Atheist Dennett calls religion a natural phenomenon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riley259
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Riley259

Guest
An article in Sunday’s Boston Globe talks about philosopher and militant atheist Daniel Dennett’s new book on religion as a natural phenomenon. Dennett’s ideas about religion are well known from his previous books, most notably “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” but this one tries to explain religion as strictly human behavior - in other words, inevitable behavior that occurs in alot of humans based on Darwinistic and social phenomenon. Dennett, along with his comrade in arms Richard Dawkins, are Darwinians in the strictest sense and believe that nothing outside material matter exists so it’s not surprising that he would try to defend his hostility towards the idea of God and religion. But, as the article points out, he defends it with such anger and venom which leads one to believe that his position is just as fundamentalist as the groups that he so passionately criticizes. A fair examination of his ideas leads one to believe that he’s almost desperate in his attempt to discredit religion and belief in God - they just don’t ring true and are pure speculation. For a better understanding of militant atheists and their influence on the culture of death, I would suggest you read “Architects of the culture of death” by Benjamin Wiker…their backgrounds are sad and empty.

boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/01/29/supernatural_selection/
 
40.png
Riley259:
Dennett, along with his comrade in arms Richard Dawkins, are Darwinians in the strictest sense and believe that nothing outside material matter exists
Click to expand...
Well, if they are strict materialists, they should be willing to admit that they can take no credit for their own ideas or writings. All that is just the result of biochemical reactions in their brains. Their atheism is then as much a natural phenomenon as other people’s religion.
 
40.png
JimG:
Well, if they are strict materialists, they should be willing to admit that they can take no credit for their own ideas or writings. All that is just the result of biochemical reactions in their brains. Their atheism is then as much a natural phenomenon as other people’s religion.
Click to expand...
Good point - kind of like when relativists say there is no absolute truth except the notion that there is no absolute truth. The idea collapses in on itself.
 
The article quotes his book as starting with the idea:
Certain religious behaviors-abstinence, for example, or martyrdom, or ritually sacrificing livestock in the middle of a famine-can look decidedly, almost inexplicably, irrational both to nonbelievers and behavioral scientists, so much so that it might be worth asking who or what is actually benefiting from them.
Click to expand...
Then goes on to explain how religion was would have evolved:
Religion evolved because it conferred benefits on believers. In terms of natural selection, human groups that formed religions tended to outcompete those that didn’t…
Click to expand...
These ideas are contradictory.

In addition, he starts from the premise that the existence of God has been disproved. He does not examine the proofs for God existence and he doesn’t give any new arguments that disprove the existence of God.
 
Interesting. But since religion is nearly unversal throughout human history, how does he account for the evolution of atheism?
 
40.png
JimG:
Interesting. But since religion is nearly unversal throughout human history, how does he account for the evolution of atheism?
Click to expand...
Atheism was generally not popular and may have been “underground” for most of recorded history. Skepticism has always been a part of the human condition. One thing skeptics forget is that there have been great thinkers long before the rise of the scientific method.

It seems to me that neither theism nor atheism can be shown to have evolved because both go back as far as human civilization. There will be no fossilized records of religion being slowly accepted in to society. There are no other animals that have simpler forms of religion.
 
There’s a good book review of Dennett’s latest in last month’s issue of the journal First Things. The reviewer, while quite gentle, points out many such contradictions which now seem part and parcel of our friend, Daniel Dennett.
 
Dennett identifies so much with Darwin and the idea of a strictly Darwinistic materialism that he now even looks just like him - kind of scary. (see first link for current picture).
 
If one takes a scientific approach to the study of religion, then yes, you will be able to describe and explain religion in terms of natural phenomena.

What’s so strange about that?
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
If one takes a scientific approach to the study of religion, then yes, you will be able to describe and explain religion in terms of natural phenomena.

What’s so strange about that?
Click to expand...
For those who don’t believe in a transcendent God or in God at all, describing religion strictly in terms of natural phenomena may not seem strange but to those of us who believe in a transcendent God it indeed is strange and woefully inadequate.
 
40.png
Riley259:
For those who don’t believe in a transcendent God or in God at all, describing religion strictly in terms of natural phenomena may not seem strange but to those of us who believe in a transcendent God it indeed is strange and woefully inadequate.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that the religions originate from the encounter with a transcendent entity?
 
I suppose in a way Dennett is correct. I am by nature human. I have a human nature. I share that nature with my brothers and sisters from the beginning of time. We are also made in the image and likeness of God, because of that we yearn for God; a completely natural phenomenon. With very few exceptions nearly all peoples from paleolithic to modern have strived to connect with a diety, It simply is in our nature as humans to do so…naturally we as human need to connect to God IT IS IN OUR NATURE! So Dennett is correct Religion is completely natural!
 
Mike Dye:
I suppose in a way Dennett is correct. I am by nature human. I have a human nature. I share that nature with my brothers and sisters from the beginning of time. We are also made in the image and likeness of God, because of that we yearn for God; a completely natural phenomenon. With very few exceptions nearly all peoples from paleolithic to modern have strived to connect with a diety, It simply is in our nature as humans to do so…naturally we as human need to connect to God IT IS IN OUR NATURE! So Dennett is correct Religion is completely natural!
Click to expand...
But that innate need to connect for and search for the deity is yearning that doesn’t come from nature - it comes from God.
 
Is it possible both sides in this debate are right? Religion may have multiple sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top