What I'll remember about Daniel Dennett
What I'll remember about Daniel Dennett
The atheist philosopher and author died yesterday at age 82
This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
Daniel Dennett, one of the original “New Atheist” authors who wrote bestselling books introducing philosophy and science to laypeople, died yesterday, of lung disease, at the age of 82. While the announcement came as a surprise to me, I suppose it’s not entirely shocking given his age and health.
I can’t write an obituary that would do his career justice, and I never cared much for the “free will” debate that he was so passionate about. Still, there are two things I associate with him for which I’m extremely grateful.
The first is his book Breaking the Spell (affiliate link) from 2006. It’s the book I’ve always recommended to anyone curious about atheism but who still had a foot on the side of religion. Dennett did a magnificent job explaining how people ought to think about religion without hitting readers over the head with it. He talked about whether science could study religion, why religion developed, why belief in belief was so attractive, and how we could move beyond all that. It’s not as aggressive as the other atheist books that came out around that time. But that’s its strength.
Dennett’s other books, like Darwin’s Dangerous Idea and Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking, were equally provocative and informative. Dennett, perhaps because he spent so many years as a professor, knew exactly how to introduce these topics to an audience that may not have been receptive to those ideas. If other atheists were off-putting, Dennett was the refreshing glass of water eager to help you swallow a bitter pill.
But his books may not even be his most important legacy.
In 2010, Dennett and research Linda LaScola published a fascinating paper about clergy members who questioned God’s existence. These were working pastors who nevertheless doubted the very sermons they were preaching. While the sample was extremely small and hardly random, the biggest revelation was that these people existed. They needed to remain anonymous for the sake of their careers—and their families—but they longed for a way to connect with others in the same position.
That paper eventually led to the creation of the Clergy Project, an online forum for religious leaders who no longer have religious faith. Word spread. Others joined in. There were opportunities for members to learn new skills and give themselves an off-ramp. Some of the members eventually came out—sometimes in very public ways. In 2019, the group announced it had over 1,000 members.
Along the way, there was a book in which even more subjects were interviewed: Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind. There was also an off-Broadway play “The Unbelieving.”
None of that would have happened without Dennett’s initial work. What a gift to leave behind.
I can’t ignore, however, how he dabbled in the same pattern of bigotry that befell other prominent atheists. When anti-trans activist Helen Joyce wrote about her “gender critical” beliefs in 2021, Dennett called it a “sane, humane book.” He added that “The role we all play in letting people be who they want to be is a delicate balancing act,” as if accepting trans people requires some kind of sacrifice on our part.
When the American Humanist Association revoked a lifetime achievement award it once gave to Richard Dawkins on account of his anti-trans tweets, Dennett was firmly on Dawkins’ side. He also passively promoted an embarrassing article written by the head of the Center For Inquiry, claiming identity politics and cancel culture had “torn apart” the Humanist movement… mostly because people were criticizing Dawkins for perpetuating anti-trans talking points.
If there’s any silver lining to all that, it’s that all those incidents were short-lived and he never made those views the centerpiece of his identity. Disappointing to say the least but not the sorts of things that made it into any articles about his life yesterday. Maybe that’s for the best. His books were far more reflective of his thinking—and more nuanced—than any of those tweets. He deserves to be remembered for the projects he dedicated his life to and not careless thoughts he rattled off in defense of his colleagues.
No one gets it right all the time, and people should never be held to impossible standards. Only religion attempts to do that. In the aggregate, Daniel Dennett's work weighs heavily on the positives side of the scale.
I learned of Dan's death right after I had sent him an email about a minor tax issue, relating to the business we formed for the play. We only talked about our mutual interests; I had no knowledge of his comments on trans issues.
There's an obituary of him at the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/books/daniel-dennett-dead.html?searchResultPosition=1 (subscribers only). I will sorely miss him. What a great guy he was.