I was at the talk. It was packed with professional philosophers and graduate students in philosophy, most of whom sided with Dennett. I wrote live comments on the debate/session. I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga’s position over Dennett’s and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn’t publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion.
Friends, if you can identify me, I request that you keep my identity secret. I am sharing my thoughts as a service to the philosophical community and all those who have an interest in such debates. But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues. This is not to say that all secular analytic philosophers are this way; they most certainly are not. But enough of them are that I cannot risk being known publicly.
Personally I would like to see the cut off of ALl these groups. Muslim or not. Why should tax payers money go to folks who can’t raise funds on their own? It shows incompetence right at the start.
The government should not be in the biz of giving money to private groups to begin with no matter how noble their intentions. How could thy monitor where the money is being used . especially these day’s with so many ethnic groups trying to support unpopular if not bloody causes back home.
It also robs the public will to give to charity. Yet another function the State has absconded with that makes people accountable as human beings.
JMO
…tower of frozen -slime- I meant to say. Never saw such a collection of nasty little back-stabbers in all my life.
Lot of guys who work in academics would last about half the first morning on most construction sites. Not because they couldn’t do the work, but because the other guys would punch them out. Lots of schmuck professors I’ve met over the years, I wouldn’t lend them my ladder.
Alex and SDC can blather on all they want, that’s my personal experience in the matter.
So many things can’t be proved.
Beauty, courage, compassion, love, a sacred dimension to existence. “Proof” is often a poor arbiter in the examination of existence.
Divinity cannot be proved in logical, cognitive terms, because by its very nature divinity is Universal in an ontological sense.
There is no particular in the lexicon of science that can designate an ultimate, universal existence.
In the language of mysticism we have the directions of ‘via positiva’ and ‘via negativa’.
In the East, and in the West also, the language of ‘via negativa’ (not this, not that) is a practice that simply involves a reduction of all statements or particulars until one arrives at a state of being with no quantifiable attributes, only qualitative ones.
Now arguably I like that direction of Tillich and Jung. Divinity is transcendent and also immanent.
Because it is immanent, that means that divinity is within me and therefore this offers me a contact with that which is transcendent.
Most conversations about this are tainted by the idea of God as an imperial king deciding the architecture of his creation. This borrows from biblical language taken from the idea of interactions in a royal court. It is one possible metaphor, but far and away from the most sophisticated ways of thinking about this.
How do we decide about divine “intent”? Is there an intent behind every poem? Is there some rational intent connected with the autumn leaves depositing their colorful array on a quiet brook?
I think the usual arguments between science and religion are misplaced. They often squeeze out the Sacred dimension of life. They do not take into consideration the numinosity of religious experience.
Greg:
Mathematicians have no problem with the concept of infinity.
It is a prejudice of the mind that excludes an infinite Divine. You are quite correct that it is an ontological discussion.
The so called science religion divide is really an imposed false dichotomy.
Science tries to answer the How do things casually connect in life.
Religion tries to answer the Why or Who relationship to the Divine and thus by implication others.
Science and religion attempt to answer different questions, it is the straw man that attempts to impose an intellectual divide.
For instance, one can be a good Christian and still be a good scientist.
In short one’s faith, is not an impediment to doing good science. The faith perspective adds to the sense of wonder and ironically leads to a further inquisitiveness as to how things connect.
Faith in some ways is an heuristic for better science.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von
Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I’m sorry but I just could not wade through all the drivel at the link. I must appologise.
BUT, I will say this:
If your “convictions” aren’t worth a black eye or a bruise or so, then what are they REALLY WORTH?
Pffth!! Yeah like you or anyone else really cares, or even should.
The audio (MP3) of the debate and more information about other similar debates featuring these two scholars is here:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/report-on-plantinga-dennett-debate/