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
Quote:
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." ...
The major accomplishment of the "New Atheists" is that they have emboldened the general public, including atheists, to speak about faith issues in a frank way rather than treating the matter with kid gloves. It is good that people are talking about these things.
Links:
[1] http://www.rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ
[3] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1078548
[4] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1078558
[5] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1081150
[6] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1082573
[7] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1082580
[8] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1082710
[9] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1082873
[10] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1082876
[11] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1082891
[12] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1082904
[13] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083198
[14] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083212
[15] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083295
[16] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083314
[17] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083398
[18] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083409
[19] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083416
[20] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083695
[21] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083699
[22] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083734
[23] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083787
[24] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083858
[25] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083871
[26] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083874
[27] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083903
[28] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083905
[29] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083969
[30] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083970
[31] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083972
[32] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083973
[33] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083975
[34] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083976
[35] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1083978
[36] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1084019
[37] http://www.freebase.com/view/en/the_magic_clown
[38] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1084063
[39] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/humanities-science/schism-among-atheists-ii#comment-1084069
[40] http://rabble.ca/user
[41] http://rabble.ca/user/register
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.