Daniel C. Dennett

Daniel C. Dennett

Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University

Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell (2006). The “On Faith” panelist also is Co-founder of the Curricular Software Studio at Tufts, and has helped design museum exhibits on computers for the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum of Science in Boston, and the Computer Museum in Boston. Dennett has written over 300 scholarly articles on various aspects of the mind in scientific journals. His first book, Content and Consciousness, appeared in 1969. It was followed by Brainstorms (1978), Elbow Room (1984), The Intentional Stance (1987), Consciousness Explained (1991), Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995), Kinds of Minds (1996), and Brainchildren: A Collection of Essays 1984-1996 (1998). He co-edited The Mind's I with Douglas Hofstadter in 1981. Dennett completed his D.Phil degree work under Gilbert Ryle at Oxford in 1965, and has lectured at Harvard University, Pittsburgh and the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. He has received two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science. In 1987 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He spends most of his summers on his farm in Maine, where he harvests blueberries, hay and timber, and makes Normandy cider wine, when he is not sailing. He is also a sculptor. Close.

Daniel C. Dennett

Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University

Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell (2006). more »

Main Page | Daniel C. Dennett Archives | On Faith Archives


Candidates' Religious Hypocrisy Won't Stand

It is fascinating to see how cautiously the candidates are approaching this issue in the run-up to November's election. Everybody apparently thinks -- probably rightly -- that this is a race to be lost by a single fatal misstep, not won by a bold stroke. So nobody is going to come out in favor of secular values or visions, and secularists, like me, are not so foolish as to try to goad any candidate into acknowledging their sympathy for a secular world view if that could cost them the election. Of course, this tradition of mealy-mouthed lip service is something we should try to discredit and dismantle as soon as possible. But not sooner!

We are stuck, for the time being, with what I have called an engine of hypocrisy. Only when people who are not running for office and hence have nothing to lose in this regard have spoken candidly, and for some time, about the preposterousness of the avowals that are now obligatory for all candidates for higher office, can we hope to see candidates dare to follow suit. Those of us who can afford to do so should risk offending all for whom taking offense is a habit and a fine defense against having to think. Bearing this in mind, we secular humanists should speak out early and often, not angrily but matter-of-factly, making it clear that we aren't in the least bit impressed by the avowals of devotion on the part of ANY candidate, but we recognize their need to make those avowals.

The times will change. We can look forward to seeing candidates elected to high public office in the United States -- as they already are in every civilized nation of Europe and many others as well -- without having to mouth any religious formulae at all. The fact is that Americans have already become disillusioned by a President who says God tells him what to do, and would gladly trade him in for somebody who listens carefully to earthly advisers who are well-informed and rational.

Like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," our temporary and gingerly acquiescence in obligatory mouthings is NOT a policy with long-term stability, but we should try to live through it patiently to get to a better world. I don't want my candidates to lie, but I also don't want them to lose.

Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.

Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Reader Response

ALL COMMENTS (148)

Post a comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Top Local Global

On Faith is an interactive conversation on religion moderated by Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is PostGlobal, a conversation on international affairs. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for On Faith to David Waters, its producer.