Saturday July 5th, 2008
 |  |
 |
The Case Against Religion
Posted by Spiros Antonopoulos on February 19, 2006 - 12:36pm.
Daniel Dennett And Robert Thurman Debate the Merits of Faith and the Source of Ethical Action
On a cold New York City night after a giant snowfall, philosopher Daniel Dennett and Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman took to the stage to debate the science of religion and the religion of science. A prelude to the forthcoming Mind And Reality Symposium at Columbia University, it was clear that sparks would fly. In this clash of academic titans, much was at stake. The question posed was whether the values of scientific “enlightenment” or religion are responsible for the destruction of the planet. But it was the very fabric of our reality, not merely the value of religion, that was being debated.
Meet Daniel Dennett
Daniel Dennett is a celebrated philosopher on tour promoting his new book, Breaking The Spell. With his white beard and calm, composed demeanor, he resembles a classic caricature of God, or perhaps of Charles Darwin,two characters who get a lot of play in his in book.
Although Dennett is a philosopher, evolutionary biology provides the primary lens through which he understands the world and religion. In his presentation Dennett explained the thrust of his new book, that religion causes humans to act in ways that are not beneficial to the organism—ways that are crazy, if not outright harmful. Dennett contends rationality is man's crowning achievement and is suspicious of anything that's not scientifically testable. In short, Dennett believes religious ideas are mostly irrational.
Enter Robert Thurman
Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman praised Dennett's ambitions to study religion as cultural phenomena, to dialogue with religions, and to explore religious ideas through the lens of evolutionary biology.
Thurman then proceeded to argue that Dennett's faith in scientific materialism smells a lot like religion, providing a set of world views from which stem particular social and moral functions. That seems reasonable.
Do Our Ideas About Death Affect The Way We Live? Over the course of their conversation, a larger, but much more subtle, issue ripened. Thurman took aim at the effects of scientific materialism on culture. In a nutshell, Thurman equated scientific materialism, nihilism, and even religions that proffer an afterlife in heaven as the primary cause for the horrible state of the world—because each of these belief systems provide an escape clause for an individual. Only the theory of karma provides an ethical foundation where there is no way out, no illusion that an individual can “win” and escape the fruits of unkind or selfish behaviors. The dire state of the planet, Thurman continued, with its wars, pollution, disease, and greed [my illustated emphasis], is a direct outgrowth of the materialism that rules the world's institutions, like science.
At the end of the evening, the question still remained, which is better for humanity, being a bright or being a (Buddhist) supra-rational? You decide. And let us know.
[ Photo credit: Will Davis, Columbia Spectator ]
Related Shop Items
That debate sounds excellent. Will you post a link to the mp3 when it comes out?
While I’m squarely on the side that says that scientific materialism is just another religion, I don’t think it’s accurate that the only escape from selfish behaviors is the theory of karma. Any ethical system with a long term view will recognize that our actions have an impact on generations to come. It’s hardly fair to cast all atheists as nihilists. It is possible, after all, to believe that the life ends irrevocably at the point of death (or to be utterly agnostic on the matter), and still care what happens among the generations that follow. In fact you could argue that this is more ethical than the karmic model, since one’s actions are not motivated by the fear of what might happen to the reincarnated self.
Alan Watts had a great angle on the question of the materialist and spiritualist views. He said we have our terms confused: so-called “materialists” are the real “idealists” and the be-here-now crowd are the real materialists, actually living in the world of the 5 senses. Scientists may study the material world, but few of them cherish it or even participate in it (Dennett may well be an exception, though it is clear he is dogmatically rationalist). Truly “spiritual” people attempt to focus on what is real and actual right now.
Karma is just another theory—another speculation about how the world might work. We can’t experience the truth of it any more than we can experience the truth of heaven or hell without dying. That doesn’t make it wrong, but neither is it any more “spiritual” than evolutionary biology.
Your insights are quite sound. And for the most part I agree.
In all fairness, I was skeptical of Thurman’s emphasis on reincarnation. I assume that it, like much of the conversation, stemmed from an earlier, non-public encounter between the two men.
Have you seen the NYT’s review of Dennett’s book? I was kind compared to that.
Both scientific materialism and karma are theories, and both have roots in ancient cultures where they have been developed over centuries. Thurman’s basic point had to do with what he called radical embedded relativism, which demands extreme accountability for the ol’ “within you / without you” + “as above so below” maxims.
Other ethical systems are available, indeed. But I would agree with Thurman that the theory of karma offers an excellent counter argument to the nihilist vortex which frequently results from rigorous rationalism and over-analysis.
Ouch, the NYT really let him have it. Not having read the book I can’t say how evenhanded it was. He seems to have gotten what he deserved, but I can’t get too agro over anyone with such a nice beard (the Times echoed your Darwin/Jehovah beard meme, btw).
I like the sound of “radical embedded relativism.” I wonder what would happen if I googled it.
Right on,
C.