Daniel Dennett On The Pope's Remarks

Well, truth be told, he didn't comment directly on the Pope's remarks, because I heard him talk this past July at this year's Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference at Penn.

Here's Dennett next to me at dinner, talking to a kid who claimed to

be Brigham Young's grandson, with Leda Cosmides looking on behind.

Dennett spoke out against the prissy way in which we're supposed to regard religion, making the point that religion shouldn't be sancrosanct, but should be examined as dispassionately as other subjects. In Dennett's words to me at dinner:

Give religion no more respect than you’d accord to animal husbandry.

Of course, when he said it, he was looking out across a dining room filled with a few hundred evolutionary psychologists, anthropologists, and ethologists, not a sea of homicidal nutwads. As a friend e-mailed me today:

...I have this summary about all the anger with the Pope: “We’re so mad about your comments that Islam is violent that we’re going to kill you if you don’t apologize.”

Dennett made a fascinating point -- and I think he's right -- that some people believe in god, and some people believe in the belief in god. I think of intelligent people I know, and I can't really imagine they believe, without proof, in a big Imaginary Friend in the sky. I think they just try not to think about it too much because they find it more comfortable to recede into irrationality. Or, as it relates to organized religion, as Dennett said in his talk:

People do the believing and leave the understanding to the "experts."

Another reason for this might be that they need the group belongingness religion provides -- and they'll suspend disbelief to have it, same as they do in a movie. Unfortunately, real-world suspension of disbelief has real-world consequences. For more on that, see the Sam Harris blog post below. Regarding work on religious group-think, I'll try to post David Sloan Wilson's talk and contribution to the poster session at HBES soon.

Dennett’s one policy recommendation –- education on world religions (for kids):



Dennett explained:

Toxic religions depend on enforced ignorance of the young –- and a religon that can flourish in an informed (citizenry) is a benign religion.

Here's Dennett's book, Breaking The Spell.

Posted by aalkon at September 19, 2006 11:28 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1692

It is puzzling how many intelligent people are also religious people. I always had trouble understanding that until I lived with my wife, a practicing Catholic, for a few years. After several long discussions (over more than a few bottles of wine), I came to realize that intelligent people like her don't really buy into religion. They just find the alternative depressing. Religion gives them hope, like the lottery gives people hope.

Posted by: Jason Ginsburg at September 19, 2006 5:00 AM

As with religion, regarding the lottery, it pays to be rational. Here's the relevant study by Brickman comparing lottery winners' happiness with that of people crippled in a car crash: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=690806&dopt=Abstract

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 19, 2006 5:35 AM

For more on financial irrationality in humans, read Mean Genes by Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142000078?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0142000078

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 19, 2006 5:41 AM

> Give religion no more respect

> than you’d accord to animal

> husbandry. This comports niecely with Ambrose Bierce: "Treat things divine with marked respect- and don't have anything to do with them." I haven't been on the farm since I was a kid, either. Think the world and all of those who live close to the soil, though... Sloppin' the pigs... Milkin' the cattle.... Good post.

Posted by: Crid at September 19, 2006 6:35 AM

Still, there are many intelligent religious people who actively think about their faith rather than blindly following. This might be puzzling to some, but imagining that they don't really believe what they claim to believe doesn't change reality.

Posted by: Mr. Grouchypants at September 19, 2006 7:53 AM

It's always amusing when people guess at what the real motivations are of people they don't know. You guessed wrong.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 19, 2006 9:12 AM

It's always amusing when people guess at what the real motivations are of people they don't know. You guessed wrong.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 19, 2006 9:13 AM

I really don't understand what you are trying to say in this posting. I think you are saying that only stupid believe in God. Many great thinkers (like Steven Hawking, William Buckley, and Einstein), far smarter than your friends, I suspect, believe. Leibnitz argued that belief actually makes more sense than non-belief, because there are so many questions that cannot be answered if one does not believe. The whole concept of Faith depends on believing without proof - that's why it is called Faith. Interestingly enough, many of your friends have an equal amount of Faith in disbelief with no more proof than the believers. I, by the way, am an agnostic that has tremendous respect for believers because they have made a conscious leap of faith rather than a passive, uninformed one. Who are the smart and thoughtful ones now?

Posted by: Alex at September 19, 2006 9:30 AM

I really don't understand what you are trying to say in this posting. I think you are saying that only stupid believe in God. Many great thinkers (like Steven Hawking, William Buckley, and Einstein), far smarter than your friends, I suspect, believe. Leibnitz argued that belief actually makes more sense than non-belief, because there are so many questions that cannot be answered if one does not believe. The whole concept of Faith depends on believing without proof - that's why it is called Faith. Interestingly enough, many of your friends have an equal amount of Faith in disbelief with no more proof than the believers. I, by the way, am an agnostic that has tremendous respect for believers because they have made a conscious leap of faith rather than a passive, uninformed one. Who are the smart and thoughtful ones now?

Posted by: Alex at September 19, 2006 9:34 AM

Alex, As far as I know, Hawking is not a believer.

Posted by: Mr. Grouchypants at September 19, 2006 9:58 AM

> there are so many questions

> that cannot be answered if one

> does not believe You say that as if 'believing' gave you the answers. > they have made a conscious

> leap of faith There's nothing "conscious" about pretending your data means more than it does. There's nothing "passive" about watching the world closely to learn what's real and what's not. Reason is the essence of consciousness, and the only advantage to being a human being.

Posted by: Crid at September 19, 2006 10:52 AM

Faith = unquestioning acceptance in what you are told. Thinking = rational and analytical thought about what you are told. Pick one. You can't have both. Just because there are many things we don't understand, it doesn't logically mean that "God did it". For example, using that reasoning, if you can't explain to me in great detail how a computer works, then I can just say "God did it". It's not an answer. And if faith is so admirable, then you should apply it to all aspects of your life. Just believe everything everyone tells you. See how far that gets you.

Posted by: Canada at September 19, 2006 10:57 AM

Dennett's policy recommendation is bad. Granted, he is not recommending religious indoctrination, but if you know religion is bunk why give it any space in school. Religion through the ages can be covered in passing in History class. I.e. If you know Nazism is bad, don't show the propaganda films, show what they did and why they were wrong. And how about the religion of environmentalism? Should we be indoctrinating children with the latest anti-industrial green propaganda. They are getting it in spades right now. Ask any 17 year olds and I'd bet 7 of 10 will tell you Capitalism is destroying the world. How do they know? Faith.

Posted by: Jon at September 19, 2006 11:54 AM

My family is made up of baptist preachers and church workers, there's probably 4 grandkids out of 20 not serving in the church (me included). Growing up in Sugar Land, it became such a strange thing for me going to church that it's confused me even to this day. Parents seemed to use it as a way to validate that they're bringing up their kids "right" and everyone else just seemed to enjoy what was, to me, just a glorified country club.





I'm as analytical as one could get about all of these things, but the difference to me is that the people who seem to support certain organized religions make it what (if it is true) it was never supposed to be. I've read The Book from cover to cover and still have no clue to how it stands against progressive thinking. That's all they said Jesus ever talked about "be kind to others, don't be quick to vengence or violence, think for yourselves, don't let the priests do it for you; you shouldn't judge others, but also you shouldn't let others judge for you what's right and wrong" was the essence of his words - to me anyway. I don't consider them "holy words" (that's why there's so much conflict about Jesus, a (hu)man, not just a voice from the sky - now THAT would have gotten some attention) - they very well could have been the words of some translator years later for all I know. The point is that that is all I know and I'm willing to admit that.





Watching an entire generation of my family turn fanatical about anything from abortion to inter-racial marriage to staying out after nine led me to laughing my arse off reading a line Amy told someone "Funny how what you believe is right for him directly correlates to what would make you happy." Sorry if I misquoted, I've read too many of your advice responses to remember exactly which one it was from.

Posted by: Abby at September 19, 2006 12:35 PM

The bible was actually first written down hundreds of years after Jesus and all the disciples were dead, based on campfire tales. I think the first compilation was around 1200? Then it was edited for hundreds of years by politically motivated religious leaders for their own political and financial gain. What we have now is the result of a very long game of telephone, and you know how that usually ends up. Loads of laughs!

Posted by: Canada at September 19, 2006 1:21 PM

The bible was actually first written down hundreds of years after Jesus and all the disciples were dead, based on campfire tales. I think the first compilation was around 1200? Then it was edited for hundreds of years by politically motivated religious leaders for their own political and financial gain. What we have now is the result of a very long game of telephone, and you know how that usually ends up. Loads of laughs!

Posted by: Canada at September 19, 2006 1:22 PM

While canonization certainly took hundreds of years, many the texts of the New Testament are dated in the first century AD.

Posted by: Mr. Grouchypants at September 19, 2006 2:03 PM

Right, Canada? Once they had a sermon called "The Great Author" and of course it was all about how the big man upstairs "inspired" the bible, but I really thought "Finally! They're going to answer this" only to resort to flipping through the pages and pages of translators, editors, priests, pastors, bishops, etc. that had compiled this book from seemingly nothing. Another time I picked up the program before being dragged into another service and it had a flow chart "surrendering your will" ->"accepting"->"dedication"->"recruiting"->"invest financially" and I thought it was going to be lecturing about cults and was all excited to see the hypocrisy unfold. It was more sad than funny as it turned out that this was their interpretaion of how to be a "successful christian".





I completely agree that religion needs to be taught in school as a subject. Ironically, it was a bible verse that kept me from believing every word that came out of my family's mouths "study to show thyself approved". And I did. And I found out a lot more at age 17 than I ever knew growing up, much more than I would want my children to be confronted with all at once - as freeing as it was, it still hasn't helped me reason with the people who to this day refused to believe anything other than what the pastor says.

Posted by: Abby at September 19, 2006 2:22 PM

Canada - a false dichotomy of what faith is, followed by an historical statement that is only off by oh, 1000 + years. Yeah, you're making a great case that you're the one who's thinking real hard. Abby, most pastors I know would be surprised there is any church where congregants believe what they were told. Maybe where you are. Look, even as a believer, I have some sympathy with how it all looks to those who don't believe, and I think I have some small understanding of that. But people with honest curiosity don't go looking for things to ridicule, they go looking for good expositors who can inform them of something, even if they decide that there is no reason to adopt the ideas oneself. When people have to ridicule - anything, not just faith - red flags go up that they might have "issues." (Sorry to resort to a modern cliche.) If it's any comfort, believers usually guess wrong, or at least overgeneralize, why people don't believe.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 19, 2006 4:18 PM

> people with honest curiosity

> don't go looking for things

> to ridicule 1. People with honest curiosity don't go looking for things to believe in without evidence. 2. The atheist habit of ridiculing believers is a bad habbit, and some of us have been trying to talk Amy out of it. But it wasn't the atheists who threatened the Pope over the weekend, though many of us loathe him. > If it's any comfort... Atheists often seem more patient with discomfort than the faithful, but thanks for caring.

Posted by: Crid at September 19, 2006 4:31 PM

Is the aphorism applicable which notes that: not believing in God doesn't keep Him from believing in you! Actually (at midlife) when I consider all the lands and peoples of this earth, I wonder how atheists can dismiss the infinite ways man has found a way to believe. BELIEF can't be eradicated, you know. And intelligence is not the measure of us (thankfully). You may think it absurd to be a Hindu, or Jew, or animist, but that doesn't change the fact ("fact!") that people will--have always--yet continue to believe in Something. Believers know that THEY don't have all the answers. And Someone must. That's s beginning. Canada says:

"Faith = unquestioning acceptance in what you are told. Thinking = rational and analytical thought about what you are told. Pick one. You can't have both."

Well, I can read the text (and so can you), and that's the essence of Benedict's message at Regensburg: You can't have one without the other: CAN'T have faith without reason, or reason WITHOUT faith. I'm not Roman Catholic but he does makes his point. Sorry!



Posted by: jgr at September 19, 2006 5:51 PM

Is the aphorism applicable which notes that: not believing in God doesn't keep Him from believing in you! Actually (at midlife) when I consider all the lands and peoples of this earth, I wonder how atheists can dismiss the infinite ways man has found a way to believe. BELIEF can't be eradicated, you know. And intelligence is not the measure of us (thankfully). You may think it absurd to be a Hindu, or Jew, or animist, but that doesn't change the fact ("fact!") that people will--have always--yet continue to believe in Something. Believers know that THEY don't have all the answers. And Someone must. That's s beginning. Canada says:

"Faith = unquestioning acceptance in what you are told. Thinking = rational and analytical thought about what you are told. Pick one. You can't have both."

Well, I can read the text (and so can you), and that's the essence of Benedict's message at Regensburg: You can't have one without the other: CAN'T have faith without reason, or reason WITHOUT faith. I'm not Roman Catholic but he does makes his point. Sorry!



Posted by: jgr at September 19, 2006 5:52 PM

Crid, I think you are confusing proof with evidence. There is evidence for many things, even things that turn out to be untrue. Evidence is often ambiguous. There are many things that people could consider evidence for atheism, or evidence for faith, or evidence for belief in Curative Mushrooms. I would suggest - and the idea is certainly not original with me - that the framing that atheism is a default logical position to which elements of faith are unnecessary additions is an inaccurate framing. I would dare to suggest that it is an aesthetically pleasing and self-congratulatory belief shared by atheists, but one that does not accord with people as they actually are. People all people - do actually believe things for obscure reasons, and atheists are not exempt from that. That you are unaware of your assumptions does not mean you don't have them. Logical Positivism is a well-known philosophical position that has strengths and weaknesses. It is not the philosphical version of getting down to bare metal, however.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 19, 2006 8:07 PM

> not believing in God doesn't

> keep Him from believing in

> you! Cluck on, little hen. I've got enough Christianity in my background to recognize a failure of humility when I see it. Yours is a stupid bluff. > Evidence is often ambiguous. This doesn't mean we get to think whatever we want and be correct. > an inaccurate framing Not at all, it's the correct default logical position, which is why we're so often told that 'faith comes by hearing,' and why Muslims pray four times a day: People need to be methodically programmed. Even so, it's easier than it ought to be, because atheism doesn't have the built-in emotional comfort which undergirds beliefs of wish-fulfillment. It's cold out here. We like it, though. > I would dare to suggest... Dude, be *careful!* Don't take too many crazy risks! > it is an aesthetically

> pleasing and self-

> congratulatory belief Aren't you on the same team as the condescending hen addressed above? > That you are unaware of

> your assumptions One day I decided I could move through the world assuming there was no supernatural, omnipotent being with personal interest in the outcome of my life. I've never been disappointed. > It is not the philosphical

> version of getting down to

> bare metal, LPism is not of interest, I don't even know what it is, and don't care enough to look it up on Wikipedia. But the construction of that paragraph suggests you need a reason to be cheerful, and if you can't find one through logic, you'll find it through faith. Good luck out there. But no tears when it hits the fan, OK?

Posted by: Crid at September 19, 2006 9:39 PM

Hi Assistant Village Idiot, I visited your blog, and I like how you write about things other than God. But here on Amy's blog you sound like some kind of old harpsichord-clattering church fag. I would dare to suggest that you exercise some of your Impression Management skills and talk about sports or politics for a little while. You would be much more likeable. By the way, most atheists despise philosophy as much as they do religion. Hedonically Yours,

Lena

Posted by: Lena at September 19, 2006 10:43 PM

What Lena said! I wish I could write good like that! Putting it in rude terms, I would say religion and philosophy are similar forms of mental masturbation (and I'm not criticizing masturbation!).

Posted by: Canada at September 20, 2006 8:18 AM

Hey, Canada. I prefer jerking off to Descartes too! If you ever decide to give mental masturbation a chance, try "Thinking It Through" by Kwame Anthony Appiah. At the very least, you'll get a real good idea of what you're missing.

Posted by: Lena at September 20, 2006 10:10 AM

If philosophy were as important to society as religion seems to be, I think our world would be leagues ahead of the mess we've made so far.

Posted by: Abby at September 20, 2006 12:10 PM

Yes, attempting to be polite when criticising does usually bring out the prig in me. I thought this was an intellectual discussion, not a charm contest. The disdain for philosophy as well as theology is revealing. My limited experience is that atheists tend to be bright people who notice that they think about things more than the next person. This quite naturally gives them a bit of condescension about the mass of humanity. I hadn't wanted to mention it at first because it seemed too insulting, and I thought I had already been difficult enough. Then you go and hand me the insulting point I left out, uninvited. It is definitely my opinion that atheists are (often) people who don't want to think really hard about the issues. They are unwilling to look up other people who have asked the same questions and even devoted their lives to them. They don't even want to work hard enough intellectually to read what other atheists think. It's hard to be impressed with the argument that says "I don't even care enought to look it up, let alone think about it. I just know I'm right." That sounds remarkably like faith, and an ill-founded one at that. It is rather like a person who cries "I am an invincible swordsman," then puts down the epee at the first sign of an actual opponent. "Oh. Well. Swordsmanships's not everything, y'know." If your view is "Believing in anything seems unlikely; I'd rather have a good time," then that is at least consistent. But if that's the case, you've lost your ground for claiming that you are being logical and others aren't. You can't have this one both ways. I imagine you'll try, though.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 20, 2006 5:22 PM

"It is definitely my opinion that atheists are (often) people who don't want to think really hard about the issues." You don't seem to think all that hard either, mister (though I do like the way you write). Believe it or not, there are alternatives to religion and philosophy for explaining the world. Sociology, psychology, and economics will be enough to keep me busy for the next few decades (assuming I'll be around).



Posted by: Lena at September 20, 2006 5:47 PM



"It is definitely my opinion that atheists are (often) people who don't want to think really hard about the issues." On the contrary, it's much easier to just swallow what you're told and not think about it. Atheists question the status quo. If any intelligent person actually considers whether there's evidence for a god and doesn't just take it on "faith" -- I can't see how they could believe in god. Sam Harris gave this great example about frozen yogurt. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/ "Tell a devout Christian ... that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible," Harris writes, "and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 20, 2006 11:58 PM

Too many generalisations about atheists. The only one that is valid is that they don't have a belief in any gods or godesses. Motivation, intelligence, background reading etc all vary from one individual to another.

Posted by: Norman at September 21, 2006 1:01 AM

Norman is of course the most correct of us. I did generalise too much. But as regards this particular thread, I remain on good ground. Amy reasserts her original proposition as evidence of um, her original proposition. Yes, merely repeating yourself is likely to persuade people the next time. It shows you're listening. Take a polite amount of time, and then come back and write "People who believe in God just believe what they're told. They can't be thinking about it." I'm sure that will be utterly convincing after enough repetitions. I'm surprised Voltaire didn't use it more. As for psychology, Lena, that's how I make my living. But no one has no philosphy. If you won't take a good one you'll have a bad one by default. If you want to be not interested, that is a choice available to you. However, you lose thereby the standing to reject someone else's. And the last accusation that anyone who knows me would make is that I don't think about things enough. You may believe I don't think accurately. But I've got plenty of quantity.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 21, 2006 5:33 AM

"If you want to be not interested, that is a choice available to you. However, you lose thereby the standing to reject someone else's." Your ability to pull a rule like this out of your ass shows great creativity, but your expectation that others follow it shows great naivete. Some people are way beyond "wanting to be not interested" in philosophy. I don't know why you think that would affect their ability to smell a steaming pile of bullshit.

Posted by: Lena at September 21, 2006 7:54 AM

There is simply no rational argument for god belief. If you can come up with one, I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 21, 2006 8:55 AM

Canada's definition of faith is very strange and self-serving. Faith is believing something you cannot prove. The definition has nothing to do with the source of the belief (i.e., being told). Mr. Grouchypants is right in that Hawking is not a believer in the "personal god," but does believe that there is something beyond the universe responsible fore creation. Amy's final posting is polemical. The rational reason for believing is that the beginning of the universe cannot be explained without a god of sorts. That does not mean there is a god, but it is rational reason for believing in god. This conclusion was good enough for Einstein, but perhaps not good enough for truly great thinkers like Alkon.

Posted by: Alex at September 21, 2006 12:23 PM

I think we should all devote our lives to calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - wait - I think that's been done before. How about we apply some of this obviously superior brainpower to solving actual problems in the real world that we all live in right now.

Posted by: Canada at September 21, 2006 1:16 PM

Canada, argue the methodology when you can't argue the facts. Off curing cancer as I type?

Posted by: alex at September 22, 2006 12:49 AM

Alex-

Exactly how does it matter what Stephen Hawking's personal beliefs are?

Posted by: Norman at September 22, 2006 2:06 AM

Einstein did not believe in god, first of all, and even if he did, I don't care who believed in something. I'm not a monkey-see-monkey-do thinker. I suggest you read up on Einstein's supposed god belief. I believe I've posted on it before. Norman is right with this: Too many generalisations about atheists. The only one that is valid is that they don't have a belief in any gods or godesses. And Canada, if everyone in the world stopped believing in god and started thinking rationally, do you think people would be trying to blow you up on an airplane because "A is A"?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 22, 2006 4:12 AM

The reason Einstein's and Hawking's belief matter is that the premise of the post is that belief in God is not rational. The fact that hyper-rational cosmologists believe that a god precedes creation is pertinent. Einstein believed there was a god, he did not believe there was a "personal' god. I am not suggesting that you ape Einstein (a highly unlikely prospect), I am suggesting that belief in god is rational, and perhaps more rational than not believing. I also propose that dismissing the existence of god is the real monkey see monkey do thinking.

Posted by: Alex at September 22, 2006 10:49 PM

Alex, belief in god is highly irrational. Here's a nibble from Einstein. Perhaps you should stop going around smearing him. He didn't like it. Quote below. And here's a link (http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/09/did_einstein_be.html) to a new post I just put up in response to your Einstein smear -- and a quote from it below: "It was, of course, a lie that you read about my religious convictions, a lie

which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and

I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me

which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the

structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 23, 2006 6:11 AM

"And Canada, if everyone in the world stopped believing in god and started thinking rationally, do you think people would be trying to blow you up on an airplane because "A is A"?" Actually, I thought about it, and no, it would not. I just thought about the recent gun incident in Montreal, which is similar to the Columbine gun rampage. The guy who did it was not religously-motivated. My only theory would be that he wasn't getting any pussy either?

Posted by: Canada at September 23, 2006 2:39 PM

It's amazing how much athiests/agnostics generalize about Christians (and those of other belief systems as well). To think that people believe in a Creator and then "try not to think about it" is absurd. To think that intelligent design is in any way a threat to real, good science is idiotic and disingenous at best. History is littered with prolific scientists who were Christians. What I find amazing is the absolute fear which you people show to *any* divergent point of view. You answer to such views is to shut them off entirely - censorship in a word. If you are so sure of your positions then why fear opposing views? Of course, here comes the objective that something is going to be forced on you. Again, more smoke and mirrors. Discussing two opposing viewpoints is not forcing anything to anyone. I'm a Christian. I want good science - we need good science. And we also need to let our children be free to choose whether or not they believe God or man. But you fear to give them that choice, and you will do everything in your power to prevent it. And this is the very thing you accuse Christians of. I welcome any debate on intelligent design, creationism - whatever, vs evolution/molecules to man. Can you say the same? NO, you cannot. Fear.

Posted by: Fear? Yes, fear. at October 3, 2006 2:42 PM

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html the more we know, the less we believe (in it).

Posted by: ws wang at October 3, 2006 4:49 PM

Bob, until you have proof there's a god, you're irrational and primitive for believing in god, and intellectually criminal for directing your children to do so, if that's what you do. You can choose to believe in Santa for all I care, but the problem comes when you start making political decisions based on your fervent belief, based in nothing, that Santa exists, and those political decisions affect the lives of the rest of us. Just for example. I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in, say, a giant purple vagina floating over my house. To borrow, semi-hallucinatorily, from Richard Dawkins (I think). The difference between you and me? I have an evidence-based filter for what's real and what isn't. Hence, I don't pussyfoot around writing long posts that have nothing to do with the real issue: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THERE'S A GOD.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 5:18 PM

I don't know if Einstein actually believed in God or not. I do know he said something about believing in an afterlife because energy can't be created nor destroyed. People are welcome to believe in God or not if they want, as long as they don't try to use that belief to justify actions that harm other people. Killing pro-choice or pro-life people because their beliefs and actions disagree with one's chosen belief is what is criminally wrong. Entire areas of the country are being taught that violence against others is good if they don't agree with our beliefs. That's what's insane.

Posted by: Jim at October 3, 2006 5:54 PM

There have been many good points brought out in this discussion, and from both "sides." However, I have a few thoughts that I will try to convey in a polite way. First of all, consider this: most everyone has (at least a slightly) different reason for believing whatever it is he/she believes, whether that person is an atheist, a creationist, or whatever. To say that people with "faith" (used largely in this thread in reference to a belief in God) are simply believing in God because that's what they're told to do by their pastor or just because it acts as a security blanket for them is obviously erroneous; it may (sadly) be true for some, but is definitely not true for all (take me, for example). Similarly, it's odd to say that all atheists "fear" the arguments of God-believing people. Some might, but I rather think most don't. I can see that many atheists (not all!) view people who believe in God as simply ignorant, or even willfully "blind to the facts." They may wonder how people can "bring themselves" to believe in a God when they cannot (or would not want to) do so themselves. However, this is based largely on opinion, as well as what a person considers to be "solid evidence." To illustrate, the extreme complexity in the universe is, to some, solid evidence that a Supreme Designer was/is involved. To others, it doesn't prove such a thing at all. Whatever the case, every person (sound in health) has the ability to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. If a man wants to believe that a loving God would torment a natural-born sinner in fire for all eternity (which, as a Christian, I cannot personally find in the Bible anywhere), then let him believe it. Let him teach it to his children. As has been demonstrated by some posters in this thread, the things taught to you as a child need not determine your beliefs and actions throughout adulthood. That said, I think the thought behind teaching school-age children about world religions isn't necessarily a bad one, providing such a thing be done in a correct and purely objective way. I have my own reservations about it, however, simply because I doubt (in all practicality) that it could be done in such a manner. As a sidenote, I think it's probably a good idea to leave harsh language and character-bashing out of the current discussion. There's a lot to be said for respecting the personal dignity of others.

Posted by: Katie at October 3, 2006 5:56 PM

“It is hell to live without hope, and religion saves people from hell.” - Mordecai Kaplan, Rabbi

Posted by: bcoffee at October 3, 2006 6:15 PM

There are a number of reasons people believe in stupid things. There's no evidence god exists. Do I fear god believing people? Sure I do. They live irrationally and get me fired from papers when I use science and reason in my work -- as opposed to mouthing the words of the bible. They prevent stem cell research and they do a great job of keeping contraception and the morning after pill out of the hands of those who need it -- promoting disease and teen pregnancy. The evil Pope keeps his business going - the church being the most successful multinational corporation ever - by promoting AIDs in Africa through urging people to not use condoms. And then, take an airplane recently? You think the atheists are trying to blow you up, or maybe it's the believers? I'm not afraid of people's silly, irrational thoughts -- it's just how they apply them to my life and the lives of others. Mordechai Kaplan doesn't speak for me. Perhaps like the Pope, he was just promoting his business. My life has meaning because I invest it with meaning. There's no evidence of heaven or hell - and this is actually discussed in Judaism. So perhaps the guy doesn't know his shit. What is "hope" exactly? Personally, I have rational optimism, and I don't believe in dumb unproven crap. I'd venture that I'm happier than most people...perhaps because I don't waste my life, since, best I can see, I have a few decades on the planet and then I'm worms. Like all of you will be. Not one of you has evidence for god or heaven or hell. Therefore believing in it is...well, to put it politely, highly irrational.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 6:53 PM

When people tell you their religion or belief in gods gives their life meaning, ask them: how? Ask them: "What does your life mean, then?" And then watch them squirm.

Posted by: Dark Sided at October 3, 2006 8:00 PM

Assistant Village Idiot: You write like an intelligent person. I find that usually when an intelligent person is a believer, they are not really believers in the fundamentalist sense. My wife, for example, finds deep meaning in the Judaism she was brought up with -- for instance she took Monday off and spent the entire day in Yom Kippur ceremonies. On the other hand, when it comes to a literal belief in a "higher" being who created the universe, she's exactly as much of an atheist as I am. In other words, for her there is meaning in the experience of religion that has nothing to do with literal belief. So, Assistant, I'm wondering where you stand because you haven't made it clear to me so far. Do you believe that there is actually a personal God who you pray to, who hears you, and is influenced by your prayer? Or do you not believe that, but rather find meaning in religion while also believing in a more abstract, non-personal God which does not listen to individual prayers? Or do you believe nothing like either of those things, but still find that your religion has meaning? If you do believe in the actual existence of God, I have follow-up questions: What is your evidence? Or do you believe that evidence is unnecessary? (You seem to imply that when you deny that atheism is a good default logical position.)

Posted by: Gary Robinson at October 4, 2006 3:59 AM

Great Idea, Dark -- I'm going to post it as a question on my blog, too. I find it hilarious - the belief that there's some big guy up there who gives a shit about people's mundane little lives. To think so is arrogant and simply silly.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 6:26 AM

Just a drive-by... In response to "fear", it's not that I fear alternative views. It's that I *know* that religious belief is a symptom of dangerous thinking. It's dangerous for people to deveop habits of mind whose end result is religion; these habits of mind result in other negatives (like, say, getting the incompetent George Bush elected, denying that pollution is bad, thinking it's ok to watch 3 hours of tv each day, blaming others when you become obese), so we might as well cut it off at the root. It's equally dangerous for us to teach our kids that homeopathy can cure you, or that capitalism is the "one true way", or that Columbus was a good guy. Are we interested in truth? Or do we want a "good story" instead? Personally, I want to promote truth, even if it's unplesant. The best metric of truth I know of, is coherence - root out all the internal contradictions, make sure the evidence fits, and you can be fairly sure that you're believing something that's true. But, of course, it's provisional - if you get more evidence, or get exposed to new ideas, your beliefs may be incoherent again. It's an ongoing process. This is what I wish kids were taught... this is true "critical thinking".

Posted by: nutmeg at October 4, 2006 6:44 AM

Nutmeg has it exactly right. If you don't believe in god, I bet you don't believe in other dumb unproven stuff like astrology, homeopathy, and mental fork-bending. The best class I ever took in school was my high school course in logic. I'd love for them to add that -- and a course about manners -- to the curriculum these days.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 7:35 AM

In your original post you imply the dinner with Dennett was at Penn and don't mention co-host institution Drexel even though the pictures clearly show the main building of Drexel was the venue for the evening.



Posted by: Ben at October 4, 2006 9:25 AM

The conference was at Penn, planned by Rob Kurzban, a professor there. The dinner and Dennett's pre-dinner talk took place at Drexel. I walked there, getting slightly lost on the way. I believe I had the chicken. The dessert was a little too sweet. Seated acrosss from me were Kaja Perina and Nando Pelusi. Kaja edits Psychology Today. We once took a boat trip together in Germany. Nando was there, too. We were all attending the Human Behavior & Evolution Society Conference at the Free University Of Berlin. The food there sucked, but then again, it also sucked at the conference at University College of London. That's when I met Terry Burnham, who didn't first say hello to me, but "You have high testosterone." "Hey, fuck you!" I replied. Then he explained 2D 4D finger ratio. I wear a size 9 1/2 or 10 shoe, and my bra size is 32DDD. Sucks, because nobody makes bras in that size. And yes, feel free to call me Sugartits. It gives Hasan, an occasional blog commenter, a real lift, and I like to do that when I can. Anything else you'd like me to be more specific on?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 10:13 AM

For those who find such things fascinating, here's a full list of sponsors of the conference: Sponsors We want to add a special note of gratitude to The Office of the Vice Provost for Research's University Research Foundation and the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania for their very generous support. The University Research Foundation, University of Pennsylvania ($5000) The College of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania ($5000) Department of Psychology, Drexel Unviersity ($1000) Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, University of Pennsylvania ($1000) Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania ($500)

Posted by: Amy "Sugartits" Alkon at October 4, 2006 10:25 AM

Drifted out of this one for awhile. Amy, your quote from Einstein supports my point - he did not believe in a personal god but he believes in that there is something beyond our ability to understand. What surprises me is your nastiness towards the mere possibility of a god. Nothing written here disproves the existence of a broadly defined god, because it is fundamentally something that cannot be disproved. Your faith in no god is just as uninformed as someone's faith in a god. Your refusal to acknowledge this either makes you illogical or a fundamentalist. I am starting to suspect the latter.

Posted by: Alex at October 5, 2006 2:05 PM

Believing that the universe is beyond the scope of human understanding isn't anywhere near believing in god. Nothing here disproves the existence of a giant purple vagina hovering over my house, but, in Carl Sagan's words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's up to the people who believe in unproven crap to prove the unproven crap actually exists. If my belief in god is "uninformed," is my lack of belief in a giant purple hovering vagina and a enormous throbbing green penis right now crashing through your roof equally uninformed? Or is it just silly to believe in something for which there is no evidence? What's clear to me -- they should be teaching logic in high schools, and you should go back and take it in summer school. I'm illogical for demanding proof before I believe in something? Right.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 5, 2006 3:15 PM

Some comments: "7 of 10 will tell you Capitalism is destroying the world. How do they know? Faith." There's some actual scientific evidence for this. If U don't want to see it, it's U who professes (negative) faith. "Believe it or not, there are alternatives to religion and philosophy for explaining the world. Sociology, psychology, and economics will be enough to keep me busy for the next few decades" Now that's a joke. Sociology, psychology and economics are as faith-based as religion, maybe even more so, lol. "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THERE'S A GOD." True, but that doesn't prove anything. I doubt the bacteria living in my gut would be able to prove my existence as a personal being. "people's mundane little lives" How an atheist can call people's lives "mundane" and "little" is beyond me. Surely life is the most precious thing of all, certainly if there's no Afterlife to look forward to?

B.t.w. I consider myself an agnostic.



Posted by: jimigorilla at October 24, 2006 11:23 PM

Kaplan did not believe in hell! He was a religious naturalist!

Posted by: Yonathan David at July 12, 2007 12:33 PM

Thanks, Yonathan.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 12, 2007 1:51 PM