Daniel Dennett, Human Nature and Belief, Wed 8 July

Darwin and the evolution of why?
Professor Daniel C Dennett (Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA)

Summary: We human beings are the only living things that can represent, transmit and criticize reasons for doing things and making things. This creates a perspective for us that we can then use to interpret all the rest of the life on the planet, cautiously. Mother natures reasons are not just like our reasons. It is our evolved capacity to ask, and answer, Why questions that gives us, in the end, the kinds of free will worth wanting, the kinds that no other animal has.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• darwin
• cambridge university
• professor daniel c dennett
• cognitive studies
• human nature
• belief
• perspective
• science
• darwin festival
• 2009
• lecture

[swandike]

@bayreuth79 good points.

[GodTheHypothesis]

@bayreuth79

Ok thanks, you just continued along the same vein which I clearly said was missing the point.

[bayreuth79]

@GodTheHypothesis What we mean by the term "God" is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Therefore, the only thing that God thus defined has in common with the mythological gods of ancient Greece and Rome is the term "god". Zeus was never thought of as being that than which nothing greater can be conceived nor the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Besides, Cicero thought of Zeus as a personification of God.

[bayreuth79]

@GodTheHypothesis Oh please! That is very naive indeed. I am aware that the BBC is paid for by the public, but every organization has an agenda. You mentioned Robert Winston's "Story of God"- this proves my point! Robert Winston is an avowed atheist and secularist. For anyone who has received an education in theology and religion Winston story was anything but objective!

It is not just me who complains about the Biased BBC. The Catholic Church is frequently slighted on BBC programmes, etc.

[bayreuth79]

@GodTheHypothesis ...is all I was attempting to establish here. If there is an absolute beginning then the universe (or multiverse) is a contingent being and as such cannot be the something whose non-existence is impossible. It seems to me that the reason some scientists are nervous about an absolute beginning and want to avoid it is precisely because- contrary to most rationalists and atheists- the universe isn't a necessary being. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

[bayreuth79]

@GodTheHypothesis When I mentioned an "infinite universe" I was of course referring to an infinite past time universe. Vilenken says, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One, p.176). A cosmic beginning...

[GodTheHypothesis]

@bayreuth79

Well I think you're deliberately missing the point of the comparison to zeus or odin. The point is, you could imagine various Gods that have the exact same metaphysical status as the christian God but have different character. For example, I think the being which nothing greater can be conceived, necessarily created the universe with the intent of creating bacteria. The universe is far more fine tuned for bacteria than it is for humans...

[GodTheHypothesis]

@bayreuth79

The BBC is paid for by the public, they have no agenda at all! There's plenty of pro-religious material on the BBC. Robert Winston's "Story of God" comes to mind. That's just plain nonsense.

[GodTheHypothesis]

@bayreuth79

Well yeah it is just a question of what mathematicians say because there remains no certain answer. The BGV theorem doesn't prohibit an infinite universe at all. It prohibits a past eternal spacetime, that's all. The inflationary theory that it's based on usually implies an infinite universe in the future too (so the existence of infinity is implied by it). That's nonsense about the multiverse- Alex Vilenkin's latest book was actually on the multiverse!

[bayreuth79]

@GodTheHypothesis I suggest that you read David Hilbert's "On Infinity". It is not just a question of what some mathematicians say, the Borde, Guth, Vilenken Theorem prohibits an infinite universe (or multiverse for that matter). Besides, I do not trust the BBC as they have a secular agenda. That is well known and uncontroversial.