Comments on: On Leiter on Wieseltier on Dennett on religion

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:42:00 +0000

I haven't read the book yet, so I'll comment more when I have, but it will definitely be instructive to give my own rebuttal of Wieseltier when I have. He misunderstands, and thus misrepresents, fundamental parts of Dennett's philosophy. Dennett has worked hard to show how we can "transcend" the biological while still being, as you say, "a natural phenomenon, based in biology". Wieseltier's Gotcha! is embarrassing because it shows conclusively that he doesn't comprehend Dennett's philosophy. This could, of course, be Dennett's fault, but in his more recent writings (particularly Freedom Evolves and the papers in Sweet Dreams) he's increasingly careful about heading off misinterpretations at the pass. I expect Breaking the Spell to be beautifully reasoned, and I can't wait to read it. Thanks, Norman, for your excellent comment.

By: Norman Costa

Norman Costa — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:01:26 +0000

I am disappointed in Leon Wieseltier's review of Dennett's â€œBreaking the Spellâ€?, as much for its poor analysis, as for its closing, ad hominem insult. As a scientist, I know of no others who meet Mr. Wieseltier's definition of Scientism. They and Dennett are more accurately characterized as believing that science is the only arbiter for describing the properties of things in the natural world â€“ things like liquid water, and theoretical constructs like the particle theory of subatomic phenomenon, and the evolution of religious behavior. There is no problem in Dennett's assent to Hume's two questions regarding religion (its foundation in reason, and its origin in human nature), while not accepting Hume's response to the first. How many of us agree on a question while differing on our enlightened responses and discourses? Yet, Mr. Wieseltier uses the distinctions in Dennett's thought process to accuse him, inappropriately and unfairly, of misquoting and misrepresenting Hume. Dennett is very clear, if not forthright to a fault, by saying he is offering his own speculation on what science may find in a study of religion as a natural phenomenon. Is he not explicit about doing so from the perspective of evolutionary (instrumental and functional) biology. Wieseltier seems to delight in uncovering Dennett's words on this, as if he has uncovered a secret, revealing passage, and hitting Dennett with a Gotcha! Wieseltier dismisses Dennett's reasoning because Dennett's view presupposes human reason to be a natural phenomenon, based in biology. Then when Dennett uses the word 'transcend' to describe high levels of human reasoning, Wielseltier gives him another Gotcha!, and attaches the opprobrious label of 'animal' to Dennett's human reason. Wieseltier assumes an 'obvious truth' that human reason is a faculty that exists apart from its biology, a la Descartes. Well, here is where the discussion should begin. Instead, Wieseltier chose to end it, not prematurely, but before it even started.

By: Whimsical Monkey

Whimsical Monkey — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:38:48 +0000

I agree with your post, except that "iggorant" just looks iggorant.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:15:12 +0000

I knew somebody would "correct" me. I used the word "iggorant" advisedly – it has just the sound I wanted to convey.

I never check the LJ syndication. Will go there now.

By: cassandra

cassandra — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:51:22 +0000

ignorant*

p.s. check your lj streaming..