May 31, 2007
dennett: Understanding magnifies delight and awe
How would you answer to the objection that the scientific study of religion misses the target because it addresses answers to questions on the sense (of life, of the world) with an instrument (science) that doesn’t exactly deal with that sense (of life, of the world)?Science better than any other activity, does deal with facts regarding experience, belief, knowledge, evidence. Science doesn’t attempt to create beauty (the way the arts do, for instance) but science can study how the arts create beauty—to put it with deliberate oversimplification. Similarly, science doesn’t attempt to do what religion attempts to do, but science can study, scientifically, what religion attempts to do, and how it does it.
Don’t you believe that the naturalisation of phenomena like religion (but also philosophy) stiffens and simplifies the multiplicity of human experience too much?
No, on the contrary, I think naturalisation improves our understanding, makes the phenomena both more intense and clearer, more wonderful. The scientific account of the solar system and the ‘heavens’ is far more awe-inspiring than the old myths about gods and flaming chariots being pulled across the sky. I think nature lovers who don’t know anything about biological theory are like music lovers who don’t know how to read music, who don’t know about harmony, theory, etc. Understanding magnifies delight and awe.
more from RESET here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:41 AM | Permalink
Comments
It would have been interesting if the interviewer had asked what, if not science, could or should attempt to "do what religion attempts to do." Dennett admits, admirably, that the study of nature itself cannot create value or meaning. From what, then, shall we fashion these things?
Sagan said stuff like this too. His awe was made more credible by his fondness for the loco weed. But what, I wonder, are the objective criteria of "awe" that such comparisons may be made? Does the sun-as-nuclear-furnace have more "awe units" because it's so much bigger than it was back when it was a flaming chariot? I, personally, am in awe of Dennett's ability to state that science's supremacy over religion derives from its insistance on evidence, and then moments later to make unsubstantiated claims about which narratives inspire more awe.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 31, 2007 12:58:20 PM
We make value and meaning the way we do it. It ain't "rocket science"—all humans do it. Religious people do it with religions; non-believers do it without religion.
What all too many religious folks try to do is to bludgeon everyone into accepting *their* values and meanings. Especially religious people who claim that their god created the universe and laid down the law—their law.
Posted by: JonJ | May 31, 2007 4:57:01 PM
Bumper sticker I saw today: "Jesus doesn't love you anymore. He's mine, all mine!"
What does that have to do with awe? Nothin'. It was just a cool sticker that is probably lost on its target audience.
Posted by: beajerry | Jun 1, 2007 5:37:27 AM
"I, personally, am in awe of Dennett's ability to state that science's supremacy over religion derives from its insistance on evidence, and then moments later to make unsubstantiated claims about which narratives inspire more awe."
I think his point is more along the lines of Richard Feynmann's (and Sagan's), that knowing more about something means that there's more you can appreciate about it, rather than the simple surface features or a tidy little story that goes with it. If you know about the cellular processes going on in a flower, how it looks different through a bee's eyes, what pressures have shaped the evolution of the flowers' reproductive organs, etc., then this provides layers and layers more to appreciate on top of the simple beauty of the flower. Dennett is a very talented explainer, but I think he could learn a lot from Feynmann and Sagan about conveying the rich sense of wonder that science can afford.
Posted by: Albert | Jun 1, 2007 7:02:28 AM
Albert,
Dennett clearly sets up science and religion oppositionally in regard to thier respective awe quotient. I'm not aguing that religion is *more* awe-inspiring than science, mind you. Only that one shouldn't make a comparison such as this without revealing what the criteria are.
I agree that botany and biology provide many added layers in which to appreciate a flower. But it's not in the slightest self-evident that knowing what the cellular processes are inside that flower are *more* awe inspiring than thinking, as a hindu might, that this flower is literally divine, literally an avatar of god.
Furthermore, isn't science most successful when its narratives are "tidy?" I seem to recall a lot of fuss about Occam's Razor ...
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jun 1, 2007 2:01:16 PM
Hi Chris,
Yes, I may have been putting words into Dennett's mouth, and to be honest, I'm not actually that interested in what he thinks on this matter (I'm one who prefers a Feynmann or a Sagan to a Dennett any day). And yes, you're right that Dennett would need to define these criteria to actually make his assertion. Personally, I'm not going to try to compare 'awe quotients' between singular explanations; but I do think that multiple explanations have a nice way of overwhelming the mind, providing it with a dizzying selection--like an endless banquet table--of things to ponder and appreciate, and I think science is a damn good way of adding those layers.
And yes, tidiness, ala Okkam's Razor, is indeed good in science... in general. But the universe itself, at least as manifest at our level, is not tidy, so I think being too tidy is usually a sign that an explanation is missing something.
Posted by: Albert | Jun 1, 2007 7:43:46 PM
The "awe" of the natural world makes Bronze Age creation myths embarrassing and childish--
Let's be honest- these are a impoverished genera, that is better left to the study of primitive man, and the superstitions that formed and colonized his mind.
Of course, talking snakes and flying horses do appeal to the simpleminded--
Dennett refuses to go along with this state of mental delusion
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Jun 2, 2007 1:45:27 PM
Scott,
To say "it's self-evident that X is superior to Y" is religious thinking. If it's demonstrably true that scientific narratives are more "awesome" than the bronze age narratives that draw your scorn, what are the measurable facts that lead to this conclusion? In the absence of data, to merely reiterate that people who aren't more moved by Story A than Story B are stupid-heads is just playground taunting.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jun 4, 2007 1:09:33 PM
Post a comment