![\"Dennett\"](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/en\/3\/36\/Daniel_Dennet.jpg\")
<\/a>As you may know, I am studying Daniel Dennett\u2019s<\/a> book \u201cDarwin\u2019s Dangerous Idea\u201d (a review<\/a>) for a course on \u201cEthics and Evolution.\u201d The goal of the course is a rigorous understanding of the theory of contemporary biology, its development, and more importantly, its repercussions in ethics.<\/p>\nThe French Catholic philosopher Paul Ricoeur<\/a> famously labeled the \u201cMasters of Suspicion\u201d regarding religion as Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. Each of these thinkers presented a critique of the very foundations of religious thought that must <\/span>be overcome in order for one to have authentic religious views. For instance, Marx identified religions as particular manifestations of historical class structures: what we believe in is just a result of our class status and social context (eg. if you\u2019re middle\/upper-middle class and well educated, you are probably 50 times as likely to convert to Buddhism<\/a> than a poor, uneducated person). Dennett\u2019s own account of Darwinian evolution is somewhat exuberant, to say the least. He is very confident, some might say head-strong, and he is certain that if we just understand<\/span> biology right we\u2019ll really have no choice but to convert to Darwinism. It\u2019s really simple<\/span>, he\u2019ll have you believe, and then he leads you through his arguments, showing systematically where God and any other non-naturalistic entity is not <\/span>(which I guess at the end of the book will be everywhere<\/span>). <\/p>\n The trouble is that Dennett effectively reduces everything remarkable (namely intelligence<\/span>, us) to the unremarkable (an evolution algorithm<\/span> of self-replication, variation, etc and lots of time). The difficulty for us is to understand how<\/span> we are \u2018just\u2019 a product of evolution, a point on a spectrum of intelligence which goes far, far down the phylogenetic tree, and still make sense of our view of ourselves as something remarkable. <\/p>\n One suggestion by Dennett is that (my words:) \u201cwow, your existence is so unlikely! Any little accident or mishap in your family tree going back (way back) however long could have *snap* erased an entire branch of that tree right down to you. The process itself, while made up of completely unremarkable organic self-replication, etc, is still remarkable. Any search for the remarkable outside the process is a hopeless pursuit, nothing escapes the algorithm from which you are made (even in this very moment, countless little algorithmic processes are going on in your body and brain, making these dark marks on light background intelligible.)\u201d Buy it? <\/p>\n If so, what does it illuminate in terms of ethics? Anything? Could it be morally neutral? If not, what is your \u2018wedge\u2019 out of the iron grip of evolution? I have some ideas, but I\u2019ll tuck those away for now.<\/p>\n ps. Thanks to Tom at Zenunboud<\/a> for alerting me to a New York Times review<\/a> of Dennett\u2019s latest book, \u201cBreaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon\u201d. I enjoyed the review and found myself in general agreement that Dennett is excessively self-assured (but I do sympathize, as this is a \u2018general audience\u2019 book, it is not going to be the dry, point-by-point analysis one finds in academic writing \u2013 the bold claims and all-to-unsupported-at-times arguments allow him to cover enormous territory in few pages \u2013 at least that is the case with what I am reading). <\/p>\n The review was also discussed briefly in my class by Dr. Borgmann. His appraisal was that while he agreed in general with the substance of the review, he did not agree with the tone or demeanor of it. I think I am a bit less<\/span> sympathetic toward Dennett than my good professor, but then I have not read the Book.<\/p>\n As you may know, I am studying Daniel Dennett\u2019s book \u201cDarwin\u2019s Dangerous Idea\u201d (a review) for a course on \u201cEthics and Evolution.\u201d The goal of the course is a rigorous understanding of the theory of contemporary biology, its development, and more importantly, its repercussions in ethics. The French Catholic philosopher Paul Ricoeur famously labeled the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"Darwin\"](\"https:\/\/www.victorianweb.org\/science\/darwin\/darwin_beard.gif\")
<\/a>
He could well have added Darwin to his list. Yet Darwin\u2019s foundational critique is different. It is more subtle, and Darwin himself was not the antagonist that each of the other three was. He was a mild mannered reporter of the facts, just the facts. It would be up to others, principally Dennett (also Stephen Jay Gould<\/a> and Richard Dawkins<\/a>) to take Darwin\u2019s innocent treatment of the facts and stoke the revolution waiting within them.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7907151-114076577370627263?l=americanbuddhist.blogspot.com\")