It's God or Darwin

National Review Online ^ | 12/21/'05 | David Klinghoffer

[CarolinaGuitarman]

This is a terribly mangled misquote of Dennett. The actual paragraph paints a much different picture;

"I love the King James Bible. My own spirit recoils from a God Who is He or She in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free; it will kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages too-- when absolutely necessary. We just can't have forced female circumcision, and the second class status of women in Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, to say nothing of their status in Islam. The recent Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional the Florida law prohibiting the sacrificing of animals in rituals of the Santeria sect (an Afro-Caribbean religion incorporating elements of the Yoruba traditions and Roman Catholicism) is a borderline case, at least for many of us. Such rituals are offensive to many. but the protective mantle of religious tradition secures our tolerance. We are wise to respect these traditions. It is, after all, just part of respect for the biosphere." (page 515-516)

The second part of the quote is from three paragraphs down. It is talking about the caging of those memes (and those people) that refuse to respect individual rights. That's not fascist, unless you think the Constitution is fascist. A more complete picture is evident when the sentence immediately preceding the second part of your quote is restored, as are the sentences that followed it:

"Other religious memes are not so benign. The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for. Slavery is beyond the pale. Child abuse is beyond the pale. Discrimination is beyond the pale. Pronouncing death sentences against those who blaspheme against a religion (Complete with bounties or rewards or those who carry them out) is beyond the pale. It is not civilized, and is owed no more respect in the name of religious freedom than any other incitement to cold-blooded murder." (page 516- 517)

It is clear that far from wanting to use force to silence religions, or to put religionists in a cage, he is condemning the imposition by certain fundamentalists (of all religious persuasions) of their beliefs on others. It is saying that religious freedom ends where coercion begins. The way the quote was mangled is a disgusting example of creationist/ID quote mining, making it seem Dennett meant the opposite of what he really said.

[PatrickHenry]

a disgusting example of creationist/ID quote mining

I'm shocked. Shocked!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm shocked. Shocked!"

Me too. :)

[betty boop]

I love the King James Bible. [BUT???] My own spirit recoils from a God Who is He or She in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free; it will kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages too....

Second-class status of Catholic women? Whatta bunch of claptrap -- all of it!!!

In the above italics, it seems that Dennett clearly indicates that he doesn't much mind religion(s), except the ones that point to a personal God. That is, God as Person, or (as in Christianity), of Three Persons in One God. That is, pretty much he thinks that monotheist religions are dangerous to the public and can be justly restrained.

But Buddhism, say, would be just fine with him, in a way that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not. The dude is simply a religious bigot. His particular animus is reserved for Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics. (How very, very fashionable of him.)

In any case, I have my doubts that Dennett has any serious religious persuasion, and is simply a materialist, and possibly an atheist to boot. Trying to source his cherished memes to purely "natural processes" would be the tip-off here.

Getting back to Buddhism being OK with Dennett: Not only does it not have a God Who is Person, but its god is immanent -- not transcendent. So that's a two-fer!

Plus its cosmology is the eternal universe model: No beginning, nor end. Just a universe that always was, going through the cyclical process of waxing and waning forever.

It's hard to find a basis for morality in a "system" like that. I guess maybe that would be its "third charm."

I'd say perhaps you ought to read your source here with greater attention. But then, I wonder what good that would do.

In either case, lately I've begun to notice that what a man says is not the important thing. It's what a man does that tells you who or what the man is.

Anyhoot, it's Christmas. Didn't mean to pile on Dennett necessarily. However he does seem to provide a model -- Dennett as the "representative man of his age," as Voegelin termed it -- that many people around here follow. FWIW

I hope you have a joyous Chrsitmas, CGM, and a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2006!

[hosepipe]

[ Getting back to Buddhism being OK with Dennett: Not only does it not have a God Who is Person, but its god is immanent -- not transcendent. So that's a two-fer! ]

Buddha was a protestant Hindu.. he used to be a Hindu when young.. and held to some Hindu ways and concepts.. Buddhism, Hinduism, same thing basically, only different.. and other religions came from those.. with engrams of Brahmanism as does Hinduism.. and the others.. Even animism makes more sense then those systems.. Worshiping a rock is simpler and much cheaper unless you get a shaman then animism gets expensive too.. thats what twisted Buddha que, paying off the priests..

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

I like this article, as far as it goes. Makes his point, and I agree with it. Dawkins also said (as quoted in, IIRC, "Darwin on Trial", unless it was in "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism") that people who believe in God are wicked.

Many people who consider themselves religious or believers in God want to believe in the TOE because they don't want to think of themselves, or have others think of them, as ignorant fanatic flat earthers. Here's my response:

1. To live one's life or hold beliefs in order to curry favor or garner the approval of others is a miserable type of slavery.

2. Truth is is light, and ignorance is darkness. Find the truth, and that is all that is imporant.

3. Look at motives. Look at character. Read the books that criticize the TOE, as many as you can. Then, MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

4. Keep in mind that the TOE is a type of cultural myth that all "better" people are supposed to believe in, or they are cultural misfits. But think of this - if we all lived in the ancient Mayan culture (I think it was the Mayas), they believed that the sun would go out every so often, 50-odd years, if everyone in the kingdom didn't stay wide awake for seven days! So everyone, from babies to grandmas, had to stay away for one solid week, living in the fear that the sun would go dark if they didn't.

Moral of the story: People can and do believe all kinds of nonsensical crap en masse. Large numbers of people believing something doesn't give it any credence or weight.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

(My personal viewpoint is the the TOE is in its death throes. That's why its proponents are so viciously rabid and angry.)

:-)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Second-class status of Catholic women? Whatta bunch of claptrap -- all of it!!!"

Lots and lots of women priests are there? :) You noticeably centered on this, but didn't mention his condemnation of the status of women under Islam.

"In the above italics, it seems that Dennett clearly indicates that he doesn't much mind religion(s), except the ones that point to a personal God."

No, he minds religions only when they decide to infringe on people's individual rights. He says so explicitly. Did you even read what he wrote?

"The dude is simply a religious bigot. His particular animus is reserved for Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics."

Nonsense. That is not what he said. You have to be looking to be offended to read that into what he said. You forgot to add Islam to your list too, since he mentioned it clearly.

"In any case, I have my doubts that Dennett has any serious religious persuasion, and is simply a materialist, and possibly an atheist to boot. Trying to source his cherished memes to purely "natural processes" would be the tip-off here."

So? He never said he wasn't an atheist.

Now, if you read this the way it was written, it is obvious that he is talking about religions that try to force people to follow their tenets. Or religions whose tenets are no longer compatible with modern standards of individual rights, and whose support will just wither at the light of reason. In a nutshell he is saying that all religions will have to adapt to the intellectual environment or they will go extinct. If you read the entire chapter of the book (which I had handy, enabling me to fill in the gaps from those quotes) you would know this.

Merry Christmas!

[Aquinasfan]

3. Look at motives. Look at character. Read the books that criticize the TOE, as many as you can. Then, MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

Good advice. This reminds me of something I heard Bishop Sheen say in a re-broadcast of "Life is Worth Living" the other day.

He noted that the people who attended Christ's birth (the Incarnation) were shepherds and "wise men." The shepherds were humble people, aware of their ignorance, and simply accepted the mystery of the Incarnation. The wise men knew much, but knew that their knowledge was limited, and wisely humbled themselves before Christ.

Bishop Sheen called the people who didn't attend the Incarnation "one-book people;" people who know a little, but think that they know everything.

Such I believe is the case with the bulk of the pro-evo crowd.

[bobdsmith]

Such I believe is the case with the bulk of the pro-evo crowd.

And that pesky pro-atomic theory crowd.

[betty boop]

Lots and lots of women priests are there? :) You noticeably centered on this, but didn't mention his condemnation of the status of women under Islam.

Neither did Dennett mention this. Which supports my view that his animus is specifically anti-Christian. Catholic women are not second-class citizens in any respect, regardless of the fact that the Church will not ordain women as priests. One has only to look at the veneration of Mary (so disturbing to some of my Reformed Church friends) to know that she is indispensable to the Church's entire self-concept.

You wrote:

"Now, if you read this the way it was written, it is obvious that he is talking about religions that try to force people to follow their tenets. Or religions whose tenets are no longer compatible with modern standards of individual rights, and whose support will just wither at the light of reason. In a nutshell he is saying that all religions will have to adapt to the intellectual environment or they will go extinct."

This is just more claptrap. Christianity forces no one to be a believer. Islam does, however: Historically, it has converted folks by the sword....

You forget that American constitutional tradition holds that people have individual rights because these rights are endued in them by God the Creator, and that therefore no just government may infringe these inalienable personal rights of life, liberty, happiness (or private property).

"Modern standards of individual rights" actually are devoted to group rights. The dignity of the human person as an individual has no other basis than that he is the creature -- and son -- of God.

Older morality will "wither" in the light of reason? I strongly doubt it, CG. For "modern standards of reason" are becoming increasingly irrational. And if you had read Dennett a little more closely -- rather than just giving it a superficial read, and taking the man at his word -- you would perhaps have noticed this.

Christianity does not "adapt to the intellectual environment," for it stands for eternal truths. The Catholic Church in particular has been the great bastion of reason, in addition to faith, for two millennia. Why should it change, just because a bunch of Left Progressives think they can "sell" a second reality to people who are already committed to the First Reality of the great hierarchy of being, ordained by God?

It is said that some 90 percent of Americans describe themselves as theists, and this number is overwhelmingly Christian. Do you really believe that the blandishments of Dennett, Dawkins, Lewontin, et al., are going to persuade these people to "dump" God and His Law in favor of the preferred passing fancies of Left-Progressive academics?

Argghh! I think you, too, may be living in a second reality, my friend.

[101st-Eagle]

Honestly it was the wave/particle debate that opened my eyes. There's a much bigger picture out there than any book or books (Old or New) can explain or even allude to. And for me, that makes it all the more marvelous.

Have you seen the movie,What The Bleep Do We Know?"

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Neither did Dennett mention this."

Yes he did. "We just can't have forced female circumcision, and the second class status of women in Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, to say nothing of their status in Islam." It is obvious he considers the status of women under Islam to be even worse.

"This is just more claptrap. Christianity forces no one to be a believer. Islam does, however: Historically, it has converted folks by the sword...."

Christianity certainly has. And there are Christians today who try to force their religious views on others. What world do you live in? Certainly not this one.

"You forget that American constitutional tradition holds that people have individual rights because these rights are endued in them by God the Creator, and that therefore no just government may infringe these inalienable personal rights of life, liberty, happiness (or private property)."

I didn't forget the Constitution, nor did Dennett. It is individual rights he is defending.

""Modern standards of individual rights" actually are devoted to group rights. The dignity of the human person as an individual has no other basis than that he is the creature -- and son -- of God."

That's your opinion. I don't base my morality on a supernatural being whose existence cannot be tested. Rights originate in the metaphysical reality of existence. God-given rights are inherently subjective.

"Older morality will "wither" in the light of reason?"

That's not what I said, but yes, it will if it isn't compatible with reason. Here is what I actually said though:

"Or religions whose tenets are no longer compatible with modern standards of individual rights, and whose support will just wither at the light of reason."

Tenets is more than just their moral code.

"I strongly doubt it, CG. For "modern standards of reason" are becoming increasingly irrational."

There you go again, making up phrases and attributing them to me. I never said *modern standards of reason*. Please refrain from bearing false witness in the future.

"And if you had read Dennett a little more closely -- rather than just giving it a superficial read, and taking the man at his word -- you would perhaps have noticed this."

If you had read the book at all, you would have known that his meaning was nothing like what you attributed to him. The chapter these quotes were lifted from dealt with the idea that ALL ideas, even religion, have to adapt or be left behind. It was not a call for locking up anybody who is a theist, nor was it an attack on Christianity. It was an attack on those who refuse to change with new evidence. It was an observation that memes that don't adapt will go extinct. You took it personally. That's your problem.

" Christianity does not "adapt to the intellectual environment," for it stands for eternal truths."

To the extent it doesn't adapt, it will go extinct. And it presumes to stand for eternal truths; that is different than saying it DOES.

BTW, Christianity HAS adapted to the intellectual environment. Ask Copernicus. Ask the Pope. Ask Martin Luther.

"The Catholic Church in particular has been the great bastion of reason, in addition to faith, for two millennia."

Tell that to Galileo. He was an external force that caused the Church to eventually change.

"Do you really believe that the blandishments of Dennett, Dawkins, Lewontin, et al., are going to persuade these people to "dump" God and His Law in favor of the preferred passing fancies of Left-Progressive academics?"

Their belief has already been altered by science and reason. Given time, Christianity will continue to evolve. Reason is not a left-wing passing fancy.


Merry Christmas!

[betty boop]

Reason is not a left-wing passing fancy.

Nor is it something that was discovered in the Enlightenment. Just ask Plato and Aristotle. Or St. Augustine, or St. Justin Martyr; or St. Thomas Aquinas; or St. Anselm of Canterbury.

I think if you have a problem, CG, it is this: You do not know the human past, so you cannot value it.

[hosepipe]

[ This is just more claptrap. Christianity forces no one to be a believer. Islam does, however: Historically, it has converted folks by the sword.... ]

True... so true..

Muslims faceing the <-sillyness of Islam, face challengeing their cultures and face being rejected by their familys, friends, and in some cases face death at the hands of those very same people.... Apostasy(leaving Islam) is punishable by death. Mohammed said,

"Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Quran; Surah Vol. 9:57

Islam has a strong murderological base... ACT LIKE YOU BELIEVE IT OR DIE!...

**Note: since not all "christians" are indeed christians, for sure not all "muslims" are indeed muslims..

[Antoninus]

Ain't it funny how the Darwinian fundamentalist crowd is now the equivalent of a religion which jealously guards what it considers the "truth" and ridicules those who question even the least bit of it.

There's nothing scientific about squelching legitimate questions about your pet theories under an avalanche of vitriol and personal invective.

[hosepipe]

[ I didn't forget the Constitution, nor did Dennett. It is individual rights he is defending. ]

What rights would those be?.. that "christians" are disobeying..

[Antoninus]

Does nobody see G_d in Darwin's work except me? Can't we just all get along?

Me too. Both religion and science seach for the truth using different means. When sincerely pursued, they can not contradict each other.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Nor is it something that was discovered in the Enlightenment. Just ask Plato and Aristotle."

Two pagans.

" I think if you have a problem, CG, it is this: You do not know the human past, so you cannot value it."

I understand the past, and I value it. It's very presumptuous of you to tell me what I value or don't value. Par for the course. I also value the present, and the future. I value reason. I value evidence.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" What rights would those be?.. that "christians" are disobeying.."

Since you, like BB, are fond of constructing statements I never made and passing them off to me, it is futile having a discussion with you. I'll just say that I never said that Christians are infringing on individual rights, I said SOME. When your reading skills improve, then we can talk again.


Merry Christmas!

[xzins]

The article leading this thread is an outstanding essay. Definitely, for the the file kind of stuff.

Let me also suggest that if "older morality withers" in the light of a mechanistic universe, that there is no morality that can take its place, since there will be no basis for any morality beyond what individuals or localities happen to choose to enforce for whatever peculiar reasons that drive them at that place and time.

This should be good news to Pol Pot.