Saturday, December 1, 2007
Last night I attended an event that promised to provide some solid intellectual nutrition, and I was not disappointed.
The Tufts Freethought Society sponsored a debate between Tufts resident scholar and leading light in the Brights movement, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and well-known conservative thinker and author of the recent book, What's So Great About Christianity
I think I've been clear about my own feelings on the question specific and general -- I am fervently agnostic, and certainly closer to the Dennett position than the D'Souza, though I have become more respectful of the sincerely religious in recent years and consider myself wide open to a good argument. (I wrote about some of this in: Thoughts Have Roots and Enlightenment <> Humanity.) I find the "Brights" business insufferable and a complete turn-off though, and frankly don't think many people on either side of the question have spent much time sincerely considering the other's viewpoint in any sort of sincere way, and most peoples' opinions in this matter, as in so many things, are like "images of Daedalus" -- lots of opinion that sounds good to those who agree, but very little real depth of knowledge.
As I say, I'm wide open to a good argument, I've just been waiting for one to come along. I may have come as close as can reasonably be expected last night. D'Souza sparkled, and brought forth more interesting food for the thought buffet than I've had served up in some time.
I was warned by a former student of his that Danel Dennett is not a very impressive speaker and likely wouldn't bring much to the debating table. He was proven correct. Dennett was unimpressive as a speaker, though I was wanting so badly to hear his arguments. He opened the debate with an approximately 25 minute prepared monologue with PowerPoint. So far, so good. He had some interesting things to say, though he exposed some of his own weaknesses as well -- something I'll get to -- but when it came time for rejoinders he fell flat. I have no doubt that D'Souza misused some science in his arguments, but disappointingly, Dennett wasn't quick on his feet enough to present the problems to a live audience in a concise manner -- and he's likely written books about it. In fact, later in the debate, when Dennett made the point that, contrary to what D'Souza said concerning morality being a trait that Evolution couldn't account for, though Dennett couldn't explain it, D'Souza was gracious enough to say he would make a point of getting Dennett's books to read up on the matter, as he was happy to learn.
I think many in the audience must have been disappointed to see in D'Souza someone who was not some sort of raving religious fanatic. D'Souza clearly "believes" in science, and scientific discoveries like Evolution, he merely believes that in many cases, the scientists have stepped outside their purview. This made him all the more effective.
One of the main thrusts of Dennett's opening was his idea that there should be a fourth "R" added to the school curriculum -- Religion. Yes, Dennett believes in learning about religions -- their histories, creeds, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions -- and not just of one or two religions, but of everything from Hinduism to the John Frum Cargo Cult (this learning, says he, should be compulsory for all). He beats around the bush quite a bit, and poses sincerely -- one of the points he says he is making is that "All religions have toxic versions" and that all these toxic versions require enforced ignorance of the young...which he will overcome by straightforwardly overcoming this ignorance. Fair enough. But it quickly becomes clear that Dennett's real intent is that once people learn about all of these things, they'll soon begin to see the absurdity of it all and be liberated from it just like Dan Dennett. After all, they can't all be right, can they? And some are quite silly, are they not? Well, no, since some may be right and some may be wrong.
And here's the weakness of the entire Atheist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted entertained. Time and again I was disappointed not only by Dennett's inability to articulate the science, but in his inability to respond to D'Souza's very interesting thought experiments, analogies and use of example from the history of Philosophy itself. What a disappointment from such a well-trained professor of philosophy!
Dennett can't resist a political comment but winds up undermining his entire argument when he states something along the lines of his being more afraid of some self-righteous neocon in the Pentagon using a nuke than he is Pakistan or Iran. So a bunch of politicos with a secularly-derived set of beliefs can be more dangerous than apocalyptic religious fanatics? This would be interesting to bear in mind as we watched, later in the evening, as Dennett tried dodging that uncomfortable fact that anti-religious people never like to address -- the fact that more murders were committed in the 20 century by atheists in the name of atheism than by all those who ever claimed to fight for their religions.
When the audience was given the chance to participate, the vast majority of the questions were directed toward D'Souza, who handled them all with extreme alacrity.
I should point out that, though I have been tough on Dennett and the Atheists in this, that's not to say they don't have their own good arguments. The thing is, I'm relating my impressions of this debate, and those good arguments just weren't on display last night. We're always hardest on our friends who disappoint us.
Dennett says that humans don't need God to tell them right from wrong -- it's time for humans to grow up and figure it out for themselves. But how do we do this? How do we remember it for the next generation? How do we teach it? How do we propagate it? We evolve religions (aside: Both Dennett and D'Souza agree on this). And that's all Dennett, Dawkins, et. al. are doing. They're upset that so many people hold so many poorly examined beliefs, but really, how many of their own followers have engaged sincere, well-placed argument on behalf of God on its own terms with an open and inquiring spirit? Not many I'd wager. The world is full of people with incompletely examined and challenged beliefs.
Here is the entire debate in 15 YouTubed parts linked at the web site of Richard Dawkins, where the comment thread will confirm every negative stereotype you may or may not hold about the Dawkins brand of atheist.
Here is my own .mp3 suitable for your player:
Update: RichardDawkins.net has updated with a link to the video of the full event in one piece, as well as a better quality .mp3.
Update2: Dinesh D'Souza blogs about the event himself: Is God a Man-Made Invention?
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Does God Exist? A Debate..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/13781
Free Mark Steyn linked to eight of my posts today, so I went over there to see what else got linked in that post. Canadian writer Deborah Gyapong linked to a debate play-by-play between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett. First off, the audio of the de... Read More
You are quite right that many "Brights" are in fact inventing a new religion... so perhaps it is not so surprising that Dennett slid into political commentary. For many on the left, political ideology has been invested with the power and infallibility once assigned to relgious moral schemes, and has become a de-facto "belief system".
Here in Israel we see this a lot - the left-wing ideologues who cannot surrender their "faith" in socialism and the Peace process. In service of these creeds, the true believers show an ability to deny very obvious reality that matches any millenial, messianic fundamentalist.
Yet these folks are confident that they represent "reality based" voices of rational progress!
Well, that's a guileless report Sol and given the subject that alone is worth remarking upon. I read recently where D'Souza challenged Dawkins to a similar debate under conditions that would have been entirely favorable to Dawkins (e.g., an atheist moderator, a setting at Berkeley or some such venue).
Dawkins declined according to the one report I read. Which fact would not be worth remarking upon, excepting for 1) his atheistic fervor and salesmanship/evangelism, which means he should be willing to submit his arguments to reasonable discourse and debate instead of limiting himself to Charlie Rose styled softball interviews and puff pieces and 2) the self-proclaimed intellectual based foundations for his particular atheistic creed; iow, if it's so intellectually based then submit it to the intellectual and reasonable/rational probings of any and all comers.
Dennett says that humans don't need God to tell them right from wrong -- it's time for humans to grow up and figure it out for themselves. But how do we do this? How do we remember it for the next generation? How do we teach it? How do we propagate it? We evolve religions (aside: Both Dennett and D'Souza agree on this).
Fascinating!
I agree with the thesis... and I'd love to explore it further. As a check, consider this: if agnostics despair of the God-figurehead mumblings of the major religions, but nevertheless need something outside themselves as a source for morality, can we invent a new religion to suit?
Imagine a Teacher, who Teaches us right from wrong in succinct lessons... and gives people reasons to behave morally, until they're old enough to understand morality for its own sake. (It would also serve as a position to fall back upon, for those whose world-views are shattered and have trouble figuring out what's moral by themselves anymore. That's a major benefit of religion that I don't see mentioned very often.)
Obviously this wisdom from outside ourselves would have to come from somewhere... but where, if not a God-figure? A revered teacher who is no longer with us (a la Buddha or Confucius or Muhammad), or one for whose return we wait (a la Jesus)? Could we worship the society itself, because personal morality is in the best interests of The State? (Examples of that model are painfully easy to find... as are the problems with that model.) Or should we try to divorce the source of this wisdom from humans entirely, a la Judaism?
You see my problem. I'm quite willing to entertain the idea of a system of morality, for people to follow, that doesn't depend on miracles or Gods. But I'm having a hard time coming up with one that isn't already one of the major established religions.
Perhaps the closest example I can think of is the way we "worship" the American Constitution as a source of wisdom and morality. We have avoided falling into the trap of seeing the Founding Fathers as divine, or infallible; indeed, they made sure that we could amend their rules when necessary.
Problem is, that's too cerebral to work well as an ultimate source of morality. Whether we like it or not, young children often do respond best to the "do this or the Big Bad Wolf will come and eat you" school of morality.
And the morality that sticks with us, the one that's there when we need it most -- at three in the morning, when the doubts come, or when everything is chaos and we don't know which way is up -- is the morality we learned as children.
I guess that's the short answer to the agnostic question: "why do we need organized religion?". We need it because it works. For thousands of years, religion has provided people with a guide to behaving morally towards one another.
Yes, religious wars have claimed far too many lives over the millenia -- but, as Sol points out, so have wars started by the atheists... and we'll never know how many millions of people, on the ragged edge of despair, were able to use their long-neglected religion as something to hold onto when they needed it most.
As somebody once said: don't judge a religion because it does, or does not, make sense to you. Judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it.
And by that standard, the major established religions -- with one notable exception -- measure up pretty well. (As James Lileks once pointed out, when Hurricane Katrina hit, the first rescue organizations to move were the religious ones -- and nearly all major religions were represented. The Salvation Army was there; Chabad was there. Atheism International was not.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
That's one of the things that always bugs me - the refusal of some atheists to acknowledge that state-sponsored atheism was a huge part of Communism. I've even been told that Stalin and Lenin weren't really atheists, but Christians. Even Hitler was apparently a really devout Catholic. The concept that any atheist, at any time in history, might actually have been (gasp!) intolerant of theists seems difficult for them to accept.