• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Dennett believe in a Designer?

20 minutes of verbal gymnastics to get Dennet to say (basically) it’s not imposable.
 
I have some bad news for Dennett's many atheist devotees. He recently declared that life on earth shows signs of having a higher purpose.

Dennett's climactic concession may not sound dramatic. He just agrees reluctantly with my assertion that "to the extent that evolution on this planet" has properties "comparable" to those of an organism's maturation in particular "directional movement toward functionality" then the possibility that natural selection is a product of design gets more plausible.
Click to expand...
Within the context of the ongoing discussions around issues of intentionality in design that have been taking place between Dennett and others (Wright, Gould, Dawkins, Pinker, etc) for many years, this interview is mildly interesting at best. Outside of that context, I think it would be very easy to get the wrong idea about what Dennett said or didn't say.

Right at the end, Wright was practically begging Dennett for some concession (... "to some extent... to any extent...?) Dennett just barely gave him that it was even worthy of discussion. I'd say that what Wright got out of him is a pretty pathetic trophy, but he seemed to need it so badly. Dennett, being a nice guy, threw him a bone. He -- of all people -- should have known better.
 
I should just add that when philosophers say that something that qualified it's usually not so much a grudging admittance as much as agreeing that there may not be a logical contradiction immediately obvious in the statement...
 
Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger

I should just add that when philosophers say that something that qualified it's usually not so much a grudging admittance as much as agreeing that there may not be a logical contradiction immediately obvious in the statement
Click to expand...
Very well said. In fact, upon listening to it again, I realize that Wright asked the question three times. The first time, Dennett answered with almost those exact words: "I don't think it's obviously incoherent... but I don't buy it". The second time, he said: "I don't think it's a good argument". It wasn't until the third and last time that he said: "I guess", but the way he said it was like: "Whateverrrrrr".

Wright is an idiot, and a disingenuous one at that.
 
Also something that Wright would hate to admit is that "Designer" doesn't have to mean a being with the qualities "God"(s) is/are said to have. Just a being able to GE life very very well and create it from raw chemisty. That is something humans should be quite good at within several centuries if not much sooner.
 
Consider the audience: literalists. To literalists, words are "magical" --- if anything short of 100% God-hating atheistic spew comes from his lips, it's a sign. A sign that God is subtly working the truth out through a vessel that normally sends only the Devil's messages. The Holy Spirit is a powerful thing....it just goes to show...
 
Wright's whole deal is:

"... I'm just saying that natural selection, though able to do all the work of designing organisms, may itself be a product of design."

Natural selection may be a product of design?

I think that is incoherent. You can design a racecar. You can design a racetrack. How do you design the fact that the fastest car wins the race? If someone farts out the national anthem, can you sew a button on it?
 
No one can logically deny that a designer is "possible." Of course one is. It is possible that the entire world is the result of complete and total designe from some being called God. However, if it is, that designer designed it with the appearances that a designer is not needed.

It's kind of like modern art. How do you know if a painting is the result of deliberate planning of the artist to create an impression or if it was done by an elephant with paint brushes tied to its feet?

Or that pile of garbage laying on the sidewalk. Are you sure someone dumped it there? Can you deny that is possible that every single piece was placed into position by a bored homeless person? How do you distinguish between a naturally resulting pile of garbage and an intelligently designed pile of garbage? Assuming the designer is very clever, he could easily create a pile of garbage indistinguishable from one that is formed by tipping over a garbage can.


There is a long way from "it is possible" to "there must be."
 
pgwenthold said:

There is a long way from "it is possible" to "there must be."
Click to expand...
So true. Yet, if you are not a 100% certain materialist/atheist, what *is* your coherent and logical worldview?

Dennett just dropped below 100%.
 
hammegk said:
So true. Yet, if you are not a 100% certain materialist/atheist, what *is* your coherent and logical worldview?

Dennett just dropped below 100%.
Click to expand...

To how many significant figures?

I will admit that I may be below 100%, but it is certainly 100 to 3 sig figs (and 4 and 5 and 6. OK, maybe not 7, making it 99.9999%)
 
pgwenthold said:
To how many significant figures?

I will admit that I may be below 100%, but it is certainly 100 to 3 sig figs (and 4 and 5 and 6. OK, maybe not 7, making it 99.9999%)
Click to expand...

I should mention that one needs not be 100% to be an atheist. Heck, it can be argued that one only needs to be 51% sure to reject belief in god.

(or you could say that one is less than 50% sure there is a god)
 
pgwenthold said:
I should mention that one needs not be 100% to be an atheist. Heck, it can be argued that one only needs to be 51% sure to reject belief in god.

(or you could say that one is less than 50% sure there is a god)
Click to expand...
Of course; the question is what comprises the other 49% (or .0001%). If not some form of (rediculous) interactive dualism, that is?
 
hammegk said:
Of course; the question is what comprises the other 49% (or .0001%). If not some form of (rediculous) interactive dualism, that is?
Click to expand...

I already gave you one scenerio: it is a "god" who looks and acts and designs exactly the same as one would get if there weren't a god there in the first place.

When I look at a pile of leaves in my front yard, I can't rule out the possibility that someone came through during the day and carefully placed each and every leaf into its exact position. Therefore, I cannot say I am 100% (to n significant digits) certain that the leaves were blown into the pile by the wind. However, that doesn't change the fact that I believe they were.
 
pgwenthold said:
I already gave you one scenerio: it is a "god" who looks and acts and designs exactly the same as one would get if there weren't a god there in the first place.
Click to expand...

I see. Is this god made of the same stuff your leaves are made of, and can, therefore at least in theory be causally efficacious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom