What Is Religion?

The Forum's year-long exploration of religion launches with a program featuring distinguished philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett and noted evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson.

They are joined by additional participants to discuss questions such as: What is the nature and purpose of religion? Is it a product of our evolution and something we can now do without? Is it a system of belief and practice that humans require in order to build communities and construct meaning for their lives? What in human make-up renders religion possible? How has religious belief developed and changed over the years, and how does it continue to do so?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• religion
• god
• CUNY
• Graduate
• Center
• belief

[ssstripe1]

You got to love Daniel Dennet!

[Nerd0042]

The discussion starts at 6:20

[Nerd0042]

hey! daniel dennett!

[jewlzorjay]

I wanted to make a comment before i watch this,

Firstly i think religion claims to have the answers to the following:

Is there a creator(s)?

is that creator conscious?

Dis that creator create life?

Did that creator consciously create life?

Is there a place where life goes once it ceases to be what we commonly know as life?

Science simply believes that religion has no evidence to back it conclusions so it seeks to answer these same questions.

[jityr2]

Need more volume man. I can hardly hear it.

[AR333]

@tartamihai1 I agree, he is surely conflating the word "because". Logic it seems is not universal among adults, even educated ones.

If I say my car is turned on because I turned the key, then say the car was turned on because I need to go to work, then fine. But what religion does with it's claim is not like this. Man having a common ancestor with other animals is not in harmony with saying god man man, then the animals for him. It's just not.

[tartamihai1]

(Part2)

I think he is intentionally fucking around with those two contextual senses of the word "because" in order to produce a background in which science and religion could provide two non-conflicting explanations of the same problem.

I'm sorry but I have to call bullshit.

[tartamihai1]

(Part1) At 22:16, Jon Haught is messing a bit with the contextual meaning of "because" in his layer explanation.

The way I see it:

"The fire is burning because of the chemistry of combustion" provides an objective explanation for the phenomenon and "The fire is burning because I'm having a picnic" provides a subjective reason why I lit the fire.

[EnisGashi10]

The true shit you monsters!