• In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

#29: July - Sept. 2006 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?You may use this thread to discuss the chapter or you can create your own threads however you see fit. These chapter threads are simply a helpful structure for those that appreciate such things.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Eleven. Now what do we do?Okay, here's a big point that needs to be considered carefully: That Dennett's "description of various features of religion" is "just a theory" (p. 309) is not in itself problematic. The problems are: 1) it isn't really testable, thus failing his own criteria, and 2) that it doesn't necessarily point to strong reasons for adopting one policy or another. And I think this shows up in later sections of this chapter. The crucial question to ask is, what is the relationship between the policies Dennett suggests, and the account that they are presumably derived from? It seems to me that there isn't much of a relationship, and that most of the policies are determined in reference to the observations that Dennett took as axiomatic in the first couple of chapters.Another very big point. P. 312: "I anticipate that one of the challenges will come from those in academia who are unmoved by my discussion of the 'academic smoke screen' in chapter 9, and who firmly believe that the only researchers qualified to do research are those who enter into an exploration of religion with a 'proper respect' for the sacred...." On the whole, it looks as though Dennett would like to count consideration of the sacred out of research conducted on religion. That certainly would have the effect of making it more amenable to scientific method, but it might also undermine any attempt to really address religious claims. If one of the claims, explicit or implicit, of religion is the validity or presence of the sacred, science must either find a way to compass the sacred or admit its inability to broach those claims as testable material for experimentation. Dennett is right that the efficacy of intercessory prayer as a consistent mechanism ought to be testable, but how would researchers address the claim that prayer brings the believer in proximity to the sacred? Or, another example, how would science test the claim that a particular ritual imbues a mundane object -- say, a boat, a piece of bread, a neophyte -- with sacred character? I doubt it could be done without stretching the bounds of scientific method or the definition of "sacred". The sacred is a conception central to every religious tradition I've ever encountered -- it may well be the defining feature of religion -- and the majority of justifications for religion are likely to center around some relationship to the sacred.In effect, asking religion to provide for scrutiny only elements that fit scientific criteria is to demand that it be something other than what it is, then to fault it when it fails. It's a bit like asking someone to assess the morality of a given action, but without recourse to notions of good and evil, right and wrong. How is anything moral without reference to one of those features? By that token, is anything really religious unless it takes some position in reference to the sacred. Dennett's position on this matter may indicate implicit bias, and any research based on that foundation is likely to perpetuate that bias unless some means of mediating between the two standpoints can be found. I'm not saying it's impossible, but Dennett's book provides us no groundwork for doing so.There's good material in the last chapter, but it all leads in to incredibly sketchy territory. For instance, Dennett's suggestion that the social and biological sciences could be used to help mediate religious experience among those who "can't 'metabolize' them the way other people can" (p.318) seems, on the face of it, like a very humane position, particularly if it helps curb misguided religious violence. And when he talks of "rescuing" (p. 325) natives, adult and child alike, from their ignorance, there is some tendency to think that they need, at least, to be informed of what they're shunning. But I'm not sure that Dennett sheds any light on what the appropriate moral stance ought to be. His suggestions here lead towards a kind of social engineering -- even social Darwinism -- that ought to be evaluated very carefully before anyone jumps on board. His discussion of intervening in the parental indoctrination of children, for instance, seems like a fairly straight-forward extension of the sort of consideration that allows for intervention in any case of neglect or abuse. What it ignores, however, is that it essentially advocates the substitution of one form of indoctrination for another. What Dennett apparantly objects to is not the idea that children should have certain ideas imposed on them, but that those ideas should differ so broadly from what he perceives to be the appropriate social standard. The question of how we much access we allow to person's with certain psychological preconditions is far trickier territory than he really acknowledges in this chapter. What that implies is limiting their possibilities as a person -- not only barring them from violence, but also potentially barring them from happiness. It certainly sets curbs on their liberty. Whether or not restricting religious belief sits well with Dennett's avowed committment to democracy is something worth considering.The point that Dennett wants to press is that of "informed choice". But in doing so, he also limits choice. On page 339, he writes, "in the end, my central policy recommendation is that we gently, firmly educate the people of the world...." It seems clear that he means we do so regardless of whether or not they would choose that education. The idea he's forwarding here, it seems, is that no one should have the right to choose ignorance, and by doing so, he's setting the terms of choice. I think we can affirm that informed choice is prefereable to uninformed choice, without making that preference a matter of policy.A final note on this chapter, Dennett writes on p. 339 that "Such open discussions are underwritten by the security of a free society, and if they are to continue unmolested, we must be vigilent in protecting the institutions and principles of democracy from subversion." This is the closest he comes in the book to admitting that his purpose is to pit one ideology against another, not to examine religion from the neutral viewpoint of science. It's not so clear whether or not Dennett takes religion to be ultimately subversive to those institutions and principles he holds sacred, but that's certainly a possible interpretation. I think you can see this ideological leaning at work earlier in the same section, when he consideres (and denies) the hypothetical claims of Mohawk "holy soil". His denial is explicit, but his criteria for judging the claim are less clear. And it's particularly interested that his hypothetical situation has the Mohawks claiming Liberty Island. Are their claims "nonsense" for some scientifically demonstrable reason, or is because their claims come into conflict with the personal significance the Statue of Liberty holds for Dennett?
GOD defiles Reason

Re: Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Now what do we do?p.139 - "So here is the only prescription I will make categorically and without reservation: Do more research."Over and over again he admits things like:"My theory sketch may well be false in many regards..." "my proto-theory is not yet established and may prove to be wrong, it shouldn't be used yet to guide our policies."In this chapter, and throughout most of the book, he readily admits that this book he wrote is not a precise science. Those two quotes and many others tell me that he doesn't intend, nor does he want, for policies to be adopted based on his "proto-theories" or on this book alone. This book is just getting fuel in the tank and revving it up for a test drive.Mad: "2) that it doesn't necessarily point to strong reasons for adopting one policy or another."Not yet. Not for any particular policy just yet. But he does make the case that some kind of policy should be adopted. In the first paragraph of this chapter, he refers to the movement thats been attacking the teaching of the theory of evolution. Some have succeeded in putting "stickers in some of their biology textbooks saying 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact," That movement alone is a strong enough reason to get more research done and start getting some policies adopted for religion to be taught in schools. I think thats one of Dennett's primary goals -- to get religion taught in schools.Mad: Another very big point. P. 312: "I anticipate that one of the challenges will come from those in academia who are unmoved by my discussion of the 'academic smoke screen' in chapter 9, and who firmly believe that the only researchers qualified to do research are those who enter into an exploration of religion with a 'proper respect' for the sacred...." On the whole, it looks as though Dennett would like to count consideration of the sacred out of research conducted on religion. "Sacred" looks like a word that could take up a whole chapter or subchapter in a school textbook by itself. If people use "sacredness" as a smokescreen or protective shield to keep their religion off limits from scientific research, then that in itself needs to be studied and hypothesized and theorized: How many religions today are like that? When did they become that way? What were the first religions to do this? Does every member of that religion behave that way?And just because something is sacred doesn't mean that to study it would destroy it. I bet some of us, including Dennett, probably hold this nation's founding documents somewhat sacred. Yet, those founding documents can be studied. The meaning behind the words can be studied. The Founders' thoughts and feelings before, during and after can be studied. The historical context from wince the documents came, "Why did the Founders even come up with these documents?" -- All these things can be studied, without destroying the "sacredness" of the documents. What I think it does is give us a better understanding about why it is that we hold those documents sacred.The same goes for religion. Every religion that has ever existed had a beginning. Some of those beginnings can probably be established -- let's put that in a school text book. If the founders' motives can be established, put it in the text book. Is that religion a schism or break off from a previous religion? -- in the book. I think these studies will give us spell breaking inoculations as well as give us more rational, better reasons for holding certain aspects of a religion sacred.Mad: "That certainly would have the effect of making it more amenable to scientific method, but it might also undermine any attempt to really address religious claims. If one of the claims, explicit or implicit, of religion is the validity or presence of the sacred, science must either find a way to compass the sacred or admit its inability to broach those claims as testable material for experimentation."I think most of these claims are testable, one way or another. Some "sacredness" might just boil down to an irrational emotional attachment. Those emotional attachments are probably held by adults more than children. If children are better educated about religion, then they can make a better informed choice about what they wish to hold sacred themselves. If they eventually hold a particular religion sacred (or some aspect of it) then they at least have a better chance of understanding that that religion had a beginning, and has evolved -- and is still evolving (and he or she can take part in how it evolves).
GOD defiles Reason

Re: Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Mad: "The point that Dennett wants to press is that of "informed choice". But in doing so, he also limits choice. On page 339, he writes, "in the end, my central policy recommendation is that we gently, firmly educate the people of the world...." It seems clear that he means we do so regardless of whether or not they would choose that education. "If this really is problematic, then it's a problem that already exists, isn't it? Are parents free to choose not to send their children to school? Are kids free to choose whether to learn mathematics? If we're talking adults, what forum would they be forced to be educated about religion? If it's on the Science Channel, they can just change the channel.Mad: "The idea he's forwarding here, it seems, is that no one should have the right to choose ignorance, and by doing so, he's setting the terms of choice. I think we can affirm that informed choice is preferable to uninformed choice, without making that preference a matter of policy."Having policies in place is the only way to get anything done. Without certain public school policies, a larger number of the American population would be illiterate and probably wouldn't know how to count. What little education the poorest among us get is due to policy.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Me: 2) that it doesn't necessarily point to strong reasons for adopting one policy or another.GDR: Not yet. Not for any particular policy just yet. But he does make the case that some kind of policy should be adopted.Part of my point -- and this is an idea that Dennett, as a philosopher, really ought to be familiar with -- is that science itself provides no basis of values for determining policy. Knowing such-and-such a thing about neuroscience, for example, does nothing to elaborate a policy for dealing with the rights of autistic patients. Policy is always determined in reference to a set of values, and those values are determined by other aspects of culture.That leads to a problem, because the values of religious believers are determined in large part by their religion. That's one major function of religion. And because of that, I think Dennett is underestimating the potential for using science as a way of reconciling policy between secular and religious thinkers. This chapter reveals the basis for a lot of the values that Dennett calls into play: secular democracy. If he really wants to mediate, it would have been more effective to argue for a set of values that are shared -- or ought to be -- between secular democracy and mainstream religious traditions. Science may help as a tool for making policy in reference to those values more precise, but science itself does not produce policy.I think thats one of Dennett's primary goals -- to get religion taught in schools.A pretty important question, though, and one that is a stumbling block for all attempts to get religion taught in schools, is that of how they should be taught.If people use "sacredness" as a smokescreen or protective shield to keep their religion off limits from scientific research, then that in itself needs to be studied and hypothesized and theorized: How many religions today are like that? When did they become that way? What were the first religions to do this? Does every member of that religion behave that way?I don't think the concept of the sacred is a smokescreen -- I think it's at the root of all religious traditions. Without some sense of the sacred, I'm not sure you're dealing with a religion.I think most of these claims are testable, one way or another.How do you test the claim that a particular animal is sacred? Unless you can quantify sacrality and measure it in the field, I don't think science can even touch the subject of the sacred.Re: "firmly educating"If this really is problematic, then it's a problem that already exists, isn't it?Absolutely, but it has some justification in terms of the requirements placed on any citizen in a society. Compulsory education says, these are the baseline requirements for serving as a full member of our society. But by including certain forms of religious education in that curriculum, Dennett runs the risk of saying that citizenship requires a particular attitude towards religion and certain religious traditions. That's patently dangerous stuff. Having policies in place is the only way to get anything done.And that's why people draft policy. But in a case like this, I'm not sure that we really want to "get things done" at the expense of giving people their own choice in the matter, even if the choice seems, to us, a poor one.Gotta run. More later.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Dennett: "I anticipate that one of the challenges will come from those in academia who are unmoved by my discussion of the 'academic smoke screen' in chapter 9, and who firmly believe that the only researchers qualified to do research are those who enter into an exploration of religion with a 'proper respect' for the sacred...."I wonder if proper respect might involve a willingness to actually experiment within the religious universes he politely assaults from the outside looking in? Maybe this would involve joining a prayer circle...participating in worship services...joining the choir...shadow a hospital chaplain...undergo spiritual direction and learn multiple prayer, meditation and contemplative practices...work with the social justice ministry of a faith community in finding ways to combat poverty, homelessness, ecological devastation...all of these activities for an extended period of time, repeatedly, for an entire liturgical calendar year?Wouldn't these activities embody an essential element of the scientific method: actual experimentation? Mad: But by including certain forms of religious education in that curriculum, Dennett runs the risk of saying that citizenship requires a particular attitude towards religion and certain religious traditions. That's patently dangerous stuff. Not including certain forms of religious education in a curriculum is already a particular attitude towards religion and religious traditions. With a world awash in religion, keeping religion out of education, is no way to learn about the world. Perhaps education would be far more effective (knowing full well that this criteria is hopelessly value laden, but still inescapable) if students were asked: what is sacred about learning math, studying science, creating art, exploring ecosystems; what is holy about knowledge, creativity, intelligence, or wisdom? And these questions woven throughout every class, all projects, each examination, etc...creating a much different attitude toward school and education.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Dissident Heart: Wouldn't these activities embody an essential element of the scientific method: actual experimentation?That may qualify as personal experimentation, but I doubt it would meet the standards of scientific experimentation. Where are the controls? What's being measured, and how? What are the hypotheses that could be verified or rejected on the basis of participation? A scientist testing the effects of a vitamin supplement need not swallow it to produce scientific results, nor need a scientist studying the effects of radiation bombard himself.Not including certain forms of religious education in a curriculum is already a particular attitude towards religion and religious traditions.That's true. And one of the possible attitudes that it may represent is that attitude that secular public education is neither justified nor fit to present religion in an unbiased fashion.I'm not against offering classes on religion in public schools. I think, if handled well, it could result in a general benefit to society. But I doubt the intentions of those who argue for its conclusions, and I suspect that their intentions may lead to significantly less than the possible benefits.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Secular and Sacred

Unread post

GDR: What I think it does is give us a better understanding about why it is that we hold those documents sacred. The same goes for religion....I think these studies will give us spell breaking inoculations as well as give us more rational, better reasons for holding certain aspects of a religion sacred.I think exploring the origins of a subject is important, even if highly subjective...especially if those origins stretch back over millenia, utilizing languages, symbols, etc. that we must transpose into very foreign settings. In the very least it keeps us honest about our projections. But, I think religion is far more than understanding the past (knowing precisely how something occured way back when). It is also a matter of living fully here and now. There is plenty of demand for knowing bits of information and having particular beliefs...and there is tremendous impact in experiencing a wide range of activities: engaging rituals, ceremonies, practices, and activism. These are not simply ideas, but are lived experiences that shape attitudes and relationships. There is also an element involving the future, rooted more in hope and expectation than in historical certainty or present experience.In essence, I don't see how "understanding religion" could neglect these elements; it must incorporate the tension, interaction, and interdependency of past, present and future. Mad: That may qualify as personal experimentation, but I doubt it would meet the standards of scientific experimentation. Where are the controls? What's being measured, and how? What are the hypotheses that could be verified or rejected on the basis of participation?No doubt all of these questions would require answering in relation to the specific dimensions under examination. I think the important element involves a willingness on the part of the examiner to enter into the subject matter as though seeing it from the inside: to participate as if it really mattered...to practice prayer and worship alongside and in journey with the faith community in question. I am demanding the scientist go native and actually risk being transformed in the process. Not simply gaining more information, but undergo a spiritual transformation.MA: A scientist testing the effects of a vitamin supplement need not swallow it to produce scientific results, nor need a scientist studying the effects of radiation bombard himself.No, probably not, but some living being, somewhere, would be forced to experience these substances in visceral intimacy so the safe and secure Scientist could verify his theories. Some level of incarnation is required, bringing the logos to flesh, sacrificing some innocent lifeform along the way......MA: one of the possible attitudes that it may represent is that attitude that secular public education is neither justified nor fit to present religion in an unbiased fashion.I agree, and extend this to say we can't escape bias in the classroom. If secular public education can't avoid bias regarding religion, then I think we should show similar concern about history, civics, economics, literature....and even science and math: all of which find interconnecting threads with religious ideas, history, practice, morality, art, diet, law, etc...Hell, how classrooms are structured to guide behavior, evaluate performance, develop relationships, reinforce dominant values, regulate heterodoxy...the ethos of the school is, again, profoundly value laden, thus selective and biased.MA: I'm not against offering classes on religion in public schools. I think, if handled well, it could result in a general benefit to society.I agree. What "handled well" means is entirely the issue. I think it is something that should be covered in all the subject areas (back to my questions "What is sacred about math....") and explicit in the strucutring of the school ethos as well. I think it should be intentional and transparent and subject to constant discussion, debate and revision where deeed necessary. I also think it requires a willingness to encourage students, teachers, adminstrators, parents and community to "go native" and experiment with various rituals, ceremonies, practices, etc.MA: But I doubt the intentions of those who argue for its conclusions, and I suspect that their intentions may lead to significantly less than the possible benefits.Are you willing to extend this doubtful intentions in both directions: those who demand only secular, and those who see room for spirit?
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Secular and Sacred

Unread post

DH: Are you willing to extend this doubtful intentions in both directions: those who demand only secular, and those who see room for spirit?Absolutely; nearly every side has some sort of agenda, and I don't see a readily available way to mediate between those agendas. There are those who want religion taught in schools as a way to indoctrinate religion, those who want to teach in order to indoctrinate against, those who don't want it taught so as to keep it at arms length, and those who don't want it taught because they feel damn sure that it will be taught from a perspective contrary to their own. Dennett glosses over these conflicts of interest as though it were obvious that there were one right and proper way to educate about religion. I suspect that, from his perspective, there is, and that's something that needs to be addressed when considering his proposal.
GOD defiles Reason

Re: Ch. 11 - Now What Do We Do?

Unread post

Mad: "A pretty important question, though, and one that is a stumbling block for all attempts to get religion taught in schools, is that of how they should be taught."What are your suggestions?"How do you test the claim that a particular animal is sacred? Unless you can quantify sacrality and measure it in the field, I don't think science can even touch the subject of the sacred."We have all kinds of sacred testing devices now. For a cow, for instance, there's a sacredness measuring rod that you stick into a cow's ass. If it's shit doesn't stink, you got your self a sacred cow. Other methods include checking the weight and firmness of it's udders."Compulsory education says..."Who decides what compulsory education has to say? "But by including certain forms of religious education in that curriculum, Dennett runs the risk of saying that citizenship requires a particular attitude towards religion and certain religious traditions. That's patently dangerous stuff." What are the risks of no education of History at all?
Post Reply

Return to “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - by Daniel Dennett”