{"id":12795,"date":"2009-02-24T17:08:04","date_gmt":"2009-02-24T17:08:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/02\/24\/the-recent-dennettplantinga-a-p-a-debate-and-the-question-of-tone-in-philosophy\/"},"modified":"2009-02-24T17:08:04","modified_gmt":"2009-02-24T17:08:04","slug":"the-recent-dennettplantinga-a-p-a-debate-and-the-question-of-tone-in-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/02\/24\/the-recent-dennettplantinga-a-p-a-debate-and-the-question-of-tone-in-philosophy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Recent Dennett-Plantinga A. P. A. Debate and the Question of Tone in Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"

This just over the transom (interspersed comments in blue by BV):<\/font><\/p>\n

I regularly follow your blog, and have for a couple of years now. I have considerable respect for you as both a philosopher and a communicator in general – you seem to get curt or impatient at times, but you still manage to be civil even then, and your treatment of arguments in your posts always comes across as fair and in the spirit of trying to best represent the views of those you are discussing.<\/p>\n

I mention all this because my question is this. What do you make of exchanges along the lines of what was recently recounted on Prosblogion, between <\/font>Dennett and Plantinga<\/font><\/a>? I'm not talking about the content in this case, but the tone. Is it really the case that arguments in favor of God\/theism in general, and Christianity in particular, are treated with open mockery and derision even in what is supposed to be a professional exchange by a respected philosopher? Is Dennett representative of how naturalists treat theists\/Christians in discussion, or is he exceptional?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

BV:  I would have to say that the tendency  towards open mockery and derision is on the rise.  One of the worst examples among professional philosophers is A. C. Grayling.  I document his excesses in the following posts.  <\/font><\/span>A. C. Grayling and a Stock Move of Militant Atheists.<\/font><\/span><\/a>  <\/font><\/span>Is Religious Instruction Child Abuse?<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Is Dennett representative?  Dennett is a sorry specimen in my opinion and something of a sophist to boot.   I document his shenanigans in a number of posts on the old site, but I'll mention two:  <\/font><\/span>Dennett's Dismissal of Dualism<\/font><\/span><\/a>; <\/font><\/span>The Spook-Stuff Chronicles: Danny Dennett Meets Casper the Friendly Ghost.<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

There is a surprising amount of uninformed hostility to substance dualism in the departments of philosophy.  Here is a post in which I demonstrate the incompetence of the Stanford philosophy department head on the question of substance dualism: <\/font><\/span>Is Substance Dualism Dead? Incompetence at Philosophy Talk, The Blog.<\/em><\/font><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

It is a long and complicated story, but you need to bear in mind that the academic world is dominated by the Left, that the Left is anti-religion, and that substance dualism and anti-naturalism generally are taken as giving aid and comfort to religion; ergo, don't be surprised at the shabby tactics and hostility and mockery of people like Dennett and Dawkins.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>I have a great interest in philosophy, though I admit to being an utter amateur. I had what I can only supps a naivete about philosophy – that philosophers were by and large concerned with arguments, but also with respect and fairness. That comparing opposing views, even minority views, to holocaust denial or similar mockery was professionally considered to be in bad form. But now, philosophy – like science, like politics, like so much else – seems to me to be tainted with bias, dogma, and otherwise. This doesn't reflect on the arguments, of course – someone who is rude, obnoxious and right is rude, obnoxious and right. But with Dennett (and others, I have to admit), it seems that even attempting to prove the anti-theist\/anti-Christian view, or disprove the theist\/Christian view, is viewed as a liability – that even taking such arguments seriously can't be suffered, and the hope is to snort, laugh, and generally insult the opposition away.<\/font><\/p>\n

I ask all this because I am torn. For instance, I recently read Edward Feser's <\/font>The Last Superstition<\/font><\/a>. I loved his arguments and criticisms, but was turned off by his tone towards those who disagree with him – liberals and atheists in particular, even though I greatly sympathize with his view. But as I watch the behavior of Dennett and others, I now feel as if professional philosophers – at least when it comes to popular, divisive issues – can and will immediately sacrifice civility and courtesy if they think it will best serve to advance their metaphysical\/social\/political ideals. And if that means that divisive, insulting rhetoric will win the crowd and make the opposition squirm, then that's the order, no matter how unfair it is.<\/font><\/p>\n

BV:  I haven't read The Last Superstition<\/em>, but I did read Feser's book on the philosophy of mind, and it is very good.  One of the issues here is whether or not there is any place in philosophy for polemic. The question is not whether there is a legitimate place for polemic in human discourse; the answer to that, it seems to me, is obviously affirmative.  The question is whether there is a legitimate place for polemic in philosophy<\/em>.  I tend to answer in the negative.  But the issue is not at all clear.  I refer you to my post <\/font><\/span>Edward Feser on Philosophy and Polemics<\/font><\/span><\/a>.  In this post I reproduce Feser's essay "Can Philosophy be Polemical?"  In it, Feser mentions a couple of polemical pieces of mine directed against Paul Edwards and David Stove.  Since these two are viciously  polemical, I feel justified in giving them, or their shades, a taste of their own medicine. But here is the problem: Is one ever justified in philosophy in replying in kind?  And if so, when?  If one answers the scurrilous rubbish of David Stove, does one bring attention to something better buried in silence?  Difficult questions.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

And what about Ann Coulter?  I have argued that conservatives ought to dump her since she hurts the cause.  See <\/font><\/span>Time for Conservatives to Deep-Six Ann Coulter.<\/font><\/span><\/a>  <\/font><\/span>On Ann Coulter.<\/font><\/span><\/a>  But many conservatives think that Coulter's bombast is needed to counter the crapola emanating from the Left.  And then there is that Ann Coulter of philosophy, Ayn Rand. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

I apologize if this is rambling, so to make it easier, let me repeat my questions.<\/p>\n

1) Do you have any take of your own on Dennett v Plantinga, in terms of behavior?  Not having witnessed their interchange, I cannot comment.<\/span>
2) Is Dennett's manner of engaging theists\/Christian arguments (dismissive, smug, insulting, judging the arguments as not worth engaging to begin with) common? That's my experience.<\/span>
3) If I recall, you're a theist of some sort, and certainly not a materialist. Have you ever experienced such insults from fellow professional philosophers, and if so, how do you cope with it? Both as a philosopher and as an individual?  <\/font>Of course.  I view it all with Olympian detachment and refuse to have anything to do with such people.  If they are foolish enough to show up here, I delete their comments and block them from the site.  Nasty e-mail is deleted unread.  Just as I am careful about what I allow into my stomach, I am careful about what I allow into my mind.  Good rules are: never debate anyone, and never respond to attacks.<\/span> 
<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This just over the transom (interspersed comments in blue by BV): I regularly follow your blog, and have for a couple of years now. I have considerable respect for you as both a philosopher and a communicator in general – you seem to get curt or impatient at times, but you still manage to be civil … Continue reading “The Recent Dennett-Plantinga A. P. A. Debate and the Question of Tone in Philosophy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12795"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12795\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}