Post by bjorn on May 20, 2013 22:04:50 GMT
Daniel Dennett is about to release a new book, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, and has published an extract with what The Guardian calls his seven tools for thinking -
m.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/19/daniel-dennett-intuition-pumps-thinking-extract
These are spelled out in large letters in the article as
1: USE YOUR MISTAKES
2: RESPECT YOUR OPPONENT
3: THE "SURELY" KLAXON
4: ANSWER RHETORICAL QUESTIONS
5: EMPLOY OCCAM'S RAZOR
6: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON RUBBISH
7: BEWARE OF DEEPITIES
After having gone through the deepities of these, the question is when he will use any of them on his own writings, included this excerpt.
Not the least as when he writes on
"How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said). Following Rapoport's rules is always, for me, something of a struggle…"
I guess then we may calmly lean back waiting for him to admit (according to TOOL 1 and 2 above) never having presented arguments for the existence of God "clearly, vividly and fairly" like in "Breaking the Spell", pg. 242:
“The Cosmological Argument, which in its simplest form states that since everything must have a cause the universe must have a cause—namely, God—doesn’t stay simple for long. Some deny the premise, since quantum physics teaches us (doesn’t it?) that not everything that happens needs to have a cause. Others prefer to accept the premise and then ask: What caused God? The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) then raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can’t the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused.”
Or (as in the excerpt in Guardian) the way Occams' razor is being used in serious arguments for God, countering some of Hume's objections.
Even if Dennett would never for one moment even in his wildest fantasies be able to imagine that Rowan Williams' words have any meaning.
m.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/19/daniel-dennett-intuition-pumps-thinking-extract
These are spelled out in large letters in the article as
1: USE YOUR MISTAKES
2: RESPECT YOUR OPPONENT
3: THE "SURELY" KLAXON
4: ANSWER RHETORICAL QUESTIONS
5: EMPLOY OCCAM'S RAZOR
6: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON RUBBISH
7: BEWARE OF DEEPITIES
After having gone through the deepities of these, the question is when he will use any of them on his own writings, included this excerpt.
Not the least as when he writes on
"How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said). Following Rapoport's rules is always, for me, something of a struggle…"
I guess then we may calmly lean back waiting for him to admit (according to TOOL 1 and 2 above) never having presented arguments for the existence of God "clearly, vividly and fairly" like in "Breaking the Spell", pg. 242:
“The Cosmological Argument, which in its simplest form states that since everything must have a cause the universe must have a cause—namely, God—doesn’t stay simple for long. Some deny the premise, since quantum physics teaches us (doesn’t it?) that not everything that happens needs to have a cause. Others prefer to accept the premise and then ask: What caused God? The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) then raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can’t the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused.”
Or (as in the excerpt in Guardian) the way Occams' razor is being used in serious arguments for God, countering some of Hume's objections.
Even if Dennett would never for one moment even in his wildest fantasies be able to imagine that Rowan Williams' words have any meaning.