Following my debate with Daniel Dennett, several atheists described Dennett's performance as "pathetic." If you want to see if they are right, you can watch the debate here. The term "pathetic," however, can be used in more than one sense. The Pathetic Fallacy (also called the Anthropomorphic Fallacy) is a term of art that refers to the error of attributing human qualities to inanimate objects. A brilliant recent book argues that this fallacy lies at the heart of the work of thinkers like Daniel Dennett.
Reading Dennett and others, you get the impression that science has demonstrated the material foundations of the human mind. Indeed we as humans are nothing more than atoms and molecules, and our self-conception is a kind of illusion generated by the neurons firing in our heads. Ultimately it is to evolution that we must turn, in Dennett's view, to understand who we are and how we function.
But in Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker challenge this materialist understanding as promoted by Dennett and others. Bennett is a leading neuroscientist at the University of Sydney. He also directs the Brain and Mind Research Institute. Reviewing the state of scientific knowledge about the brain, Bennett concludes that the notion that science currently has "major insights into the workings of the synaptic networks in any part of the brain" is both "misplaced" and the product of "hubris." According to Bennett, who knows what he is talking about, Dennett and other non-scientists are portraying science as having figured out things that science is a very long way from figuring out.
Peter Hacker, an Oxford philosopher who is considered the world's leading authority on Wittgenstein, takes Dennett and like-minded writers to task for attributing to an inanimate object, namely the brain, qualities that are properly assigned to human beings like you and me. Hacker cites Dennett as claiming that brains are conscious and gather information and make simplifying assumptions and use supporting information and arrive at conclusions. Hacker argues that this is a classic case of the pathetic fallacy.
In Hacker's view, brains aren't conscious; we are conscious. Brains don't gather or use information; human beings do. Brains don't draw conclusions; you and I do. Of course we use our brains to perceive and reason, just as we use our hands and feet to play tennis. But it is just as absurd to say that my hands and feet are playing tennis as it is to say that my racket is playing tennis. By the same token it is wrong to portray the brain as perceiving, thinking or even being aware of anything.
If it is humans that possess the qualities that Dennett and others attribute to the brain, it follows that the brain is an inanimate object, like the pancreas. We as human beings function with and through the operation of these devices, but it hardly follows that we are "nothing more" than the sum total of them. Materialism--the doctrine that reduces man to his material makeup--is revealed not as a necessary conclusion of modern science but rather as as atheist dogma masquerading as science.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Daniel Dennett's Pathetic Fallacy
Posted Jan 7th 2008 12:02AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Of Babies and Boners: Boxer Compares Access to Abortion to Access to Viagra
- Chaos Theory - Joe Lieberman's Killin' 'em in Vegas
- Federal Panel Says Bailouts Worked, Problems Remain
- Dodd Falls Below 40 Percent Mark in Match-Ups Against GOP Contenders
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Public Rates the Economy Over Health Reform as Top Issue by More than 2-to-1
- Obama Gets Support on Afghanistan, but Not Health Care Reform
Reader Comments ( Page 59 of 59)
871. "The ancient Hebrews spoke of heaven as a great ocean in the sky. A dome was said to cover the earth and kept back the heavenly ocean (Gen 1:6,7). Rain was said to fall on earth when God opened windows in the heavenly ceiling (Gen 7:11-12; Isa 24:18; Mal 3:10). Because this heavenly dome was so heavy, it had to be held up by pillars (Job 26:11)."
Hebrew is a descriptive language. We do the same thing in English. If we were walking in 110 degree heat and I said, "Man, I'm burning up right now," would you expect me to be on fire?
"Heaven can speak of "the heavens" - sky, space, etc - or "Heaven" - God's dwelling place. They are two totally different things.
God opening the windows of heaven during the flood simply means that He caused it to rain. I don't see the problem here.
It was believed that there was a "water firmament" which surrounded the earth. I'm not sure about this, but I have actually heard some pretty good explanations.
The Malachi verse you cited is talking about blessings coming from God, not rain.
"God lives and rules in heaven (1 Kgs 8:30; Isa 66:1; Matt 5:34). Heaven is also where God's court meets (Gen 1:26; 3:22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 15:7,8). Some of Israel's prophets had visions of God in heaven (1 Kgs 22:19), and the prophet Elijah was taken up to heaven in a strong wind (2 Kgs 2:1-12). The apostle Paul also spoke of being taken up into a "third heaven," where he heard wonderful things (2 Cor 12:1-4). A man named John had a vision of heaven that revealed secrets about the future (Rev. 4:1-22:17).http://www.bibles.com/brcpages/heaven
I think that we can take it as a given that the Hebrews did not know about the vacuum of outer space?"
"Heaven can speak of "the heavens" - sky, space, etc - or "Heaven" - God's dwelling place. They are two totally different things.
Mark at 2:03PM on Jan 14th 2008
872. "You say, "The more we understand our material existence, the more necessity we have for something OUTSIDE of our material existence to have CAUSED our material existence."
That is just not true at all, Mark. If dead time/space/matter needs 'ultimate causing'... how much more 'ultimate causing' does a living being(GOD) need? Plus, your "merely a theory" needs more dimensions than we can account for, no?""
Pboy, first, please explain the existence of the universe using universal laws... ie, laws that dictate we included time/space... without getting into a conundrum of infinite regress.
In regards to the "cause of God," did you see the part about God existing beyond the time/space domain? Beyond time/space, means not bound by time/space, therefore no "before or after." And therefore no necessity for a cause.
Yes, I believe there are more dimensions than what we, as human beings bound by 4-D universal laws, can perceive.
Mark at 2:15PM on Jan 14th 2008
873. First JetflyingV says: "Mark, you have had over a week to suck erect penises in your indoctrinating bible study group"
Then he says: " In response to your post 854. I must ba an asshole, because I had expected a better educated, enunciated and formulated response than what you have given"
Yeah jet, that's why I think you're an asshole...
idiot
Mark at 2:26PM on Jan 14th 2008
874. #871 should say:
Yes, I believe there are more dimensions than what we, as human beings bound by 4-D universal laws, CANNOT perceive.
Mark at 6:44PM on Jan 14th 2008
875. "Reply to: It is wrong to portray the brain as perceiving, thinking or even being aware of anything
In Hacker's view, brains aren't conscious; we are conscious. Brains don't gather or use information; human beings do.
Brains don't draw conclusions; you and I do...
_________________
Actually, we were discussing this point earlier.
If you get a chance, visit a retirement home. Or a hospital with a geriatrics wing.
Stick around long enough to hear an elderly patient who won't stop screaming in fear, because they can't remember where they are.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/psychiatry_behavioralsciences/research/gsc/research/adrc_brainstudy.php
. . . .
_________
If the brain isn't aware of anything, why do they autopsy a brain to gain knowledge about Alzheimer's?
dinesh, you're a disgrace."
I respectfully disagree. The point of the article is not that human beings do not use our brains at all. The article says 'Of course we use our brains to perceive and reason, just as we use our hands and
feet to play tennis.' In other words, we use our brains as tools with which to perform cognitive functions. Therefore, it stands to reason that if the tool (the brain) used to perform cognitive functions breaks down, cognitive function will be impaired. This provides an adequate explanation as to why doctors benefit from examining the brain of a person who was cognitively impaired at the autopsy - to investigate the manner in which the tool may have broken down.
However, this alone does not prove that the brain, in and of itself, can be consciously aware of information. Indeed, there is reason to theorize that the physical brain alone cannot be conscious, because, at the present time, there is no
scientific explanation for how a purely physical object or assembly of objects could be conscious. Some persons seem to think that science has already solved consciousness. In fact, while the
investigation of consciousness is on the cutting-edge of science, the very reason it is so exciting is that consciousness remains an unsolved mystery. That is why physicists have made statements to the effect that: 'from the point of view of physics,
consciousness must be an illusion.' This means that, from a scientific point of view, consciousness should not even exist. In a
way, Pf. Daniel Dennett seems to agree with this view because he has tried to argue that, in a way, consciousness does not exist.
Science suggests that, in nature, physical objects are only capable of doing what the laws of physics enable them to do. According our current understanding of science, the known laws of physics provide no mechanism that would enable an assembly of objects to be conscious. Therefore, it is logical to infer that the basis of consciousness must be something other than the assembly of objects of the brain, as there is no apparent scientific means by which the physical brain could be conscious.
This leaves open the question: what is the ultimate basis for consciousness? Some persons subscribe to a religious explanation, e.g., the soul. However, some philosophers have attempted to put forth an explanation that would also be acceptable to non-religious persons. For example, philosopher Professor David Chalmers theorizes that, rather than
being a function of physical matter, consciousness is a function of information. As I understand Chalmers, his theory is that the information processing on the neural pathways of the brain that enables the brain to be conscious - not the
physical matter of the brain.
For more information on Pf. David Chalmers and his critiques of Pf. Daniel Dennett and other materialists, I recommend Pf. Chalmers'
website at .
PS: I have visited a retirement home. My grandmother had Alzheimer's disease at a home before she died. It is a sad and frightening disease. However, that does not mean that we should jump to the conclusion that human beings are nothing but objects. Such a conclusion risks objectifying the human being and denying that a human is a person.
RR at 11:43AM on Jan 17th 2008