daniel dennett on God

[robtex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DEn_QUOIQ

comments?

on specifically

what an atheist is
proving a negative/ teapot analogy
lack of continuity of definition of God
how people live in regards to a world they think may or does have a God?

further footnotes:
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=dennett&topic=complete

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DEn_QUOIQ

comments?

on specifically

what an atheist is
proving a negative/ teapot analogy
lack of continuity of definition of God
how people live in regards to a world they think may or does have a God?

further footnotes:
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=dennett&topic=complete

On the "lack on continuity of definition of God," this seems to me nothing short of avoiding the issue. He kept saying that there was no consistent definition of God for all people, so basically, why even try? Or at least that's the way he came off when I watched it. There are plenty of definitions of God from various religions; just because there's more than one is not an excuse to just categorically reject them all.

Out of curiosity, who is the interviewer in that video?


P.S. - Sorry if this is argumentative; I realize it's not in the debate section; Sorry, Mods, I'll save you from an unecesary post

 

[Revasser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DEn_QUOIQ
what an atheist is

I think he is right both on the actual definition of the term ("I don't believe in God, so of course I'm an atheist") and some of the conceptions that surround the word "atheist." And I think that little bit of reluctance he has at the first question to call himself an "atheist" is quite common, simply because of all the negative social baggage it carries.

proving a negative/ teapot analogy

It's a common - and effective - counter-argument to the inevitable cries of "You can't prove there's no God!" Well of course not, as Dennet rightly says, you can't prove a negative. But you can pretty confidently say some things, such as that there is no teapot orbiting mars or that there isn't a God, without having to meet some standard of absolute proof that is largely unmeetable.

lack of continuity of definition of God

Well, this is true. People will use the word to refer to all kinds of things. There is really no coherent definition of "God" that everyone will accept. Even in religions like Christianity where there is set-in-stone doctrine for this kind of thing, you still won't find one that all or even the majority of members will agree with if they think about it.

how people live in regards to a world they think may or does have a God?

I don't know how people are meant to act when they believe in a God, and the examples he gives of what sincere believers might do are extreme - though not unheard of - examples. But I think he's right. If you look at most believers in every day life, what they do, say, how they treat people, you wouldn't guess that they believed in a loving/moral/judgemental omnimax God, unless you simply assumed it based on our society. It really does seem that many, even most, people will say they believe there is a God, but then get on with living as if there weren't.

 

[lilithu]

I don't know how people are meant to act when they believe in a God, and the examples he gives of what sincere believers might do are extreme - though not unheard of - examples. But I think he's right. If you look at most believers in every day life, what they do, say, how they treat people, you wouldn't guess that they believed in a loving/moral/judgemental omnimax God, unless you simply assumed it based on our society. It really does seem that many, even most, people will say they believe there is a God, but then get on with living as if there weren't.

I know this is the atheist forum (actually paid attention for once) but just had to butt in and say that I agree with this completely. (tho I'm not sure what "omnimax" means.)

 

[Revasser]

I know this is the atheist forum (actually paid attention for once) but just had to butt in and say that I agree with this completely. (tho I'm not sure what "omnimax" means.)

"Omnimax" is, as far as I know, a neologism. I understand that it's generally used as short hand for omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and all the other omnis that people like to to ascribe to God, especially of the monotheistic variety. That's what I meant there. Frankly, it's just easier to type and say.

 

[Random]

I enjoyed the full interview link you posted, Robtex, thanks.

Dennett is fiercely reductionist in his outlook, and his arguments were unimpressive: he is not actually a philosopher @ all in my estimation, merely a intellecutal who has studied philosophy, there is a difference. No man who disdains the intuitive so much could claim to have a love of wisdom. The intellect is a tool of disemination, but when used as Dennett uses it the intellect piles ossa upon pellion until the only way the mind can cope is to reduce it to intelligable assertion, analogy or metaphor. This, however, does not make it true, unfortunately. I liked the interviewer (whoever he was) better. He made more sense to me and was very earnest and learned.

Two people can agree that God IS and that God is Necessary. There may be a teapot orbiting Mars, but if there isn't that doesn't imply there is no God.

 

[lilithu]

"Omnimax" is, as far as I know, a neologism. I understand that it's generally used as short hand for omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and all the other omnis that people like to to ascribe to God, especially of the monotheistic variety. That's what I meant there. Frankly, it's just easier to type and say.

OK, well then I don't agree completely since I don't believe in an omniscient God, but I still think overall Dennett and you make a good point. Thanks for the vocabulary lession.

 

[robtex]

more of Dennett on natural selection and religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE

 

[des]

"Omnimax" is, as far as I know, a neologism. I understand that it's generally used as short hand for omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and all the other omnis that people like to to ascribe to God, especially of the monotheistic variety. That's what I meant there. Frankly, it's just easier to type and say.

I think it might be a combo between omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent-- omni to the max.
It's a pretty good neologism. As for the quote, re the behavior of many theists, I couldn't agree more.

--des

 

[Ozzie]

I enjoyed the full interview link you posted, Robtex, thanks.

Dennett is fiercely reductionist in his outlook, and his arguments were unimpressive: he is not actually a philosopher @ all in my estimation, merely a intellecutal who has studied philosophy, there is a difference. No man who disdains the intuitive so much could claim to have a love of wisdom. The intellect is a tool of disemination, but when used as Dennett uses it the intellect piles ossa upon pellion until the only way the mind can cope is to reduce it to intelligable assertion, analogy or metaphor. This, however, does not make it true, unfortunately. I liked the interviewer (whoever he was) better. He made more sense to me and was very earnest and learned.

Two people can agree that God IS and that God is Necessary. There may be a teapot orbiting Mars, but if there isn't that doesn't imply there is no God.

I agree this was a good interview. Dennett's discussion of inevitability/evitability is interesting. He seems to be saying the universe is deterministic only in hindsight, but not at any single point in time where intelligent beings take action as avoiders. But I do think determinism based on hindsight is a product of limitations of the mind. If nothing can move faster than the speed of light there are a cone of possible causal antecedents that might have impacted on us at one point in time, as well as a cone of possible events upon which actions taken now will impact as causal agents. Causal action of avoiders could take a variagated path into the future, and could have also in the past according to Dennet if I understand him correctly. Nothing would be inevitable in the future because the moment we act in a certain way we eliminate or avoid some of the possible future consequences of our past actions by moving the cone of future events laterally.

Interestingly, Dennett is fiercely reductionist but also functionalist with respect to consciousness by denying it is an epiphenomenon. If the information contained in the brain could somehow be stored, it would be possible to reinstate consciousness in the future. Interesting idea, but I do not buy it because consciousness seems to generated as a developmental fact, then built upon by experience to produce identity. So I'm not sure how storing retrievable information now could retrieve the development of consciousness as an historical fact in the future. But it is an interesting attempt to provide for a non-supernatural theory of a possible afterlife.