KYLYKaHYT
Dan Dennett talks about purposely-confusing theology and how it’s used. He also describes his new project interviewing clergyman who secretly don’t believe anymore, and introduces a new term: “Deepity.”
Dan Dennett is the author of many excellent books, including “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” and “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. He is also featured in the video “The Four Horsemen” along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.
Filmed by
JOSH TIMONEN
Edited by
JOEL PASHBY
http://richarddawkins.net
Source
Dan Dennett may become the last great philosopher. He (capitol "H" not for god) would be a great man to end on I think.
Offensichtlich vertreten die Atheisten ein Glaubenssystem, und dies mit einem absoluten missionarischen Eifer. Sie glauben an die Absolutheit des Materialismus, und ihre Erlösung vom Bösen besteht in der Abschaffung und Beseitigung jeglicher Religion. Denn der grundlegende Denkfehler vieler Atheisten besteht darin, dass sie nicht zwischen Fakten und Interpretationen unterscheiden können. Sie vertreten von vornerein ein materialistisches Weltbild
, projizieren dieses in die Wissenschaft und meinen dann, die Wissenschaft habe ihr Weltbild bestätigt, womit bewiesen sei, dass das materialistische Weltbild die einzig richtige Erklärung der Welt darstelle. Die ist ein logischer Zirkelschluß, was von differenziert denkenden Atheisten auch erkannt wind zugegeben wird
Atheismus ist ein Glaubenssystem so wie Enthaltsamkeit eine Sexposition ist.
Und was den Materialismus angeht, bisher habe die Vertreter aller nicht-Materialistischen Ideen versagt bei dem Versuch irgendwelche Beweise vorzulegen, wie es deren Aufgabe ist. Nicht einmal irgendwelche Plasibilitätsbetrachtungen. Und sämtliche Tests bei denen Wunschdenken ausgeschlossen wurde, brachten kein Ergebnis. Bis sich das ändert, sind alle Behauptungen zur nicht-Materialität als Unfug einzustufen.
wish we could take out all the, "..uh."s.
Yes, Dan's, uh, getting, uh, old. But, his mind seems to work just fine.
Your comments bring to mind something Dan didn't mention: that deepities work much better in German.
Western atheists are discarding someone else's religion and faith, not their own. Metaphorically, they will not purchase the clothing that they have been wearing. Who can blame them since it was never a good fit anyway. The outfit was to big and expensive for them; their class, size and style, do not fit the Christian faith.
In a mythopoeic fashion, Dan Dennett consistently uses evolutionary theories in order to debunk religion. As a seminarian, however, the study of textual criticism deepened my faith instead of contradicting it. From the beginning of the Christian faith, non-Jewish cultures have attempted to embrace a messianic, nascent, Jewish faith; it was no easy project textually or otherwise. Christianity has continually grown in foreign soil. Still it remains foreign and remote to West civilization.
u r speaking the truth hypocrites r as worse as devil
helpercroach yes he is getting old so his brain is heavy with knowledge
i have little empathy for preachers who keep preaching even though they dont believe…they are hypocritical liars. nothing more. many many people are forced to change professions mid life. these non believing preachers are just cowards and con artists if they stay in these positions….nothing more.
the only thing worse than the vulgairity of conservative theology is the gullible foolishness of liberal theology
The way I phrase it is that this. One I have respect for but no patience. The other I have patience for but no respect. Guess which is which :).
The devil is not real.
My first point is that Western culture never fully embraced Christianity, and if Christianity is now a fairy tale in Western culture, then we have given up in our attempt to appropriate this foreign and remote cultural and historical religion. My second point is that when we reject it, we are rejecting a false version of it. In the end, apostasy begets atheism. But you can really reject what you have not known.
I think it's long been obvious that despite the apparent intelligent design, we can confidently thank evolution for the existence of religions.
Exactly the same could be said of Buddhism. So what? In the same way, non-Buddhist cultures have "attempted to embrace a mystical, non-theistic monism in which help from a creator god is not necessary to realise wisdom or the most important truths about reality". Budddhism has also continually grown in foreign soil. In fact, Buddhism is growing in the West even faster than Christianity is declining in the West.
uh
There is nothing profound here. I listened to it twice and got nothing out of it. Entertainment! I think Dawkins is better than Dennett at philosophy, and the former is not a philosopher in any possible world. We have theology because it so hard to appropriate the Christian Faith as Westerners; Christianity is foreign and remote. Christianity has never fit Western cultures; our history was never one of full conversion or adherence. The humanization quotation was stolen from M. M. Thomas.
If you gain an understanding of how religion works and why, then you might become a convert and start practicing it.
Intelligent design is within organization of the ant army. One ant by itself is nothing without the collective; it’s the same with a human individual. Humanity and the quality of being human is a corporeality. Yet certain human individuals are marked by impressive genus to the extent that one can display intelligent design individually. The ant castle is produced by the army which has corporate intelligence; the human castle by the human mind which conceives and organizes the project.
1. Dennett appears to lack knowledge of social theory: the relationship of the individual to human organizations. 2. When he states that nature did it and science can explain it, this is not a sound or cogent argument against intelligent design. 3. Clergy become such for various reasons; besides being called, self doubts often motivate one to study theology or become a seminarian. Seminary is often more academic rather than faith deepening; if one doesn't have faith, then that is revealed.
You've described a marvel of evolution. A wonderful marvel.
Huh?
Even none philosophers supersede him in philosophical thought. I am studying him, Dawkins, and other atheist thinkers; having majored in both philosophy and theology, I know that there are more compelling thinkers who work magic without being such mythopedic polemists. Most of these new atheists are Western élites, public scholars, who reshape the world into their own image, without noticing that image is not so striking.
People who believe in intelligent design are proof that evolution isn't based on intelligence.
do u reject the existence of unicorns?
If so you just haven't met a unicorn you understand.
Your statement might result in a false dichotomy between intelligent design and evolution, because intelligent design is a world and life view and evolution is a scientific theory. Hence, evolution and intelligent design are not on the same level; and intelligent design is not creationism. I think the problem is in the present state of Western scholarship. Scientism produces the wrong conclusions for the findings based on evolutionary theories, bad hermeneutics, and a flawed epistemology.
Seems like there is an opportunity to build a non-profit organization to 'transfer' defecting clergy to the secular world.
There is more to theology than in the presentation. Dennett is missing a very important psychological aspect: Why some UMEs work better than others.