A Bright on the Hill: Daniel Dennett on God, Religion, and Science
February 9, 2007
Philosopher Daniel Dennett might be Tufts’ most prolific professor. Since 1968 he has published 12 major books and over 300 scholarly articles on the topics of consciousness, free will, and evolution. He is on the editorial board of some 14 academic journals, and has contributed to popular publications such as TIME magazine, the New York Times, and the London Review of Books. He is also an accomplished pianist, sculptor, sailor, and handyman, as well as a father of two. The Observer spoke to Professor Dennett about his latest book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which called for a scientific examination of religion and religious belief.
Observer: Your latest book has generated a storm of controversy, with strongly-worded responses on both sides of the debate. Have you learned anything from this book’s reception? Do you consider the uproar a sign of success?
Dennett: Yes, but more important is the pattern I see in the uproar. Those who reacted most hysterically were not themselves particularly religious; they were the self-appointed protectors of religion, those who guard the protective spell that keeps people from looking too closely at religion. I wish I’d thought to articulate this as a prediction in the book itself, since it does follow from much that I say there. It is precisely because these people DON’T have faith but think they should (or that other people, less strong than they, should) that they find my curiosity so threatening.
You have been called a “Darwinian fundamentalist.” What do you think of that label?
Steve Gould was a master propagandist, and he meant the term “Darwinian fundamentalist” to suggest that Richard Dawkins and Steve Pinker and I were way out on some lunatic fringe, but in fact, all three of us are just orthodox neo-Darwinians and Steve was the one on the edge—somewhat frantically trying to soften the blow of Darwinism by fuzzing the boundaries, muting the implications. Biologists in general didn’t buy it, and neither did the creationists.
Did you have a religious upbringing? Do you have any memories of particular events that cemented your beliefs?
I went to Sunday school and sang in lots of choirs up through high school (Congregational Church), but that was mainly social—in our town (Winchester, right next to West Medford) if you weren’t a member of one of the churches’ youth groups, you had scant social life. But I got my Bible and read lots of it and even memorized some psalms and other passages. I know the hymns, the services, etc., very well. I’ve known some ministers that I admired greatly, and some ministers whom I thought were sanctimonious jerks. And when I was about 12 I got briefly very curious about Christian Science (I had some CS friends) and scared my mother badly. She thought I might convert and renounce medical care. I studied their practices and their effects like a young Sherlock Holmes, and decided not to pursue it, to her great relief.
Your colleague and friend Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion around the same time that you published Breaking the Spell. What do you think of Dawkins’ book, and how does his approach compare to your own?
I’m delighted with his book, which has a somewhat different purpose from mine, and executes it very well. He’s more concerned with consciousness-raising—demonstrating to anyone who doesn’t already realize it that the traditional arguments for God do not deserve the intellectual respect they are often paid. Where we differ is on a rather minor point: he thinks the world would be a better place without any religion, and I think the world will be a better place if we can encourage religions to evolve into more benign descendants of the traditional versions. Some religions have already done this (and hence are viewed, by fundamentalists, as “former” religions or “phony” religions). Call them what you like, they are excellent institutions.
At the beginning of your book, you challenge religious believers to read your work and engage in debate, but then say you doubt that they will make it all the way through. How should atheists approach the religious with the subject of religion? Is there a tradeoff between being direct and being effective or convincing?
Of course there is, and nobody knows what the “right” tradeoff is. No doubt it is different for different religious people. I knew that many devout people would be too shocked or appalled by my matter-of-fact (but still respectful) manner to let themselves read the book, but I guessed—correctly—that many devout would appreciate my directness as a sign of respect for their intelligence. I don’t pour on the hyper-respect, and although they are used to it, they don’t need it, they discover. That’s progress.
You are a famous advocate of “The Brights,” an international organization for people with “a worldview free of supernatural and mystical elements.” In a few words, what do you consider the main purpose of the Brights movement to be?
The term was chosen—not by me—to mimic the tremendous political success of the spreading of the word “gay” for homosexuals. Many homosexuals hated the word at first (and some still do), but it was a wonderful attention-grabber and attitude-shifter all over the world. I take the main goal to be making it comfortable for atheists and agnostics to come out of the closet and declare their beliefs openly and without anticipation of scorn and derision. In many parts of the country, you can’t do this yet. When a candidly acknowledging atheist can be elected President, the Brights will have succeeded completely. An openly gay person can be elected to Congress, and that’s a great step forward. But there is a lot of attitude-adjustment still to go.
In the essay “Thank Goodness,” you argue that prayer is “morally problematic at best,” given the obviously more productive things—planting a tree, feeding an orphan, donating a schoolbook—that one could do with one’s time instead of praying. That’s sound, but it hints at a much harder (and more interesting) question: how should we divide our time between individual whims and the greater good? Your argument against prayer looks like it could also be an argument against sailing or piano-playing. Why single out religion?
When I play the piano or go sailing, I don’t deceive myself about how much I’m helping others; I view it as a self-indulgence, a little vacation from my work. Many who pray seem to think that just praying is in itself helping the world solve its problems. It may be helping them (the same way sailing helps me relax and get my head straightened out), but the common perception that it amounts to “doing one’s part” for the victims of Katrina or the tsunami, for instance, is actually offensive to me. I like to do a simple version of “Transcendental” meditation, and it is measurably good for my blood pressure and my clarity of thought. I highly recommend it. It has no more to do with religion than my two hours plus a week at the gym. If praying a few hours a week, or a day, helps you operate better, keep your perspective, stay humble, fine. But the praying by itself doesn’t make you a good person, and it’s no substitute for good works.
Some pundits have quipped that a convicted felon would have a better chance of being elected president than an avowed atheist would. Would you hazard a guess at when America will have its first non-believing commander-in-chief?
Oh, America has already had lots of non-believing commanders-in-chief. They just wouldn’t dare admit it openly! Lincoln was one, and he turned out pretty well, don’t you think? I would guess that there were many others, including some who made quite a show of their religious practices. I get mail from Brights who are ministers (and rabbis and priests)—not ex-ministers!—who continue to devote themselves to their parishioners, conduct services, say the prayers in public and private. My hunch is that most of the people in the country don’t have the faintest idea what they mean by the word “God” and don’t care! They really DON’T believe in an agent God that answers prayers, performs miracles, etc., but they go on “praying” out of force-of-habit. They may lead excellent lives, go to church on Sunday, tithe, sing the hymns, send their kids to Sunday school, but to call them believers is to misuse the term. My family was very amused last week when I blurted out that when I took my grandson to take his driver’s license test, I looked out the window of the Registry “praying” that the examiner wouldn’t notice the expired inspection sticker I had just discovered on my windshield! “Praying to whom, Grandpa?” Indeed. But my “prayers” were answered: the inspector forgot to check it.
Finally, would you tell us a little bit about your next project? What are you working on right now?
I’m getting back to computational models of human consciousness. I think we’re getting enough of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle sorted out, and I want to be in on the rush as we close in on the details. But it’s so hard it makes my head hurt when I think about it.
