...Dennett tells me that he takes very seriously the risk of overreliance on thought. He doesn't want people to lose confidence in what he calls their "default settings," by which he means the conviction that their ethical intuitions are trustworthy. These default settings give us a feeling of security, a belief that our own sacrifices will be reciprocated. "If you shatter this confidence," he says, "then you get into a deep hole. Without trust, everything goes wrong."

It interests me that, though Dennett is an atheist, he does not see faith merely as a useless vestige of our primitive nature, something we can, with effort, intellectualize away. No rational creature, he says, would be able to do without unexamined, sacred things.

I read that article, and have been following Dawkins of late, although I haven't read his latest book yet. There's a call among those thinkers for stridency against religion. If I have an argument against that stance, and I'm still on the fence about the matter, it is that intolerance would be counterproductive. I'd lean more in the direction of "selective intolerance".

If people want to pay attention to astrology, I have no problem. That belief neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (to steal a line from T. Jefferson). But if policy decisions are to be made based on whether the Moon aligns with Mars, then I'm gonna be very intolerant of that ignorant shite.

Speaking of ignorant shite, I was in a Roman "Catholic" church this past weekend for the first time in more than a decade. I was able to view the theology, as expressed in the homily, with a surprisingly greater degree of detachment than previously, even though I have been estranged from the Church for some 30 years, and was a skeptic for a few years prior to that break. The belief system is not only wholly unsupported by empirical evidence, but it is so damn ornate. Is this on purpose? Have the Church fathers, over the centuries, embellished the story in an attempt to increase the credence of it?

As far as I'm concerned, the adherents can believe all that stuff, as long as they keep their phantasmagorical dogma off of my laws.

- mark 10-31-2006 5:42 am

Thanks for the great comment, Mark. One thing I really appreciated about the article was the author's confessed ambivalence, and I identified with his resistance to being bullied, no matter who it is who is doing the bullying. Dawkins is indubitably brilliant, but I am with Mary Midgley that he comes across as a bit of an asshole. Dennett seems to be more circumspect, proving that it's possible to be a hardcore materialist without denying the emotional and ideological mush of human experience.

Regarding the whole ornate thing: I recently attended a High Anglican mass where there was so much incense that the smoke set off an alarm and the fire trucks came.

- sally mckay 10-31-2006 6:12 am

There was incense in the service I attended. The "Hey lady, your purse is on fire" joke never gets old.
- mark 10-31-2006 6:15 am

Hi Sally, thanks for the link to this fascinating interview and article. I will probably link it to my blog with a nod to you as well. Off the top of my head, I think one thing is strange about the battle between faith, religion, atheism and science is that all people regardless of their stand for agin religion...ask the same big questions. Religion doesn't hold ownership of questions like what is the meaning of life, why are we here, why is there so much suffering...more important than whether there is a god or not, is our common ground in the big questions. We all ask them and we all feel concern for philosophical resolve.

I haven't finished reading the articel, but will and will return to comment some more.

Sorry to change the subject, but Sally, I thought you might be interested in this online interview with David Moos.

Here is the URL:

http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-art-live-in-syriana.html

I am looking forward to returning here after finisheing the WIRED article.

Cheers,
Candy Minx
- Candy Minx (guest) 10-31-2006 6:38 pm

Candy you are so right about philosophical resolve. good phrase! Also, I have already read your excellent excellent interview with David Moos and was planning to put up a link here. Will do so right now on the main page. Thanks for joining in!

- sally mckay 10-31-2006 7:22 pm