LudVan 2 75
HARDtalk – Professor Daniel Dennett — Philosopher, Cognitive Scientist and Atheist
Stephen Sackur speaks to Daniel Dennett, a philosopher who applies Darwinian evolutionary theory not just to species, but to ideas and religious beliefs. He believes religion has outlived its usefulness, hampers rational thought and damages our species. Along with Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, Dennett is seen as a founding father of the new atheism. But do humans want to live in a world where atheism rules and religion is dead?
Source
HARDtalk – Professor Daniel Dennett Part 1
Where is the rest to be found?
It's up just post "HARDtalk – Professor Daniel Dennett Part 2" in search.
thank u
You are welcome. Don't think I've had a reply from Nepal before
I like Daniel Dennett, but I disagree with his idea that religion will go away, it seems to be part of the human psyche, our species seems to have an inbuilt willingness to seek God. These Hardtalk interviews are always interesting to listen to.
I to disagree that religion will go away, certainly not in 20 years. I understand that people need the comfort of a God, and have no problem with that. It's when they try to impose their beliefs on others, or worse, fight and kill others who are of a different faith that's the problem. Education through science is the answer.First though hunger poverty must be eliminated from the planet. The poor, deprived need something to cling on to.
I like Dan, but he doesn't sound very confident in this talk
820
The host has clearly never been on the internet nor looked at the drastic drop in the % of religious people in the world. Certainly religion still has the vast majority but it's been on decline for several years now.
sackur's tough
One might hope that as we better understand the actual base of what caused humans to form religions and get to broadly recognize and understand it as simply a different and natural phenomenon than the proposed supernatural one, religious institutions will have an increasingly hard time not appearing flat-earth bastions and will slide back to the level of general superstitions where they rightly belong
Dan is dead on with the explosion of information. Ignorance is not longer going to be acceptable over the next 20 years. Faith in something based on zero evidence will cease to be seen as noble and start being seen as willful ignorance instead.
I only hope to still be alive and kicking when this toxic methodology is dead and gone.
Maybe in Canada it will die in 20 years. But I live in the Middle East, and I am as certain as one can be that not in 20, nor in 200 will it die. First you have to eliminate poverty, and all that goes with it, but even if that will happen. I've met brilliant people with Phd's in many branches of science, who firmly believe in God, and that the Bible is true in every aspect. Dennet, Dawkins are rational men, but they are the exception, not the rule. I doubt if I'll be here in 20 yrs so won't know
I can sympathize with your situation. Let's hope Daniel is right somehow for both our sake. Stay safe over there and science bless!
Science bless. I like that, but it won't translate. I still have to go on using the Hebrew "Blessed the name" or "with Gods help". Not easy being a non believer where I am, but thanks anyway.
Again, I can't imagine being in a place where I could be killed for saying "what you believe in is a fairy tale." You're a brave person to carry on over there while remaining true to reason and logic.
Where did you hear in Israel people can be killed for what they believe or don't believe. Israel is not Iran. This morning a woman said something about the messiah (not Jesus) I said "I don't believe in that". She said nothing. It causes me problems with my grandchildren, because their mum though not religious in the orthodox way, through her parents they have been indoctrinated. They are 11, & 9. As Dawkins says it's a crime to do that to kids. I just keep my thoughts to myself.
Well to be fair, you didn't specify where in the middle east you were. I suppose you are slightly safer in Israel.
Yes when it comes to raising children I also agree it's dangerous to teach them a spiritual predisposition when it comes to the supernatural vs science. It's a touchy subject.
Actually the new pope is a very good example of how religions are changing. After his election he promised fundamental changes to the Catholic Church, he talked for example about a poor church for the poor. If he keeps these promises he will fulfill Dennett's predictions of changing religions, otherwise the Catholic Church will probably also lose South America after already losing Europe.
It is easy to miss in the interview, but Dennett doesn't expect all religions to die out within then next 20 years. Instead he predicts, that the mainstream religion in 20 years will be drastically different from today, even in places like the middle east. Based on the rapid social changes we can see worldwide (check out Gapminder) this is very likely to come true.
Lets hope so. The new Pope is no different from any other Pope. On the outside he may seem different, but he is the head of an organization to which he is beholden, he knows how far he can go, and no further. RC is like all establishments, corrupt to the core, and routed in their own traditions. You can't compare Western Europe to Latin America [LA]. It's in the RC's interest to keep LA's people poor, when the people are poor their only hope to them seems to lie in God, that's RC's strength.
As much as the RC seems to be rooted in their traditions, don't forget the Second Vatican Concil which ripped out a large chunk of this tradition and put it in the trash can. Benedict tried to restore some of it which turned out to be an utter failure. I don't think it is a coincidence, that he abdicated just a few weeks before concluding talks with the Pius brotherhoood. Franciscus has the choice between the failing path of tradition or even more radical reforms than the Second Vatican Concil.
It would depend on what radical reforms he attempted. Would the Vatican open its vast vaults of money, property, and distribute them to the poor. Of course not. As i said it's in RC's interest to keep the poor of LA poor. The only answer to the domination of religion is radical reform across the board of this planet. All the Judaho/Christian religions go hand in hand with wealth. Dennet, Dawkins are nice people, but they are liberals. Only socialism can rid us of diastatic belief the rest BS.
Fastest growing group in the US: non-believers.
Really. I find that hard to believe, but I hope it's true.
The new Pope also said Atheists are going to heaven.
That's ridiculous, considering no such place exists.
I agree, but at least it shows they're making progress in some sense I guess maybe…. 0.o
What progress. Catholics are the poorest of the Christians. While the Catholic church is so rich no one knows how rich they really are. All religions are just a way of controlling the people. I don't know about this Pope, but Ratzinger (or the Rat as he was known at universality) is a very clever man, I doubt if he believes in what he preached. Atheists do what religions hate most. They think, reason out things, and reach a conclusion other than the indoctrination they were taught.
I agree with all your points. I guess what I meant was that the Catholic church is like a horrifically acne ridden face, but now they got those Stridex pads and they popped a few of the pimples. Thus, it's still horrific to look at, but it's incrementally better than it was the day before, if only by a few zits.
Isn't this world wide as well?
Yes on BBC World News, and on the iplayer [UK only].
Freud, Marx, Weber, Augusta Compt, Nietcsche… all claimed religion will be gone soon.
Religious fundamentalism is growing. The most modern and affluent country in the world ( viz., the U.S) is deeply religious. Longitudinal studies of religious attitudes suggest religion is not declining. For an informed account of the growth/decline of religion see: Stark (2009) Secularization, R.I.P.
The key point with the Internet is not that it will quickly wipe out religion by the sheer logic and magnitude of its debunking and exposure, but that it will plant questions here and there which will fester and drive the curious to find out (on their own) what is out there beyond their narrow circles, and it will be a slow but eventually effective and triumphant process as Dennett supposes I believe.
Stephen Sucker doesn't realize that that 27 million of 320 million (8% of those who honestly answer) Americans saying they are not believers is double what it was 15 years ago.
The "brights" issue is a diversion and quite minor and ironic, considering the mention of Dawkins, as winning memes cannot be deliberately fabricated with intention.
People who believe in God really are "dim" and the only way religion will decline is if humans in general grow better brains. Currently there is a trend for stupid people to reproduce more than smart people, such as in Israel where the unintelligent orthodox Jews have three times as many kids as anyone else, and if such trends continue the species will devolve and become more religious. On the other hand it is possible that technology can save us. Some day we may be able to artificially select for beneficial genes, or even augment our brains directly. If everyone was given the equivalent of ten points of I.Q. in this way, then religion would cease to exist.
https://www.facebook.com/135175896547928/photos/pb.135175896547928.-2207520000.1429553506./685437708188408/?type=3&theater
you want to criticize God through humans but you can't criticize through moses or Isaiah, Jesus or Muhammad. A second point is that you want to make other believe that life existed by itself without a divine power but you are not able to do so precise as the holy book because God is present as if someone is smelling a perfume of a flower and denying that that perfum is not from a flower. how you can explain that. and finally, suppose,that there is not God so immorality is legal because no one will fear God and so a person will do all sins is pleased to do. I personally, I love God and this is my aim but also I fear to do wrong doing because I know that is seeing me.
The United States the most advanced society on earth? Hehe… Sure…
The common cold and religion are two completely different paradigms and as such do not hold up to analogy.
8:30 …"What about the United States, (…) It's the most advanced society on Earth…"
I think a lot of Americans may think of themselves in this way!