OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum - View Single Post

**Gendo Ikari** · 10-27-2007, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

If you're reading Dennett and Dawkins' books (e.g. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "The God Delusion") then I would recommend that you balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy.

Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy" which will direct you to the Calvin University site ... then search there for Plantinga (Alvin) who is probably the world's foremost Christian philosopher. There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark.

My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity.

Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list and Plantinga is virtually unheard of outside Christian circles ... most people simply don't to deal with deep thinking and logic.

Hi Frosty,

I agree that Dawkins books have a distinct populist flavour but they provide some semblance of an attempt to balance out the proselytising bible-thumpers who push their own insubstantial arguments in attempting to convert the plebians. The price you pay for being a populist writer is losing the ability to go more than skin-deep - I'd say the Dawkins book is there for those who want an overview but they'd likely want to go deeper to combat more plausible and complex arguments. At any rate, I'd wager very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level themselves.

Plantinga is an interesting philosopher though, I know vaguely of his contributions to modal logic but his attempts to resurrect the ontological argument remain controversial.

10-27-2007, 03:11 PM	#34 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 99	Originally Posted by frosty If you're reading Dennett and Dawkins' books (e.g. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "The God Delusion") then I would recommend that you balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy. Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy" which will direct you to the Calvin University site ... then search there for Plantinga (Alvin) who is probably the world's foremost Christian philosopher. There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark. My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity. Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list and Plantinga is virtually unheard of outside Christian circles ... most people simply don't to deal with deep thinking and logic. Hi Frosty, I agree that Dawkins books have a distinct populist flavour but they provide some semblance of an attempt to balance out the proselytising bible-thumpers who push their own insubstantial arguments in attempting to convert the plebians. The price you pay for being a populist writer is losing the ability to go more than skin-deep - I'd say the Dawkins book is there for those who want an overview but they'd likely want to go deeper to combat more plausible and complex arguments. At any rate, I'd wager very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level themselves. Plantinga is an interesting philosopher though, I know vaguely of his contributions to modal logic but his attempts to resurrect the ontological argument remain controversial.