Daniel Dennett on Danish TV (Part 1/3)

[IdaABC]

I can't see why religion and science can't live together in peace.

I don't think he is right (him thet old man), because he is OLD and CRAZY!!!!

[Baal1985]

This isnt serious. At least DR2 could have was to invite somebody who has studied religion, I am thinking Tim Jensen or Rothstein, not base this important issue alone upon a maximalistic atheist. USA has a strong Christian right wing that affect some people to create a similar strong maximalistic atheistic right wing. For me both sides are equally bad. His definition of religion 5:29-5:37 (from E. Taylor) has been rejected by the main scientific community regarding religion.

[adamredwine]

You should check out the recent intelligence squared debate on "Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism"

[Trumpetz81]

Has it? You need to cite proof of such claims. Speaking for the entire scientific community by asserting shit like that demands some sort of citation.

It's not as if Dennett is ignorant on the subject. Most atheists can recite scripture far more accurately than their typical Christian counterparts. It's this knowledge of the bullshit that is religion that usually leads atheists "astray" to reason and logic.

[Baal1985]

@Trumpetz81 You really want me to quote Geertz? Jugensmeier? Weber? Tim Jensen? Mikael Rothstein? Olav Hammer? Just to name a few. Even if we accept Tylor we still dont know what a "supernatural being" is, and we dont know what exactely "believe" means. If you really want to questioning my knowledge in the field of Reiigious Studying go head! I dont like you talking about atheists been astrayed it sounds to me too much of Islam and religion that there is one road and that road is ours (mine)

[Trumpetz81]

I already have questioned your knowledge, and yes I want you to quote those sources and to cite where you got those quotes.

Creationists have been quote mining Darwin ever since he died, so don't think simply saying so and so said this is going to suffice.

[Baal1985]

@Trumpetz81 Geertz has 5 domains that shall be acquired before we can talk about religion, "religion as a cultural system p. 78-89. Durkheim "The Elementary Forms to the Religious Life" p. 38. Bruce Lincoln operates with 4 domains "holy terrors: thinking about 9/11" p. 5-10 . If Tylor nailed it then it is weird so important professors as Lincoln and Geertz need to reinvent the definition. That u question my knowledge fine lets email them, just so u know it I have a B.A. in this field :)

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985

Look, an undergraduate degree isn't going to impress me, so you can stop that shit right now.

In what "field?" Religious apologetics? Don't make me laugh.

Furthermore, the only thing you've done successfully is appeal to the authority of those that hold to a view decidedly more similar to yours than Dennett. Also, you still have yet to prove that his definition of religion was rejected by mainstream science. Geertz disagreeing does not speak for the mainstream science collective.

[Baal1985]

An undergratuate, what do u have? It's named Religious Studies/History of Religion/The Subject of Scientific Approach to Religion pick the terminology u like the most. Dennett is a philosopher he needs peer viewed critic of his writtings. Im not acting clever in philosophy since I dont have the knowledge needed Dennett has no legitimacy to act clever in the subject of religion. Geertz n Bruce Lincoln represent the mainstream community. Boyer is continuing this approach founded by these ppl

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985 English. Anyway, your degree is in theology. The fact that you majored in religious studies almost guarantees a bias on your part. Why the hell else would you pursue a degree in something like religion?

They represent the mainstream community? According to whom? As far as I can tell, there is no general consensus on what religion entails. The only consensus within the scientific community regarding religion is that religion is wholly detrimental to science, and vice versa.

[Baal1985]

Religious studies has nothing to do with theology! Im religious? "To suggest that a pertinent degree is required to engage in discourse regarding religion is asinine" I actually partly agree. That Ive a degree doesnt make me an expert but it gives me the tools to seperate nonsense from a real debate, something u miss. To understand religion is to understand people where antropology is a major source of gaining knowledge.Even if I was religious would not dismantle my argumentation because of that

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985 Really? It has everything to do with theology lol. Theology, in the loosest sense, is the study of god (as if such an endeavor is actually possible. Absurd). More specifically, it usually entails the study of scripture. If you're approaching the study of religion by evaluating its effects on society, you're taking an anthropological approach. Nevertheless, there is no way you can positively and honestly assert that an authority such as Dennett has no idea what he's talking about.

[Baal1985]

@Trumpetz81 Religious studies has nothing to do with theology not even in it is most loose sense. You have no insight knowledge of the educational system here, so there is no way you as any ability to assert Religious Studies is related to Theology. If you still keep that opinion you are just showing your own ignorance. I can assert Dennett since his work is not peer viewed! He is speaking in a field where he has a limited knowledge! No peer viewed articles agree with him. Mention one?

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985

Theology is defined as studies in religion rofl. Look it up! The fact that I haven't yielded to your dishonest techniques in religious apologetics is testament to my lack of ignorance.

Dennett is a Harvard graduate and a professor at a major university. His work has most certainly been peer reviewed, especially in his primary field of cognitive science, which, I might add, is quite pertinent to religion as cognition is directly congruent to thought. Thanks.

[Baal1985]

Theology = the study of God (logy = study of, theo = gud)

The studies of religion is the study of religions in generel we dont study god/s or if they exist that is irrelevant, we study how religion affects one's belonging, behaving and believing where we through anthropology, sociology, field-workexperiences and cognitivity among other subjects of interest try to understand peoples' religiosity. So you're wrong theology and religion are not the same. You clearly didnt follow Greek in school ;)

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985

How can you study god without reference to some sort of scripture? That's the only "evidence" attesting to the possibility of a deity existing, and it's terrible evidence at that.

I never said Dennett can't be criticized. I simply said your criticism is unfounded. Like I said, cognition is directly related to religion. Would you like me to spoon-feed to you the reason for this?

[Baal1985]

Like I said cognitivity is part of this subject, would you like me to spell that out for you? I didnt say we didnt dig deep into the scriptures but the understanding of the scriptures is hermeneutics. We need to see how people read it since we cant read people's mind we have to observe their behaving. Just because you study cognitivity doesnt automatically give you an advance knowledge of religion again his main focus is philosophy and biology not religion. Personally I favour Pascal Boyer more

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985

Look. Saying shit doesn't make it so. You're incredibly annoying and very hard to follow because, simply put, you aren't exactly coherent. Your arguments aren't just bad. They're virtually nonexistent.

Dennett's assertion that religion is a parasite has, and will continue to, meet with opposition from a number of people, many of them authorities. That does NOT DISQUALIFY his idea, or render it untenable.

You agreeing with one side doesn't automatically make it right, you idiot.

[Baal1985]

At last u consider me 4 been a fool n I consider u 4 been a fool. U claim I dont know anything about my subject, an accusation I find laughable not necessary rofl but close. Dennett's cognitivity-views contradicts Lawson, Boyer and Sørensen (my former prof). The idea religion as a parasite furthermore contradicts Malinowski, Girard, Evans-Pritchard, V. Turner, Whitehouse, Sosis n Bellah. Instead of taking my word for it start reading Lawson, Boyer n Sørensen yourself then review Dennett.

[Baal1985]

@Trumpetz81 and I did not critize all Dannett's work I know he is a respected man. I have no reason to doubt his work regarding biology or his work regarding cognitivity, but concluding that because of that he cant be critized is a wide and dangerous path and again his work where he mixes his thoughts with the subject of religion hasnt been peer viewed and none of my professors (when I asked) found him even remotely important, I put my trust in them not u who has shown no knowledge in this area

[Baal1985]

Talking of knowing the scripture you disqualified yourself a long time ago for challenging my knowledge since you showed your complete lack of knowledge :) Just the fact you thought I was religious even my name (Baal) is screaming heretic and nonbeliever. You wouldnt call a person naming "go-darwin" for creationist, would u? That was actually what u did. Im still laughing, a person acting clever is after all an empty bag. PS I can just imagine you reading wiki to find out who Baal is...too late

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985 And until you manage to provide a compelling argument, outside of appealing to the authority of (and performing verbal fellatio on) leading authorities you just happen to agree with, nobody will ever take your empty bullshit arguments seriously.

We're done here. I don't have any more time or patience for an idiot apologist for religion who cites his own degree in religion as proof of authority on the subject.

And yes, that's exactly what you did initially. Have a good one.

[Baal1985]

Dennett is not important. Untill you know the difference between the subject of religion and the subject of theology you are nothing and furthermore it shows your complete lack of qualifications. To accept your correctness of Dennett's postulations that would be a deductive error big time . I have asked you to mention just one source that agrees with Dennett. Instead you continued your ad hominem argumentation. I havent apologists for or against religion I have apologists against Dennett.

[Baal1985]

Sayin Lawson isnt important is saying Comte isnt important for positivism n Kierkegaard isnt important for existentialism. Lawson introduced cognitivity to the subject religion. Pritchard is the guy of structuralism, Malinowski is the guy who invented fieldwork, before him the only fieldworkers were missionaries who had a special agenda. Read some books! U have no idea how much more trustworthy u become. Send a mail is u want to talk more and let the audience judge yours and mine argumentation.

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985 Furthermore, the only reason I berated you regarding your degree is because you threw it out there expecting to intimidate me lol. I mean get real. Religion figures centrally in the lives of something like 90% of people. To suggest that a pertinent degree is required to engage in discourse regarding religion is asinine.

Geertz was an anthropologist, so I don't see your logic in citing him as an apologist for theology. Then again, you're religious, so I don't expect you to be logical.

[ecco1mi]

um, richard dawkins definitely didn't say that religion is the root of all evil. but hey, whatever right?

[aadnk]

Perhaps, but they don't have much of an excuse, as it's pretty easy to deny. A simple Google search on this expression will lead one to a Wikipedia article about a documentary by the same name, explaining the following:

"Richard Dawkins has said that the title () The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy."

[hymnofashes]

Anyone who names their DVD 'the root of all evil' can't complain when he's quoted as saying that.

He really asked for this one.

[MidgardEagle]

According to Dawkins himself, he really didn't want it to be named this - it was the producer of the DVD that named it. He managed to get them to add the Question mark at the end, but that was it.

[hymnofashes]

Well, tough shit for Richard. If he didn't consent to the title, the title wouldn't have been used. Perhaps it was a political concession, but people have to take responsibility for statements they make in public even if they're appeasing someone. No one had a gun to his head.

[BamBasse]

"but people have to take responsibility for statements they make in public"

And he has done that. He has said clearly that he does NOT think religion is the root of ALL evil. That is called honesty. What did you expect? Should he have stopped speaking forever because he was unable to convince them to change the title? I'm sure you would like that. What a childish attitude.

[hymnofashes]

Dennett himself says repeatedly that intellectuals must take responsibility not only for their position, but also for the likely misinterpretations of it. I'm not claiming Dawkins should defend the title, or that he should retire from public life; I'm claiming he made himself an easy target. We atheists HARDLY cut bishops who misspeak on say, the holocaust, any slack whatsoever. (nor should we.)

No double standards means no double standards. Flag away-- children.

[Mexiborg]

"f he didn't consent to the title, the title wouldn't have been used." How do you know that? Have you ever worked with Channel 4?

Recall that the title is "Root of All Evil?" with emphasis on the question mark at the end. It's a question, not a statement.

People have misinterpreted "The Selfish Gene" too based on its title. Dawkins has publicly tried to correct this misinterpretation, as with the doc's title. After he's done that much, can we blame him for people who read by title only?

[adamredwine]

Why do you think it wouldn't have been used if he didn't consent? He's not a dictator, he has to listen to his boss just like everyone else.