Here's an article by one of my favorite philosophers, Daniel Dennett. It's written for a general audience. It's about why he does not say, "thank God" and why he is ambivalent about religious friends who pray for him.
Dennett Article "Thank Goodness"
all about our milkshakes
- john/laura
- we like to go the park, play, go to crema for treats, and to have fun.
10 comments:
That was a very interesting article. He asked the question, "What if you are wrong?" I ask the same one, "What if at the end of this life on earth comes to an end and I have lived as if there is no God to find out that there is one?" Like I've siad so many times before, I stand on faith in the scriptures and what I have learned in my classes all my life especially at Harding and the Grad school.
The argument you are alluding to is called Pascal's wager ("what if there is a God, and I've lived..."). I've taught it many times before. Why assume that God is going to be punitive to those who don't believe what there is no good evidence to believe? I prefer to think that if there is a God, he will reward those of us who use reason and who are skeptical of what other people tell us to believe.
Daniel looks like Santa w/o his pointed red hat. He brings a mix of interesting ideas to the theistic/atheistic conversation. Goodness and medicine, "woah." If he had gone to medical school he would definately know better. You know that all that bla bla bla boils down to more questions than answers. We behave within systems that seem to work for us.
I had a good conversation with Karina on Friday afternoon about C.S. Lewis and "Mere Christianity"/"Chronicles of Narnia."
These are worthwhile topics, and I think the Spirit of God is involved in it, although not empirically.
I am speaking at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon at Colonial Country Club on Tuesday on "Leadership." That will be fun. I have it on ppt with lots of fun photos and some stories. One of the pictures is of Laura, Cristen, and other children at Bartlett Celebration with a skinney Tammie in about 1986. She is going to scream when I show it....that will be very funny.
Read Tammie's blog about the homeopathic Dr. in Rosebud, Ark. she and Beckie, and Reagan and Vivian went to yesterday. Twilightzone!
More on Reagan's blog too.
It is an interesting article. He makes valid and cogent arguments in support of his position. I wish that he didn't have to resort to constructing a straw-man religion in order to do so. He paints religious people as "gullible" time-wasters who are mindlessly trying to repay God.
Here's the thing. Arguing isn't going to change anyone's deeply held position. If Daniel had indeed had an epiphany, it would have been due to his own wrestling with the issues.
I wonder what has made him so mad at religious people that he won't even accept their prayers. If it's the televangelists that only want money then most Christians are disgusted with them too. If it's the judgmental fundamentalists who condemn everyone else to hell, then the Christians that I know are horrified as well.
Dr. Huffard at Harding Grad School is an expert on Islam and often shares about the differences between their worldview and ours. One thing that he points out is that it is very easy to compare the worst from one group against the best of another group (terrorists against fine-upstanding American citizens or Hollywood-whores against the honest, faithful Muslims). The same is so often true in debates over religion. It's easy to pit a moral, rational atheist against a slavering religious idiot. I think everyone is worse off for that discussion, however.
Thanks for the chance to discuss this stuff. I love to think through philosophical positions and to try to understand the positions of others.
I agree that he makes somewhat of a straw man of religious believers. Yet, many believers do believe in intercessory prayer, so it is worth engaging those who believe in it, even if it does not represent the best position.
About arguments: even if people are not likely to have their views changed by arguments, it is not a waste of time. It takes a lot of work to make one's mind responsive to good arguments and not let prejudice get in the way. Of course, being completely responsive to the best argument is probably an idea that is forever out of reach. Yet, I think it is still worthwhile. We will benefit, I believe by holding those views that are best supported by the best available evidence. I'm not saying that rules out theism, but I would insist that it's more than bla bla bla."
I agree, making arguments is not a waste of time. It helps me to understand your argument and it helps me to be forced to articulate an argument. But having an argument is not very likely to change anyone's point of view (especially about deeply held positions). The value is when I wrestle with your argument and through understanding it I come to a new position (similar to the hermeneutic circle).
This has spurred me to do some brief research into the efficacy of intercessory prayer. I looked at the Harvard study to which Daniel refers and it raised my own inner skeptic. With a little further searching I discovered this article that was written (and notarized) at the beginning of the Harvard prayer study (10 years ago). The summary is that David Meyers (a Christian) predicted that the study would show no statistical benefit from intercessory prayer. He lists three main reasons: 1)The biblical understanding of a sovereign God is that he is always acting in all of creation (not just when called upon); 2)The premise of the study is flawed: no effort was made to isolate participants from prayers external to the study, there is no way to measure the doubt/faith of the ones praying, “impossibility of empirical proof is a spiritual necessity” C.S. Lewis; 3)Evidence and history suggest that God is not bound to positively answer intercessory prayers (else there would be no death, illness, or disaster).
A less scholarly response would be the film “Bruce Almighty”, but still saying, pretty much the same thing.
Does God answer prayers? I would say a qualified, “yes.” But, I don’t think the purpose of prayer is to request/demand results of God. As Meyers points out – Jesus was denied in his prayer to avoid suffering. However, the model prayer of Jesus is one of acknowledging the sovereignty of God and the dependence of humans on God for every breath. That type of prayer is more about changing the one praying than it is about changing the one to whom they pray.
He is putting his hope in science and rigorously done medicine and procedures. Eventually modern medicine will fail him. Then what? No matter how rigorous it is done it will eventually fail. Eventually it fails everyone.
Some people only want to believe what they can touch and measure. But we all know there are parts of life that you just can't measure. No matter how hard you try there are realities in life that we could all agree on that you will never be able to understand but you still believe in.
"No religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top'—among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking "What if I'm wrong?" Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated." That is really a stretch.
Apparently he hasn't ever watched "House". Come on.
I think that statement is highly questionable. It is estimated that there are 195,000 deaths per year due to medical errors as simple as getting charts switched (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=11856).
The Christian ideal is living the perfect life through the grace and forgiveness of God through Christ. There is no higher standard than perfection. I know we don't live it out perfectly but we are supposed to try. Not to put religion and science on the same page but a scientific study that has a 1% margin of error in the health field is considered to be done very well. Scientists cannot claim 0 error. Only God can do that. Only God is that rigorous.
I would rather put my faith in the one who has conquered death than in the science and medicine that still cannot prevent it. But that is a matter of faith and we will never be able to come up with a mathematical equation to prove that is true.
Matt,
Neither Dennett nor any other reasonable human being claims that medicine is 100% effective. But it is demonstrably _vastly_ more effective than praying for God to heal one's diseases.
And, note that Dennett is not saying that medical doctors are more ethical people generally than others, but that the institutional structure in which they work enforces high standards of professional conduct. House, I would note, is a work of fiction.
James --
You wrote "prayer is more about changing the one praying than it is about changing the one to whom they pray." I think this is a vastly more defensible conception of prayer than the one Dennett is criticizing. But if one is changed (e.g., made happier, healthier, morally better), does that count as evidence of God or the truth of the Christian message? I don't think so -- I think it shows the psychological efficacy of prayer (for some people). It's effective in the same way that meditation is.
The problem we are running into here is that we are coming from different directions and have different ground rules/presuppositions. We are saying that there are important things that you cannot measure, see, or touch. It seems to me that you won't trust something that you cannot measure. There is more to life than the things we can see and touch.
By the way, the House reference was a joke, the statistics on deaths due to medical errors was not.
Matt,
I don't think you've identified the fundamental issue. I don't think moral values give of any strict measurement or calculus, but I'm not a moral skeptic. That is because I think there are good reasons for being moral, and hence for believing somethings morally right and some things morally wrong.
On the other hand there is belief in the absence of evidence versus belief on the basis of evidence -- that is the fundamental issue here, I think. I have no problem with those who want to cling to a belief in spite of the absence of evidence, but I do have a problem with those who cling to a belief in the presence of massive evidence to the contrary. Dennett's point, I take it, is that it's human goodness that makes a difference, and part of human goodness is being rational and responsive to evidence.
I'm glad the House reference was a joke. But I don't think the statistic you identify runs counter to Dennett's point -- look at the massive numbers of people who come through the medical establishment. The very fact that we can pinpoint the cause of mistakes that lead to deaths is astonishing. Presumably, it will lead to the development of techniques for avoiding human errors. That's what Dewey calls "intelligence" -- engaging in self-monitoring and developing instruments to achieve better results. Theism doesn't HAVE to get in the way of that, but unfortunately, I have so often witnessed it create in young minds a dogmatic adherence to authority and a failure to appreciate the importance of reasoning and critical assessment of the evidence.
Post a Comment