Dennett Again

Here's my last word on "intelligent design" and its opponents--who are, in many cases, no better than the creationists--for the time being.

"Intelligent design" is a form of creationism. It is "creationism in camouflage," to quote this excellent op-ed by Dr. Keith Lockitch. Rational people should not take it seriously, except as a fundamental error needing refutation on a fundamental level, refutation which Dr. Lockitch, among others, has provided. But a further refutation now, unfortunately, needs to be done. That refutation is of those who style themselves men of science, but whose philosophical ignorance, errors, or evasions have linked the pro-science cause in the public mind with irrationalism and left-wing politics.

Judging by all I've read about him, Dennett's argument, instead of presuming that religious explanations are not explanations at all, attempts to refute religious explanations by offering scientific ones as an alternative and suggesting reasons why people may have been deluded in the past into believing the religious myth instead of the scientific truth. "See," he is, in essence, saying, "we don't need God to explain this or this or this, etc." The simple fact is that religious explanations are a matter of faith. So that's the place to start--is faith a valid method for understanding anything? And the answer is: no. One can talk all one wants to about the reasons people believe in the supernatural, but ultimately anything "beyond," "above," or "outside" the natural world is simply a matter of faith, and no more need be said about than that it is not based on reality.

The first step to "breaking the spell" of religion is letting people know that faith is not a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world. If they disagree, one can argue with them all day, but it will make no difference, for "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who do not, none will suffice." (In either case, no explanation can be made.) When people agree that faith is not a valid way of gaining knowledge about the world, they can then go on to discuss possible explanations for the nature of the world and muse about the reasons people persist in accepting superstitious notions and the consequences of said acceptance. But if they don't, no amount of refutation of religious myths will make a difference, nor will any questionable discipline such as "evolutionary psychology" eradicate faith by demonstrating that it's primitive in origin. Instead, it will likely convince people that scientists and philosophers are offering an alternative faith (i.e. irrational belief) of their own.

Along with the unnecessary "refutations" of that for which there is no evidence, Dennett and company suggest that a scientific view of the world naturally and logically suggests a leftist cultural/political program. Their references to the evil of the religious right--and I agree that the religious right is a force for evil in America--often refer to its opposition to environmentalism, animal rights, pacifism. What do these add up to? Namely the ethical/political worldview of the Western left. I suspect that the religious right's religion angers these people less (even if only very slightly less) than their opposition to leftist politics.

I suspect the religious right's persecution complex--see the "war on Christmas," the pledge of allegiance controversy, the Ten Commandments controversy--stems from the fact that the left, of which Dennett is certainly a part, really is out to shut these people out of politics. I'm not so sure this desire is due so much to their religion as it is to which side of the political argument they've thrown in with--namely the right. It makes people think: maybe the Darwinists aren't scientists, but moral/political operatives (like the environmentalists) out to force us to be godless communists! Of course, nothing in Darwin's writings could honestly be construed to justify such a conclusion, but you wouldn't know it from listening to Dennett.

Here's the most recent interview with Dennett that I've read. It seems to confirm everything I've been saying. It will be a disaster if science in this country is displaced by creationist nonsense because of the faulty worldview of Daniel Dennett et. al.