The Atheism Tapes: Interview with Philosopher Daniel Dennett
tags:
Stumble ThisJonathan Miller interviews American Philosopher Daniel Dennett as part of the BBC's 'The Atheism Tapes'.
Dennett's review of Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' is worth reading. In his review he states: "We agree about most matters, and have learned a lot from each other, but on one central issue we are not (yet) of one mind: Dawkins is quite sure that the world would be a better place if religion were hastened to extinction and I am still agnostic about that. I don’t know what could be put in religion’s place–or what would arise unbidden–so I am still eager to explore the prospect of reforming religion, a task that cries out for a better understanding of the phenomena, and hence a lot more research than has yet been attempted."
You can watch the rest of the interview here: part 2, part 3.
Dennett's review of Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' is worth reading. In his review he states: "We agree about most matters, and have learned a lot from each other, but on one central issue we are not (yet) of one mind: Dawkins is quite sure that the world would be a better place if religion were hastened to extinction and I am still agnostic about that. I don’t know what could be put in religion’s place–or what would arise unbidden–so I am still eager to explore the prospect of reforming religion, a task that cries out for a better understanding of the phenomena, and hence a lot more research than has yet been attempted."
You can watch the rest of the interview here: part 2, part 3.
|
▲
0
▼
|
|
The Atheism Tapes DVD added by: mauz15 
|
I havent read Breaking the Spell by Dennett yet, but I am going to, he has some extremely interesting things to say. I think his hesitation towards directly criticizing religion is due to the fact that he thinks there are better ways of moderating it, and that moderation is the only hope there is. And I can definately see thats a valid point, but I feel that part of that moderation process is that religion needs to accept criticism on any verbal level. Its not Dawkins intent to convert die-hard believers, its to give criticism of die-hard belief a well-deserved voice. I think both Dennett and Dawkins are important in the fight against unreason and dogma.
I have read the God Delusion - cover to cover - and I have gone back to look at it again in light or recent debates on the Sift. It is not a work without merit - and for that reason I would encourage all theists to read it. Furthermore, I salute Dawkin's intention in writing the book - to raise consciousness in people who are trapped in a religion and can’t even imagine life without it - for two reasons. Firstly, from an academic perspective I believe in free, open and civilised debate. If theists don't question their faith then they will never understand it. Secondly, if Dawkins' book does offer solace and hope to people trapped by religion - then I support that too.
However, just as Dawkin's urges us to be sceptical about the claims of religion I would urge atheists to be sceptical about some of the claims of Dawkins. There is currently a debate raging in my religion about the future direction and shape of Islam. I think that there should also be such a debate raging at the heart of atheism. One thing I particularly don't like about Dawkins is his conviction that the world would be a better place if religion were hastened to extinction.
My first objection to this is scientific - that it is at best empirically unverifiable and at worst wrong. I think this is why Dennett says that he is an agnostic with regards to this issue. For every crazed fundamentalist that kills, there is a peaceful thoughtful person of faith involved in an act of charity. Atheism, as a doctrine, is simply the belief that God does not exist. One can be an atheist and still believe that religion - despite the fact that it is based on a delusion - has an overall positive effect on the world. In other words, a belief in atheism does not logically entail a belief that the world would be better off without religion.
My second objection is pragmatic. I think that such an assertion encourages atheists to look at all religious people in a negative manner. If the world would be better off without religion then all religious people are making the world a worse place for everyone else. Instead of dismissing all theists it would be better to attack those elements of religion that you find most distasteful. Pragmatically, I think that this approach is best.
Finally, even if God is a delusion then he/she/it is the most persistent illusion in the history of mankind. For that reason I believe that one cannot dismiss theism as casually as Dawkins does. Understanding the very existence and persistence of 'the God delusion' is key to understanding the nature of humanity and the human experience.