{"id":14483,"date":"2024-05-21T20:05:54","date_gmt":"2024-05-21T10:05:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/?p=14483"},"modified":"2024-05-21T20:06:37","modified_gmt":"2024-05-21T10:06:37","slug":"dennetts-dangerous-ideas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2024\/05\/21\/dennetts-dangerous-ideas\/","title":{"rendered":"Dennett’s dangerous ideas"},"content":{"rendered":"

A stanza in the Buddhist text <\/span>Dhammapada<\/span><\/i> states: \u201cThere never was, there never will be, nor does there exist now a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The obituaries for materialist philosopher and Darwinist \u2013 a few would say \u2018ultra Darwinist\u2019 \u2013 Daniel Dennett, who died on 19 April, exemplify the essential correctness of the Buddhist text. While some have provided solid praise for the late philosopher, others have equivocated about his work. Some have been quite critical, although not \u2018blaming\u2019 him as such.<\/span><\/p>\n

What would Professor Dennett have thought about me quoting from a Buddhist text? Arguably, Buddhism, in its original form and in the context of ancient Indian philosophy of 2500 years, was an atheistic creed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I recall reading a mocking critique of Dennett in the <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i> in 2006. Leon <\/span>Wieseltier<\/span>, who reviewed Dennett\u2019s book <\/span>Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon<\/span><\/i><\/a>, asserted that Dennett seemed to cultivate the impression that he was \u201cGiordano Bruno with tenure at Tufts University\u201d. Thankfully, the obituaries of Dennett have not been as scathing.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dennett has been both the \u2018mocked\u2019 and the \u2018mocker\u2019. The first work of Dennett\u2019s that I read was his critique of the late palaeontologist and science historian Stephen Jay Gould. In Dennett\u2019s book <\/span>Darwin\u2019s Dangerous Idea<\/span><\/i><\/a>, first published 1995, there is a chapter headed \u2018Bully for Brontosaurus\u2019 \u2013 the title of one of Gould\u2019s books. Dennett strongly critiques Gould\u2019s views and statements regarding biological evolution.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In a critique of Gould\u2019s 1989 book, <\/span>Wonderful Life: Burgess Shale and the Nature of History<\/span><\/i><\/a>, Dennett seemingly mocks Gould with one sub-chapter headed \u2018Tinker to Evers to Chance: The Burgess Shale. Double-Play Mystery\u2019. In another sub-chapter, Dennett queries whether Gould was \u2018The Boy Who Cried Wolf\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Later, in the <\/span>New York Review of Books<\/span><\/i>, Dennett and Gould debated aspects of evolution. One aspect of the Dennett-Gould \u2018dispute\u2019 went back to events about 520 million years ago \u2013 plus or minus several million years. The Burgess Shale in Canada is where animal fossils were discovered in the early 20<\/span>th<\/span> century. In <\/span>Wonderful Life<\/span><\/i>, Gould asserted that \u201cturn the wheel of life a million times\u201d to around 520 million years ago, <\/span>Homo sapiens<\/span><\/i> or human-like creatures \u2013 and, in fact, even mammals \u2013 would not have arisen in this \u201ccounter evolutionary factual hypothetical\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dennett made light of Gould\u2019s narrative as \u201cBurgess double-play mystery\u201d. Suffice to say that, after reading Dennett\u2019s critiques of Gould and their debates, I side with Gould.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It is not only Dennett who mocked Gould for devising the construct of \u201creplaying the tape of life\u201d. Simon Conway Morris was extremely critical of Gould in his 1998 book (written in direct response to Gould\u2019s thesis) \u2013 <\/span>The Crucible of Creation: Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals<\/span><\/i><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Admirers and detractors have considered Dennett to be ultra- Darwinist and atheist. Conway Morris is one evolutionist who can by no means be considered an atheist.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I venture to suggest that Conway Morris is a neo-Christian palaeontologist. He is an \u2018anti-atheist\u2019 (not \u2018anti-theist\u2019). In one of his articles, he declared there were \u201cno mourners\u201d beside the \u201ccoffin of atheism\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Twenty years after Gould\u2019s death, Conway Morris, in his book <\/span>From Extraterrestrials to Animal Minds<\/span><\/i>: <\/span>Six Myths of Evolution<\/span><\/i><\/a> (2022), is still critiquing. Just as Dennett and Gould debated, Conway Morris and Gould debated \u2013 mainly regarding the Burgess Shale animals. Their debates were reproduced on a website devoted to Gould\u2019s writings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dennett and Conway Morris converge \u2013 although, not in the evolutionary and paleontological sense \u2013 in their critiques of Gould regarding the Burgess Shale \u201cdouble-play mystery\u201d. But these critiques came from different philosophical standpoints. In Conway Morris\u2019 <\/span>Six Myths of Evolution<\/span><\/i>, it appears to me that there were more negative, critical comments of Gould than of Dennett.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conway Morris derided Dennett\u2019s assertion that Darwinism is \u201cuniversal acid: handle with care\u201d \u2013 reflecting a chapter title in <\/span>Darwin\u2019s Dangerous Idea<\/span><\/i>. Dennett described Conway Morris\u2019 attempt to justify his neo-Christian postulates with the process of evolution as being \u201cbizarrely self-involved\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Evolution-wise and philosophically, I strongly prefer\u00a0 Dennett\u2019s views to that of Conway Morris, even if I would demur from some of Dennett\u2019s statements. I strongly reject Conway Morris\u2019 attempt to Christianise the evolution process. <\/span>Science writer Martin Gardner \u2013 a columnist of \u2018Mathematical Games\u2019 columns in <\/span>Scientific American<\/span><\/i> for decades and an author of numerous books debunking pseudoscience \u2013 critiqued Dennett\u2019s <\/span>Consciousness Explained<\/span><\/i><\/a>.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Gardner was a philosophical theist \u2013 although, not an adherent of any Abrahamic religion \u2013 and \u2018mysterian\u2019. In an essay, he quoted with approval someone writing in the 1920s who said, if humanity were to survive, a million years from now there would be things humans would not know.<\/span><\/p>\n

Did Gardner consider that one of the things humans could not know, even in a million years, was the nature of human consciousness? In an introduction to one of his books, he stated that Dennett\u2019s 1991 book, <\/span>Consciousness Explained<\/span><\/i>,<\/span> was \u201cbrazenly titled\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I believe Dennett implicitly acknowledged there were things that would not be easily discernible by humans. Nevertheless, as early as 1991 Dennett had come up with, if not a solution, \u2018explanations\u2019 about human consciousness.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Would Dennett agree with the statement made in the book <\/span>Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism<\/span><\/i><\/a>, published in the 1960s, that \u201cMarxists believe that there are things Mankind has not yet known, but not that humans cannot know\u201d? Replace \u2018Marxists\u2019 with \u2018ultra-Darwinist\u2019, \u2018philosophical materialist\u2019 or \u2018atheist\u2019. Would the non-mysterian Dennett agree with that assertion? Perhaps the answer should not be that much of a mystery.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Philosopher and jurist Thomas Nagel delivered a non-materialist critique of Dennett\u2019s \u2018illusions\u2019. An older contemporary of Dennett, Nagel is considered by some to be an atheist \u2013 perhaps a \u2018soft\u2019 one, if it can be put that way. Although, having read three of Nagel\u2019s books, I do not discern any concrete or implied statement that he considers himself to be an atheist.<\/span><\/p>\n

While Nagel may be an atheist, philosophically he is definitely not a materialist in the mould of Dennett. It is clear from the title of his 2012 book, <\/span>Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False<\/span><\/i><\/a>, that Nagel does not share Dennett\u2019s materialist views.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Several days before I learned of Dennett\u2019s demise, I read Nagel\u2019s review of Dennett\u2019s book, <\/span>From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds<\/span><\/i><\/a>. The review\u2019s title is \u2018Dennett\u2019s Illusions\u2019. The review is partly complimentary and partly critical. The title, \u2018Dennett\u2019s Illusions\u2019, is double-edged. It is in part a narration with qualified support for Dennett\u2019s claim that human consciousness is an illusion. And it is a subtle indication that a few of Dennett\u2019s neo-Darwinian views may also be illusions. While presumably not a critic of Dennett, Nagel can, given his assertions in <\/span>Mind and Cosmos<\/span><\/i>, be considered as a detractor.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the time of publication of <\/span>Darwin\u2019s Dangerous Idea, <\/span><\/i>the late Philip E. Johnson, in a review of the book, ironically described Dennett\u2019s book as \u2018Dennett\u2019s Dangerous Idea\u2019. The word \u2018dangerous\u2019 in the title of Dennett\u2019s book was meant to be complimentary \u2013 of Charles Darwin \u2013 in the fullest sense. Johnson, of course, made the reference to \u201cdangerous\u201d in a negative, if not derogatory, sense.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dennett made notable and, in the largely complimentary sense of the word, \u2018dangerous\u2019 contributions to philosophy, evolution process and popular science.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Published 21 May 2024.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

If you wish to republish this original article, please attribute to\u00a0<\/i><\/b>Rationale<\/i><\/b><\/a>.\u00a0<\/i><\/b>Click here<\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00a0to find out more about republishing under Creative Commons.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Photo by Rocco Ancora (Atheist Foundation) Flickr CC<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A stanza in the Buddhist text Dhammapada states: \u201cThere never was, there never will be, nor does there exist now<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":14485,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[338,603,513],"coauthors":[107],"class_list":["post-14483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy","tag-atheism","tag-charles-darwin","tag-evolution"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14483"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14487,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14483\/revisions\/14487"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14485"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14483"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=14483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}