Say It Ain't So

Writing at Beliefnet.com, Robert Wright believes that he's caught Daniel Dennett admitting that there is, in fact, a higher purpose to the universe (via a link from Andrew Sullivan.)

This would be disappointing on so many levels. Dennett, Wright correctly states, is one of the foremost philosophers in the world. Dennett's views on personal identity and cognitivism are my own. Dennett's response to Searle's famous "Chinese room" thought experiment is a foundational defense of cognitive science.

And the argument from design, whether in general terms or particularized in terms of evolutionary theory, is a piss-poor argument for God's existence. (Actually, every metaphysical argument for theism is awful, as theistic philosophers from Kant to Peter van Inwagen recognize.) Without going into too much detail, the argument from design, even at its strongest, counts among its premises certain probability calculations that are, in fact, indeterminate. It's a valid argument, but transparently unsound to any numerate philosopher.

Of course, I'm taking Wright's account with a grain of salt. For a great philosopher, who is also a prominent atheist, to suddenly confess to the truth of an easily refutable bit of theistic casuistry---well, something's not right.

I'm in no fantastic position on theological matters either, as I'm an atheist who believes that the Book of Job is literal truth.