Plantinga v. Dennet

Here are the notes of the interaction between Alvin Plantinga, a leading Theist philosopher, and one of the "Four Horseman of the New Atheism, Daniel Dennet, , which were provided anonymously by an analytic philosopher who fears that if his identity and his pro-theism viewpoint are revealed, his career could be hurt.

So much for all the whining from atheists about the discrimination they face.

It sounds like Dennet immolated himself by immersing himself too long in the echo chamber of atheism. Here is part of the correspondent's description of Dennet's argument:

3:27 pm - Contemporary evolutionary theory can't rule out ID. "Except on grounds that it is an entirely gratuitous fantasy." Is the punchline an insult?! I am concerned that Dennett is not yet addressing Plantinga's argument.

3:29 pm - Sure, the intelligent theist can keep going on believing. He calls theistic belief a fairy tale. Now he's getting explicitly insulting. He thinks theistic belief can corrupt our common epistemological fabric and involve theism into politics. He shows a slide mocking the eschatological views of Christians. He calls theism an unrespectable position, and compares it to astrology. He says it is irrational and doesn't deserve respect. He gets laughs. He doesn't look good to the theists. Once he got nasty, a cold pall covered the room. He compares theism to holocaust deniers and things have gone off the rails. This is outrageous. All Plantinga must do to beat Dennett now is to reply with grace. For Plantingian dry wit, this is easy.

3:32 pm - "Is Plantinga's theism in any better position than these other fantasies?" He's going to create a Plantinga-guided natural selection. It is hard to explain, but the argument basically mocks Plantinga. I am incensed. The response is a long string of insults, and little more. This is pathetic. I had more faith in Dennett. He is just making the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument and getting laughs from real, intolerant jerks. It is going on and on. Sigh. I wanted this to be interesting! Dennett does not understand what a disservice he does his cause by not taking his smartest opponents seriously. He will lose thoughtful acolytes as a result.

I wonder what Dennet's strategy would have been if he had been in a debate with Holocaust Deniers: would he have attempt the "poison the well" ad hominem strategy by comparing them to Christians? In other words, Dennet's "arguments" seem to have a foundation in the first principle that "what I don't agree with is wrong."

Hardly philosophical.

Then there is this:

3:43 pm - Dennett is going after Plantinga by means of Behe. Dennett is now going after Plantinga's view that he has the mental ability to make the relevant probabilistic judgment about the probabilities of the cells. Dennett thinks that he is making Plantinga look very, very bad. But this is far from clear. For those on the fence, they will likely think Dennett is being a serious jerk.

I've listened to Dennet lecture and debate, and being a jerk seems to be one of his vices. He presents the other sides argument from its worst perspective as if it was the best, and then basis his argument on his caricature. This is debate stuff - sophomoric debate stuff - not real argument, and sarcasm makes the sarcastic person look like a "serious jerk."