theist and atheist, watch and learn.

C

cato

less hate, more science
Registered Senior Member
hey everyone,

it pains me a great deal to start a thread in this subforum. usually the only reason I ever post in here is because I feel that someone's ignorance is so glaring that I should try and help them. I reference Daniel Dennett often, but I am not sure any of you know much about him. I think he is a roll model for atheists and theists alike. therefore, I have decided to post an interview he did on the Charlie Rose show.

I believe that many of the arguments that continually crop up in this subforum are at least touched upon in this clip, and it would make a generally more informed debate if you guys watched it. try to keep an open mind about the ideas expressed. that goes for atheists as well as theists.

if you feel the need to debate points made by Dennett, please try and bring them up one by one.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605&q=daniel+dennett&hl=en

thanks,
Cato
 
yeah, I have seen better interviws, but it gave a relativly good of synapsis of Dennetts beliefs.
 
cato said:
hey everyone,

it pains me a great deal to start a thread in this subforum. usually the only reason I ever post in here is because I feel that someone's ignorance is so glaring that I should try and help them. I reference Daniel Dennett often, but I am not sure any of you know much about him. I think he is a roll model for atheists and theists alike. therefore, I have decided to post an interview he did on the Charlie Rose show.

I believe that many of the arguments that continually crop up in this subforum are at least touched upon in this clip, and it would make a generally more informed debate if you guys watched it. try to keep an open mind about the ideas expressed. that goes for atheists as well as theists.

if you feel the need to debate points made by Dennett, please try and bring them up one by one.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605&q=daniel+dennett&hl=en

thanks,
Cato
Click to expand...

I watched a few minutes of it. Looks like a happy atheist whom uses the method of human relationship known as Christianity.

Assuming the rest of the video is a continuation of this message, he is an example of the benefits of human relationship that religion provides and the benefits of abandoning the fairy tales that religion asserts.
 
Cruncy Cat, you should really watch more than the first few minutes. There are some laugh-out-loud moments of verbal wit, and some intellectual gems in there.
 
I think Dennet was constantly on the back foot, gasping for air and time.
He was fortunate that the interviewer allowed him to get away with some of his points.
His reasoning was childish and pointless and full of gaping holes.
But within all of that, he seems like a nice chap.

Jan.
 
Old news, only got as far as his talk of Brahms sorry, but too 'obvious' an approach.

So he was raised a Christian, attends church (regularly) sent his kids to church (regularly) celebrates chirstmas in traditional christian sense (not santa sense) BUT he defines himself as an atheist because he does not accept the supernatural side of religion. Presumably by this he means god.

So here we have a guy who does not believe in god but enjoys religion and partakes of it. It's a 'fun' thing to do. Fair enough that's his choice.

I am theist and do not partake in religion, also my choice, though I do like to tour chruches, I like historical buildings. If atheist built nice buildings I'd visit those too.............oh they do, yeh I have been. Only they aren't advertised as such ;)

My Jewish relatives also visit christian churches and celebrate Xmas, as did my Sikh boss as do my Muslim friends. Tree's, nativity scenes, all the traditional bits and bobs. Here in the uk it is not unsual to just enjoy the niceties of life without getting caught up in the dogma.

Dennett is tolerant of atheist/theist/agnostic as am I as are everyone I know. (except on sci forums) So for me, no news here but old news.

He does though admit he himself uses the techniques to manipulate his audience , he has adopted the word 'bright' to replace the word atheist. Making it more user friendly. Clever ploy, I do not disagree although I do not enjoy fact I can't use the word 'gay' in a sentance anymore unless talking of homosexuality so no doubt the word 'bright' will also cease to be part of my vocabularly, so his plan isn't all good.

On the music thing, he considers Brahms knew how to evoke the deepest feelings via his music, I would think that it was rather less intellectual and that the effect of his music on humans was merely a result of his talent and not the intention. Though no doubt he swiftly became aware of that effect.

Music is a tool as are charm and charisma, Dennett has oodles hence he got on a chat show even though he has little new or original to say.

He discusses his view of why humans need religion, in ref to corpses and our 'alleged' biological revulsion of them. What biological revulsion? Most people visit their dead relatives in chapel of rest and body exposed for viewing before burial. I bathed my dead gran and dressed her body. There was no revulsion. We have been dressing corpses for burial since ...a bloody long time, so what revulsion? Thus his argument we got onto religion (created stories re after death etc) because we were biologically programmed to imagine and 'fear death' demonstrated by our biological revulsion of corpses is pants as it's not been demonstrated has it?


I favour my view re the need for omnipotent caretaker that is present at birth. Belief ourselves as babies are omnipotent, we realise we are not, so this then this transfers to believing our parents are omnipotent, we realise they are not so it transfers then to............ to who?? We create or find the 'who' depending on what you believe.

I don't disagree with what he says , it mirrors my view in part but either way it is old hat.
 
maybe you would like a more adversarial environment for the discussion. there is another video where dennett squares off with another author, and IMO squashes him.

I think you should watch the whole thing though. or at least listen to it while you do something else. but is you want the other video, let me know and I will post it.
 
cato said:
maybe you would like a more adversarial environment for the discussion. there is another video where dennett squares off with another author, and IMO squashes him.

I think you should watch the whole thing though. or at least listen to it while you do something else. but is you want the other video, let me know and I will post it.
Click to expand...

If you want to give atheism/bright, or whatever, world credibility, I think you ought to post it. Although, listening to what he had to say, and watching un-easiness in such a forgiving atmospehere, I'd be very surprised if he had something of real interest to say.

Jan.
 
cato said:
maybe you would like a more adversarial environment for the discussion. there is another video where dennett squares off with another author, and IMO squashes him.

I think you should watch the whole thing though. or at least listen to it while you do something else. but is you want the other video, let me know and I will post it.
Click to expand...

Post it quickly you selfish sod!!!
 
My lesson from this was the idea that Christianity is of benefit until we can replace it with something more appropriate to our needs. The religion offers a sense of morality and purpose for thousands of people, i.e. those who are truly dependent on the concepts. In this sense Christianity is a major crutch for them and if that were removed then they would stumble seriously. Many more say they believe because it is part of their culture but would likely switch to something else fairly easily if shown something better.

I really do wonder how many American politicians do not really believe but are forced to be hypocrites because they would not be elected otherwise. I have a friend who lives in Ottawa who told me that if a Canadian politican started spouting about his beliefs he simply wouldn't be elected, much like most of Europe.

But what is a replacement for Christianity and religious belief? It is certainly not atheism or the brights because those are negative philosophies, they define themselves as something that is NOT something else. One could argue that the brights seem more positive, e.g. they hold a naturalistic worldview, but really that is still simply a way to create a contrast with a supernatural worldview. Secular humanism offers something positive but no where near the fantastic and attractive promises offered by religion.

I like Dennets approach of simply ignoring religion unless asked, otherwise religion is largely irrelevent for those who choose to think for themselves.

Overall though I didn't like the interview.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
Old He discusses his view of why humans need religion, in ref to corpses and our 'alleged' biological revulsion of them. What biological revulsion? Most people visit their dead relatives in chapel of rest and body exposed for viewing before burial. I bathed my dead gran and dressed her body. There was no revulsion. We have been dressing corpses for burial since ...a bloody long time, so what revulsion? Thus his argument we got onto religion (created stories re after death etc) because we were biologically programmed to imagine and 'fear death' demonstrated by our biological revulsion of corpses is pants as it's not been demonstrated has it?
.
Click to expand...

It has, in that most people that I can think of are or would be, put off by the site of a decaying human corpse. It's the fact that they are dead, although I'm sure this freaks out many people, it's the sight, smell, etc. It's also true in the case of most people at least, that we do not like seeing people killed, or at the very least people close to us. The 'fear' of death has an evolutionary advantage for us.
 
wsionynw said:
It has, in that most people that I can think of are or would be, put off by the site of a decaying human corpse. It's the fact that they are dead, although I'm sure this freaks out many people, it's the sight, smell, etc. It's also true in the case of most people at least, that we do not like seeing people killed, or at the very least people close to us. The 'fear' of death has an evolutionary advantage for us.
Click to expand...

"Demonstrated by most people YOU KNOW" is NOT demonstration enough.

Real people are seen 'dead' in news coverage,

ALL medical students have to view, disect and examine corpses as do forensics, morticians, etc etc etc

Soldiers face their own and threaten others with death in war
They see death

WE see corpses in museums

some real human corpses are used in 'art'

I have had no problem with dead bodies, that of human or animal.

I am no more unusual than all the others named above.

If 'fear of seeing dead bodies is the origin of religion and belief in God, you
are gonna have to do better in demonstrating this 'fact' than merely not 'seeing' the contradictions in what you claim.

I forget I'm talking to someone no better and the same in fact as a crab (by your own admission) I must expect little more than bollocks thus.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
"Demonstrated by most people YOU KNOW" is NOT demonstration enough.

Real people are seen 'dead' in news coverage,

ALL medical students have to view, disect and examine corpses as do forensics, morticians, etc etc etc

Soldiers face their own and threaten others with death in war
They see death

WE see corpses in museums

some real human corpses are used in 'art'

I have had no problem with dead bodies, that of human or animal.

I am no more unusual than all the others named above.

If 'fear of seeing dead bodies is the origin of religion and belief in God, you
are gonna have to do better in demonstrating this 'fact' than merely not 'seeing' the contradictions in what you claim.

I forget I'm talking to someone no better and the same in fact as a crab (by your own admission) I must expect little more than bollocks thus.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying that we humans like being around dead bodies?
I know that we study them, and view them in art, etc, I have viewed this myself and found it fascinating; but this has nothing to do with the revulsion of seeing a dead body that used to be a loved one. Why don't you try killing a relative of yours, leaving the body to decompose for several days and then return to it, and see how you feel.
Anyways this is slightly off topic, in that the original point was to do with people feeling distress at the death of a loved one, and creating a mythology about the afterlife to help them cope with that loss.
BTW, I said I was no better than a crab, but I didn't say I was the same.
 
wsionynw said:
I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying that we humans like being around dead bodies?
I know that we study them, and view them in art, etc, I have viewed this myself and found it fascinating; but this has nothing to do with the revulsion of seeing a dead body that used to be a loved one. Why don't you try killing a relative of yours, leaving the body to decompose for several days and then return to it, and see how you feel.
Anyways this is slightly off topic, in that the original point was to do with people feeling distress at the death of a loved one, and creating a mythology about the afterlife to help them cope with that loss.
BTW, I said I was no better than a crab, but I didn't say I was the same.
Click to expand...

Not all religions believe in an afterlife, so again religion did not spring into being for any reason associated with death IMO.

Meanwhile, I told you already, I bathed and dressed the dead body of my own gran. She was the closest person to me at that time in my life aside from my mother. It was a privilage and not a chore and not remotely repulsive. Had she decomposed, she'd have stunk but so do rotton eggs and I avoid them like the plague. I also buried my dead cat after it got ran over.

Seeing a dead body is actually good for coming to terms with death, there is no attachment to the dead body, as the 'feeling' you get from a living thing is absent, it's not the person you loved. Hard to explain. It makes you realises the person you loved was more than the lump of flesh you see.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
Not all religions believe in an afterlife, so again religion did not spring into being for any reason associated with death IMO.

Meanwhile, I told you already, I bathed and dressed the dead body of my own gran. She was the closest person to me at that time in my life aside from my mother. It was a privilage and not a chore and not remotely repulsive. Had she decomposed, she'd have stunk but so do rotton eggs and I avoid them like the plague. I also buried my dead cat after it got ran over.

Seeing a dead body is actually good for coming to terms with death, there is no attachment to the dead body, as the 'feeling' you get from a living thing is absent, it's not the person you loved. Hard to explain. It makes you realises the person you loved was more than the lump of flesh you see.
Click to expand...

Yes this is all true, but the creation of an afterlife myth, be it Christianity or Islam, etc, is about coming to terms with death, reason or purpose for this life and the glory or damnation that awaits you after death.
As an atheist I can't make sense of the afterlife myth or why some people cling to it, but it's always interesting to hear a theist's view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top