Dennett vs McGrath - Part 5 of 9

This is a debate at the Royal Institution in London between philosopher Daniel C Dennett and professor of theology Alister McGrath. The debate is on the ideas presented in Dennett's book Breaking the Spell, such as the concept of the meme and the evolution of religion.
The debate is moderated by Madeleine Bunting.
Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement.
en.wikipedia.or...
Alister Edgar McGrath (born 23 January 1953) is a Christian theologian, who holds both a DPhil (in molecular biophysics) and an earned Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford. He is noted for his work in historical, systematic and scientific theology.
In his writing and public speaking, he promotes "scientific theology" and opposes antireligionism. McGrath was until recently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but has now taken up the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College London since September 2008. Until 2005, he was principal of Wycliffe Hall.
en.wikipedia.or...

[@riversonthemoon]

Happy to do it. More on the way.

[@HelplessVictim]

The best McGrath seems to manage is trying desperately to say "You're view is just as ungrounded as mine," a beautiful Freudian admission that his own belief is ungrounded.

[@Slenderchunk]

Love to hear Dennett in action, thanks for the upload...

[@riversonthemoon]

You're welcome.

[@radphilospher]

Is it possible that there are other kinds of evidence, other than that which is objectively observable? Is it possible that there are certain kinds of evidence that are can only be experienced subjectively (through subjective experience?) And is it possible that to some extent the observer jointly creates reality with what is observed? To what extent do our ideological dipostions, personality traits, environment, and aesthetic judgments affect the way we allegedly view objective reality?

[@sam51092]

@SweetRandal No. If it's just subjective, then by definition it's just about what's going on in your mind and has nothing to do with the outside world. Of course, our subjective minds are biased when viewing the 'outside world'. But that's why we have scientific method, which is designed to counter subjective bias as much as possible. If someone argued a religion or religious experience corresponded to truth, they'd still have to use reason, and scientific method is the best thing to do that.

[@sam51092]

True, being an atheist only gets rid of the problems that come from religion. True, being an atheist doesn't stop you from becoming an irrationalist or a dogmatist on some other account. But then, we're not just arguing for atheism. We're arguing for reasonableness.

[@sam51092]

@thelionsshare100 Strange, do you think I, as an atheist, don't think about why we're here or where we came from? Of course I do. It's just that my reason tells me that scientific method is the best way to answer those questions. All of science, with the big bang, evolution etc. can be seen as part of the answer. Beyond this my reason tells me to say 'i don't know' in answer to the unknown, instead of 'god did it'. This 'I don't know' is a call to discovery, part of what makes life worth living.

[@TheLoneWolf1921]

My thoughts on Religions and Atheism is like a bunch of people who do not really believe in what their belief is but just getting back at the other side. Or I guess what I am saying is, I feel that most people are just following what they want to believe, not because they really believe in it but because they are just mad at the other side.

[@riversonthemoon]

It seems to be working for me. Try using another link to it. Sometimes that works. I was having that problem yesterday, and I think it was because the KZbin codemonkeys were busy at work. They might still be at it.

[@supergopi]

@thelionsshare100 our argument will end once you reach the point... "oh...well logic and reason isn't everything...' bcoz if that's the case there is no point in arguing logically ! anything goes !

[@jamesharrel]

McGrath is harping on this idea of memes in the way that Creationists harped unsuccessfully on "irreducible complexity." They spotted what they saw as a weakness in the theory, but it turned out to be a weakness in their thinking. Memes ARE a hypothesis, and Dawkins offers them as such. He observed units of culture (religion) being transmitted (and failing to be transmitted); but he doesn't rest his case on the existence of memes. Take away memes and you haven't weakened D's argument at all.

[@MartinWillett]

Wrong. Mimetic is not the same word as memetic. If you understood memes you would know this. New words are coined, never artificially re-constructed. Re-constructed from what? How do you measure depth of profundity? Is it anything to do with coming up with (or starting from) a conclusion you agree with? When was the last time (or first time) you came across a profoundly deep insight that was at odds with what you wanted to believe?

[@jacobromu]

Lenin Stalin - Adherence to dogma => violence Islam Christianity - Adherence to dogma => violence Skeptiism - adherence to questioning ideas and autheroity =>not violence

[@supergopi]

@thelionsshare100 no i don't claim to know 'everything' or 'ultimate truth', what I say is, just because I am not omniscient doesn't mean I can't assert the things I already know ! i.e even future knowledge is valid only if it doesn't contradict with what i know currently ! eg: before knowing various blood groups, already people knew certain type of bloods won't match with others... the 'future truth' never invalidated their 'current' knowledge...i.e: not everyone can donate blood to anyone.

[@ananiasacts]

What a great response by Dennett to that sophistic tripe McGrath was spewing. I can't believe people consider Alister intelligent. His entire critique utterly irrelevant and didn't even respond. What a joke.

[@richo61]

Yes atheism is a meme. A meme isn't always a false idea - its simply a *successful idea*. Since McGrath evidently didn't understand that, then he has missed the entire point of the concept.

[@IMissedChurchForThis]

Fanatics are our problem? I'm a fanatic for romance, humor and fun. McGrath fails again.

[@jamesharrel]

And he never will answer your questions.

[@kas00078]

"based on their(Lenin and Stalin) atheist worldview." No man, it was based on their Black hair worldview.

[@uvauva2]

Well done McGrath. An excellent display of ignorance of what a meme is even supposed to be.

[@supergopi]

McGrath, yes, atheism is also meme, a meme routed in reality unlike belief in god. Ayn Rand has a different name for memes not based on reality : floating abstractions. so what :p ? ---- riversonthemoon, Thanks for uploading the debate !

[@hymnofashes]

@thelionsshare100 But if God really, really wants to convince me in just one go, how about this? Levitate every object in my room by one foot in exactly five minutes, and then turn all said objects into steel. It's very easy to demonstrate a higher power. To demonstrate its nature would be more complicated. The religious narrative (ANY religious narrative) doesn't explain even ONE thing better than I can. That'd be where to start.

[@hymnofashes]

@thelionsshare100 Any prophet, anywhere, who can demonstrate he or she has metaphysical powers. Any holy text that completely and unambiguously produces extensive, detailed knowledge about the world that its authors could not have had. Any specific natural catastrophe that indicates a moral judgment, like all gays being struck by lightning bolts out of a blue sky. That would be a start, and the bar is really pretty low.

[@MartinWillett]

You haven't answered my questions. Some person you have never heard of totally discredits and stands on their head ideas you believe in. So there! You're wrong. Now stop it. I won't tell you again.

[@supergopi]

@thelionsshare100 well logic and reason rules out the need for a creator or prime mover. Existence just exist. Dude...its all rehash of old arguments check out some atheists site online...all these questions are well answered.

[@supergopi]

@thelionsshare100 you should say this to guy called 'zahir naik' ;) anyways the point every primitive religion and their world view is funny for other primitive gang but not for themselves. i ve given up all these primitive stuffs and am still not convinced for 'contradictions' and 'illogical' stuffs... Don't worry may be God just wants me to be tat way ;)

[@supergopi]

@thelionsshare100 eg: no one really knows what the heck is gravity and how it works. BUT every one can observe the effect of it. If the future theory fails to account for current known observations its invalid ! that is any valid knowledge of gravity should not contradict what already we know now, instead it should explain it ! now take the concept of 'God' it violates everything we already know now ! eg: law of cause and effect. more over i invite u to study 'objectivistic epistemology'