[Marxism-Thaxis] ] Could God die again ? : Dennett
Daniel_Dennett wikipedia note: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2006-February/019940.html Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942) is a prominent American philosopher. Dennett's research centers on philosophy of mind and philosophy of science, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. Dennett is the author of several major books on evolution and consciousness. He is a leading proponent of the theory known by some as Neural Darwinism (see also greedy reductionism). http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2006-February/019941.html http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2006-February/019942.html Dennett is also well known for his argument against qualia, which claims that the concept is so confused that it cannot be put to any use or understood in any non-contradictory way, and therefore does not constitute a valid refutation of physicalism. This argument was presented most comprehensively in his book Consciousness Explained. The term Neural Darwinism is used in two different ways. In one usage it is the theory that consciousness can be explained by Darwinian selection and evolution of neural states. In the other it describes a process in neurodevelopment where synapses which are being most used are kept while least used connections are destroyed or 'pruned' to form neural pathways. Greedy reductionism is a term coined by Daniel Dennett, in the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, to distinguish between acceptable and erroneous forms of reductionism. Whereas reductionism means explaining a thing in terms of what it reduces to, greedy reductionism comes when the thing we are trying to understand is explained away instead of explained, so that we fail to gain any additional understanding of the original target Dennett's views on evolution are identified as being strongly adaptionist, in line with the views of zoologist Richard Dawkins. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett showed himself even more willing than Dawkins to defend adaptionism in print, devoting an entire chapter to a criticism of the views of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. This has led to some backlash from Gould and his supporters, who allege that Dennett overstated his claims and misrepresented Gould's. [1] ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ? : Dennett
Another post from Ralph on Dennett. CB Dennett's Breaking the Spell Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.org Wed Feb 1 02:33:18 MST 2006 Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] I suspect this is bullshit, but what do you think? Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003472X/qid=1138785320/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-9455841-5053647?s=booksv=glancen=283155 ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] ] Could God die again ? : Dennett
Dennett's Breaking the Spell http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2006-February/019846.html Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Wed Feb 1 07:58:48 MST 2006 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] www.darwin.ws Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Philipp Frank: historical background Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Ralph Dumain I suspect this is bullshit, but what do you think? Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003472X/qid=1138785320/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs _b_2_1/002-9455841-5053647?s=booksv=glancen=283155 From Publishers Weekly In his characteristically provocative fashion, Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea and director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, calls for a scientific, rational examination of religion that will lead us to understand what purpose religion serves in our culture. ^^^ CB: Well, today religion is not biologically or evolutionarily functioning ,as ancestor worship would have been highly adaptive in relation to the environment of the first humans. Rather today religion is as Feuerbach and Marx analyzed it, and then of course it is big in the class struggle, dividing the working class in countries and internationally. The current U.S. war on Islam is , obviously front and center in capitalist strategy for continuing to dominate the world. So, now I see a way in which the Dawkins and Dennetts' vulgar biological determinism diverts from anti-capitalist struggle. ^ Much like E.O. Wilson (In Search of Nature), Robert Wright (The Moral Animal), and Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), Dennett explores religion as a cultural phenomenon governed by the processes of evolution and natural selection. Religion survives because it has some kind of beneficial role in human life, yet Dennett argues that it has also played a maleficent role. He elegantly pleads for religions to engage in empirical self-examination to protect future generations from the ignorance so often fostered by religion hiding behind doctrinal smoke screens. Because Dennett offers a tentative proposal for exploring religion as a natural phenomenon, his book is sometimes plagued by generalizations that leave us wanting more (Only when we can frame a comprehensive view of the many aspects of religion can we formulate defensible policies for how to respond to religions in the future). Although much of the ground he covers has already been well trod, he clearly throws down a gauntlet to religion. (Feb. 6) Copyright C Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ? : Dennett
Religion and science: a reply to a right-wing attack on philosopher Daniel Dennett http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2006-March/020130.html Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com Wed Mar 22 07:21:18 MST 2006 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Global_economy Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Religion and science: a reply to a right-wing attack on philosopher Daniel Dennett Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/denn-m21.shtml The 19 February 2006 issue of the New York Times Book Review carries a tendentious attack on Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, the latest work by American philosopher Daniel Dennett. Dennett is best known as a philosopher of evolutionary biology and for his earlier books, Consciousness Explained and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea—works that make significant contributions to the defense of Darwinism and philosophical materialism. In his earlier books, Dennett showed himself to be a skilled and thoughtful popularizer of the most important philosophical ramifications of the modern conception of evolution, and a shrewd exposer of many of the superficial attempts to discredit it or sow confusion about it. He is also acutely sensitive to the politically reactionary role played by those who are now attempting to reintroduce creationism under the guise of “intelligent design.” Dennett is himself an ardent atheist. In the intellectual climate that prevails in academia, these positions require a laudable degree of courage. Breaking the Spell proposes a radical venture: to make a scientific study of religion. Dennett rejects the idea of the late Stephen Jay Gould that religion and science occupy two separate “magesteria” that ought to and can co-exist peacefully as long as neither intrudes on the other’s dominion. Dennett refuses to abide by the injunction that scientists should refrain from looking too closely at religion. Dennett’s proposal to study religion does not mean only subjecting religion’s claims to logical scrutiny. It is not for him only a matter of counterposing religion to science. Instead, he seeks to use the methods of science to inquire into the natural reasons for the continued prevalence of religion. Why is it, he asks, that religion has not only survived, but expanded in influence even after its claims about the world have been shown to be false? Dennett’s book does not attempt the exhaustive investigation that it proposes, but it does provide an introduction to a significant body of existing literature on the subject and proposes a number of potential avenues of development and inquiry. Dennett is undeniably correct to claim that a taboo exists that creates real barriers to the study he proposes. To look at religion under the scrutinizing microscope of science is regarded, within the prevailing intellectual climate, as entirely unacceptable. Dennett is also right to insist that such a study is all the more necessary in light of the immense political influence still wielded by religion in modern life. For this reason, he expects hostility not only from the official representatives of the major religious denominations, but especially from those academics and intellectuals eager to defend religion for essentially political reasons. A particularly banal and duplicitous example of such a “defense” of religion was provided in Leon Wieseltier’s assessment of the book, which appeared in the February, 19 issue of the New York Times Book Review. Wieseltier is the literary editor of the New Republic, a journal in which the right-wing trajectory of the Democratic Party intersects with that of the Republican neo-conservative right. Wieseltier embodies the magazine’s orientation. He is crass defender of American imperialism and a member of the Project for a New American Century, which argued for an invasion of Iraq from the time of the group’s inception in the mid-1990s. Prior to this review, Wieseltier’s most recent polemical exercise was a denunciation of Steven Spielberg’s film Munich for being “anti-Israel.” The first question that ought to be asked about Wieseltier’s review is why he was asked to submit it in the first place. One presumes that the Times Book Review could have easily called upon an expert in philosophy, biology, anthropology or comparative religion, to suggest only the most obvious disciplines. Instead it decided to commission a right-wing ideologue to perform a hatchet job on Dennett’s book. Given Wieseltier’s religious and political commitments, his selection is highly significant because of what it says about the agenda of the New York Times Book Review editors. They chose him in order to give a platform to a defender of religion to attack science. Wieseltier knows enough to realize that religion cannot be defended by attempting to refute what science has to say about it. There is
[Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ? : Dennett
[Marxism-Thaxis] Religion and science: a reply to a right-wing attack on philosopher Daniel Dennett Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.org http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2006-March/020131.html Wed Mar 22 08:15:33 MST 2006 I read Wieseltier’s weaselly review, and while I understand the reaction against him, there are a few things here that trouble me. A picture is painted of an intellectual climate so rabidly repressive and pro-religion, or intimidated by religion, that Dennett is innovative, courageous and iconoclastic even to bring up religion as a topic for scientific study, i.e. by the fundamentalists' nemesis, evolutionary biology. Is this true? Is Dennett doing something so bold, so innovative, so cutting-edge, so threatening, that it stakes out a hazardous new territory in the manner of Galileo and Darwin? It may be that my perception and experience are skewed, and that what seems to be relatively straightforward and banal is horribly shocking. Nobody ever thought to examine religion scientifically before? Could this be true? Or has the ideological climate deteriorated so badly that a Dennett is one of the few holding down the fort for a scientific view of the world? Why is this a radical venture? Tell me. It is difficult to tell from any of these reviews what the scientific content of Dennett's claims actually are. I missed his talk in DC. Two friends attended it, both of whom hold comparable views. One thought he was terrific, the other thought he was insipid. The former is reading the book likes it, the latter hasn't looked at it. The one who is reading it has not yet told me of its substantive scientific content. So what am I to make of this? The charge of scientism means little unless one knows what scientism is and the object of study allegedly being violated thereby. One could also say the same of reductionism. It is, unfortunately, rather difficult to say whether Dennett is guilty or innocent of either from these reviews. I am inherently suspicious of sociobiology as an avenue to explanation of social and ideological phenomena, though undoubtedly evolutionary biology must be a component of our understanding along with social theory. It's too bad we don't have a social climate that promotes a more sophisticated public discourse. At 09:21 AM 3/22/2006 -0500, Jim Farmelant wrote: ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] ] Could God die again ? : Dennett
My take on the New Atheists (including Dennett) here: http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant/Papers/129476/The-New-Atheism--and-New-Humanism- Jim F. -- Original Message -- From: c b cb31...@gmail.com To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] ] Could God die again ? : Dennett Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:31:33 -0500 Dennett's Breaking the Spell http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2006-February/019846.html Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Wed Feb 1 07:58:48 MST 2006 Criminal Lawyer Criminal Lawyers - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=uVD2IJSbzxLWN6ynpamQswAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAAiFgA= ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
