Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In
Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon
March 12, 2006
6:41 am
Avatar
garfield9547
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I found this article from a newspaper The Independant. Interesting. What do you think??

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon, by Daniel C Dennett
Divine designs in mind
By Marek Kohn
Published: 10 March 2006
To the dismay and bewilderment of secularists, a couple of centuries of scientific reason have not produced the changes they expected in the climate of belief. Some varieties of religion have dried up in the light of reason, but the global effect has been increased and ominous turbulence. Even the godless now fear what may come down from the skies. This sense of crisis underlies the programme that the philosopher Daniel Dennett seeks to introduce in his new book. Having failed to neutralise religion by indirect influence, scientific reason must be brought directly to bear on it. The benefits and costs of religious belief must be weighed scientifically; scientists must develop accounts of how religion arises from the way the mind works.

While Dennett sees an urgent need to analyse religion as a natural phenomenon, he sees little point in pursuing the question of whether it is a supernatural one as well. He is already a convinced atheist, and a self-proclaimed "bright" - a term intended to do for non-believers what "gay" has done for homosexuals, combining positive connotations with a sense of assertiveness and commitment. Believers, he suggests, might like to call themselves "supers", a similarly positive tag that refers to the supernatural.

They are unlikely to welcome his offering, or to mistake it for a genuine token of respect. Dennett is happy to let his disdain for religion show through the framework of inquiry, insistent that it is disinterested. His opening sally compares the Word of God to a parasite that infects ants' brains. That is the view of religion articulated by Richard Dawkins, who sees faiths as "viruses of the mind".

Though Dennett is evidently in sympathy with his English comrade, he differs crucially in strategy. Dawkins takes a polemical position and wages frank war on God. Dennett's engine of rational inquiry insists that hypotheses must remain on the table until settled according to scientific procedure.

He proposes that religious ideas may be parasitic, harming the hosts whose minds they occupy, or may have mutually beneficial relationships with their host, or may be "along for the ride". Deciding between these possibilities is a goal of the research programme he urges.

To some ears this may sound like overweening scientism, a vain belief in science as a superior form of religion. But the impression left by Dennett's strategic compromise between sentiment and inquiry is closer to managerial politics than any grand vision of enlightenment. His studiedly open set of options resembles one of those consultation exercises that local authorities like to conduct, whose wording offers clues to which policy the authority has already decided to pursue.

The book's title looks like a clue. "Breaking the spell" suggests the removal of an external influence, probably a malign one. Dennett argues convincingly that the human readiness to believe in supernatural entities may have arisen from the evolved capacity to understand that other individuals have intentions.

This understanding provides a basis for empathy and a defence against deception as well as a means to anticipate others' behaviour. These capacities proved so valuable that people came to assume that intentions lay behind all events, and conjured up supernatural beings to account for intentions which could not be ascribed to humans or animals. These entities, or rather ideas of them, have evolved and multiplied in human minds.

In the course of their evolution they have imposed immense costs on their hosts. As Dennett points out, "To an evolutionist, rituals stand out like peacocks in a sunlit glade". To an evolutionist, the extravagance of a peacock's fan insists it must confer benefits that outweigh its costs. To an evolutionary psychologist, the universal extravagance of religious rituals, with their costs in time, resources, pain and privation, should suggest as vividly as a mandrill's bottom that religion may be adaptive. It might also suggest that, as costly signals are hard to fake and tend to be reliable, these advantages may relate to the establishment of trust, turning groups into communities.

But here, as throughout Breaking the Spell, the revving of a powerful analytical engine is followed by the sound of it slipping out of gear. Dennett suggests that rituals may be a means of ensuring that the ideas behind them are reproduced faithfully. The possibility that rituals benefit the individuals performing them disappears behind the focus on what may be in it for the ideas themselves.

Dennett is not alone among Darwinians in his reluctance to explore the possibility that religion is adaptive. Only a few evolutionary thinkers have taken up the study of religion, and evolutionary psychology has failed to incorporate religion with the same enthusiasm it has applied to other universal forms of human behaviour, despite its keen interest in the evolution of morality.

Dennett's reference to anthropologists' and historians' "blinkered perspectives" smacks of pots and kettles. Towards the end, he does declare that "scientists have much to learn from the historians and cultural anthropologists", but by that stage it evokes the distinction he draws earlier between what people profess and what they actually believe.

This absence may also reflect Dennett's intellectual preference, as a philosopher, for abstraction rather than detail. The minutiae of anthropologists' field observations or the archaeological record do not detain him on his way to his discussion of religion today, where past form can be dismissed. Even if religion was the foundation of human society, you could say the same about hunting and gathering, and we're not going back to that. People nowadays can live moral lives and sustain decent communities without religious faith, although it seems only fair to acknowledge that these moral frameworks are secularised versions of earlier religious ones.

Dennett insists that a sense of reverence for the sacred is not a necessary qualification for the analysis of religion. But the project does require passion, which is why Dawkins's essayistic voice is convincing even if not found persuasive. Breaking the Spell reads like an exercise in fulfilling a disagreeable obligation. It takes a hundred pages to justify itself, drops interesting ideas no sooner than it has picked them up, and we're still waiting for it to hit its stride when we run into the appendices. The style is familiar but the effect very different from a book such as Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where Dennett's voice is filled by something he really believes in.

To make real progress his project must engage with religion both as a natural phenomenon and a social one. It is in the latter terms that we can best make sense of why a populist Christian movement arose in America, insisting that the earth is just a few thousand years old, a good century after educated Britons had come to accept that the planet is far older than the Bible suggests. Scientists trying to comprehend religion don't just need to learn from historians and anthropologists; they need to learn how to make their fellow scholars into allies.

Marek Kohn's A Reason for Everything is published by Faber

To the dismay and bewilderment of secularists, a couple of centuries of scientific reason have not produced the changes they expected in the climate of belief. Some varieties of religion have dried up in the light of reason, but the global effect has been increased and ominous turbulence. Even the godless now fear what may come down from the skies. This sense of crisis underlies the programme that the philosopher Daniel Dennett seeks to introduce in his new book. Having failed to neutralise religion by indirect influence, scientific reason must be brought directly to bear on it. The benefits and costs of religious belief must be weighed scientifically; scientists must develop accounts of how religion arises from the way the mind works.

While Dennett sees an urgent need to analyse religion as a natural phenomenon, he sees little point in pursuing the question of whether it is a supernatural one as well. He is already a convinced atheist, and a self-proclaimed "bright" - a term intended to do for non-believers what "gay" has done for homosexuals, combining positive connotations with a sense of assertiveness and commitment. Believers, he suggests, might like to call themselves "supers", a similarly positive tag that refers to the supernatural.

They are unlikely to welcome his offering, or to mistake it for a genuine token of respect. Dennett is happy to let his disdain for religion show through the framework of inquiry, insistent that it is disinterested. His opening sally compares the Word of God to a parasite that infects ants' brains. That is the view of religion articulated by Richard Dawkins, who sees faiths as "viruses of the mind".

Though Dennett is evidently in sympathy with his English comrade, he differs crucially in strategy. Dawkins takes a polemical position and wages frank war on God. Dennett's engine of rational inquiry insists that hypotheses must remain on the table until settled according to scientific procedure.

He proposes that religious ideas may be parasitic, harming the hosts whose minds they occupy, or may have mutually beneficial relationships with their host, or may be "along for the ride". Deciding between these possibilities is a goal of the research programme he urges.

To some ears this may sound like overweening scientism, a vain belief in science as a superior form of religion. But the impression left by Dennett's strategic compromise between sentiment and inquiry is closer to managerial politics than any grand vision of enlightenment. His studiedly open set of options resembles one of those consultation exercises that local authorities like to conduct, whose wording offers clues to which policy the authority has already decided to pursue.

The book's title looks like a clue. "Breaking the spell" suggests the removal of an external influence, probably a malign one. Dennett argues convincingly that the human readiness to believe in supernatural entities may have arisen from the evolved capacity to understand that other individuals have intentions.

This understanding provides a basis for empathy and a defence against deception as well as a means to anticipate others' behaviour. These capacities proved so valuable that people came to assume that intentions lay behind all events, and conjured up supernatural beings to account for intentions which could not be ascribed to humans or animals. These entities, or rather ideas of them, have evolved and multiplied in human minds.

In the course of their evolution they have imposed immense costs on their hosts. As Dennett points out, "To an evolutionist, rituals stand out like peacocks in a sunlit glade". To an evolutionist, the extravagance of a peacock's fan insists it must confer benefits that outweigh its costs. To an evolutionary psychologist, the universal extravagance of religious rituals, with their costs in time, resources, pain and privation, should suggest as vividly as a mandrill's bottom that religion may be adaptive. It might also suggest that, as costly signals are hard to fake and tend to be reliable, these advantages may relate to the establishment of trust, turning groups into communities.
But here, as throughout Breaking the Spell, the revving of a powerful analytical engine is followed by the sound of it slipping out of gear. Dennett suggests that rituals may be a means of ensuring that the ideas behind them are reproduced faithfully. The possibility that rituals benefit the individuals performing them disappears behind the focus on what may be in it for the ideas themselves.

Dennett is not alone among Darwinians in his reluctance to explore the possibility that religion is adaptive. Only a few evolutionary thinkers have taken up the study of religion, and evolutionary psychology has failed to incorporate religion with the same enthusiasm it has applied to other universal forms of human behaviour, despite its keen interest in the evolution of morality.

Dennett's reference to anthropologists' and historians' "blinkered perspectives" smacks of pots and kettles. Towards the end, he does declare that "scientists have much to learn from the historians and cultural anthropologists", but by that stage it evokes the distinction he draws earlier between what people profess and what they actually believe.

This absence may also reflect Dennett's intellectual preference, as a philosopher, for abstraction rather than detail. The minutiae of anthropologists' field observations or the archaeological record do not detain him on his way to his discussion of religion today, where past form can be dismissed. Even if religion was the foundation of human society, you could say the same about hunting and gathering, and we're not going back to that. People nowadays can live moral lives and sustain decent communities without religious faith, although it seems only fair to acknowledge that these moral frameworks are secularised versions of earlier religious ones.

Dennett insists that a sense of reverence for the sacred is not a necessary qualification for the analysis of religion. But the project does require passion, which is why Dawkins's essayistic voice is convincing even if not found persuasive. Breaking the Spell reads like an exercise in fulfilling a disagreeable obligation. It takes a hundred pages to justify itself, drops interesting ideas no sooner than it has picked them up, and we're still waiting for it to hit its stride when we run into the appendices. The style is familiar but the effect very different from a book such as Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where Dennett's voice is filled by something he really believes in.

To make real progress his project must engage with religion both as a natural phenomenon and a social one. It is in the latter terms that we can best make sense of why a populist Christian movement arose in America, insisting that the earth is just a few thousand years old, a good century after educated Britons had come to accept that the planet is far older than the Bible suggests. Scientists trying to comprehend religion don't just need to learn from historians and anthropologists; they need to learn how to make their fellow scholars into allies.

Marek Kohn's A Reason for Everything is published by Faber
BUY THIS BOOK
Click here to buy Breaking the Spell: Religion

March 12, 2006
3:19 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I read 3/4 of this and as a Christian I agree. I have great disdain for "religion". "Religion" does poison people's minds. I have stated several time myslef that religion is dangerous. Christianity is differnt as it is a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. This of which I speak of is not relgion. Reliogion persay is legalistic, keeps people arguing, breaks down communication, etc. because everyone has their own "religion". The Paharisees in the New Testament are a prime example...they were RELIGIOUS. They never recognized Jesus Christ.

Yes, religion is what Dennett says it is. good article garfield!

March 13, 2006
12:37 am
Avatar
free2choose
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh my God, On MY Way!!!! You are decieing yourself if you truly believe that Christanity is not a "religion"!!! Yes there are many different factions that all have a diffrent name for themselves, but esentially they all believe the same thing. That Jesus Christ was the only son of God, that he died on a cross, and that you have to go through Him to get to the Big Guy upstairs. They all believe in the concept of sin and they all belive they are right and that they are the only Truth.

Religion can at times truly enhance a persons life. But it is a small little box you have to fit in in order to be deemed worthy...it even says so in the bible...the narrow path... For those who do not fit into what Christianity deems as appropriate, religion, Christianity in particular, is poison, damning, and damaging. Especially when used the way it is now in this country as a standard for all!!!

Free2Choose

March 13, 2006
7:31 am
Avatar
garfield9547
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

on my way

I see what you mean. People kill in the name of religion etc. I looked up the word christianity on wikipedia

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life, teachings, and actions of Jesus, the Christ, as recounted in the New Testament.

With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents1, Christianity is the world's largest religion. Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, with which it shares much sacred text and early history; specifically, it shares the Hebrew Bible, known in the Christian context as the Old Testament (see Judeo-Christian).2 Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism and Islam.

In the Christian scriptures, the name "Christian" and so "Christianity" is first attested in Acts 11:26: "For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch Jesus' disciples were first called Christians" (Gr. ÷ñéóôéáíïõò, from Christ Gr. ×ñéóôüò, which means "the anointed").

On my way
"The Paharisees in the New Testament are a prime example...they were RELIGIOUS. They never recognized Jesus Christ"

Thanks for this information - very interesting.

I am careful with the word 'christian'
It feels like a 'label' to me.
God said he came for the sinners - so
anyway

free2choose
What is your believes if I may ask?

Thanks for the reply

Garfield

March 13, 2006
8:18 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Free2Choose,

You posted this: {They [the many different factions of Christianity] all believe ... they are right and that they are the only Truth.}

I know why this is so, and how to reconcile this with the feeling that it shouldn't be this way. The Bible gives a rather simple explanation of it, actually, but it's nothing you're likely to hear from anybody else.

Do you want me to explain?

Seeker

March 13, 2006
8:48 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Free2Choose,

I think On My Way was refering to approaching toward Christianity on a personal level, rather than simply adopting the beliefs of any one sect. By this I mean praying, studying the Bible, trying to live its teachings as an individual, and worshipping with like-minded people.

It's only when the asociation with others becomes the primary focus that it becomes a religion.

OMW, I think this is what you're saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Seeker

March 13, 2006
10:16 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

oh my goddddd this article was so long, i'm sorry, couldnt read it, too lazy here. Wish I could read a summary of the important points.

March 13, 2006
12:17 pm
Avatar
garfield9547
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest_guest

After posting it I saw how looooooong it was.

OMW got 3/4 through it and she agrees on what she read.

Take it one step at a time

Garfield

March 13, 2006
1:39 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Thanks garfield but I'd realllllly like synopsis.. pleaseeeee. Anyone. Ok I'm a gonna try to read it later when I get to the office.

March 13, 2006
3:27 pm
Avatar
eve
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

this is only half as long as it looks, since grafield seems to have hit the Paste button twice 🙂

I think that it is difficult to work about sociological or religious themes or about complex human behaviours in a really scientific way. And it is virtually impossible to write a book about it that will be easy and interesting to read to people who are not scientists working in a related field.

Any book will have to oversimplify to be understandable, and therefore it will end up being unscientific, and not better than kichen-table-philosophy.

Just my opinion.

March 13, 2006
3:34 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

I still dont get the article.

>> Scientists trying to comprehend religion don't just need to learn from historians and anthropologists; they need to learn how to make their fellow scholars into allies. << Who is this guy calling "fellow scholars" ? Is he refering to authority figures in religion? If so, I dont like the intent of this author.

March 13, 2006
3:41 pm
Avatar
eve
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest, I agree with you. The way that this book review is written makes it very difficult to tell what the author wrote about (and if the person writing the review understood what he was reading)

🙂

March 13, 2006
3:42 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

garfield, seeker, great text for support, thank you.

free2choose...you are free to choose.
I have been both religious and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...I know the difference, and I prefer not to be religious. Religion hurts and puts people in neat little boxes, or little prisons. I like being able to breathe and live. Although I have not arrived completely I am confident that one day I will. When I was a teenager I used to wear a pin that had the letters on it PBPGINFWMY. It means "Please Be Patient God Is Not Finished With Me Yet." Religion tends to judge, and is cynical are my thoughts. While at times I still am judgemental, I know it isn't the wisest decision to take. Gee could go on forever about all of this...........................

March 13, 2006
3:44 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Also one more thought, to me, religion tends to be self-focused, whereas Christianity is more God-focused and OTHER focused. I am not perfect in these myself, but hopefully am getting there.

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
27
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 111136
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38716
Posts: 714574
Newest Members:
Warnisses, degastro, kojuyu, NathanielClark, avoid_up, Amin99
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information