Dennett And Plantinga's Essay: Are Science And Religion Compatible?

1740 Words4 Pages

The title of the book is misleading. Are science and religion compatible? Dennett and Plantinga both agreed that contemporary evolutionary theory is compatible with theistic belief, but Dennett believed that the probability is very low. The main argument turned out to be about Plantinga’s EAAN. Plantinga tried to argue that God could have guided evolution while Dennett believed evolution was unguided. Plantinga’s argument had five premises. He described that P is probability, R is the proposition that cognitive faculties are reliable, N is naturalism, and E is current evolutionary theory (17).
1. P(R/N&E) is low.
2. One who accepts N&E and also sees that 1 is true has a defeater for R.
3. This defeater cannot be defeated.
4. One who …show more content…

Dennett confirms the generalization that people who argue for science do so in an arrogant manner. For example, Dennett’s Supermanism hypothetical belief. This appears to be mocking theists which is unnecessary to do in a scholarly debate. Another condescending example would be the court of law story. Dennett proclaims that naturalism is apparent in the court room. Claiming that Satan and his minions help with the accidental death is a bit ridiculous. If Dennett wants to persuade people, he should use better examples that are not so far-fetched and use a different tone. These arguments will not change one’s mind. Dennett appears to be an angry atheist, just as Dr. House and even House could not change the faith of his patients. Most people do not like listening to angry sounding people. Tone is essential in a debate. Dennett needs to confirm the truth rather than assume the truth in his argument. Another problem I had with Dennett’s debate style is that I am unsure of Dennett’s beliefs. Plantinga outlines what he is arguing in favor of, making his argument easier to read and try to understand. On the other hand, Dennett counters four of Plantinga’s items. Dennett would be more successful if he states his own points, then tries to discredit the points made by Plantinga. This comes off as being more reasonable and less

Open Document