of truth, but the vast bulk
of what's written about it is as much a fable as Noah bringing two of each
animal aboard the ark). I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be
irrational.

 Theism has done a great deal of harm.
>

But far more good than harm.

A parable, quoting from memory so the wording may not be accurate, but the
gist of it is:

Young man: "I can see no use for that fence, let's get rid of it."
Old man: "Certainly not. Go and study the problem some more, and when you
come back and tell me you _can_ see a use for it... _then_ we can start
talking about whether to get rid of it."

Superstitious and irrational thinking does even more. How is it
preaching to say this is so?   Again, what is your beef?  I don't see
anything you seem to be saying in the actual article.
>

It isn't about Dennett's article - if it were just him, I wouldn't have said
anything. It's about the prevailing meme in Western intellectual circles
these days that tearing down Christianity and its value system is somehow a
rational or wise thing to do.

Are you claiming that those who say what they honestly thing about
religion and theism should be despised or censored for saying it?
>

I have not advocated censoring anyone. What I think should be done is this:
when Dawkins goes around using his science to preach atheism, someone - it'd
have to be someone who'd be listened to, something like a professor of
evolutionary biology at a well-known university would be ideal - should
stand up and say: "Dawkins is of course entitled to preach his religious
beliefs - in his capacity as a private citizen. Science says nothing
whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of God, and it is a fallacy
to claim it as authority on either side of that debate."

We all agree teaching science is important. I claim it is equally important
to teach that science is compatible with pro-survival value systems.

Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god.
>

Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' recent works?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061106/6c0b944b/attachment.html>