Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » More theist/atheist bickering

More theist/atheist bickering

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 108 other followers

Old Main, USU


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.


* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.


• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 196,855 hits

Discovered here at Strange Doctrines. The post links to another blog, featuring a blow-by-blow account of a stiff debate between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett at the Central APA last week. I started reading through it, but then lost interest. I’m disappointed that the reporter came away with the very strong feeling that Dennett behaved jerkishly. I’ve never gotten that impression when I’ve seen Dennett, but then again I’m a convert, I suppose. I’ve also seen Plantinga on occasion, and have always found his demeanor quite kind (pastoral, almost), but his arguments absolutely uncompelling — to the point of being … well, obtuse. Oops! Am I being jerkish?


  1. source says:

    It’s sad that the author felt that his or her opinions “could damage or destroy [his or her] career in analytic philosophy.”

    It would be interesting to have a transcript or recording of the debate. I felt that I didn’t understand much of Dennett’s point, and I’d like to know why. Either Dennett really failed to make an argument or the author didn’t understand/like the argument.

    Maybe we should create a philosophy version of YouTube. Anyone could post videos of debates or conferences.


  2. Kleiner says:

    Hmm. I also did not get through the whole thing. Hard to know if Dennett acted ‘jerkishly’. I think people on both sides of this debate can act like jerks. I have heard Plantiga on several occasions and, like Huenemann, cannot imagine him acting jerkishly. All of that said – I do think that some neo-atheists have a tendency to be absurdly dismissive and completely unfair in their presentation of theism (Hitchens is the cover-boy of this tendency, he is a jerk). I think there has been some ‘jerkishness’ on this blog of late, in fact. Calling people ‘deluded and insane’ is just the neo-atheist’s version of religious ‘hellfire and brimstone’.

    I did laugh at this posting:
    ‘2:33 pm – Dennett is having technical difficulties.’

    Is that with his computer, or his mind (since both are really computers on Dennett’s view)?


  3. Rob says:

    Among the comments following the account is someone who claims to have an ipod recording of the event. I would very much like to see or hear it because my suspicion is that some of the negative personal impressions expressed by the author of the account are rather typical of defensive tetchiness of Christian intellectuals these days ( –and rightly so, I think, for both good and bad reasons: simply read Kleiner’s posts).

    I once saw Dennett at a presentation on ‘Darwinism’ and its cultural impact back in the early ’90s and found it obtuse, shallow, and gratuitously condescending, an unworthy clobbering with the yardstick of reason. However, at least since Breaking the Spell, I’ve been greatly impressed by the many versions of his standard presentation one can find on Google Video: they are more cleverly gentle, more nuanced and… I was almost about to write ‘more effective’, but of course don’t believe any of this god chatter is scarcely more than clashing post-hoc-isms, a struggle over the cultural mainstreaming of atheism and open contempt for piety.


  4. Huenemann says:

    I took another glance at the transcript this morning. I agree with Rob that the reporter does seem a little too anxious to see Plantinga as superior. Platinga’s basic argument (I’ve heard it on other occasions) is this:

    1. Suppose we believe in naturalism.
    2. According to naturalism, our cognitive apparatus is selected for survival, not necessarily for gaining truth.
    3. Hence, there is little reason to think our beliefs are true.
    4. Hence, there is little reason to think naturalism is true.

    I think it’s a clever but silly argument. The leap from #2 to #3 is considerable, and a bunch of probability theory is likely only to mask that fact. The brief gestures Dennett allegedly made in response to the argument suggest he was indeed responding to Plantinga’s point.

    I do recognize that my fellow atheists are all too often smug and condescending. On the other hand… demons? Are we to take seriously that our errors might be due to the nasty efforts of demons? I’m not talking vague Cartesian possible doubts, but empirical hypothesis. If Plantinga was honestly suggesting this, he made himself a justifiable target for derision.


  5. Rob says:

    I would like to see Dennett’s response to the final chapter of Nagel’s The Last Word which, as far as I can tell, poses a challenge to naturalism and evolutionary epistemology similar to that of Plantinga’s, but suggests not god as the vague alternative but some kind of (perhaps scarcely less problematic) Platonism. I love that little book, and wish it were required reading for every pomo-prone humanities undergrad with postgrad aspirations. I also think now, after having read it a few times, and heard what strike me as almost reflexive grievances over it from atheists, that Nagel’s recent essay “Public Education and ID” (available from his web page) is more challenging than is generally credited. (Though I have a very specific criticism of it.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: