Schism Among Atheists II
Continued from: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists
I just watched a fascinating new talk by Dan Dennett, which in part discusses his research of atheist clergy (closet atheists who are still preaching), how religion evolves, and why we have theologians: "The evolution of confusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ
Dan Dennett talks about purposely-confusing theology and how its used. He also describes his new project interviewing clergyman who secretly don't believe anymore, and introduces a new term: "Deepity." ...
Comments
Thank you for the link. The full title is "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." A natural phenomenon? Like rain, volcanoes, evolutionary biology, light, the Big Bang? Religion is no more natural than interest on money, or mass production, slavery, etc. Religion is man made. How is it possible in the 21st century there are "philosophers" who believe nonsense like Dennett? The Poverty of Philosophy is being slowly transformed into the Death of Philosophy.
Yes, that is the full title and it is worth reading. What is this "nonsense" you say Dennett believes? I can't really respond in a meaningful way unless you elaborate.
/quote]
Yes, that is the full title and it is worth reading. What is this "nonsense" you say Dennett believes? I can't really respond in a meaningful way unless you elaborate.
Well, he says, for starters, that religion is a natural phenomenon. In other words, religion, like every other natural phenomenon, has existed for millions of years, at least.
Right, he is saying we should study religion scientifically in the same way we study any other natural phenomenon.
Right, he is saying we should study religion scientifically in the same way we study any other natural phenomenon.
If you are going to study religion like you would, say, gravity, you have to measure it, reduce it or its effects to a mathematical quantity, Does Dannett do this? I mean, what are the physical laws of religion? If he meant to study religion as a type of psychology, he should have said he would study religion as a natural "human" phenomenon. But that would mean admitting that religion is no older than the human race.
Right, he is saying we should study religion scientifically in the same way we study any other natural phenomenon.
Reading a couple reviews of his book, I think he is saying that religion is a type of ancestor worship of a type of "folk" religion. My point is that this kind of scientific analysis has been going since the early 19th century. If Dennett fails to explain Hegel, Marx, Engels, Frazier (The Golden Bough), Freud, et al then he is being intellectually dishonest.
If found this quote in one of the reviews:
[/“Up to now, there has been a largely unexamined mutual agreement that scientists and other researchers will leave religion alone,] Who are these scientists?
I can't confirm what he is saying about scientists having generally left religion alone (as something to be studied), but I have no reason to doubt what he is saying is true. Yes, the book talks about ancestor worship, how religion "evolves", the nature of belief, and all sorts of stuff. It's a pretty thick book.
Right, he is saying we should study religion scientifically in the same way we study any other natural phenomenon.
If you are going to study religion like you would, say, gravity, you have to measure it, reduce it or its effects to a mathematical quantity, Does Dannett do this? I mean, what are the physical laws of religion? If he meant to study religion as a type of psychology, he should have said he would study religion as a natural "human" phenomenon. But that would mean admitting that religion is no older than the human race.
But isn't it true that scientists have to be able to observe an unknown phenomenon with one of the five senses for it to be measurable? Earth seasons were explainable to a low degree of variability because the theory was testable and observable. And certain things that are too small or too distant to observe by human eye were made possible to observe with advances in microscopy, x-ray technology, telescopes etc.
But further back in time, explanations for what was visible and observable came from the first scientists who were, in the beginning, shamans and tribal priests, healers and men and women who whose roles were to be seekers of wisdom and possessors of knowledge handed down over time. Later they were called learned people, and not everything they knew was true. And over time, advancing knowledge was a lesson in questioning the authorities and wisest members of society, and they began to question the keepers of knowledge and truth at great risk to their own credibility and even risking their personal safety and well being. At one time, people who questioned the wisdom of the day did so at risk of being labelled everything from screwballs to heretics and even sorcerers who had to be banished from the community, and-or punished in some way for having differences of opinion. And so this leads me to think that, philosophically speaking, it's not possible to ask a question about something that is not. Or at least not in this thread.
But further back in time, explanations for what was visible and observable came from the first scientists who were, in the beginning, shamans and tribal priests, healers and men and women who whose roles were to be seekers of wisdom and possessors of knowledge handed down over time.
Yeah, I don't think so, my friend. Science and mathematics came from farmers, navigators, and builders.
And the Babylonian priests who practiced astrology, and helped create the concept of a unified, coherent cosmos that could be understood rationally.
But further back in time, explanations for what was visible and observable came from the first scientists who were, in the beginning, shamans and tribal priests, healers and men and women who whose roles were to be seekers of wisdom and possessors of knowledge handed down over time.
Yeah, I don't think so, my friend. Science and mathematics came from farmers, navigators, and builders.
The first farmers were definitely a plus for the community. But indigenous people often recognized special talents of those they deemed to be important to their collective survival. Some were esteemed for the their ability to anticipate migratory patterns of game. And some of them advised when to sew and when to reap, and to communicate with their long lost ancestors for important advice on everything from the weather to where to make camp. Contrary to what the first European missionaries reported back to their royal sponsors, indigenous people of North America were very spiritual. Aborigines of Australia still recognize members of their communities who have special talents. And the cultural genocide of indigenous people around the world continues. And very often it has taken the form of physical elimination.
Mathematics is a tool that scientists use, but it does not constitute all of what science is. Newton expanded on this tool used by scientists, and it was useful. But even until turn of the last century, scientists still continued to believe somewhat that all there was to know about things like the elements were already known. There was nothing more to discover. Newtonian Atomic theory said that, for instance, a wooden table is made up of inanimate and indestructible bits of matter. The scientist was understood to be an unobserved observer looking on. All that had to be discarded with the new science of Heisenberg, Bohr, Einstein etc. Some scientists today will tell us that teh universe seems to know when it is being observed and even approach the language of mysticism when describing the cosmos. But what marked the previous discovery of new ways to explain things was the change of context in which scientific questions were asked by scientists in an enlightened way. And that was to trust no one and question everything.
I can't confirm what he is saying about scientists having generally left religion alone (as something to be studied), but I have no reason to doubt what he is saying is true. Yes, the book talks about ancestor worship, how religion "evolves", the nature of belief, and all sorts of stuff. It's a pretty thick book.
Some years ago, Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould had a vigorous debate over what Gould called "Non Overlapping Majesteria". Gould posited that science and religion had no basis for conflict as they ran in very separate spheres. Dawkins countered that a universe that included a supreme being was fundamentally different from one without, and as such, very much was the business of scientific investigation/inquiry.
I think Dawkins was right, and while I very much admire Gould's concilliatory tone towards religion, it was ill suited to the debate and techniques of rabid fundamentalists like the late and unlamented Jerry Fallwell and his ilk.
The late Carl Sagan wrote about our sense of wonder, or the word he often used, the numenous. As an atheist, one of the things that can get my dander in a knot is when the religious phrase things as if they have a monopoly on spirituality, or that the numenous is something that can only be experienced through religious practice or belief.
Sagan, in a way more tactfull than I will lay out, suggests that when religion or other shysters take our sense of wonder and twist it around ideas like the Aztecs being influenced by extra terrestrials, or that Jesus rose from the dead (my examples-- Sagan, like I said, was more tactfull) they actually pervert and abuse our sense of wonder.
That the only true excersize in the numenous comes from the pursuit of knowing, not believing.
To which I concur. Not only concur, it was an idea I held before I read Sagan, discovering it rather independantly, though Sagan expressed these ideas better than I ever could, or will.
(pause for a tear for Carl Sagan. How can I miss this man so profoundly, when I never met him?)
But then, the next step is trying to understand of what value to our survival is the numenous? I have to think it provides, or did provide, some survival advantage.
Well as long as we're recruiting famous scientists to our favourite dogmatic causes, what about those scientists who were both spiritual and grounded in science? Most leading edge scientists are not out to disprove the existence of a god or anything else on the atheist-skeptics wish list. Because scientists in general know that proving the unproveable is a waste of everyone's time and energy. And so they do science instead.
Carl Sagan was a proponent of the search for extraterrestrial life, as in ET's and all that spooky stuff at the very heart of "ancient astronauts" theories that some people find so offensive.
Well as long as we're recruiting famous scientists to our favourite dogmatic causes, what about those scientists who were both spiritual and grounded in science? Most leading edge scientists are not out to disprove the existence of a god or anything else on the atheist-skeptics wish list. Because scientists in general know that proving the unproveable is a waste of everyone's time and energy. And so they do science instead.
Carl Sagan was a proponent of the search for extraterrestrial life, as in ET's and all that spooky stuff at the very heart of "ancient astronauts" theories that some people find so offensive.
Well, that's a fairly accurate misscharacterization of everything, Fidel.
When we get down to the nitty gritty of what scientists believe, and the tedious distinctions between all the isms, it's fair to say we can find scientists to fit any catagory. And, I think sceptics in particular and many scientists don't waste thier time trying to prove a negative. What they do do, is properly put the onus on those making the claim.
If it's anyone's claim there is a god, then it's up to them to bring the evidence to the table.
And as far as connecting Sagan to Von Daniken, that's just foolishness born of ignorance, Fidel. You're better than that.
Oh?
When we get down to the nitty gritty of what scientists believe, and the tedious distinctions between all the isms, it's fair to say we can find scientists to fit any catagory. And, I think sceptics in particular and many scientists don't waste thier time trying to prove a negative. What they do do, is properly put the onus on those making the claim.
Ah, Skeptics! James Randi is not a scientist in case anyone was wondering.
But this thread belongs to skeptics. And I think that they are limited to saying little more than they are skeptical.
Just so long as no one tries connecting a briliant mind like Sagan's to that of a crackpot magician like Randi. Are we even? 
Randi's far from a crackpot, and further to it, Randi and Sagan were friends. Connecting them, or unconnecting them is not up to me.
Using scientific method to analyse religion is kind of like using string theory to understand Hieronymus Bosch.
It makes a lot more sense to analyse religion within its own context and social framework. You don't need to be Catholic to understand Thomas Aquinas, but you'll get more out of his writing if you understand his life and historical milieu.
Now, to say I despise organized religion would be putting it lightly - the harm it does vastly outweights any benefit it might have - but I do find various belief systems and spiritualities fascinating. Theology tells us much more about ourselves as people than it does about the nature of god and the universe.
You don't need to be an arrogant dissmissive a-hole like Dawkins to be atheist. There is no unified Church of Atheism, there is no "schizm". There are as many different kinds of atheism as there are modes of thought about pretty much anything.
Michael, that sounds to me a bit like: "There are as many varieties of dreams as there are of dreamless nights." But I do take your meaning. There are many who call themselves "atheist". But there is only One True Atheism.
Well said, Unionist. The only dreamless nights, after all, are the ones spent awake or dead. Those who think that they're sleeping without dreaming are deluding themselves.
I don't find Dawkins arrogant or dissmissive, except towards debates and ideas that are so bad, they're "not even wrong". We have to remember that Dawkins took up the fight against a crowd of creationists and Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalists whose strong suit isn't tollerance. Dawkins just brings a gun to a gun fight, as opposed to Gould, who liked to bring letter openers to gun fights.
Those who think that they're sleeping without dreaming are deluding themselves.
Just like those who don't acknowledge that, deep down, we all believe in some sort of deity - right, Michael?
Randi's far from a crackpot, and further to it, Randi and Sagan were friends. Connecting them, or unconnecting them is not up to me.
Hmm Here's Randi trying to trick people on the I've got a secret show. I didn't see Carl anywhere.
And apparently Randi was the star of The Magic Clown
Hmm Here's Randi trying to trick people
Do I detect a note of resentment, Fidel? If so, it's a resentment I had toward all magicians untill I hit my thirties or so. Before, I saw them as a type of fraudster. We had a grade 6 teacher... forget his first name, last name was Dean. He eventually quit teaching to do magic full time, and enjoyed some success. I couldn't stand him.
But if we view the magician as a teacher, a teacher that illuminates the failings, limitations or quirks or our senses, then they are very much the opposite of fraudsters.
It's probably why so many magicians are figures of note in the modern skeptical philosophy.
I don't know about you, but I certainly placed my senses in very high regard, and had difficulty coming to grips with admitting, for example, that the moon looks bigger on the horizon than it does at it's zenith for no other reason than my brain making it so. Because we like to trust our senses.
But, as you know, we shouldn't. So, I no longer resent magicians, but hold them in high regard.
I don't think the teachers union would have him. Randi's resume states that he was a clown school dropout.
Daniel's father was a spook for the OSS in Beirut during the war. And his sister has met with a brick wall in pursuing the facts surrounding her father's death in 1947. Apparently this small part of the truth is still out there and refuses to be found.[/drift]
And his sister, Charlotte, has been hunting for the truth:
Brattleboro, of course, is the home of the famous (or infamous) Brattleboro Retreat:
The Retreat was founded in 1834 by Anna Marsh, the widow of Dr. Perley Marsh, whose attempts to treat mental illness were frustrated by the lack of appropriate existing treatments. Marsh endowed the hospital (originally known as the Vermont Asylum for the Insane) with $10,000 from her estate. Her wishes were that the hospital exist independently in perpetuity for welfare of the mentally ill.
[end of drift for the moment]
Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk respond to the question "Is there an atheist schism?": "Stand up, stand up, against Jesus: Civility has its uses, but we should not be afraid of satire and mockery as weapons against religious power".
"...How religion evolves..." It seems to be that "modern" studies of religion have reverted to pre-materialist theories. A brief look at religion on Wikipedia shows that modern scientists are saying things like, 'the human brain grew to the point where humans were capable of understanding religion." Religion was just sort of 'out there' waiting for a big brain to find it. As far as I can tell nothing significant on the evolution of religion has been done since Marx. Engels, Feuerbach, Freud, et al.
As far as priests being forced into the closet I don't think that is something new. After all, the crisis of faith of a priest is a recurring literary theme. (Although I can't cite you any books, right now.)
Have you read Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell"? It is pretty recent and quite thought-provoking.
I haven't read the book, but the title repeats the 19th century idea that religion was a kind of magic. According to Wikipedia Dennett wants to subject religion to scientific analysis, which has been done at least since Freud.
Dennett continues flailing away at religious thinkers who refuse to conform to his caricatures. He seems to think that unless you're a proof-texting snakehandler, you are an non-believer, whether you know it or not. The thing is, he's no fool. His work on reconciling determinism and free will showed a lot of ingenuity. But turn him loose on a subject outside his own, and he becomes a coffee-shop bore, dismissing any attempt at subtlety as "deepism." I must admit, though, he's good fun. Always a hoot to watch a crusading atheist smell out and excommunicate the unbelievers like a reborn Torquemada.
You must love Dawkins then.
I think T.H. Huxley would be a better antecedent. I don't think that Freud's critique of religion (which is actually contrary to Huxley's and therefore Dennett and Dawkins's) is all that scientific. Freud actually sees religion (or, at least, the "oceanic" experience that religion confers) as essential to civilisation. Huxley et al see it as contrary and harmful to it.
I haven't read the book, but the title repeats the 19th century idea that religion was a kind of magic. According to Wikipedia Dennett wants to subject religion to scientific analysis, which has been done at least since Freud.
The title "Breaking the Spell" has a dual meaning as Dennett explains in the introduction. This reviewer must have skipped that part as he accuses Dennett of being inconsistent, though the review gives a sense of it.
The title "Breaking the Spell" has a dual meaning as Dennett explains in the introduction. This reviewer must have skipped that part as he accuses Dennett of being inconsistent, though the review gives a sense of it.
Thank you for the link. The full title is "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." A natural phenomenon? Like rain, volcanoes, evolutionary biology, light, the Big Bang? Religion is no more natural than interest on money, or mass production, slavery, etc. Religion is man made. How is it possible in the 21st century there are "philosophers" who believe nonsense like Dennett? The Poverty of Philosophy is being slowly transformed into the Death of Philosophy.