The Logical Atheist

Re Daniel Dennett: free will buries its undertakers. (Without apologies to Etienne Gilson.)

Sorry to hear about yesterday's death of philosopher Daniel Dennett at 82. He was a leading "new atheist,"  one of the so-called four horsemen along with Christopher Hitchens (also gone), Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Since Dennett was a consciousness denier , I can't regard him as a true friend of reason and hence atheism. ( What's reason without consciousness and free will? ) So I prefer philosopher Gilbert Ryle , economist Ludwig von Mises , and psychiatrist  Thomas Szasz , but then again, if everything is physical, what does  prefer  even mean?

When atheists and theists argue, sooner or later someone will pull the old brain-in-the-vat trick. Typically, the atheist will criticize the theist for offering unfalsifiable arguments for God and use the brain-in-the-vat as an analogy, saying something like, "If we were all brains in vats (or living in Keanu Reeves's  Matrix ), we couldn't possibly know it. So it wouldn't matter." How that refutes the theist, I'm not sure, but it's certainly true that any empirical theory that is said to be consistent with any and all conceivable states of affairs is worth little. It tells us nothing if it rules out nothing. But more can be said on the brain/vat matter. First, in serious discussion no room exists for the arbitrary. An assertion proffered without a smidgen of evidence is inadmissible. As I've said before , "what if ...?" in itself is not an argument. The brain-in-the-vat "challenge" is supposed to introduce doubt about what we have ...

From Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained :  I will explain the various phenomena that compose what we call consciousness, showing how they are all physical  effects of the brain's activities, how these activities evolved, and how they give rise to illusions about their own powers and properties. It is very hard to imagine how your mind could be your brain -- but not impossible. [Emphasis added.] Well, actually it is impossible. The brain is not what we mean when we speak of the mental activities we attribute (metaphorically) to the mind. (Remember, mind  is a verb, not a noun.) Seeing cannot be reduced to anything physical. I see  a thing, dammit! What am I to make of a philosopher or neuroscientist or physicist who has the gall to tell me I'm not really seeing it, but rather my brain is up to such and such, say, sorting out "sense data"? Dennett commits what philosopher Gilbert Ryle -- Dennett's teacher! -- called a "category mistake." Any norm...

Contrary to what many people think, the intellectuals known as the New Atheists pull their punches in their case against theism. Indeed, because they promote a philosophically watered-down version of atheism, they are way too easy on religious believers. While engaged in a worthwhile cause, they go about it in a weak and self-subverting way. How so? By giving undeserved credit to their religious opponents. They could pull the rug right out from under them, but they don’t do it. Too bad. Here’s a typical example: in an interview with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Ron Reagan said this about his lack of belief in God: “You show me evidence, I’ll reconsider, but in the absence of evidence I do not believe.” You can find similar statements from the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins , Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty,* Aron Ra,** and many others, all of whom I respect. Dawkins, a biologist, for example, writes, in The God Delusion , “The existence of God is a sc...