Daniel Dennett (3) - La Ciudad de las Ideas 2009 [19]

[valaraj]

Dennett is just a man with a good idea.

[flibbertergibbet]

Dennet is Darwin.

[superduperjew]

religion is unneeded.

[elgordo420]

@superduperjew "like a fish needs a bicycle"; agreed, my friend.

[jeremyemilio]

Dennett is dead on, here. How he got mixed up with the likes of Hitchens, though, is beyond me. It's one thing to debate ideas openly and vigorously. It's quite another to continually characterize everyone on the other side of the debate as being deluded, evil, stupid, or some combination of the three.

[swampdonkey152000]

Hitch would say it is religion, not people, that is evil. I completely agree with Hitch that it's poisonous.

[rmcdaniel423]

@jeremyemilio wrote "It's quite another to continually characterize everyone on the other side of the debate as being deluded, evil, stupid, or some combination of the three."

His approach may be distasteful to you, but if you want him to be "open and vigorous", as you yourself suggest, you have to be willing to hear what he says. How is belief in a young earth not deluded? How is genocide & acceptance of slavery not evil? How is belief in Noah's ark not stupid? All are biblical tenets.

[jeremyemilio]

@rmcdaniel423

I don't find Dennett's approach distasteful at all; just Hitchens'. How many Christians believe in a young earth? How many accept genocide and slavery? None of these is a 'biblical tenet' any more than the final solution is a 'tenet' of The Diary of Anne Frank. The story of Noah's ark is a prehistoric creation myth from Genesis, for pity's sake. Percy Shelley wrote on the "Necessity of Atheism." I tend to agree. I simply think religion is every bit as necessary and respectable.

[rmcdaniel423]

@jeremyemilio You are suggesting that even christians can disregard whole sections of the bible, at their own personal discretion, and still call their religion "necessary and respectable". The same bible that they uphold as the perfect and holy word of God himself. That seems contradictory. Would you consider a science textbook to be "necessary and respectable" if it contained ridiculous content that could be disregarded?

[jeremyemilio]

@rmcdaniel423

The Bible is held up 'as the perfect and holy word of God himself' only by a very few and very recent segment of the Christian population known as fundamentalist literalists. For most Christians, and for most of time, the Bible has been seen for what it is: a compilation by several authors of numerous writings in diverse styles and modes ranging from history, to parable, to poetry, held together by a common theme: the relationship between God and humanity.

[rmcdaniel423]

@jeremyemilio wrote "The Bible is held up 'as the perfect and holy word of God himself' only by a very few and very recent segment of the Christian population known as fundamentalist literalists."

I disagree. It seems like the phrase "Holy Bible" is a pretty old and widely used concept. So is the notion that it is "divinely inspired". I hardly think reverence of the bible is restricted to a very recent fringe group of extremists.

[jeremyemilio]

@rmcdaniel423

The Bible is considered a Holy book because of its subject matter and because many of the people who wrote it are revered by Jews and Christians. So? Divinely inspired has never, until very reverently amongst a very select group, been taken to mean 'divinely written or dictated.' The Koran is claimed to be the exact words of God, dictated by Gabriel, and recorded by Mohamed. The Bible makes no such claims. You're simply wrong on this.

[jeremyemilio]

@rmcdaniel423

And the Bible is much like a science text, which is a likewise a compilation of facts, theories, observations, and history, compiled by numerous contributors and which, yes, contains ridiculous content that has been, could be, and will be disregarded. What good science text doesn't contain debating theories on undecided science, or the later refined ideas of Newton, or the defunct geocentric model of Ptolemy, or current science that will need to be revised in the next edition?

[rmcdaniel423]

@jeremyemilio You described the world of scientific literature very nicely. You say the bible is the same? Do they question the validity of the genesis story and demand repeatable peer-reviewed experiments to support the theory? Do they cite references for incredible claims like the miracles of Jesus? Or do they just read one single patched together book and accept it all on faith? The bible and science are hardly the same, IMO.

[jeremyemilio]

@rmcdaniel423

The bible is a compilation of different modes, mostly historical or literary writing, and very little scientific writing. It makes as much sense asking if Christians demand peer-reviewed experiments to support the creation theory as asking if literary scholars demand experimentation to investigate the ghost of Hamlet's father. The question to be asked of the Bible is whether a given section is literary, historical, or a mixture. This question is asked PLENTY by people of faith.

[bersa888]

Thank you, D.D.!

[xTRUExHATEx]

Dennett is god.

[nthoctave]

All he needs is the white robe.

[Ematched]

@xTRUExHATEx apt