1. Comment #167724 by transylvanian on April 24, 2008 at 9:35 am

"A man who has had to "forgive" his friends for praying for him during a life-threatening heart illness..." That's a little extreme, eh?

Other Comments by transylvanian

2. Comment #167727 by Angels On a Pin Head on April 24, 2008 at 9:37 am

If anyone would like to convert this to an mp3...

You can download the MP3 podcast version from the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/stw/

(Probably available until next Monday)

[Edit: the article has now been updated with this MP3]

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

3. Comment #167731 by maton100 on April 24, 2008 at 9:40 am

Tell it like it is Dan!

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #167736 by Corylus on April 24, 2008 at 9:44 am

Translyvanian

That's a bit extreme, eh?

Bit out of context would be a better way of putting it :-)

Why not check out the statement he released after having his heart op?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,280,THANK-GOODNESS,Daniel-C-Dennett--Edgeorg

It is a great piece of writing.

Other Comments by Corylus

5. Comment #167799 by JemyM on April 24, 2008 at 10:39 am

Daniel Dennett is my greatest hero. Sorry Richard.

Other Comments by JemyM

6. Comment #167815 by EeekiE on April 24, 2008 at 10:58 am

Why the 'Sorry Richard' JemyM?

I don't think Richard comes here for an ego boost hehe. Besides I think he'd probably agree with you. Richard has said before he really looks up to Dan.

Other Comments by EeekiE

7. Comment #167819 by Matt7895 on April 24, 2008 at 11:03 am

Richard has described Dan as his 'intellectual hero' (AAI 2007) and they are good friends, so I don't think he'll mind.

Dan is a very funny, very warm, very intelligent larger-than-life character and I always enjoy hearing him speak.

Other Comments by Matt7895

8. Comment #167828 by RSP on April 24, 2008 at 11:09 am

The bit before he interviews Dennett is insufferable.

Also, wtf is that weird feminine squeek noise at 18:49 and 18:56?

Other Comments by RSP

9. Comment #167848 by black wolf on April 24, 2008 at 11:25 am

I wouldn't even mind if Richard took in a dose of ego-boost from here once in a while. After all, we're only human, and we can only take so much nonsense at a time without losing it. Reading or hearing some supportive words once in a while is very important if we don't feel like becoming nihilistic or misanthropic in face of all the child-molesting, witch-hunting, suicide bombing, physician threatening, education demolishing insanity going on around all of us.
Besides, there are many experts in many fields of natural science, social science, engineering, mathematics, medicine, philosophy and economics active around here, who can and do provide a lot of material, evidence and reasonable thinking for Prof. Dawkins to put to good use. Which he occasionally does to enrich his lectures.
I think it is very telling that so many different intelligent people think that these issues are very important to discuss, as it highlights the fact that humanity can no longer afford to give unquestionable ideology a free pass. The idea that this criticism must include religion isn't new, but it has only gained significant acceptance and vigor during the most recent decades of our species' existance. It is dawning in the minds of the armchair ivory tower theologians that unrestricted critical thinking and free speech can no longer be shrugged off with ridicule or persecution, two modes of handling it they had gotten well accustomed to over millenia. The fact that the rate of growth in the number of people who leave religion altogether per annuam has reached double figures even in the US is provoking, and the reactions are as manifold as they are accelerating, from 'flea' books to the Pope shaking hands with the Mullahs to 'vanquish' atheism.

Other Comments by black wolf

10. Comment #167853 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 11:31 am

And lest we forget, Dan Dennett is quite the pimp!

Other Comments by MaxD

11. Comment #167858 by Border Collie on April 24, 2008 at 11:36 am

I didn't catch who said it ... But we're still in the old "separate from nature" argument and we're not "connected to the universe" like other earthly beings? WHAT?! Hey, read a six grade science book.

"It's not bleak, it's breathtaking!" Damn if it ain't! (That's a Texas saying.) Thanks, Dr. Dan!!!

Other Comments by Border Collie

12. Comment #167890 by phil rimmer on April 24, 2008 at 12:06 pm

The bit before he interviews Dennett is insufferable.

Which bit? Why?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

13. Comment #167956 by bertin.ouellet on April 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Your the best Dan!

Other Comments by bertin.ouellet

14. Comment #167991 by rchoquette on April 24, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Damn good work!

I always learn so much from Professor Dennett; we all learn from him, incredibly so!

He is working so hard to contribute to the advancement of our species.

The great collective of those to whom he imparts this valuable perspective, us, and others, will most certainly have a profound impact in the long term.

Other Comments by rchoquette

15. Comment #168002 by Matt7895 on April 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm

The bit before he interviews Dennett is insufferable.

Which bit? Why?

I think he means the guy who said our minds aren't just in our brains, but in our entire body... something I disagree with.

Other Comments by Matt7895

16. Comment #168034 by MorituriMax on April 24, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Why is the beginning part even in this supposed "interview with dan dennet"? Couldn't whoever posted this say where we can click in the timeline to skip the opening boring discussion?

Other Comments by MorituriMax

17. Comment #168045 by chuckgoecke on April 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm

One of my favorite concepts that i believe we can attribute a great deal to Dan, that many who profess to believing in god actually believe in believing in god. They feel that it is good for society and their friends, and they go through the motions, but deep in their hearts, they doubt, sometimes to the degree that they have no real faith at all, ergo Mother Teresa, Ted Haggart, etc. This kind of thought process must be very common in amoungst the very pious, and thus makes them particularly dangerous.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

18. Comment #168061 by DarrenGriz on April 24, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I beg forgiveness for this rant in this thread: the quote came up and I reacted to it out of the context. So, with apologies...

"If god is dead, then everything is permitted"

Is anyone else as fed up as I am with hearing this quotation? It is the lowest sort of scaremongering argument because if you take its point, the truth of existence/non-existence is irrelevant. Please point out this hypocrisy to any Christian who dares bring it up.

Other Comments by DarrenGriz

19. Comment #168076 by Angels On a Pin Head on April 24, 2008 at 1:54 pm

If god is dead, then everything is permitted

Whether gods exist or not, they are used by believers to justify everything.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

20. Comment #168143 by Sam Slater on April 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Why is the beginning part even in this supposed "interview with dan dennet"?

To be fair, the BBC didn't advertise this podcast as 'an interview with Dan Dennett'. If the title seems misinforming, that is the fault of the guy who put up this page.

It's a weekly podcast called 'Start of the Week' where they always interview 3-4 people over 40 mins.

"If god is dead, then everything is permitted"

Is anyone else as fed up as I am with hearing this quotation?

Yes, but the interviewer was just playing the devil's advocate. It wouldn't be a very good interview otherwise.

Other Comments by Sam Slater

21. Comment #168154 by SilentMike on April 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Just wondering. Will an audio/video version of that debate with Robert Winston we keep hearing about be made available any time soon? I really like the way Dennett very politely pulverizes his opponent in debates.

Other Comments by SilentMike

22. Comment #168156 by Matt7895 on April 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Just wondering. Will an audio/video version of that debate with Robert Winston we keep hearing about be made available any time soon? I really like the way Dennett very politely pulverizes his opponent in debates.

True, but often that gives his opponents an advantage. Sometimes a Hitchens approach is best. Remember the 'debate' between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza? D'Souza literally screamed his way through, all the way. Mind you, Robert Winston isn't a little prick like D'Souza, so maybe it went ok.

Other Comments by Matt7895

23. Comment #168158 by DavidJGrossman on April 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm

""A man who has had to "forgive" his friends for praying for him during a life-threatening heart illness..."

That's a little extreme, eh?"

Not really. What if they were praying to the wrong god?

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

24. Comment #168177 by phil rimmer on April 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm

I think he means the guy who said our minds aren't just in our brains, but in our entire body... something I disagree with.

You need to read a little Antonio Domasio. Interestingly Dennet wasn't averse to THOSE ideas.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

25. Comment #168191 by ofir on April 24, 2008 at 5:35 pm

And why do they insist on the one God theory which they automatically assume is superior to the multi-god theory.

After all one god is just one of infinite possibilities.

Other Comments by ofir

26. Comment #168237 by dragonfirematrix on April 24, 2008 at 7:26 pm

God is not dead...

...because God (any version of it) never existed. Therefore, one who never existed can never be dead.

That is why everything is permitted.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

27. Comment #168264 by Frankus1122 on April 24, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Dan is a very funny, very warm, very intelligent larger-than-life character

...and he looks like Santa Claus too.
How can you not like the guy?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

28. Comment #168270 by robotaholic on April 24, 2008 at 8:56 pm

i like the quote "the mind is what the brain does" - incidentally right now - Miscavage's own daughters are defecting from the church of scientology- it's on nightline-
mabye it's too soon to tell but it sounds like the whole thing is impoloding (hopefully) and mabye anonymous is having something to do with it- what do you think?

Edit - it was his niece not daughter- oh well

Other Comments by robotaholic

29. Comment #168274 by Quine on April 24, 2008 at 9:25 pm

I think the part about Sartre's spots was more than I needed to know.

Other Comments by Quine

30. Comment #168282 by heyzeuscreasetoe on April 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Dennett was good, I haven't read much about Sartre so that part at the end definitely got me interested in checking out his work. As for the beginning, I was wondering if that was the right mp3 cause it was a bit nutty.

Other Comments by heyzeuscreasetoe

31. Comment #168290 by Mitchell Gilks on April 24, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Not a huge Dennett fan myself, but he isn't hard to listen to or anything.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

32. Comment #168307 by Wadsworth on April 25, 2008 at 1:55 am

I am disappointed with Lord Winston's comments. One can admire Job as literature, as a good story, but we do not take it as a fact that a god, the God of Israel, appeared out of a whirlwind to make a few pithy comments in support of his own grandiosity, and in effect deny modern cosmology? Why is God always so ignorant about Science? Nor can we admire Eva Jablonka's disapproval of Dawkins's and most other modern biologists' support of well-confirmed Darwinian Evolutionary theory. Are we to take it that Lord Winston is a young-Earth Creationist/ Intelligent Designer, and therefore an enemy of modern secular enlightenment? Nor are we impressed by yet another airing of Pasal's Wager to try and terrify us back into Abraham's bosum.

Other Comments by Wadsworth

33. Comment #168335 by SilentMike on April 25, 2008 at 3:27 am

22. Comment #168156 by Matt7895

Remember the 'debate' between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza? D'Souza literally screamed his way through, all the way.

I happen to think that Dennett handled himself very well on that debate. Much better than Hitchens in fact. I think it was very clear to anyone with half a brain who has about 50 IQ points on whom in that debate. Dennett just destroyed D'Souza with quiet confident rationality. It sounded much better than D'Souza v Hitchens where both sides just gave their usual speil and you only knew that D'Souza was talking out of his behind if you were already well informed about the subject when you got there.

Other Comments by SilentMike

34. Comment #168336 by bugaboo on April 25, 2008 at 3:30 am

i propose he becomes known as Darwins Spaniel

Other Comments by bugaboo

35. Comment #168340 by nalfeshnee on April 25, 2008 at 4:04 am

Dennett's reply to the question about the evolutionary "use" of religions is truly superb.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

36. Comment #168356 by beelzebub on April 25, 2008 at 4:43 am

Another BBC radio series, 'In Our Time' had a facinating program on materialism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20080424.shtml

Quote from Baron D'Holbach, 1770, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml

"If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them."

Can't say more than that! :-)

Other Comments by beelzebub

37. Comment #168552 by JanChan on April 25, 2008 at 7:47 am

Why is everyone suddenly calling us Darwinists? I thought that especially wouldn't be the case in Britain, unless Expelled managed to slip across the Atlantic.

Other Comments by JanChan

38. Comment #168585 by matt_shute-07 on April 25, 2008 at 8:12 am

I'm full of admiration for Dan Dennett - a brilliant writer and enemy of unreason.

Other Comments by matt_shute-07

39. Comment #168857 by BigJohn on April 25, 2008 at 12:06 pm

There/their/they're* is much discussion of science education on the blogs I read. I think that there/their/they're* could be some discussion of the obvious lack of English language education, too.

*Although the proper choice of one of these three words should be completely automatic, many people seem satisfied to choose one at random.

Other Comments by BigJohn

40. Comment #168902 by Dinah on April 25, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Re Comment #168857 by BigJohn

'There/their/they're' Yes, I agree. This is very basic grammar, and people should take the trouble to find out the difference if they don't know.

Another thing that annoys me is the frequent misspelling of the word 'atheist', usually as 'athiest'. How can atheists expect to be taken seriously if they can't even spell what they are supposed to be?

Other Comments by Dinah

41. Comment #169094 by sane1 on April 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Love to hear Dan Dennett any time anywhere. Who are the other bozos?

Other Comments by sane1

42. Comment #169187 by babrock on April 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm

If it is possible could someone get t audio of t sir Winston debate.
I am rather sure they said that they were to run it t next day and we do seem to have what canot be but a small piece of it.

I am so computer illiterate myself that t task is beyond me to t point of being nearly magic, but I would appreciate it if someone else could, thank you.

Other Comments by babrock

43. Comment #169191 by and7barton on April 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Those squeaks are a little habit Dennett has of closing his throat off, resulting in a "straining" noise. It wasn't some demented female in the background.

Other Comments by and7barton

44. Comment #169355 by devolve on April 25, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Maybe it's just me (I have a nasty cold and am under the influence of Tylenol PM and a pint of Salvator at the moment) but with the exception of Mr. Dennett -- who didn't really say much -- it just sounded to me like a stereotypical caricature of Ivory Tower types talking just to hear the sound of their own voices. When they started going on and on and on about Sartre, I nearly had to stop listening.

Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

Other Comments by devolve

45. Comment #169363 by windfall on April 25, 2008 at 9:26 pm

I agree with Phil Rimmer: to understand what the first guy was getting at, you need to read some Antonio Damasio (Descartes' Error, for example). I admit, he was a little incoherent, but what he was saying was quite sound and in line with a modern understanding of the brain-body interaction.

I rather enjoyed Dan's comments in this discussion. I really like his example of the common cold to argue that just because religion may have been with the human species for a long time, that doesn't make it adaptive *for us*. It is useful for itself. This is an idea that is very difficult to get your mind around, but once you do, it makes many things clear.

Regarding the Dostoyevsky quote, I think this is a very serious issue, *but* ultimately it comes down to the fact that we are wired up with a moral sense. So, it really doesn't matter if there is no god, everything is permitted only for those for whom everything would still be permitted even if there were a god: the people who have a damaged moral sense.

Other Comments by windfall

46. Comment #169492 by Szymanowski on April 26, 2008 at 7:47 am

Minor point: is it legal to provide the mp3 for download here, when the BBC only allow streaming for a week?

Other Comments by Szymanowski

47. Comment #169566 by acarrionwasp on April 26, 2008 at 10:00 am

I personally feel such self-important humanist ideas are the root of a greater "weed". Religion is a blossom of that thinking. Getting off that pedestal is paramount to seeing the beauty of the natural world. Many times over, thank-you Dr. Dennett.
Breaking the Spell is a great book! Check it out if you can.

Other Comments by acarrionwasp

48. Comment #169587 by IainM on April 26, 2008 at 11:06 am

If Babrock (comment #169187) cannot spell the word THE, then he/she is not only computer illiterate, but illiterate full stop. Does he/she do this purely to irritate the the reader?

Other Comments by IainM

49. Comment #169781 by Robert Carnegie on April 26, 2008 at 7:09 pm

On [Start the Week], the BBC site hosts MP3 for a week and RealAudio stream indefinitely. I imagine that linking straight to their media files or hosting another copy of the MP3, without permission from rights holders, is not considered legitimate.

"Darwinists" or not, I feel that both Tallis (the head-guy) and Dennett made too much of a difference between us humans and other animals. We have far larger brains and sophisticated language, which of course I am pleased with, but what else? We also have a versatile voice but so do other living things. I say this not to do us down but to put the case that "dumb chum" beings with which we share the world, some of which are taller or faster than us, should be respected.

Other Comments by Robert Carnegie

50. Comment #169803 by Styrer- on April 26, 2008 at 9:19 pm

One of the more worthy pieces offered by Josh and team for our collective interest.

I must rid myself of one bugbear by saying it is the absence of Cristina Howells in this debate, my tutor in French at Wadham, Oxford years ago, now Professor of French at the university, whose speciality remains Sartre, which struck me as most requiring a stiff drink and a good pinch of salt on listening to the rather dubious ideas proffered by Jones, 'Sartrerian expert' of the day chosen to speak here.

Dan did well, despite the apparently confused requirement to link him to Sartrerian ideas; but I would urge him to henceforth write as clearly as he spoke here. I will not, though, hold my breath.

As for the whole tenor of the conversation, it was a real pleasure for me to note that, in terms of the religious content, there was absolutely fuck all that Dawkins has not touched on himself, and clarified infinitely better than this shower tried to do.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-