Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? (Point/Counterpoint)

This work started out on a very promising note, with Platinga outlining his reasons for believing in theistic evolution. It was clear from the start that he was no so-called Young Earth Creationist or proponent of Intelligent Design. This I found rather refreshing. In a nut shell, the essence of his first essay was that evolution makes more sense within a conceptual framework that includes a Deity than one in which random chance filtered through natural selection guides life's development.Given Dennett's reputation, I expected a cogent and thoughtful reply. I was wrong. His response was akin to the old fallacy of appeal to ridicule. He compared belief in God to the idea that Superman created the universe. Platinga responded by taking the bait, explaining patiently why the god he believes in cannot be compared to Superman, the flying spaghetti monster, or any of the other fictional beings that atheists have compared the biblical God to.Dennett responds with blanket assertions that unguided evolution is a settled matter, but never offers arguments to prove this. Part of this was due to the brevity of the volume, I am sure. But I felt he could have made a better effort of it. I strongly got the impression that he refused to take the exchange seriously and relied entirely on his rhetorical skills to guide his contributions.Nonetheless, there were a few times when the exchange revealed enough of each man's thinking to shed some genuine light on the matters that were being discussed. Here's a brief quote from Dennett, page 46:"To anyone but a devout christian, these (the New Testament miracles such as virgin birth, walking on water, and turning water into wine)are just as silly, just as foolish as Supermanism. If Platinga were to claim that he himself had performed any of the feats, he would thereby destroy his own credibility. We know perfectly well that human like creatures and humans can't do any such things."What I found to be "silly" is that Dennett actually said this. In the last 100 years or so, humans, and possibly even "human like creatures," have mastered flight, traveled to the moon, probed the subatomic world, and developed medical techniques that would have been hailed as miracles in ages past. To declare that such feats as changing water to wine can't be done is to assume that our knowledge and abilities will never progress beyond their current level. The burden of proof is on Dennett to dismiss these stories as flatly impossible, not on Platinga and other Christians who cede their possibility. As Arthur C. Clarke once said, a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.Platinga gets Dennett's number on page 59, however, when he writes:"Richard Dawkins once complained that opponents of evolution sometimes resort to an argument from personal incredulity. They claim that the theory of evolution is false because they personally find it hard to believe. Dennett and others make that same kind of argument from personal incredulity against theism."Exactly. And to avoid the possibility of divine influence in evolution they go to extraordinary lengths. I've read theoretical accounts of how certain traits and features supposedly arose. They are filled with speculation about genes being "accidentally" copied, coincidentally drifting across species, and luckily finding themselves in the right organism at the right time to enable it to develop a survival-enhancing feature. What a fantastic and untenable series of "accidents" must have occurred endless times to develop multi-cellular life, not to mention the structure of the eye, the chambers of the heart, the capabilities of the brain, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.The truth is, both options sound incredible, yet one must be true. I believe that the theistic alternative is the more sensible. So does Platinga. Belief in Sky Daddy requires no more faith than believing in the atheist's Casino Daddy. "Keep rolling those biochemical dice, boys! We'll have a human race in another millennia or my name isn't Lucky Louie!"In the end there is only one argument for God's existence: the one from design; and there is but a singular one against his existence: the argument from evil. This fact was touched on in this brief book, but thoughtful readers will need to look beyond it for details. Nonetheless, it serves as an introduction to the salient issues, and as an insight into the personal psychology of each of its participants. For those reasons it is worth reading.

As a philosopher myself, and particularly one who is interested in the philosophy of religion, I am always delighted to read top-level philosophers engaged in the topic. In the book Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Tufts University, represented the atheistic side and the view that science and religion were not compatible. Alvin Plantiga, professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, represented the theistic side.The book itself is a reprinting of a debate that Dennett and Plantiga had at a philosophy conference years ago, but it has been updated with a few things they have said since then. Usually, when there are debates about this topic, there is a lot of sarcasm and snark from both sides. I am happy to report that both sides are polite and respectful of one another, even if they disagree and tease each other a little at certain points.While both of these men are imminent in their field, one thing this book shows from cover to cover is how specialized philosophy has become. It used to be that philosophers were well schooled in all areas of philosophy but specialized in one area. This is no longer the case and it shows. Dennett, being a philosopher of science, knew science very well, but he did not seem to understand the classical arguments for the existence of God or the metaphysics that undergird religion. Plantiga on the other hand seemed to get his scientific ideas from the Discovery Institute, since all he did was quote Michael Behe when making scientific statements. But, he did know the classical arguments and metaphysics of religion quite well.Plantiga starts the conversation off by saying that science and religion are not incompatible because Christians (he uses the term Christian rather than theist throughout the debate) believe that God has created the natural world and it is very possible that God did so using the evolutionary process. Plantiga goes on to say that the real problem is not between science and religion; it is between science and naturalism. Plantiga defines naturalism as belief that there is no God or anything like God (which would be atheism, not naturalism), and says that if naturalism is true there is no reason to believe that our cognitive faculties cannot be trustworthy because evolution cares about keeping traits that contribute to survival rather than truth.Dennett you would think would disagree being on the other side of the debate. But, he opens up by stating that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, and that one can believe in both and be logically consistent. Where Dennett disagrees is that there is any reason to think that there is a God or that religion works just because it is logically compatible with science. He uses Superman as an example and gives him the traits usually associated with God in classical theism (omniscience, omnipotence, and so on) and says that "Supermanism" is also compatible with evolution, but he sees no reason to believe in either.Plantiga responded by repeating his argument about naturalism and evolution both being true being a low possibility; Dennett struck back by saying that just because Plantiga could not imagine something did not mean that something wasn't true. This is ultimately where the debate stopped because in the end both sides agreed: Science and Religion do not have an inherent conflict. I found it odd that two people would write a book about something where they were in agreement.The book itself is only 77 pages, so it can be read in one sitting, and it is not overly technical; both the trained philosopher and the novice can enjoy and learn from it. Also, Dennett and Plantiga are colorful people, so you will laugh at times (or you should at least).While the book is a match between two heavyweights in the field of philosophy, do not expect Muhammad Ali vs. George Foreman here. There is more agreement than disagreement, but overall it is still enjoyable. 3 out of 5 stars.

I was excited to see this book, simply because the weight of the scholars debating this issue. Daniel Dennett and Alvin Plantinga are both very good philosophers. This little point/counterpoint book is exactly what we would expect from these passionate, very intelligent men debating an issue that draws public attention from university discussions to presidential races.Plantinga begins by arguing science and Christianity are compatible, but there is in fact a disagreement between science and religion. Using his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), Plantinga classifies evolution as the science that naturalism (a religion) is incompatible with. Of course, Plantinga maintains we should abandon naturalism, pointing out theism is much more compatible with evolution.Dennett strikes back, likening theistic belief to a belief in Supermanism or something equally absurd. Trying to outmaneuver Plantinga's EAAN, Dennett attacks the idea that the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties through evolution given naturalism is low.In the replies to one another that follow these initial statements, the debate is very lively and interesting. It's a fine read, especially for the philosophically minded.

Very balanced and well worth a read if like me you question the value of religion.

I was quite disappointed by this book. I have almost all of Dennett's books, from long before he got into the anti-religion business and found them all very illuminating. So I expected to see more of the same brilliance.However, this book is a debate between Dennett and Alvin Plantinga, both professional philosophers. The debate topic is supposed to be the title of the book, but Plantinga narrows it to evolution is compatible with Christian belief. This narrowing is partially reasonable. There may well be extreme religions which are not compatible with much of any kind of reason. However, narrowing "science" to "evolution" makes the argument trivial, especially Plantinga's version. He says that his god logically could have intervened with evolution, leading to us as was his purpose. Dennett concedes this argument and points out that of course, so could Superman, or a thousand other equally unlikely beings. Plantinga says, "so what, it is still possible that god did it, and that's what I believe".They go on in that vein for a while, but it is hard to maintain interest in such a trivial debate.The invective can be entertaining for a while but not much to take away.

Passionnant pour les amateurs de discussions intellectuelles. Deux brillants esprits se confrontent à un problème métaphysique qui n'a pas de solution. Kant a décrit son embarras face à des questions inévitables et sans réponses. Pascal a bien compris la vanité de telles discussions qui veulent mêler l'intelligence et l'émotion, la raison étant réduite à des rationalisations des sentiments."Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas" disait-il. Il faut dire qu'il était janséniste et que la foi tenait de la grâce accordée (ou non)par Dieu, donc indépendante de la volonté humaine. L'intellectuel pape Benoît 16 avait voulu ranimer le débat, voulant à tous prix éviter que la foi redevienne celle "du charbonnier", sous entendu, des non intellectuels dominés par leurs émotions. Or celle-ci est en effet fondée sur les sentiments de peur ( la mort, l'inconnu, le mal) et d'admiration (la beauté de l'univers, l'ordre du monde, le chant des étoiles). Certains humains y sont sensibles, d'autres pas (ou moins). Cela dépend essentiellement de leur patrimoine génétique et de leur expérience socio-culturelle. C'est cela que l'on peut dénommer la "grâce". Quant à la volonté, comme le pensait Spinoza, nous nous croyons libre car on ignore les motivations qui nous poussent vers tel ou tel acte. Cela n'empêche pas que l'on puisse discuter pour le plaisir et que l'on soit déiste ou non, de se comporter de manière appropriée vis à vis de la société humaine. On peut discuter plus utilement de "la manière appropriée" plutôt que d'aller (trop souvent) jusqu'à s'empoigner sur le concept de Dieu en occident, qui mène pour ceux qui y croit, jusqu'au kamikase.