Podcats and the like discussing Daniel Dennett's ideas

[Allyson]

There is a plethora of podcasts that bring up Dawkin’s like a broken record, but there seems to be a dearth of apologists discussing anything from Dennett’s work. My guess is that it easy to them to pick on the man who admits he is not a philosopher rather than someone who is a philosopher. It may also be that Dennett does not discuss ideas that the average apologist is going to dig into, but maybe should.

Does anyone have recommendations of Catholic or other Christian thinkers who actually directly discuss Daniel Dennett? Preferably in podcast or youtube form (I listen while I work), but books are welcome too.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Allyson]

I am guessing that no one else has come across the kinds of materials I am looking for. I am particularly interested in critiques or responses to his explanations of how unintelligent processes give rise to design.

Apologies that it is not a controversial topic

 

[rossum]

I am particularly interested in critiques or responses to his explanations of how unintelligent processes give rise to design.

Unintelligent processes do not give rise to design. They may give rise to the appearance of design.

Apologies that it is not a controversial topic

Hmm…

 

[quaestio45]

Unintelligent processes do not give rise to design.

What do you mean by design? Orderly structure?

 

[rossum]

What do you mean by design? Orderly structure?

No. A crystal has an orderly structure which arises from the chemical properties of the molecules involved, not design.

By ‘design’ I mean something involving intelligence in the planning and/or construction of the object in question.

 

[quaestio45]

By ‘design’ I mean something involving intelligence in the planning and/or construction of the object in question.

Ahh, I see. In that case, nothing in nature can be called designed if there was not in it some origin in a designer, yes? And that would include human beings, I’d assume.

 

[rossum]

Ahh, I see. In that case, nothing in nature can be called designed if there was not in it some origin in a designer, yes? And that would include human beings, I’d assume.

Humans are a part of nature, so something like the Eiffel Tower is a part of nature. It is a designed part but still a part. Just because something is designer does not mean it can ignore the laws of nature. Gravity, thermodynamics and the rest still apply. If a design ignores the natural laws then it fails.

 

[Magnanimity]

There is a plethora of podcasts that bring up Dawkin’s like a broken record, but there seems to be a dearth of apologists discussing anything from Dennett’s work. My guess is that it easy to them to pick on the man who admits he is not a philosopher rather than someone who is a philosopher.

Dawkins, Hitchens and (to a lesser extent) Harris are all on the lower branches of the fruit tree, so yes, they get a lot of attention. WL Craig has vids on YouTube critiquing the new atheists, to include Dennett. Also, the sit down that Dennett did with Keith Ward is worth seeing. Finally, I like Joe Schmid’s critique of “new atheism” on his “majesty of reason” YouTube channel. Just some stuff off the top of my head.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Does he have some new and exciting proof for atheism that nobody else ever thunk up?

 

[Allyson]

Unintelligent processes do not give rise to design. They may give rise to the appearance of design.

True. Lol. I was not being very precise, but I did have appearance in mind. I just rushed a bit and might have wanted to poke the bear. lol

 

[Allyson]

Thanks! That is helpful and confirms what I was thinking about the others in the cohort too. Some seem easier to deal with than others, and so they get more critical attention. I will look up those recommendations.

 

[Allyson]

Nothing particularly new recently, but his books have been around long enough that there should be some well thought out responses by now. That is what I am looking for as listening/reading material.

He is a rather jolly fellow.