Excerpt from Daniel K. Dennett's book
Breaking the spell: religion as a natural phenomenon.
Belief in belief in God prevents people from admitting the obvious: most traditional traditions about God mean no more than stories about Santa Claus or Wonder Woman. It is curious that laughing at this is in the order of things, one has only to remember all the cartoons in which God is depicted as a cruel bearded guy sitting on a cloud next to a beam of lightning, not to mention the jokes, dirty and not so, about various people who go to heaven and indulge in certain misadventures. This variety of humorous stories only elicits a good grin from all but the toughest Puritans, yet few admit how far we have come from God in Genesis 2:21, which literally rips a rib out of Adam and closes a hole in his flesh (with our own fingers, probably) before immediately creating Eve. In A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins (2003a) gives sound advice about the above, but knows in advance that he will not be heeded because people are waiting for a joke:
… modern theists might admit that they are real atheists when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Odin, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Amun-Ra. We are all atheists with respect to most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further [p. 150].
The problem is that - since this advice is not heeded - discussions about the existence of God are usually surrounded by a fog of fear of God and have no clear boundaries. If theists were kind enough to create a short list of those concepts of God that they have already rejected, we atheists would know which topics are still relevant, but they usually refuse to do so out of a sense of caution, loyalty to "theirs" and unwillingness to offend someone from them. It seems to me that the principle "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" works here. These double standards arise - or even legitimize - due to the logical confusion that philosophers struggle to clarify: the problem of intentional objects. The short definition (which, as we will see later, does not provide a complete picture) is that intentional objects are things we can think of.
Do I believe in witches? The answer depends on what you mean. If you mean evil witches who supernaturally fly on brooms and wear black pointed hats, the answer is obvious: no, I no longer believe in witches, just as I don’t believe in the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy. If you mean people, both men and women, who practice Wicca - the now popular neo-pagan cult - the answer is just as obvious: yes, I believe in witches, they are no more supernatural beings than girl scouts or Rotarians. Do I believe these witches are curses? Yes and no. They selflessly pronounce various spells and expect that they will change the world in one way or another supernatural way, but they are mistaken that they succeed. However, they may well change their own opinion and behavior in this way. (If I jinxed you, you can get very upset, up to a serious illness, but this only means that you are gullible, and not that I have magical abilities.) So it all depends on what you mean … Always like this!
About 40 years ago in England, I saw a BBC news program in which kindergarten children were asked about Queen Elizabeth II. What did they know about her? The answers were adorable: the queen wore a crown while she vacuumed Buckingham Palace, sat on a throne while watching TV, and generally acted like a cross between Mom and the Queen of Hearts. This Queen Elizabeth II, an intentional object created (in the form of abstraction) by the totality of the imaginations of these children, turned out to be much more interesting and funny than the real woman. And a more powerful political force!
Promotional video:
Thus, if in this case there are two separate objects, a real woman and an imaginary queen, then is it possible to assume that there are much more such objects, millions and billions of Queen Elizabeth II, who are represented by Scottish teenagers, employees of Windsor Castle, myself, and so on ? For almost a century, philosophers have argued fervently about how to fit such intentional objects into an ontology - a collection of existing things - if they are not consistent with each other. Another prominent Briton is Sherlock Holmes, who often haunts the minds of people, despite being a fictional character. In one sense or another, ideas about such (pure) intentional objects can be true or false: it is true that Sherlock Holmes (an intentional object,created by Arthur Conan Doyle) lived on Baker Street and smoked, while his bright green nose is a lie. The fact that Pegasus had wings in addition to four ordinary hooves is true, and the fact that President Truman had such a Pegasus and rode it to the White House from Missouri is a lie. At the same time, of course, neither Sherlock Holmes nor Pegasus have ever existed.
Some people may fall under the misconception that Sherlock Holmes did exist and that Conan Doyle's stories are not fiction. These people believe in Sherlock Holmes in the truest sense of the word (so to speak). Others, who are called "Sherlockians", devote their free time to become a connoisseur of Sherlock Holmes, and can share among themselves the encyclopedic knowledge of Doyle's book canon, while not confusing fact and fiction. The most famous community of such connoisseurs is the Baker Street Irregulars, named after a gang of street kids that Holmes has used for various purposes over the years. Members of these communities (and there are many "Sherlock" communities around the world) enjoy knowing which train Holmes left Paddington on May 12, but they understandthat they cannot find out whether he was sitting in the direction of the train or against it, because Conan Doyle did not talk about it in the book. They know Holmes is a fictional character, but they nonetheless devote most of their lives to studying him and happily prove that their love for Holmes is more justified than the love of some fans for Perry Mason or Batman. They believe in Sherlock Holmes in a figurative sense of the word (so to speak). Such people behave exactly like amateur connoisseurs who devote their free time to finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper, so an outside observer who does not know that the stories about Holmes are fiction, and Jack the Ripper was the real killer, could in fact really think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure.whether he was sitting in the direction of the train or against it, because Conan Doyle did not talk about it in the book. They know Holmes is a fictional character, but they nonetheless devote most of their lives to studying him and happily prove that their love for Holmes is more justified than the love of some fans for Perry Mason or Batman. They believe in Sherlock Holmes in a figurative sense of the word (so to speak). Such people behave exactly like amateur connoisseurs who devote their free time to finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper, so an outside observer who does not know that the stories about Holmes are fiction, and Jack the Ripper was the real killer, could in fact really think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure.whether he was sitting in the direction of the train or against it, because Conan Doyle did not talk about it in the book. They know Holmes is a fictional character, but they nonetheless devote most of their lives to studying him and happily prove that their love for Holmes is more justified than the love of some fans for Perry Mason or Batman. They believe in Sherlock Holmes in a figurative sense of the word (so to speak). Such people behave exactly like amateur connoisseurs who devote their free time to finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper, so an outside observer who does not know that the stories about Holmes are fiction, and Jack the Ripper was a real killer, could in fact really think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure. They know Holmes is a fictional character, but they nonetheless devote most of their lives to studying him and happily prove that their love for Holmes is more justified than the love of some fans for Perry Mason or Batman. They believe in Sherlock Holmes in a figurative sense of the word (so to speak). Such people behave exactly like amateur connoisseurs who devote their free time to finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper, so an outside observer who does not know that the stories about Holmes are fiction, and Jack the Ripper was a real killer, could in fact really think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure. They know Holmes is a fictional character, but they nonetheless devote most of their lives to studying him and happily prove that their love for Holmes is more justified than the love of some fans for Perry Mason or Batman. They believe in Sherlock Holmes in a figurative sense of the word (so to speak). Such people behave exactly like amateur connoisseurs who devote their free time to finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper, so an outside observer who does not know that the stories about Holmes are fiction, and Jack the Ripper was the real killer, could in fact really think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure.than the love of some fans for Perry Mason or Batman. They believe in Sherlock Holmes in a figurative sense of the word (so to speak). Such people behave exactly like amateur connoisseurs who devote their free time to finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper, so an outside observer who does not know that the stories about Holmes are fiction, and Jack the Ripper was a real killer, could in fact really think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure.than the love of some fans for Perry Mason or Batman. They believe in Sherlock Holmes in a figurative sense of the word (so to speak). Such people behave exactly like amateur connoisseurs who devote their free time to finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper, so an outside observer who does not know that the stories about Holmes are fiction, and Jack the Ripper was a real killer, could in fact really think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure.that the Holmes stories are fiction, and that Jack the Ripper was the real killer, might indeed think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure.that the Holmes stories are fiction, and that Jack the Ripper was the real killer, might indeed think that the Baker Street Irregular Army is studying the life of a historical figure.
It is not surprising that a pure intentional object like Sherlock Holmes captures the minds of people despite the fact that they realize it is fictional. Moreover, such a thing (if it can be called a thing at all) can take over the lives of people if they believe in it in the literal sense, because there are those who spend a fortune in search of the Loch Ness monster or Yeti. When a real person, for example, Queen Elizabeth II, controls the life of people, this control is always carried out indirectly, through the creation of many representations that form an intentional object that settles in the human mind and influences his decisions. I cannot hate my enemy or love my neighbor without an absolutely clear and concrete set of ideas that are necessary to distinguish this person from others so that I can learntrack it down and interact with it effectively.
In most cases, those things that we believe in are absolutely real, and real things are what we believe in, so the logical difference between an intentional object (an object of faith) and a thing from the real world that inspired / caused / substantiated / strengthened faith can be ignored. However, not always. The morning star turns out to be nothing more than the evening star. These "stars" are not really stars at all; it is the same object, namely the planet Venus. One planet and two intentional objects? As a rule, we know for sure about the presence of important things in our life in a variety of ways that allow us to track them, but it also happens in a different way. I can sneak around and sabotage your project or "wish good luck", thereby managing your life without your knowledge, you will not even suspect that I exist as a person,thing or even power in your life. However, this is unlikely. Most often, the most important things in a person's life are somehow present in it in the form of intentional objects, which, nevertheless, can be incorrectly recognized and interpreted. Along with misinterpretations, problems arise with describing the situation. Suppose you secretly helped me for months. If I “thank good fortune” instead of thanking you, that would be a misinterpretation of the situation. It may sound silly that I think I should thank my luck - in other words, that I have no one to thank - but that is what I believe in; in this case there is no intentional object that can be identified as you. Most often, the most important things in a person's life are somehow present in it in the form of intentional objects, which, nevertheless, can be incorrectly recognized and interpreted. Along with misinterpretations, problems arise with describing the situation. Suppose you secretly helped me for months. If I “thank good fortune” instead of thanking you, that would be a misinterpretation of the situation. It may sound silly that I think I should thank my luck - in other words, that I have no one to thank - but that is what I believe in; in this case there is no intentional object that can be identified as you. Most often, the most important things in a person's life are somehow present in it in the form of intentional objects, which, nevertheless, can be incorrectly recognized and interpreted. Along with misinterpretations, problems arise with describing the situation. Suppose you secretly helped me for months. If I “thank good fortune” instead of thanking you, that would be a misinterpretation of the situation. It may sound silly that I think I should thank my luck - in other words, that I have no one to thank - but that is what I believe in; in this case there is no intentional object that can be identified as you.that you have been secretly helping me for months. If I “thank good fortune” instead of thanking you, that would be a misinterpretation of the situation. It may sound silly that I think I should thank my luck - in other words, that I have no one to thank - but that is what I believe in; in this case there is no intentional object that can be identified as you.that you have been secretly helping me for months. If I “thank good fortune” instead of thanking you, that would be a misinterpretation of the situation. It may sound silly that I think I should thank my luck - in other words, that I have no one to thank - but that is what I believe in; in this case there is no intentional object that can be identified as you.
Suppose that I am convinced that I have a secret assistant, only it is not you, but Cameron Diaz. While I am writing her notes with gratitude, thinking about her with love and admiring her responsiveness towards me, it would be absolutely wrong to say that the object of my gratitude is you, despite the fact that it was you who did everything for which I did grateful. Now suppose that I gradually begin to suspect that I have been delusional all this time, and finally I understand that it was you who should have been the object of my gratitude. Wouldn't it be strange in this case to say: "Now I understand: you are Cameron Diaz!" It would be really strange; it would be wrong, unless something else happened in that time. For example, my friends could get so used to my praise of Cameron Diaz and her good deeds,that her name would become a household name among us for anyone who makes me happy. In this case, this combination of letters loses its original meaning and use. The word "Cameron Diaz", being the name of a real person, would gradually and imperceptibly turn into a kind of joker, which can be called everyone who does the things for which I am grateful. However, then you can say (if we go all the way) that my thanks to "luck" and my thanks to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)))who makes me happy. In this case, this combination of letters loses its original meaning and use. The word "Cameron Diaz", being the name of a real person, would gradually and imperceptibly turn into a kind of joker, which can be called everyone who does the things for which I am grateful. However, then you can say (if we go all the way) that my thanks to "luck" and my thanks to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)who makes me happy. In this case, this combination of letters loses its original meaning and use. The word "Cameron Diaz", being the name of a real person, would gradually and imperceptibly turn into a kind of joker, which can be called everyone who does the things for which I am grateful. However, then you can say (if we go all the way) that my thanks to "luck" and my thanks to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)In this case, this combination of letters loses its original meaning and use. The word "Cameron Diaz", being the name of a real person, would gradually and imperceptibly turn into a kind of joker, which can be called everyone who does the things for which I am grateful. However, then you can say (if we go all the way) that my thanks to "luck" and my thanks to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)In this case, this combination of letters loses its original meaning and use. The word "Cameron Diaz", being the name of a real person, would gradually and imperceptibly turn into a kind of joker, which can be called everyone who does the things for which I am grateful. However, then you can say (if we go all the way) that my thanks to "luck" and my thanks to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)would gradually and imperceptibly turn into a kind of joker, which can be called everyone who does those things for which I am grateful. However, then you can say (if we go all the way) that my thanks to "luck" and my thanks to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)would gradually and imperceptibly turn into a kind of joker, which can be called everyone who does those things for which I am grateful. However, then you can say (if we go all the way) that my thanks to "luck" and my thanks to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)that my gratitude to "luck" and my gratitude to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)that my gratitude to "luck" and my gratitude to "Cameron Diaz" are one and the same, which means that you really are my Cameron Diaz. The morning star becomes the evening star. (How to turn an atheist into a theist by playing with the words: if "God" is just a name for anything that gave birth to all creatures on Earth, then He could very well be a process of evolution acting through natural selection.)
This ambiguity has been used since the psalmist first sang a song about a fool. The fool does not know what he is talking about when he claims that there is no God in his soul, and he is as stupid as anyone who thinks that Shakespeare did not actually write Hamlet. (Someone did write it; if Shakespeare is by definition the author of Hamlet, then perhaps Marlowe was Shakespeare, etc.) When someone writes a book about the "history of God" (from the latter: Armstrong, (Armstrong) 1993; Stark, 2001; Debray, 2004), he actually describes the history of the concept of God and, of course, identifies and describes the current and conflicting ideas about God as an intentional object that are changing over centuries. Such historical research is impartial in two respects:which concept of God is correct (who wrote Hamlet - Shakespeare or Marlowe?), and whether the concept itself is based on truth or fiction (who are we: the Baker Street Irregular Army or people trying to find the real killer? Rodney Stark begins his book One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism with words that clearly demonstrate this ambiguity:which clearly demonstrate this ambiguity:which clearly demonstrate this ambiguity:
All the great monotheistic religions assume that their God has been at work throughout history, and I plan to show that, at least in a sociological sense, they are right; a huge part of history - both triumphs and catastrophes - was accomplished in the name of the one true God. What could be more obvious? [2001, p. 1].
The very title of the book already suggests that the author is not impartial - "The One True God" - however its content is written in a "sociological key", that is, it is not about God, but about intentional objects that occupy ever higher positions in politics and psychology, about the God of Catholics, the God of the Jews and possibly the God of teenagers living in Scotland. It is quite obvious that God as an intentional object plays an important role, but this does not answer the question of the existence of God, and Stark is a hypocrite hiding behind this ambiguity. After all, the history of controversy on this issue has not always been like innocent entertainment like the confrontation between the Irregular Army of Baker Street and the Perry Mason fan club. People were dying for their ideas. Stark may remain neutral, but comedian Rich Jeni takes a very specific position;in his opinion, religious wars look pathetic: "Basically you are killing each other to find out whose imaginary friend is better." What does Stark think about this? And you? Is it okay, is it necessary to fight for a concept, is it based on reality or not? After all, as some might add, did the struggle lead us to the flourishing of art and literature - an arms race for glory?
It seems to me that some people who consider themselves to be believers actually believe only in the concept of God. I myself believe that this idea exists - as Stark says, what could be more obvious? Moreover, these people believe that the idea of God is worth fighting for. Notice that they don't believe in faith in God! They are too smart for that; they are like the Baker Street Irregulars, who don’t believe in Sherlock Holmes, but continue to simply study and extol books about him. They believe that their God is much better than everyone else and that they need to devote their lives to spreading the Word. However, they do not believe in God in the literal sense of the word.
Some believe that theists believe in God by definition. (After all, atheism is the denial of theism.) However, it is very difficult to study the question of God's existence and find an answer to it, as long as there are self-proclaimed theists who “think that in order to create a satisfactory theistic ethic, it is necessary to abandon the idea of God as some kind of supernatural being” (Ellis, 2004). If God is not a supernatural being, then how can you know if I or you believe in him? Belief in Sherlock Holmes, Pegasus, witches on brooms - these are the simplest cases that are quite easy to refute, having studied them in detail. However, when it comes to God, there is no direct way to get out of the fog of misunderstanding and come to an agreement on the issue under consideration. People do not want to accept the specific definitions of God offered to them (even just for argumentation in a dispute) and do so for interesting reasons. The fog of misunderstanding and ignorance of the words of the interlocutor is not just an annoying obstacle to absolute refutation; this is a structural feature of religion, and therefore it is worth considering this issue separately.