Actually I was probably thinking more of someone like (Zen Master) Dogen than Kierkegaard (who I’m not usually a huge fan of), but I’ll have to think about that; maybe a bit of the Dane HAS rubbed off on me!

pax, max

Max, for me, you really hit the nail on the head in your explanation of “essentializing” or “reducing” one’s religious convictions in light of the myriad of responses within, for instance, the Christian community. As you’ve implied, we theists have very few essentials and even those are oftentimes nuanced; the very reason we “progressives” fight against a reductionistic model. I think this is why when Dr. Clayton would try to move beyond reductionism, the conversation seemed to stall. Maybe I’m reading too much into this…
Nonetheless, in your last line you say that, “I myself live perfectly happily with doubt. It’s people who have “certainty on their side” who REALLY scare me!” Would you agree that, “truth is subjectivity?” Your response sounds very much like Kierkegaard’s description of truth, which in some ways I can admire.

I’m not in the Claremont area, so I couldn’t attend this and to be honest, I’m an armchair (at best) philosophy and theology observer working in biomedical research. I’m starting to buy in to the quantum brain hypothesis and hope that Dennett will able to address this in more detail given new scientific insights. No convincing direct evidence as of yet, however, there IS mounting evidence that quantum processes are at work in photosynthesis – even at “normal” temperatures. I find it hard to believe that plant life evolved to incorporate exceedingly efficient quantum mechanisms but somehow, resource-intense central nervous systems adopted a less-efficient process.

It’s an exciting time to stand witness to all of this. Thanks to all.

Yes, at the Lecture Dennet gave after the the debate, he was asked during the Q & A session if he considered himself to be a “spiritual” person. He said something like, “Yes, I suppose I do…[elaboration]…though of course it has nothing to do with organized religion…”

pax, max

While I am not an academic philosopher or theologian, it seems to me that Dennett’s question of “what difference does it make?” is right on point.

Every Christian, particularly thoughtful ones, should be able to give a short, clear account of her faith in God and why it matters to her without sounding like we are out of touch with our day-to-day world. The discussion has focused my thought. It may be that we never stop seeking until we are “found” at home in the world.

What was ultimately at stake for me was (and is) the possibility of a moderate theism — a form of belief in God that avoids extremism, celebrates rather than attacks advances in science, and remains engaged in critical discussion.

One correction: I was not hiding my belief in souls — substantive entities or immaterial substances that make thought or consciousness possible. I don’t believe one needs to postulate a soul to make sense of human mental experience, thought, or qualia.

Yet as a “strong emergentist” I also don’t accept Dennett’s account of mind:

“What would it be like (if anything) to be such an entity? At first glance the answer seems to be: not like anything. The whole system has been designed to operate in the dark, as it were, with the various components accomplishing their tasks unperceived and unperceiving. In particular, we have not supposed any inner introspecting eye… [I]nside it is all darkness, a hoax. Or so it seems. Inside your skull it is also all darkness, and whatever processes occur in your gray matter occur unperceived and unperceiving” (Brainstorms, 164f.).

“You enter the brain through the eye, march up the optic nerve, round and round the cortex, looking behind every neuron, and then, before you know it, you emerge into daylight on the spike of a motor nerve impulse, scratching your head and wondering where the self is” (Elbow Room, 75).

Am I reading what you wrote correctly? Dennett claimed he is “spiritual but not religious” or was that in reference to someone else?

Thanks

I realize what you meant by not playing ball and I disagree. It seemed to me that it was Clayton that wasn’t expressing the ideas that he holds which he knew were in conflict with Dennett’s. At the beginning of the discussion, Clayton made it clear that he didn’t want to discuss the conflicting ideas in any case. The discussion was of the character:

Clayton: You believe X and I think that is wrong.
Dennett: I don’t believe X, I believe Y.
Clayton: But don’t you believe X1?
Dennett: No, I believe Y1.
and so on…

At 22:15, even the moderator was asking what any of this has to do with Clayton’s metaphysical views. The moderater had to ask Clayton again at 29:48. Clayton my have strong supernatural views, but he seemed very reticent in bringing them up during this discussion.

And finally, yes I am agreeing with what Dennett said in the discussion, that most of the “great works” about souls and gods are “like playing tennis without the net.”