Ch. 2 - Some Questions About Science

Chris OConnor

Ch. 2 - Some Questions About Science

Talk about Chapter 2 here or create your own threads.

Loricat

So in Chapter 1, Dennett proposes his virus metaphor, in Chapter 2 he uses analogies of the studies of music and sex (and Santa Claus!) to sway fundamentalists opinions towards the scientific study of religion.

I found these to be quite compelling arguments. What about the rest of you?

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Loricat's Book Nook
Celebrating the Absurd

MadArchitect

My only problem with this chapter is that, from the viewpoint of someone who has already accepted the thesis that there's no reason not to examine religion through the lens of science, it's pretty tedious. In fact, I rather wish that Dennett has compacted most of this first section into a single, far more brief chapter. Fewer analogies, fewer anecdotes, more to the point. The first section is all basically the same argument towards getting religionists to continue with the larger project, and if they're not convinced by the first chapter, I seriously doubt they're going to bother with chapters two and three.

Loricat

I agree, he is 'preaching to the choir' a bit in this -- I wonder how many people in this audience have actually read the book?

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Loricat's Book Nook
Celebrating the Absurd

JulianTheApostate

I occasionally read the views of people I disagree with. Though I'm a liberal atheist, there's value in hearing the perspective of theists or conservatives.

However, I'd rather someone I disagree with honestly state their views and reasoning. A conservative analysis of liberalism, for example, would probably piss me off without providing much enlightenment. A religious person would probably have a similar reaction to Breaking the Spell.

Mr. Pessimistic

I agree that the first three chapters are repetetive and could have been condensed into one. I can see how it can start to seem patronizing, to his stated target audience, after a while. Even I was like "ALRIGHT ALREADY!"

But I agree with just about everything he speaks about so far...at least I do not have any strong objections to it.

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

ginof

It seems to me that the author has done as disservice to his cause here: One the one hand, he streches out this material in an attempt to get people with the opposite philosophical bent engaged in the discussion. On the other hand, he tells them to go away if they disagree with him?! It seems like there is a paradox here.

If he really did get someone with a different viewpoint to read the book (despite the title) then they should not be treated so poorly for doing what the author asks.

As a standing member of the choir, I do feel like I'm being preached to a little.

Praise! ::21


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT