braincandy
Dan Dannett does an exciting talk at TED.
Source
Dan Dennett – His TED Talk Response to Rick Warren
Similar Posts
Testing car seats to protect children
Grandmother creates emojis to reflect lives of over 50s
Understanding IV Conscious Sedation
29 thoughts on “Dan Dennett – His TED Talk Response to Rick Warren”
Comments are closed.
Wait wait wait, if i teach my children about other religions they will lose focus from the one I want them to have!!!!
@orcodrilo I hope you're being sarcastic.
@WlNDMlLL fairly certain it was a joke.
Rick was in the audience,hehe.
Of course he was!
I didn't know Dennet was so utterly clueless to the suffering animals go through in factory farming systems, and worse, talks about informed consent. I find his "stewardship of animals" part appalling in the face of what these animals go through. The cost they pay is beyond measure. Normally, I like Dennett, but he is just fucking wrong to say what he said about diary cows and sheep.
@SuperAnimalDrummer
Continue "liking" Dan Dennet. His comments regarding animal domestication were general in the context/comparison of the continual "taming/hybridizing" humans "do" to their religions. Yet, you'recorrect! FF's, CAFO's, etc. are VILE for animals & unhealthy for human consumption! The sooner we adopt a more Nutritarian a/o Vegan approach–the better off the planet, the animals & us!
General Comment… Are you a Facilitator or a Dictator?
I don't "worry" so much about "World Religions 101" class having a deleterious effect on the minds of children … It may however, cause parents discomfort in answering questions they are either unwilling, or unable to address… HINT: The more you squirm, the more they're likely to pester you with questions…tricky little buggers, those…
Amazing. It has survived ignorant dislikes up to 36 so far. I'm willing to bet it will make it to at least 50. Any takers?
How a belief originated says nothing about whether it is false or implausible. We could say the same thing about Atheism. So Dan, that's not a valid argument
Atheism in its broadest sense isn't a belief; it's a lack of one. I wouldn't expect someone who thinks 'atheism' is a proper noun, though.
Nice try. Atheism in it's broadest sense is the belief, God does not exist. You're describing weak atheism or agnosticism. Look at history. I don't know what else to say.
Weak, or implicit atheism IS NOT the same thing as agnosticism. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, this is a statement about belief; they are not mutually exclusive.
Gnostic means WITH knowledge; Agnostic means WITHOUT knowledge. Theism mean WITH a believe Atheism (capitalization for emphasis) means WITHOUT belief. EVERYONE is an agnostic, since the supernatural is outside our realm of knowledge.
This is literally philosophy 101. You should stop before you embarrass yourself further.
Nice rhetoric at the end ;).
Do you know what belief or knowledge means? I'm the one taking an epistemology class right now.
Knowledge= justified true belief
That is the definition of knowledge according to Plato. That system has many problems, as you can have justified true belief and still not have knowledge, as shown by the Gettier problems.
The word you're looking for is "agnosticism." Atheism is the belief in no deity.
No, atheism is often defined as a lack of belief. Agnosticism doesn't deal with belief, but with knowledge. An agnostic says he does not know whether there exist any god/gods. So you can believe in a god and be an agnostic, and you can be both an agnostic and an atheist.
No. Atheists actively argue that there is no God. That's a definite belief in the matter as a God's existence is necessarily unknowable. Agnostics are not interested in anything that is unknowable so they excuse themselves from the argument. THAT is a lack of belief. If you argue one way or the other, you're not agnostic. You've breached the very definition of agnosticism. You're theist or atheist. It seems that atheists try to get around this glaring hypocrisy and I don't blame them 😉
The only thing the atheistic label refer to is to not believing in any god/gods. What you write about agnosticism is very hard to follow. They are not interested in the unknowable? They? Agnosticism is a position on knowledge about god, but not interested in what is unknowable? What? If you think god resides outside our epistemological powers, then you are an agnostic. Where is the hypocrisy? Please try to be as clear cut as you can when answering.
Someone who is agnostic to theism has no opinion about it. That's what agnostic means. Someone who is theist has the opinion, or belief, that there is a deity. Someone who is atheist has the opinion, or belief, that there is not a deity. If you find someone expressing an opinion on the matter, they are not agnostic. They are either theist or atheist. Many atheists often preach their belief that there is no deity but refuse to call it a belief. They also claim agnosticism. Hypocrisy.
That is not how I and many others use the terms. You can have a belief about something without claiming to know it for certain. These are not used as mutually exclusive terms and is therefor not hypocrisy. Also, from what I have seen a lot of atheists, including myself, do not claim that no god exist, but instead that there is no reason to believe in one. Not one have said that they know for certain no god exist, which would be an irrational position.
I've seen each of the four horsemen state plainly that there is no god. There is no difference between a belief in something and the claim to know it if that thing is, by definition, unknowable. The entire basis of the belief in a deity is that it exists in a plane beyond our comprehension and so it is unknowable to us. This is why the amateur atheist's demands for "proof" are met with confusion by the theist.
Could you provide links?
Also, if a deity exist outside our plane of comprehension, then on what basis do you form a belief that such an entity exist? To be able to say I believe a god exist, you must somehow comprehend what you refer to to make it intelligible.
Finally, please try to be clearer in how you formulate yourself. It is really hard for me to follow your reasoning.
It can't be any clearer. Unless agnostic, we have to believe one of two basic assertions: Either it is possible for nothing to exist and all existence is subject to the effects of time, which is to say that all existence has a beginning and an end, OR that there is an eternal existence, a deity to us, outside of the effects of time and necessarily outside of our comprehension. We don't have to comprehend something for it to exist. What an arrogant idea.
(1) Did you have those links?
(2) Where did I write you have to comprehend something for it to exist? If something is outside our comprehension how can you believe it exist. You must have some way of knowing about it to believe it.
(3) I still can't understand what the hell you are talking about. You are using your terms so differently from what I am used to that it is very hard to follow you reasoning.Why would an eternal existence be called a deity. Eternal doesn't necessitate person-hood.
Daniel Dennett on the evolution of religion, domesticating of religion, and Rick Warren's (purpose driven life). Don't miss.
Interestingly my public middle school required a world religions class.
"You've got a reasonable objection? Don't listen! Don't listen! That's the devil speaking." That's exactly the empty argument that I was given for so many years to get me to stop reading books and asking questions about matters that conflicted with blind dogmatism. It's the same argument used by the Stalinists and the McCarthies and the Muslim Brotherhoods to quell thought. Critical thinking is what makes and keeps us free.
Why not debate the topic? This "responding" is not completed, because the other part is not present.