STOP THAT! We were hoping no one would notice!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

I started the book this evening and got through the first chapter fairly quickly. This time I can read everyone else's feedback first, instead of being one of the first people to start the discussion.My initial impression was rather positive, though after reading Mad's criticism I trying to figure out why. Compared to the other books on religion we've discussed here, Dennett comes across as a better writer and a more intelligent thinker. Though I didn't learn much new from Chapter One, except regarding the lancet fluke, Dennett is setting the stage for a book that sounds promising.However, I'm rather skeptical of Dennett's hope that many theists will read his book. Between Dennett being an atheist philosopher and his attitude towards religion, religious believers would be rather alienated. Edited by: JulianTheApostate at: 9/4/06 3:18 pm

Julian,Totally agree with your last paragraph. And having read ahead, it gets worse....

Being a part of Dennet's choir, I am finding these first few chapters rather bland and uninteresting. I can understand his chatty tone, however, and why he is dwelling on issues concerning taboos and such. For anyone who is not a lay-theist of some sort, these first chapters can be mildly annoying. But, having had experience in debating theists myself, Dennett is only doing what is necessary. These are the types of points that would initially prevent someone of a typical religious mindset from reading his book.As far as the comparison with the ant parasite goes, I don't see any problem with the analogy. One shouldn't expect analogies to cohere perfectly--otherwise it would cease to be a comparison, but would become a tautology. In terms of what Dennet is discussing, the analogy works. The ant parasite guides the ant to do something that is not conducive towards its survival, just as ideas may do similar things in human beings. Whether one is voluntarily chosen and the other is forced is not really relevant to the point Dennett is making. He certainly isn't trying to imply that religious beliefs are "forced" upon people against their wills.

I too found the first three chapters repetitive and boring. But the latter half of the book really peaked my interest. I enjoyed this book very much.I have some things marked off to talk about...but I have been busy.Ideas can enable a person to behave as they otherwise would not. It is like talking yourself into doing something you know is not 'right' or against your better nature by inventing excuses for the otherwise deplorable action. Like saying and believing that 'god is on our side' and then killing another group of people. Once a person makes themself believe in something, that belief can motivate actions and then things can snowball.The ideas Dennett is discussing of course are not entirely conscious choices or self deception, but, ideas that are perpetuated unconsciously. Memes. Whether or not I buy the whole theory, it is a good means of bookkeeping to think of these memes as self perpetuating as in the method of genes.I think so anyway.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

Mr P: Whether or not I buy the whole theory, it is a good means of bookkeeping to think of these memes as self perpetuating as in the method of genes.I think both the idea of memes and Dawkins presentation of the transmission of genes are useful as a form of bookkeeping. But I also think that acclimating yourself too much to that point of view -- which is both statistical and retrospective -- tends to distort the transmission of information (both genetic and cultural) in the phenomenon as it happens.By way of explanation, let me give an analogy. Keeping a log of sports statistics can be useful for certain tasks, that is, as a form of book keeping. But those looking at those statistics from a retrospective point of view isn't necessarily helpful in improving your game because they don't necessarily take into account what you're doing at any given time.