« Rushdie on the Cartoons | Main | God in Prime Time »
March 2, 2006
Wieseltier on Dennett -- IV: Fiction
One more swing at Leon Wieseltier, because I think there's another interesting point lurking here.
Wieseltier spends most of his review of Daniel Dennett's book in a poorly camouflaged retreat.
Dennett's book argues that there are biological explanations for the human inclination toward religion. Wieseltier, instead of arguing, as so many have for so long, that religious belief is the product of revelation or good sense, never disputes this point.
Instead, he repeatedly and heatedly insists that Dennett, in his flattening "scientism," is missing the essence of religion. However, when it comes time to indicate what that might be, Wieseltier's claims for religion turn out to be remarkably feeble or, to use his term, "wan." Note the grand defense of religion contained in this question:
"Why must we read literally in the realm of religion, when in so many other realms of human expression we read metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, figuratively, analogically?"
So the truth that Dennett is missing is that religion is just another form of "human" -- not superhuman -- "expression"? And that religious texts should no longer be taken as "literally" true but just read as allegories or mined for metaphor? My God! Wieseltier has forced Dennett and all them other reason-besotted atheists to view Genesis as sometimes compelling...fiction.
Is this where the debate now stands? If God is no longer the literal god of the Bible; if God is no longer making covenants or sending a son; if God has no beard, no form, no gender; if God doesn't punish the wicked or reward the righteous; if God doesn't offer a Kingdom, with eternal life; what's left? A rich tale?
Has the recent history of religion, despite all the noise now being made by the increasingly desperate orthodox, not been a poorly camouflaged retreat?
For other takes on Dennett (and Wieseltier and Hume) see here and here and here.
Posted by Mitchell Stephens at March 2, 2006 5:30 PM
Comments
I would say that it's traditional theology that's been in a forced retreat.
Religion, on the other hand, is probably with us to stay. Or at least until a different type of human evolves.
The Naturalness of Religion and the Unnaturalness of Science (pdf)
Posted by: Enon Zey at March 2, 2006 11:45 PM
My God! Wieseltier has forced Dennett and all them other reason-besotted atheists to view Genesis as sometimes compelling...fiction.
LOL! It's funny how most of the best reasons for atheistically looking at the world are given by theists. Soon (geologically speaking of course) they'll have explained themselves out of existence. It's evidently how humans are evolving.
Dennett's book is on my wish list, e'en though I feel I've read it already thanks to this W's high profile anti, uhhmmm, antiScientism?. {-; Thanks for keepin' it updated.
Posted by: Michael Bains at March 4, 2006 2:49 AM
"LOL! It's funny how most of the best reasons for atheistically looking at the world are given by theists."
Odd, and here I was thinking how the opposite was true...
Posted by: K.G. Schneider at June 15, 2006 8:35 PM
"If God is no longer the literal god of the Bible; if God is no longer making covenants or sending a son; if God has no beard, no form, no gender; if God doesn't punish the wicked or reward the righteous; if God doesn't offer a Kingdom, with eternal life; what's left?"
The ineffable.
Posted by: Shmuel at June 28, 2006 6:23 PM
