Fri May 1, 2015, 01:11 AM
Lordquinton (7,879 posts)
Straight up hit piece on Daniel DennettLast edited Fri May 1, 2015, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
Daniel Dennett is generally considered the 'nice one' of the 'four horsemen of the non-apocalypse' but some preacher-man took it upon himself to drag Dennett down to his own level, then beat him with experience.
Atheist Professor Betrays Ignorance Beyond Belief
In recent years, so-called New Atheists have become more aggressive and vociferous, and have achieved considerable media visibility. Normally, it rarely pays to argue with them, as their general cultural and historical ignorance means that you have to explain too many basic factual issues to them before you can share any common basis for proceeding. On occasion, though, one of the pack says something that is so silly and obnoxious as to demand a response, and this is one of those occasions. http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/atheist-professor-betrays-ignorance-beyond-belief-5909228778684416 This article really betrays a desperate air of grasping at straws, that last line in particular is reaching about as far as he can, complaining about Dennett's use of an accepted name for the Christian god, probably shook his faith because it highlights that a) he has a name, and b) it's necessary to distinguish what god we're talking about.
|
35 replies, 2503 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Lordquinton | May 2015 | OP |
longship | May 2015 | #1 | |
struggle4progress | May 2015 | #2 | |
Cartoonist | May 2015 | #6 | |
Jim__ | May 2015 | #9 | |
TM99 | May 2015 | #3 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #4 | |
Lordquinton | May 2015 | #12 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #5 | |
trotsky | May 2015 | #8 | |
Lordquinton | May 2015 | #13 | |
Yorktown | May 2015 | #7 | |
Leontius | May 2015 | #10 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #11 | |
edhopper | May 2015 | #14 | |
Humanist_Activist | May 2015 | #18 | |
mr blur | May 2015 | #21 | |
rug | May 2015 | #27 | |
TM99 | May 2015 | #15 | |
beam me up scottie | May 2015 | #16 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #17 | |
edhopper | May 2015 | #19 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #20 | |
edhopper | May 2015 | #22 | |
beam me up scottie | May 2015 | #23 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #24 | |
beam me up scottie | May 2015 | #25 | |
Cartoonist | May 2015 | #26 | |
LiberalAndProud | May 2015 | #28 | |
okasha | May 2015 | #29 | |
Cartoonist | May 2015 | #30 | |
okasha | May 2015 | #31 | |
Cartoonist | May 2015 | #32 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #34 | |
edhopper | May 2015 | #33 | |
skepticscott | May 2015 | #35 |
Response to Lordquinton (Original post)
Fri May 1, 2015, 01:25 AM
longship (40,416 posts)
1. Grasping at straw men.
I love Dennett. He is the gentle Santa Claus of the new atheists. He even looks the part.
![]() This is the guy who wrote Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon, which is a very intelligent and reasonable argument that, given that religion is such a huge cultural influence, maybe we ought to study what makes it tick. It is a rather brilliant book. And Dennett has said that he revised it before publishing it because early drafts were criticized by believers. He also said that his revisions did not matter whatsoever. He was still criticized. But that is the type of atheist I rather like. He does what he can, even if it does not do much good. Plus, he looks like Santa. So he's got that going for him. R&K |
Response to Lordquinton (Original post)
Fri May 1, 2015, 01:25 AM
struggle4progress (111,173 posts)
2. I found this one a quite enjoyable read
DANIEL DENNETT HUNTS THE SNARK
by David Bentley Hart January 2007 ... if one sets out in pursuit of beasts as fantastic, elusive, and protean as either Snarks or religion, one can proceed from only the vaguest idea of what one is looking for. So it is no great wonder that, in the special precision with which they define their respective quarries, in the quantity of farraginous detail they amass, in their insensibility to the incoherence of the portraits they have produced ... the Bellman and Dennett sound much alike ... The Bellman’s maxim, “What I tell you three times is true,” is not alien to Dennett’s method. He seems to work on the supposition that an assertion made with sufficient force and frequency is soon transformed, by some subtle alchemy, into a settled principle ... Generally speaking, Dennett’s method in all his books is too often reminiscent of the forensic technique employed by the Snark, in the Barrister’s dream, to defend a pig charged with abandoning its sty: The Snark admits the desertion but then immediately claims this as proof of the pig’s alibi (for the creature was obviously absent from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission) ... The most irksome of the book’s defects are Dennett’s gratingly precious rhetorical tactics, such as his inept and transparent attempt, on the book’s first page, to make his American readers feel like credulous provincials for not having adopted the Europeans’ lofty disdain for religion. Or his use of the term brights to designate atheists and secularists of his stripe (which reminds one of nothing so much as the sort of names packs of popular teenage girls dream up for themselves in high school) ... Dennett expends a surprising amount of energy debating, cajoling, insulting, quoting, and taking umbrage at nonexistent persons ... Dennett is convinced he is dealing with intransigent oafs, and his frustration at their inexplicably unbroken silence occasionally erupts into fury. “I for one am not in awe of your faith,” he fulminates at one juncture. “I am appalled by your arrogance, by your unreasonable certainty that you have all the answers.” And this demented apostrophe occurs on the fifty-first page of the book, at which point Dennett still has not commenced his argument in earnest ... http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/003-daniel-dennett-hunts-the-snark |
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)
Fri May 1, 2015, 06:58 AM
Cartoonist (6,535 posts)
6. I enjoyed it too
As unintended comedy.
|
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:36 AM
Jim__ (12,526 posts)
9. Yes an enjoyable read. Thanks for posting it.
Response to Lordquinton (Original post)
Fri May 1, 2015, 03:46 AM
TM99 (8,352 posts)
3. There is no link to the original article.
So it is hard to comment on this without context.
Please add it. Thanks. |
Response to TM99 (Reply #3)
Fri May 1, 2015, 05:42 AM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
4. Seriously?
If you're really interested in the context and not just nit-picking about an oversight, how hard would it have been to Google "Atheist Professor Betrays Ignorance Beyond Belief". Answer: Easier than typing the post you just did.
Comment to your heart's content! http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/atheist-professor-betrays-ignorance-beyond-belief-5909228778684416 I assume, given your professed love of "context", that your comments will include this author's failure to put Dennett's remarks in proper context. |
Response to Lordquinton (Original post)
Fri May 1, 2015, 05:57 AM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
5. Aside from the usual academic strutting
Last edited Fri May 1, 2015, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1) which we're tolerably familiar with in this room as well, the author can't seem to find much to say that isn't laughable. "Jehovah" is a commonly recognized (even if not commonly used) of the name of this god, and certainly isn't restricted to "obstinate fundamentalists". Has the author never heard the hymn "Guide Me, Oh Thou Great Jehovah"?
And this quote pretty well sums up the rest of his ignorance: The whole vision of God as loving and forgiving derives from the Old Testament, as is clear to anyone who has ever opened its pages. If you think of the Old Testament God as merely “wrathful,” your knowledge of the text is very slight.
The whole vision of God (wondering why the author didn't use a better version of the name, instead of just the generic reference, as if he's sure there's only one and that he likes being referred to that way) as wrathful, cruel and murderous also derives from the Old Testament, as is clear to anyone who's ever opened its pages, or even been to Sunday school. Listing the examples is hardly necessary...they are legion and well-known. That "god" is unquestionably wrathful. His claim that Dennett characterized it as "merely" wrathful is simply a lie. And that's all this guy has. |
Response to skepticscott (Reply #5)
Fri May 1, 2015, 08:07 AM
trotsky (49,533 posts)
8. "as is clear to anyone who has ever opened its pages"
With the certainty of a fundamentalist - "MY reading is correct, and everyone else is wrong."
We even see it right here on DU with liberal believers. |
Response to skepticscott (Reply #5)
Fri May 1, 2015, 02:54 PM
Lordquinton (7,879 posts)
13. The old testament god is loving
in the way that he feels sorry that you're making him punish you.
|
Response to Lordquinton (Original post)
Fri May 1, 2015, 07:46 AM
Yorktown (2,884 posts)
7. This article made me laugh.
I'm not a big fan of Daniel Dennett. Listened to one of his conferences in Edinburgh, and I found it slow paced and complacent (not to mention that he used the term 'bright' which I find pretty silly). But to write the following is to show considerable chutzpah:
In recent years, so-called New Atheists have become more aggressive and vociferous, and have achieved considerable media visibility. Normally, it rarely pays to argue with them, as their general cultural and historical ignorance means that you have to explain too many basic factual issues to them before you can share any common basis for proceeding.
Their general (..) ignorance means that you have to explain too many basic factual issues to them? I beg your pardon? Krauss is an astrophysicist, Dawkins an evolutionary biologist, Harris a neurology PhD. Not to mention that a large fraction (a majority?) of the members of the Academies of Science in the western world is atheistic. Most religious apologists do not understand evolution, and the author of this article dares suggest ignorance is on the atheistic side? I guess with god on your side, all sins are forgiven. Including that of blatantly distorting reality. ![]() |
Response to Yorktown (Reply #7)
Fri May 1, 2015, 01:29 PM
Leontius (2,270 posts)
10. I've found many atheists to be quite ignorant
when it comes to a basic understanding of the cultural and historical facts of religion and even more so the theological points.
|
Response to Leontius (Reply #10)
Fri May 1, 2015, 02:10 PM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
11. And so are many religious people
Particularly since most atheists were once religious.
What was your actual point again? Oh, right..you've been sampling the thoughts of "many" atheists, and finding that they aren't experts on YOUR religion. As if they'd be more likely to be religious if they knew what went into Serious Theology (R). |
Response to Leontius (Reply #10)
Fri May 1, 2015, 04:31 PM
edhopper (26,505 posts)
14. Don't surveys show
atheists are more knowledgable about religion than believers in general?
|
Response to Leontius (Reply #10)
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:02 PM
Humanist_Activist (7,380 posts)
18. Evidence or examples? n/t
Response to Leontius (Reply #10)
Sat May 2, 2015, 10:18 AM
mr blur (7,753 posts)
21. I've found many theists to be quite ignorant
when it come to a basic understanding of how the Universe actually works, irony, how morality develops, what happens after death, why the Resurrection is ridiculous, why women are not inferior to men, why bigotry is unacceptable and, in particular, stuff like this this:
![]() and this: ![]() |
Response to mr blur (Reply #21)
Sat May 2, 2015, 09:15 PM
rug (82,333 posts)
27. I've found many anti-theists to be quite dependent on cartoons.
In actual discussion, reason yields to ad hominems in short order.
|
Response to Yorktown (Reply #7)
Fri May 1, 2015, 05:06 PM
TM99 (8,352 posts)
15. Your three examples given
are men who are brilliant and educated in one specific scientific area but yes, are completely uneducated, inexperienced and unqualified to discuss religion the way they do.
No, most religious people do understand and accept evolution. And those that don't are as ignorant of science as these New Atheists often are of the religions that they opine upon. |
Response to TM99 (Reply #15)
Fri May 1, 2015, 05:21 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
16. Nice example of the Courtier's Reply.
The Courtier’s Reply
There’s a common refrain in the criticisms of Dawkins’ The God Delusion that I’ve taken to categorizing with my own private title—it’s so common, to the point of near-unanimous universality, that I’ve decided to share it with you all, along with a little backstory that will help you to understand the name. I call it the Courtier’s Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable. I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/ ![]() |
Response to TM99 (Reply #15)
Fri May 1, 2015, 09:20 PM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
17. Do you have even a few meaningful examples?
Or are you like the author of the article and so many others in simply making an unsupported declaration and thinking it carries any weight?
Would any rational person say that someone has to have studied astrology or homeopathy for as long and in as much detail as those who claim to be professionals in the field in order to criticize those practices? But somehow the existence and behavior of gods and the horrible abuses of religion have been granted a bizarre shield of intellectual depth that supposedly makes them unfathomable to anyone who has not devoted decades of study to them. |
Response to TM99 (Reply #15)
Sat May 2, 2015, 09:00 AM
edhopper (26,505 posts)
19. Apparently
"most" religious people don't accept or understand evolution
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/ " Nearly two-thirds (64%) of white evangelicals say that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form," |
Response to edhopper (Reply #19)
Sat May 2, 2015, 09:43 AM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
20. What he meant probably needed to be qualified
as do most of the broad-brush statements about "religious people" made by the religionists here, by saying "most religious people I know...."
There seems to be a persistent belief that things outside their own personal experience either don't exist or don't count. |
Response to skepticscott (Reply #20)
Sat May 2, 2015, 03:14 PM
edhopper (26,505 posts)
22. But even with the scholarship
so far being the likes of Dawkins, Dennet and Harris??!! He makes that mistake?
I mean that's like using the name Jehovah in reference to the OT God. |
Response to edhopper (Reply #19)
Sat May 2, 2015, 03:49 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
23. And these are the people who think they're qualified to call atheists ignorant?
![]() |
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #23)
Sat May 2, 2015, 04:37 PM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
24. No, it's the people who claim
that "most religious people" understand evolution who think that they are qualified to call other atheists ignorant on the subject of religion.
![]() |
Response to skepticscott (Reply #24)
Sat May 2, 2015, 04:41 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
25. Must be another way of knowing.
The Truthiness will set you free, scott!
You will be healed by the powah of Jeebus! |
Response to Lordquinton (Original post)
Sat May 2, 2015, 09:11 PM
Cartoonist (6,535 posts)
26. Biblical Scholars
The biggest delusion that they all work under is the belief that the Bible is a book of facts. But not just any facts, these facts are so mysterious that it takes years of study to ascertain their meaning.
Question: "Is Jehovah the true name of God?" So there you have it. Anyone who calls God any other name than by the current one accepted by scholars, if they have agreed on one (this is not clear), than they are ignorant beyond belief. |
Response to Cartoonist (Reply #26)
Sat May 2, 2015, 10:20 PM
LiberalAndProud (12,799 posts)
28. "belief that the Bible is a book of facts" ...
Many Biblical scholars aren't searching for facts. They will weave a narrative around a story to attempt to suss out the wisdom god meant to impart. The tradition for arguing the intended meaning of holy text predates Jesus, I'm sure. And please, don't confuse wisdom with facts.
Which is why even those people who devote themselves entirely to Biblical scholarship will never agree as to the "facts" of the matter. |
Response to Cartoonist (Reply #26)
Sat May 2, 2015, 10:48 PM
okasha (11,573 posts)
29. "Jehovah" was the construction
of an eighteenth-century German philologist., who would have pronounced it "Yehovah," basically imposing German phonemes on the Hebrew. Current usage among translators and other scholars is "Yahweh." The English J-sound is not found in Hebrew.
Clearly, Dennett isn't familiar with contemporary historical or archaeological scholarship, still less with theology. |
Response to okasha (Reply #29)
Sat May 2, 2015, 10:55 PM
Cartoonist (6,535 posts)
30. Current usage
Subject to change.
Who cares? |
Response to Cartoonist (Reply #30)
Sat May 2, 2015, 11:02 PM
okasha (11,573 posts)
31. You do, apparently,
in your unsourced post 26.
|
Response to okasha (Reply #31)
Sat May 2, 2015, 11:43 PM
Cartoonist (6,535 posts)
32. No, I don't
That was merely to show how absurd the article of the OP was. Google Jehovah and you'll get lots of hits. Dennett isn't the only one who uses the name. It doesn't invalidate anything he says. You and the author will have to try harder. Good luck.
|
Response to okasha (Reply #29)
Sun May 3, 2015, 09:08 AM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
34. That's too funny
because here's the direct quote from the author:
Professor Dennett refers to the Old Testament God as Jehovah. I have no idea why he is using that term, which is a Latinized version of one guess at the divine Name mentioned frequently in the Bible. The form was much used in earlier translations in the seventeenth century And yet here you are, claiming that "Jehovah" is an 18th century construction. Which leaves us with two possibilities: Either you're full of it, or the author is even more ignorant on the topic than you claim that Dennett is. Which is it, okasha? As far as why Dennett would have used that form, does it really take a genius to have a clue about that? Regardless of "current usage among translators and other scholars", it's a commonly used form that his audience (which he knew would not be restricted to "serious" theologians and academians) would be familiar with. Simple, yes? |
Response to Lordquinton (Original post)
Sun May 3, 2015, 08:55 AM
edhopper (26,505 posts)
33. We better tell the
Jehovah's Witnesses about this giant error.
They are using the wrong name for God, their whole religion must therefor be false I guess. |
Response to edhopper (Reply #33)
Sun May 3, 2015, 09:17 AM
skepticscott (13,029 posts)
35. Yes, according to the OP and many posters here, they obviously are ignorant
about their own religion. Clearly their use of that form cannot be respected unless they have studied the history and culture of their own religion for decades and have become "serious" scholars and theologians.
![]() |