Dennett vs McGrath - Part 1 of 9

This is a debate at the Royal Institution in London between philosopher Daniel C Dennett and professor of theology Alister McGrath. The debate is on the ideas presented in Dennett's book Breaking the Spell, such as the concept of the meme and the evolution of religion.
The debate is moderated by Madeleine Bunting.
Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

Alister Edgar McGrath (born 23 January 1953) is a Christian theologian, who holds both a DPhil (in molecular biophysics) and an earned Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford. He is noted for his work in historical, systematic and scientific theology.

In his writing and public speaking, he promotes "scientific theology" and opposes antireligionism. McGrath was until recently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but has now taken up the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College London since September 2008. Until 2005, he was principal of Wycliffe Hall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath

Category:

Education

Tags:

• debate
• God
• religion
• atheism
• atheist
• meme
• Christian
• Breaking
• the
• Spell
• Daniel
• Dennett
• Alister
• McGrath

[polymath7]

Dennet't's thought experiments are delightfully astute, and the fecundity of his imaginanation always makes me wonder what he might have produced had he pursued his youthful ambition to become a sculptor.

[riversonthemoon]

I don't know if you've seen a video series I posted called "Locating Subjects of Experience in the Natural Order" by Rick Grush. It is similar to one of Dennett's thought experiments in philosophy of mind, but with an interesting temporal component. Very stimulating stuff. I think you would like it.

[klalkity]

And your basis for associating social darwinism and sociobiology with Dennet and Dawkins' work is...? To mislead people with lies?

[fuckisnotadirtyword]

Why do people use the word "Darwinism" when they mean evolution or transmutation of species? I suppose that gravity should be renamed "Newtonism".

[MrWildbill20056]

@richo61 My you have taken on board the armour of the 'New Atheist,' how sad. A sad contrast to the truly great atheist philosophers of our time such as Anthony Flew.

I do not use this example because of his ultimate reconsideration of his position, but rather in respect of his rigorously academic approach to the subject matter.

I suspect we have little to no more to say to each other. Farewell :)

[richo61]

@MrWildbill20056 "Assertions without any substantiation are no argument"

Quite right. That doesn't of course mean that what I said is incorrect.

If you *care* to know if I am correct or not you can investigate - but I am not your teacher.

I am not paid to teach people how to think on the internet - I just enjoy laughing at those who say absurd things - particularly those that like to play at being intellectuals!

Toodle Pip!

[MrWildbill20056]

@richo61 Assertions without any substantiation are no argument and thus require no answer.

The irony of the tone of this post, in contrast to that which it seeks to disparage, is really quite amusing :)

[richo61]

@MrWildbill20056 'A Scientific Theology' in three volumes

Ha! Hilarious!

Theology cannot be scientific.

And I love the irony of the theist calling the godless arrogant.

That one always strikes me as breathtaking in its audacity.

[MrWildbill20056]

@richo61 I refer you only to start with McGrath's 'A Scientific Theology' in three volumes. Given his credentials, it's hardly funny and constitutes work of an individual peer reviewed in both Biological and Philosophical journals of the highest order.

As always with these discussions the arrogance of the apparent 'new atheist' is utterly misplaced.

[richo61]

@MrWildbill20056

I see no indication that I lost the bet. 8-)

If you seriously don't think the concept "scientific theology" is funny then you should read some books, do a little study and see if you can figure it out. Or not.

For some ignorance is bliss.

[MrWildbill20056]

@richo61 I see no quantification of your bet, but seeing as you lost it as soon as you made it, what do I win? :)

[MrWildbill20056]

@richo61 That's actually misrepresentative of the truth, unless you want to specificy the religious movement you are speaking of. Buddhism for example is not a religion per say, but a philosophical approach to all matters, religion being one of them.

Further if you are specifying Christianity, then again the history of the Church is a history of constant dialogue, question and debate. Were the punishments you list in operation, oh yes, universally, oh no.

[richo61]

I love the concept of "scientific theology" - what a very small subject that must be!

I bet you could write everything known in "scientific theology" in one short sentence.

A paragraph perhaps, if you wanted to be thorough and exhaustive.