Jennifer Michael Hecht. interviewed on Point of Inquiry 2/4

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/
Jennifer Michael Hecht is the author of award-winning books of philosophy, history, and poetry, including The End of the Soul: Scientific Modernity, Atheism and Anthropology; Doubt: A History; The Happiness Myth, and her book of poetry, Funny, which Publishers Weekly called one of the most original and entertaining books of the year.

In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Hecht talks about the relationship of her book Doubt: A History to the books of the New Atheists, if media reception of the New Atheists was "gendered," and in what sense her book is "less evangelical" than theirs. She explains what she means by the kind of doubt she believes in, how it is broader and deeper than mere disbelief, and the ways in which doubt can feed belief. She explores the implications of doubt for scientific inquiry, and how doubt should be applied to the questions and the certitude that some scientists and skeptics express. She talks about the importance of art, poetry and psychoanalysis for doubting, and how such forms of introspection and expression increase the benefits of doubt. And she reveals some her favorite doubters in history, and what she learns from them.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Jennifer
• Michael
• Hecht.
• Point
• of
• Inquiry
• atheism
• religion
• philosophy
• art
• poetry

[intermender]

Lost me when she said the social functions of religion are very nice, since it is the promotion of religion above all else even human suffering that shape those functions. She seems to advance we can cherry pick from religion on one hand like this and on the other she says 'no to religion'. She does't consider that religion contaminates as ultimately useless any virtue it proposes, that these virtues are likely copted and so attainable from a purer source, so rendering religion redundant.

[B0thergirl]

These people have to much time on their hands and like to hear themselves talk.

[B0thergirl]

opinionist

[kurtilein3]

for me, it is quite easy to see why she is not considered part of the new atheists (dawkins dennett hitchens harris and so on).

i mean, not knowing is a requirement of intellectual honesty and skepticism, there are things that we just dont know yet, but to say that not knowing has a value in itself seems anti-intellectual. of course you should try to get an answer, if there is one, and if the question makes sense.

people should try to keep learning.

[kurtilein3]

she is clearly not up-to-date when it comes to how science works.

it borders on anti-intellectualism. there are more empirical sciences than just physics. and the process of peer-review isnt that old. and the results of experiments dont change with time, the laws of nature stay the same.

i dont like her. she shouldnt talk about science, or she should do some more research before she does. i mean, she just insulted everyone that studies chemistry, mathematics, logic, biology, and so on.