Want to read that book.
"the theory that religion has developed as an evolutionary "meme", a cultural replicator which may or may not have a benign effect on those who transmit it"
"Basing their decisions on "the available evidence", the humanists recognise that "moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone . . . not on any dogma or sacred text""
"Dennett declares his hunch to be that "religions that can flourish in conditions of knowledge are fine". But this is as far as his esteem goes. Religion may have positive aspects, he says,"but then so does the Mafia. It keeps neighbourhoods quite secure; there's a very low petty crime rate if the Mafia's in control. That doesn't make it a good thing."
"[religion is] the nuclear weapon of rational discussion if, whenever it gets tough, you draw the blinds and play the faith card. It turns it into a sham"
It's from an article about Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: religion as a natural phenomenon.
And I really want to read it. Even though I feel slightly bad about wanting to read a book written by a person who says exactly what I came to think myself, but with better arguments, and not the book of a person who says things completely different from what I think.
Also: Rosetta Stone. The lessons are constructed so that one needs significantly less time than what the estimation for the lessons says. Lolbadpsychologicaltrickfail.
Some day I might actually learn how to study.
☆
"Basing their decisions on "the available evidence", the humanists recognise that "moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone . . . not on any dogma or sacred text""
"Dennett declares his hunch to be that "religions that can flourish in conditions of knowledge are fine". But this is as far as his esteem goes. Religion may have positive aspects, he says,"but then so does the Mafia. It keeps neighbourhoods quite secure; there's a very low petty crime rate if the Mafia's in control. That doesn't make it a good thing."
"[religion is] the nuclear weapon of rational discussion if, whenever it gets tough, you draw the blinds and play the faith card. It turns it into a sham"
It's from an article about Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: religion as a natural phenomenon.
And I really want to read it. Even though I feel slightly bad about wanting to read a book written by a person who says exactly what I came to think myself, but with better arguments, and not the book of a person who says things completely different from what I think.
Also: Rosetta Stone. The lessons are constructed so that one needs significantly less time than what the estimation for the lessons says. Lolbadpsychologicaltrickfail.
Some day I might actually learn how to study.
☆