SisyphusRedeemed
Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame) delivers a paper at the 2009 Central Division of the American Philosophical Association in Chicago, entitled “Religion and Science: Where the Real Conflict Lies.” Daniel Dennett (Tufts) comments.
No, this is not my recording, but yes, I was at this talk (I actually ask the very first question in the Q&A (I didn’t express myself well, but Plantinga seemed to get the jist). I tried to record it, but my camera wasn’t working. So I found this recording online, and thought the YouTube community might enjoy.
Source
I was recently introduced to Dennett, (Dawkins has a YouTube channel called "the four horsemen" where Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens sit down for a chat).
I haven't decided if I like him yet, If you have read any of his books, what did you think?
Yeah, I drove up to Chicago pretty much just for that session. There were a few other talks I wanted to see (and some old friends), but that was really the main event for me.
I obviously disagree with him, but I can't agree with your characterization of him. If you look at some of his non-religious work, for example, it's quite clear what a bright man he is. It's just a shame that so much of his prodigious intellect is wasted in defense of a mistaken doctrine. But then again, his doing that keeps the rest of us honest, I suppose.
I've read "Breaking the Spell" (his book on religion), "Elbow Room" (his book on free will) and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (his book on evolution.) I enjoyed all of them. He's an engaging and clear writer. I disgree with a lot of what he says (especially in "Elbow Room"), but I enjoy the process of disagreeing, so it's still good.
I went to the Eastern Division meeting last year. I saw Ray Kurtzweil, Ned Block, Hilary Putnam, and Bas van Fraassen.
I thought maybe Dennett would be there (since we works at Tufts) but he wasn't.
I was at the Kurzweil talk at the Eastern last year, too. I asked him a question as well (on behalf of John Searle). I also saw the Putnam talk, and the President's lecture from Appiah. It would have been a good conference overall… had it not been for the fact that I was on the job market, which is always a miserable experience.
I'm still in undergrad, and so I still have some time before I have to look around for a philosophy job.
Unless, of course, I don't get into grad school… in which case I'll be looking for a job waiting tables.
First off, who says that Dennett is parroting Dawkins, as opposed to simply making the same point independently? Second, what's wrong with parroting Dawkins, even if he is? If Dawkins makes a good point, then he should be echoed.
Ah, okay, sorry I missed that part of the thread.
But my basic question still stands: simply saying 'you sound like Dawkins and Dawkins makes bad arguments' is no response to happyslopide's question. If you think his point is poor then say why it's poor; pointing out that it's 'Dawkins-esque' is neither here nor there.
Moreover, there are no special criteria for being a theologian, philosopher or deep-thinker. Your claim that Dawkins is not these things is nothing more than ad hominem.
"the vast majority of thinkers today DO NOT take him seriously."
Do you have a citation for this? Was there a poll of 'thinkers' who were asked their opinion on Dawkins? Or are you just assuming?
"he uses evolution as an argument against God."
Yeah, because it demolishes one of the best arguments for God, the biological argument from design. Once you undermine the other arguments (which Dawkins at least attempts to do) then you've got a strong case against God. Makes perfect sense to me.
"I don't know of any theist who uses this"
So you've never heard of St. Thomas? Or Michael Behe? Or Alvin Plantinga for that matter?
"Didn't know you liked poor philosophy"
You've made no argument, provided no evidence for your claims, made bald assertions and ad hominem attacks, and I am the one who likes poor philosophy? All I've done is ask you to back up the rather ambitious claims you've made, and you're evading.
"don't bother responding"
Sorry, never was very good at following orders.
I was at the Plantinga/Dennett debate, but the 'question on behalf of John Searle' was in reference to a talk by Ray Kurzweil at the Eastern APA in '07. And no, I was not a student of Searle's, but I know his stuff reasonably well (I've also listened to his TTC lectures, and read some of his books). Although Searle has only done the one lecture series for TTC, they do have a good great ideas in philosophy series.
how much material is missing from the end of the 11th video and the beggining of the 12th? And thanks for posting
I think there was about a minute, or maybe a minute and a half. I tried to get the whole thing, but technical complications being what they are…
This is off topic, but Dawkins makes a horrible philosopher. I won't comment on the subject on whether he's a deep thinker, I think he has shown he is. However, this is only applicable to his native field of interest — biology.
I feel more comfortable hearing Dennett speak on the subject of religion in the context of philosophy.
I've heard more than one person say Dawkins is a poor philosopher, but I've never heard anyone say why they think so, other than (1) he's not trained as a philosopher or (2) simply that they disagreed with his conclusions, neither of which are good arguments. Can you tell me specifically why you think he's a poor philosopher?
Clear win for Dennett. I'm so glad we got people like him to keep us sane. He deserves to go to heaven! 😉
Man, TheIrrationalAtheist is kind of a jerk… maybe that's what he means by "thinker"
SisyphusRedeemed,
I get kind of lost in Plantinga's "propositions 'A' and 'Q' defeating 'R'" type talk. Is this very common in this type of philosophical discourse? It seems to me like it just obscures the point he's trying to make.
As far as I can tell it just breaks down to the fact that he doesn't understand why our beliefs should track reality. Is this the gist?
TheIrrationalAtheist,
What exactly is Pantinga's argument against naturalism? If you could help me break it down more simply it would be appreciated. It mostly seemed like hand waving to me.
Sadly it is rather common, not just for Plantinga, but for many analytically trained philosophers, and it can be rather alienating if you're not used to it. It can be easier if you can read it, rather than just hearing it.
I don't think you've quite got the gist. I take Plantinga's basic point to be that natural selection selects for surviving-behavior, not true beliefs, and there is no reason to think that the later would come along with the prior.
Yeah, that's his point, but AHBritton probably has the counterargument in mind when he says Plantinga doesn't understand why our beliefs should track reality.
Because that's basically what it's all about. If Plantinga had any understanding of this, he'd realize that the kinds of "false, but useful" beliefs he proposes are exponentially unlikely to create a coherent system of ideas that's useful for making predictions. True beliefs have the advantage of not having to fight reality.
Dennett's argument seems to be summed up thusly – I don't like belief in God.