Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
BarristerA characterizes Dennett and Dawkins as “blaming the world’s ills on religious people” and as “contributing to a climate of hatred (or at least animosity) against religious people generally and Christians in particular.” He thereby wonders if they "incite to hatred," and share responsibility (or "irresponsibility") for terrible acts such as the Colorado shootings. (And, note to BarryA: expressing your assertion as a faux-innocent question makes it no less an assertion. If it IS a genuine question, why don't you muster the balls to state what you believe the answer to be?)
I haven’t read “The God Delusion” so can’t comment upon Dawkins. I have read Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell.” Does Dennett ascribe all of the evil in the world to religious people? Does he generally disparage religious people? Does he "incite to hatred" of religious people?
In Breaking the Spell, Dennett describes his interviews with religious persons:
| Quote | When I began working on this book, I conducted interviews with quite a few people to try to get a sense of the different roles that religion plays in their lives…These were strictly confidential interviews, almost all one-on-one, and although I was persistently inquisitive, I didn’t challenge or argue with my informants. These occasions were often moving to say the least, and I learned a lot. Some people had endured hardships that I could not readily imagine myself surviving and some had found in their religion the strength to make, and hold fast to, decisions that were nothing short of heroic. Less dramatic, but even more impressive in retrospect, were the people of modest talent and accomplishment who were, in one way or another, simply much better people than one might expect them to be; it wasn’t just that their lives had meaning to them - though this was certainly true - but that they were actually making the world better by their efforts, inspired by their conviction that their lives were not their own to dispose of as they chose.
Religion can certainly bring the best out in a person, but it is not the only phenomenon with that property. Having a child often has a wonderfully maturing effect on a persons. Wartime, famously, gives people an abundance of occasions to rise to, as do natural disasters like floods and hurricanes. But for day-in, day-out lifelong bracing, there is probably nothing as effective as religion: it makes powerful and talented people more humble and patient, it makes average people rise above themselves, it provides sturdy support for many people who desperately need help staying away from drink or drugs or crime. People who would otherwise be self-absorbed or shallow or crude or simply quitters are often ennobled by their religion, given a perspective on life that helps them make the hard decisions that we all would be proud to make. (p. 54-55) |
Here Dennett argues for an examination of religion, even were that to “Break the Spell”:
| Quote | Today, billions of people pray for peace, and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them believe with all their hearts that the best path to follow to peace throughout the world is a path that runs through their particular religious institution, whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of hundreds of other systems of religion. Indeed, many people think that the best hope for humankind is that we can bring together all of the religions of the world in a mutually respectful conversation and ultimate agreement on how to treat one another. They may be right, but they don’t know. The fervor of their belief is no substitute for good hard evidence, and the evidence in favor of his beautiful hope is hardly overwhelming. In fact, it is not persuasive at all, since just as many people, apparently, sincerely believe that world peace is less important, in both the short run and the long, than the global triumph of their particular religion over its competition. Some see religion as the best hope for peace, a lifeboat we dare not rock lest we overturn it and all of us perish, and others see religious self-identification as the main source of conflict and violence in the world, and believe just as fervently that religious conviction is a terrible substitute for calm, informed reasoning. Good intentions pave both roads.
Who is right? I don’t know. Neither do the billions of people with their passionate religious convictions. Neither do those atheists who are sure the world would be a much better place if all religion went extinct…Those who are religious and believe religion to be the best hope of humankind cannot reasonably expect those of us who are skeptical to refrain from expressing our doubts if they themselves are unwilling to put their convictions under the microscope. If they are right - especially if they are obviously right, on further reflection - we skeptics will not only concede this but enthusiastically join the cause. We want what they (mostly) say they want: a world at peace, with as little suffering as we can manage, with freedom and justice and wellbeing and meaning for all. If the case for their path cannot be made, this is something that they themselves should want to know. It is as simple as that. They claim the moral high ground; maybe they deserve it and maybe they don’t. Let’s find out. (p. 16-17) |
I think it unlikely that passages such as above (and Dennett never departs from this tone) "incite to hate." It is possible, Barry, that distortions such as yours do.
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
