Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The Fourth Horseman
The allusion in the title is to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, to which the four most widely known atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett have been compared, callling them the Four Horsemen of Atheism. I have discussed Dawkins and Hitchens here, and Harris, briefly, here. This post concerns Daniel Dennett.
Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell[1], is what places him with the other three atheists, but I don't think it is a fair characterization of his writing. Actually the whole allusion to the four horsemen is unfair to both Harris and Dennett, much like lumping Fundamentalism, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism together and calling them Christian. In many ways the differences are just as great among the atheists as among the three types of Christianity.
Dennett is an atheist, but he doesn't rub one's nose in it like Dawkins or Hitchens, nor does he outright condemn belief in God as do the other three, nor does he attempt to destroy religious belief. As a philosopher, he is stepping back a bit and in effect saying, "Religion is a big deal in the lives of many if not most people, we should understand why." He is proposing that religion should be studied like any other natural phenomenon, such as reproduction or social structures, with a view to understanding both what is beneficial and what is detrimental to people. He is also aware that in the studying of it, it is possible that it might be broken, that a part of its efficacy is its mystery.
The concern over understanding how religion really works, is "the spell" that he is proposing to break. He spends the first chapter pointing out that from a biological perspective, religion does not make sense. He also points out that religions enjoy "traditional exemption from certain sorts of analysis and criticism." [ital in original] This exemption is the spell. The spell is also the feelings that religion inspires in some people. The danger in studying religion is that this spell will be broken. He spends most of the book making the case that the study is worth the risk. But then he is not a believer.
I am not a fan of Dennett, but neither am I a foe. I have disagreements in one of his areas of expertise, the mind, but I found much to respect in this book. If one gets around or ignores the rank egotism of his wanting to refer to the intellectual atheists as "brights" the book is generally respectful of religion and religious people. He tends to elevate evolution to the same quasi-religious plane that Dawkins does, but is less offensive about it and provides quite a bit more information along the way.
He also brings in some very different illustrations from nature than the usual ones. Being a philosopher of the mind, he is fascinated by natural events that reprogram the minds of animals. In Elbow Room, he discusses a wasp call sphix, that has a very complex behavior that it turns out is not at all thinking though it appears that way. In this book he describes an ant that is infected with a fluke that changes the ant's behavior so that the fluke will be eaten by a cow or sheep. Dennett draws upon a much broader base of knowledge than any of the other authors I have read among the atheists. It shows in that his arguments are much stronger, and at the same time more temperate, with little dependence on rhetoric.
This book has caused me to reassess my opinions of Dennett. It now behooves me to acquire his entire output and carefully read it. I don't expect to come to agreement with him, but he is important for me to understand and be able to discuss, since we have at least two common areas of interest, religion and the mind.
[1]Dennett, Daniel C., Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking Penguin, New York, (2006)
Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell[1], is what places him with the other three atheists, but I don't think it is a fair characterization of his writing. Actually the whole allusion to the four horsemen is unfair to both Harris and Dennett, much like lumping Fundamentalism, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism together and calling them Christian. In many ways the differences are just as great among the atheists as among the three types of Christianity.
Dennett is an atheist, but he doesn't rub one's nose in it like Dawkins or Hitchens, nor does he outright condemn belief in God as do the other three, nor does he attempt to destroy religious belief. As a philosopher, he is stepping back a bit and in effect saying, "Religion is a big deal in the lives of many if not most people, we should understand why." He is proposing that religion should be studied like any other natural phenomenon, such as reproduction or social structures, with a view to understanding both what is beneficial and what is detrimental to people. He is also aware that in the studying of it, it is possible that it might be broken, that a part of its efficacy is its mystery.
The concern over understanding how religion really works, is "the spell" that he is proposing to break. He spends the first chapter pointing out that from a biological perspective, religion does not make sense. He also points out that religions enjoy "traditional exemption from certain sorts of analysis and criticism." [ital in original] This exemption is the spell. The spell is also the feelings that religion inspires in some people. The danger in studying religion is that this spell will be broken. He spends most of the book making the case that the study is worth the risk. But then he is not a believer.
I am not a fan of Dennett, but neither am I a foe. I have disagreements in one of his areas of expertise, the mind, but I found much to respect in this book. If one gets around or ignores the rank egotism of his wanting to refer to the intellectual atheists as "brights" the book is generally respectful of religion and religious people. He tends to elevate evolution to the same quasi-religious plane that Dawkins does, but is less offensive about it and provides quite a bit more information along the way.
He also brings in some very different illustrations from nature than the usual ones. Being a philosopher of the mind, he is fascinated by natural events that reprogram the minds of animals. In Elbow Room, he discusses a wasp call sphix, that has a very complex behavior that it turns out is not at all thinking though it appears that way. In this book he describes an ant that is infected with a fluke that changes the ant's behavior so that the fluke will be eaten by a cow or sheep. Dennett draws upon a much broader base of knowledge than any of the other authors I have read among the atheists. It shows in that his arguments are much stronger, and at the same time more temperate, with little dependence on rhetoric.
This book has caused me to reassess my opinions of Dennett. It now behooves me to acquire his entire output and carefully read it. I don't expect to come to agreement with him, but he is important for me to understand and be able to discuss, since we have at least two common areas of interest, religion and the mind.
[1]Dennett, Daniel C., Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking Penguin, New York, (2006)
// posted by Bill @ 5:59 AM 
