Dennett vs McGrath – Part 1 of 9
This is a debate at the Royal Institution in London between philosopher Daniel C Dennett and professor of theology Alister McGrath. The debate is on the ideas presented in Dennett’s book Breaking the Spell, such as the concept of the meme and the evolution of religion. The debate is moderated by Madeleine Bunting. Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement. en.wikipedia.org Alister Edgar McGrath (born 23 January 1953) is a Christian theologian, who holds both a DPhil (in molecular biophysics) and an earned Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford. He is noted for his work in historical, systematic and scientific theology. In his writing and public speaking, he promotes “scientific theology” and opposes antireligionism. McGrath was until recently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but has now taken up the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King’s College London since September 2008. Until 2005, he was principal of Wycliffe Hall. en.wikipedia.org
 NEW - Freedom Evolves by Danie... 4.25 |  Consciousness Explained, Danie... 6.99 |  Typical Teachings of Exodus by... 15.00 |  NEW Ufos Over New Mexico - Den... 16.12 |
@judomuerte I would agree, but there are those such as Dawkins who does use the term and it is one of respect for the man who had such brilliant vision. Though yes in general it is used almost a pejorative which is unfortunate. I do wonder how the man himself would feel, not only with the term but with the contention itself.
@CliffStamp I would say it is only used derisively based on the fact that anyone who agrees with the facts of the “Theory of Evolution” refer to it as just that. Those who are ignorant, and therefor typically against Evolution, (against fact? don’t get me started) refer to it by the way it is always referred to in there circles…Darwinism. Also, it’s easier to say “social Darwinism” then “social Evolutionsism” when strawmanning that particular argument.
@fuckisnotadirtyword It is much easier to villainize a person than an idea. That being said, it is common for people to use terms like Newtonian Mechanics (to note a system which is not relativistic). So I think the term Darwinism could be used in a useful manner to refer to Classical evolution, as the current theory has expanded significantly and includes other driving forces aside from Natural Selection.
@qigong1001 Higher power is a power greater than I.
Only a hopeless egoist cannot imagine a power greater than they.
Fears ought to be removed, not appeased.
I’m talking about the type of fear that keeps people frozen in their lives.
Afraid to even try.
I had a girl who worked for me, occasionally she couldn’t get out of bed because she was so terrified but couldn’t say of what, she didn’t even recognize it as fear.
She was a perfectionist, her fear was of her human imperfections.
@jonesgerard Well the point I was trying to make was, that many use “god” as a tool to appease their fears. And as for “higher powers”; I don’t believe in higher or lower, as these are anthropic ideas. There is just “power.” But if labeling this “power” as higher works for you, then who am I to judge.
@qigong1001 “Accepting your demise; the understanding that “you” will cease to exist, is the ultimate in fear confrontation. Are you prepared for that?? ”
Yes, thats actually the solution for addiction in a nutshell.
That also defines the root cause of addiction. (fear).
Drugs don’t deal with fear, they are just stimulus interruptors.
But when the drugs wear off the fear remains because its a state of being.
God can change our state of being.
Its an inside job.
@qigong1001 The best word I have found for spirit is mind.
The form of spirituality that works is the one that connects with a power greater than the self.
@qigong1001 And as far as fear goes, nothing is more soothing to our fears than religion or spirituality. Except for certain drugs. Accepting your demise; the understanding that “you” will cease to exist, is the ultimate in fear confrontation. Are you prepared for that?
@jonesgerard So, you want to show the relationship of what some say is non-existent, with a method called spirituality. A vaguely defined concept which basis is what??. What is a spirit? How does it manifest? Show me that it isn’t merely a figment of the human imagination. What form of spirituality works? And you would like to use semi-Freudian techniques of ego-removal to achieve this? These are mainly rhetorical questions; because they have no answer.
@jonesgerard This better,
youtube.com/watch?v=H2caBYIIYV0&feature=related
@jonesgerard
I found Emmit Fox usefull in adopting a new perspective.
youtube.com/watch?v=TBQMTw6LcFA&feature=related
Of interest, he greatly influenced the founders of AA.
@qigong1001
Another method,?
That would be spirituality, a direct relationship without a middleman called religion.
The question then becomes how, answer; by the removal of self.
The problem is EGO , and it don’t go down easy.
Thats why theres a saying “Pain is the touchstone of all spiritual growth”.
No-one abandons their core beliefs unless it hurts enough, when the pain of being stuck where you are (atheism)overcomes the fear of where you need to be.
It took me 45 years.
@jonesgerard There are trillions of things we “cannot prove the nonexistence of.” For example, imaginary friends, ghosts, luck etc. If you want to live your life using that heuristic, then whats left to argue? An athiest does not try to “disprove god” anyway. Athiests are more open to his existence based on logic/evidence than religious are to his nonexistence using the same methods. Would you like to suggest another method? DO NOT RESPOND UNLESS YOU CAN THINK OF ANOTHER METHOD. THANKS.
@fuckisnotadirtyword Why do atheists parrot the same ideas can’t you come up with something original and simple. Or do you encounter paradoxes of logic.
Try this, atheists cannot prove the nonexistence of God but spend a lot of energy trying to prove the nonexistence of what they believe does not exist in the first place.
Yeh , you better keep parroting , its safer.
@fuckisnotadirtyword Evolution is a natural process, not tool humans can use.
That was the problem with stalin, Mao and Hitler, they were playing God.
Their Ego’s were in control and Ego thinks it is God
@qigong1001 McGrath attracted attention by pointing out the silliness in the atheist ideas from Dawkins such as memes.
What he really pointed out was Dawkin’s paranoia .
Dennett suffers the same stupidity, its fear based.
But like all paranoia it has no realistic basis, its just smoke.
Theres no way creationism can replace science.
So I conclude very intelligent people can fall victim to their self generated fears and concoct mad ideas like memes.
Denette is just an old doddering fool.
Science is the wrong tool for examing God.
@fuckisnotadirtyword Actually, there is something like that called Newtonianism.
Eugenics is not the application of evolution to reproduction. It’s simply the generation of a selection pressure.
Moreover, I’m pretty sure it’s been shown that it is not just unpleasant but also detrimental to the survival of the species in the long term. If you really want to apply the principles of evolution to reproduction, one of the first things you have to discard is eugenics.
Don’t mind the spelling, as long as I can read it. Yeah, that’s pretty much what I mean, two differant types of evolution but the same basic principals apply.
yes. social institutions can change over time without any individual players (congnition) actual conspiring to make it so. this is evolution no?
systems like capitalism are prone to do this faster due to the fact that it is an economic system that accomidates selective pressure. this is a darwinian concept observed in a setting that is not biological.
pardon my spelling. i know its bad and just don’t care.
Good point, I think what I mean is that our understanding of biological evolution, specifically as it relates to natural selection, can be usefull in understanding how systems like capitalism work. It’s not that we have applied the process itself, its that we apply concepts learned by studying the process of evolution to understand economic concepts of a similar nature. Does that make sense?
Basically, I’m saying that capitalism is a system based on the same principals as natural selection.
Yeah, I figured that was their intent…it’s just another example of creationist idiocy. They seem to be saying “You’re right, we ARE dogmatic, irrational and ignorant, but look! You are too!
Almost beats “I know you are, but what am I?”
Seriously though, when your argument is reduced to this crap, it’s probably time to let go.
Plus, we all know that universe building pixies were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and sent out by the spider queen, Lolth to manufacture our universe.
i understand what your getting at and i am not looking to “debate”, but…i feel the need to question. it does not sound right to me to say that evolution can be applied. it happens
“if you choose not to decide, you’ll still have made a choice” – RUSH (sorry couldn’t help it)
reminds me of Leopold articulating the idea that as part of the natural order humans impact it regardless of how we choose to live. its best to understand the impact of our choices so as to make the best ones.
haha. i am going to use that if you don’t mind.