Reminder: Caleb is presenting on Dennett.
Reading: Dennett, "An Evolutionary Account of Religion", pp. 10-18
Reading Guide: Daniel Dennett is an American philosopher who teaches at Tufts University. He is well known for his work in cognitive science. He is also an outspoken atheist; however, he takes a more "friendly tone" towards religion than Richard Dawkins. In this excerpt from his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Dennett takes a critical approach to religion. He focuses on presenting an account of how religion evolved. Since religion doesn't come cheap, it is worth asking why religions are so "persisten(t) and popular" (11). On p. 12, he argues that "we need to understand what makes religions work, so we can protect ourselves in an informed manner from the circumstances in which religions go haywire". On his account, our innate tendency "to attribute agency - beliefs and desires and other mental states - to anything complicated that moves" is the biological root of religion. In the section titled "Religion, The Early Days", he explains how this "hyperactive" tendency to attribute agency could account for the origins of folk religion, how/why the concept of divination became so prevalent, and the role of ritual in preserving a religion (14-16). On p. 16, he rejects the suggestion that this evolution of ritual necessarily arose deliberately: "Even elaborate and expensive rituals of public rehearsal could emerge out of earlier practices and habits without conscious design". He notes that over time, folk religions "acquired stewards", i.e., people who consciously worked to spread and protect it. They thus became "domesticated". On p. 17, he observes that there are certain features shared by domesticated memes (see the editors' summary for a good definition of memes). He concludes by considering whether religion makes us "better" in some way.
As you read, think about what's at stake for religion. Why does it matter whether Dennett is right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I like Dennett's down-to-earth approach. Certainly this work has philosophical implications but seems itself a somewhat less "philosophical" piece than the other things we have read. There is really not too much to argue against. His statements are a plausible interpretation of the facts he sees in the world and he does not claim anything more absolute than what is reasonable based on what we know. I do appreciate the fact that he is describing a world that I actually recognize as mine.
I appreciate Dennett's approach to the evolution of religion, especially considering the fact that he's an outspoken athiest. While he doesn't bash any religions he does take an interesting stance on why people "buy into" the various religions of the world. I don't, however, like the fact that he sees religious practices or rituals in such black and white terms. That since they have a cost to them we have to have a distinct reason why we do what we do. What makes a religion unique are its individual practices and I don't think people should have to explain themselves in such an economical matter. What one person views as wasting money another may view as their road to salvation.
I rather liked this article by Dennett. His pragmatic approach to the evolution of organized religion has a certain appeal to it in that it makes a lot of sense. For example, he goes into the value rituals have and uses that to explain why they're still around. I especially like how he notes the trust children have in their parents and how religion tends to anchor in the psyche of people in those formative years.
I have a similar feeling towards religion as Dennett. I realize that for many people it offers a comfort and sense of worth that they wouldn't otherwise have. For that reason, I doubt religion will ever die out.
I rather liked this article by Dennett. His pragmatic approach to the evolution of organized religion has a certain appeal to it in that it makes a lot of sense. For example, he goes into the value rituals have and uses that to explain why they're still around. I especially like how he notes the trust children have in their parents and how religion tends to anchor in the psyche of people in those formative years.
I have a similar feeling towards religion as Dennett. I realize that for many people it offers a comfort and sense of worth that they wouldn't otherwise have. For that reason, I doubt religion will ever die out.
I am a big fan of Dennett's article. The section "The Roots of Religion" really sucked me into the essay and got me asking why there isn't just one religion by now if God actually revealed himself at one time. False religions would, in theory, eradicate themselves when their followers were not given revealation or reason for faith. I find it interesting that some beliefs can be perpetuated by stewards as memes. I also agree that religion can have some benefit but not necessarily in the moral sense.
Dennet's article was added in the fourth edition of the course text, so I will only be able to comment based on the reading summary. Dennet seems to logically approach the evolution of religious practice throughout history, but I would like to read more on the possible "origins of religion." I have always felt that the very idea of God arose from two of mankind's innate desires: a desire for purpose and a desire for social inclusion. Without any further understanding of the human condition, mankind may have developed the idea of "divinity" in order to give their existence meaning. As groups began to gather over shared ideas of the divine, humanity would have clung to these newly developed traditions in order to fulfill a primal need for social acceptance. I really wish I could read Dennet's full argument for the development of religion in order to broaden my perspective.
This piece works for me. I especially likes the questions Dennett poses in his secton "The Roots of Religion". They are good questions to ask of someone who thinks their religion is the one true religion. He refers to the similarities in many religions as well as how many new religions pop up everyday. His piece is useful to us in the class in some ways, but I wish that the average person would be required to read through this piece before committing themselves to one faith or another.
I expected to come across some elaborately conceived philosophical argument against religion in this text but that does not seem to be the case. Dennet's approach is, like Jarrod said, fairly down-to-earth, relatively speaking anyway. Although I believe in God, I still attribute a vast portin of what is referred to as religion today to the inquisitive nature of man, the desire for spiritual comfort and so on. I would like to note, however, that what perpetuates religion today does not falsify it from its origins. In other words, a present day misunderstanding of religion by your average individual does not necessarily invalidate the possibility of its existence.
I liked the part of Dennett's argument where he talks about relgion not benefiting society. I agree with him. If everyone who claimed to be Christian followed morals presented in The Bible, then I think society would benefit from it. However, many people who claim to believe and follow Chrstianity pick and choose what they want to follow.
I like Dennett's writing and he has some pretty good points. The one thing I don't agree with though is when he says that religion "is a hugely costly endeavor." I don't think you have to go to church regularly to be religious, or even do a lot of things to be religious. It seems as though he views religion as a huge burden, which I don't quite agree with.
Post a Comment