A Tale of Two Tactics: Dawkins versus Dennett

[John21]

I made a poor attempt at addressing the issue of how an atheist presents their argument a few days ago, so I'll try to use two well known atheist writers and their way of presenting their points, to hopefully pose my question with a little more.

Daniel Dennett quote:
[ QUOTE ]
I think the main problem we face today is overreaction, making martyrs out of people who desperately want to become martyrs. What it will take is patience, good information, and a steady demand for universal education about the world’s religions. This will favor the evolution of avirulent forms of religion, which we can all welcome as continuing parts of our planet’s cultural heritage. Eventually the truth will set us free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Dawkins quote:
[ QUOTE ]
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comparing Dennett's, Breaking the Spell, with Dawkins', The God Delusion, here's how the general tone of both author effected me: With Dennett, it was reflective and philosophical. With Dawkins, it was judgemental and activist. At least from my perspective, one argument is presented in a way that opens the door to dialog, while the other puts someone on the defensive, if they don't accept his point of view.

So putting aside any beliefs, points-of-view, or agendas, what tactic do you feel would be more effective in presenting the argument to the majority of people who fall some where in the middle of the road as to their religious convictions?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What it will take is patience, good information, and a steady demand for universal education about the world’s religions


[/ QUOTE ]

Dennett should start with Dawkins.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I made a poor attempt at addressing the issue of how an atheist presents their argument a few days ago, so I'll try to use two well known atheist writers and their way of presenting their points, to hopefully pose my question with a little more.

Daniel Dennett quote:
[ QUOTE ]
I think the main problem we face today is overreaction, making martyrs out of people who desperately want to become martyrs. What it will take is patience, good information, and a steady demand for universal education about the world’s religions. This will favor the evolution of avirulent forms of religion, which we can all welcome as continuing parts of our planet’s cultural heritage. Eventually the truth will set us free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Dawkins quote:
[ QUOTE ]
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comparing Dennett's, Breaking the Spell, with Dawkins', The God Delusion, here's how the general tone of both author effected me: With Dennett, it was reflective and philosophical. With Dawkins, it was judgemental and activist. At least from my perspective, one argument is presented in a way that opens the door to dialog, while the other puts someone on the defensive, if they don't accept his point of view.

So putting aside any beliefs, points-of-view, or agendas, what tactic do you feel would be more effective in presenting the argument to the majority of people who fall some where in the middle of the road as to their religious convictions?

[/ QUOTE ]Dawkins is winning. "We think science is pretty darn cool, and if you don't think so. You can [censored] off." Then again I'm not sure that Dawkins wants to convince people as much as he wants people that have allready been convinced to speak up. As well as those who have not allready been convinced of god, to get a quality education.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins wants to convince people as much as he wants people that have allready been convinced to speak up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your opinion and with Dawkins' one. It is very important that it be done.

[soon2bepro]

They're not mutually exclusive, much to the contrary, both are right. Dawkins is more specific.

[Siegmund]

I wonder if the stylistic differences pointed out by the OP are, in a nutshell, the reason why Dawkins's works get quoted frequently in the popular press, while Dennett is a name I've seen in the popular press exactly once in my life ("leading atheistic philosopher" is perhaps not the pinnacle of glory it sounds like - the only reason I recognized his name that one time was because of Douglas Hofstadter's collaboration on The Mind's I.)

[Phil153]

Based on your passage, Dennett is suggesting that religious education should be increased in schools.

Dawkins is suggesting that a very important part of civilization is being threatened by quacks.

It's no surprise that you find one more threatening than the other. I don't see how the two arguments are in any way comparable. Dawkins is trying to convince fellow scientists and thinkers that action is required to combat a real threat. Dennett is flopping around pondering the future.


But to address your larger point...yes, honey attracts more flies than vinegar. But having a dialog with losers is not the goal of books like this. People who've been indoctrinated as children, and spent their lives receiving social reinforcement, rarely if ever change their perspective. However, rare smart people such as bunny do exist, and I suspect that Dawkins has more effect on these people than someone like Dennett.

[SNOWBALL]

this is a poorly formulated question because you're not defining what "effective" means at all. I think Dawkins has a different goal than Dennett.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
With Dennett, it was reflective and philosophical. With Dawkins, it was judgemental and activist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to recall major societal changes and see which ones were acheived by "reflective and philosophical" vs "judgemental and activist".

Dismantling the Divine Right of Kings.
various Anti-colonialist ( USA, etc)
End of Slavery.
Womens Rights.
Racial Civil Rights.
Gay Rights.
Environmental movement.

ok, come on, there's has to be one that 'hand on chin, pipe in mouth' acheived... think, man, think.

The role of the philosophical is in framing, and as intellectual and moral backup and justification. Mill's "Subjugation of Women" or Thomas Paine's work on democracy, Carson's 'Silent Spring'.

Remember, Dennett's 'optimist thought for 2007' was that religion in 25 years would look nothing like todays traditional ones. Hardly a 'consilience' viewpoint.

It's not that Dennett and Dawkins are in opposition, merely in different roles with the same general long term goal. Dennett presents more of a strategy, Dawkins is into tactical moves. ( They are both early members of the Bright's group).
Dennett's quote ends with "Eventually the truth will set us free. " He's referring to freedom from religious oppression, and a rational truth not a religious truth.

The answer is 'we need both', but Dennett's would never acheive anything on it's own, Dawkins tactics could but will be much easier with the Dennett's operating in the background. Historically, Dennett types have underpinned and motivated the Dawkins types.

luckyme

[MaxWeiss]

I agree that Dawkins is doing more good with his somewhat advesarial attitude. While theists may start out more receptive to Dennett's gentle style, they will still put up the road block once they realize what he is trying to say. Dawkins, on the other hand, convinces more atheists to speak out and force the issue whether theists want to listen or not. Forcing the issue is of paramount importance because that is what has not been happening. When you corner a theist about contradictions or about -- well, anything relating to their faith -- inevitably it ends with a road block of not listening or a "you can't know until you are open to it" type of bullcrap. Making people talk and defend themselves is important as many people (though maybe not the theists) will realize just how indefensable it is.

At least the kingneb character is active and trying to justify himself and his beliefs. The trouble for theists is that when they are forced to justify what they believe, they all inevitably sound like him! ----I was hesitant to type that and to generalize, but it has been my experience that that is so, though I have only had the conversation with about a half dozen of my theist friends. (And they know that I absolutely don't respect their beliefs but that I do respect them and know that they will only interpret "God's will" in a good way--though they also know that I think demanding respect for religion shelters fundamentalists.)