A bit anticlimactic given the stature of the debaters. Mostly, hair-splitting and reductio ad abdurdum. There were a couple of gems on each side, but, overall, if you’re familiar with Plantinga and Dennett at all, you’ve heard the main premises and rejoinders featured here. ( )

A somewhat interesting debate between the Notre Dame philosopher, Alvin Plantinga and the Co-Director of Tuffs University Center for Cognitive Studies, Daniel C. Dennett, the former a Christian, the latter an atheist. The core of their discussion appears to be whether or not the worldview of naturalism is essential to the conduct of scientific work or simply is an addendum which many scientists assume as part of their worldview even it is not necessary for the conduct of science. ( )

This short book sprang from a debate, and the authors added additional responses to fill out a very short treatment. I read in vain for anything that would justify referring to Plantinga's ideas as "sophisticated theology". They are really just rehashed Paley, with a bit of modern obfuscatory philosophical jargon thrown in to make them sound more sophisticated (and scientific, of course. Equations always sound scientific, right?). He begs the question, he knocks down straw men, he spews out syllogisms with ease but doesn't seem capable of recognizing that his first premise is faulty, and needs to be demonstrated before he can simply declare it as true. For his part, Dennett dissects the arguments with ease, but not with the usual wit and style I'm accustomed to from Dennett. He seems to approach it all with a yawn, a why are we hearing this again, that might work with a crowd that's heard it all before (and I had - there was not one new thing in Plantinga's argument except his ridiculous propostion that there was a conflict between naturalism and science - show us, Dr. Plantinga, don't just quote your Bible belief at us). For a crowd that's new to the debate, and hungry for some red meat (or just some elucidation) it really doesn't deliver very well. Plantinga pitches so many easy strikes to Dennett, and Dennett lets half of them pass by to land with a thud on the ground behind him. Perhaps the fact that Plantinga's arguments could be easily defeated by a well read, intelligent mid-high student led Dennett to take this less seriously than he should. Why didn't he do a better job pointing out his opponent's clear misunderstanding of evolutionary theory? His totally whacked out use of Occam's razor? Overall, it was only a mildly interesting piece, and while I will give Dennett the win, it isn't a particularly clear or strong win, and in a forum where the words weren't written and delivery is everything, he probably wouldn't be able to pull that off. ( )