I am halfway though reading Daniel Dennett’s Dangerous Idea. So far is the densest book I read this year. What should I expect from a philosopher writing on the philosophical implications of life evolving through natural selection. His description of Darwinian Theory as “Universal Acid” explains why so many people feel threatened by Darwin as they should. Little by little it destroys God’s purpose, until he or she is insignificant natural law maker. A small bit part compared to the tyrannical omnipotent figure in the Bible. The force of Darwinian Theory is derived from explaining how complex life forms can evolved from simpler forms through a beautiful but purposeless algorithm. Its simplicity and elegance is more logical and a better explanation to empirical evidence, than the faith and complexity of life designed by God. The God explanation faces two crucial problems according to the book. The first is the infinity regression of what intelligent being constructed God and then what intelligent being created the being that created God. I remember my cousin asking my aunt this question and her reply “When you see God ask him”. The second is using faith as tool to reach the truth. Dennett describes faith arguments as playing tennis without a net or as an asymmetrical argument. Once faith is involved reason is abandoned or as Dennett argues the net is removed. An argument of faith creates an asymmetrical argument because it gives the faith side the ability to make any argument plausible regardless of empirical evidence. Arguing for God based on faith opens a portal where reality is suspended and any argument is valid no matter the evidence. The beauty of Dennett’s argument is that there is no need to appeal to the supernatural to explain the complexity of nature under evolution through modification. I can fully understand why people must hate the implications of Darwin and why his theory is under more scrutiny than any other theory, but I think it reveals something about human nature, which is that much as humans hold truth to be sacred, we rather hide, ignore, and manipulate evidence that destroys our version of the truth.

Other thoughts:
Dennett’s explanation of Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence made me think of two things:
That if we live eternally it does take meaning out of life. The value of life over infinity equals zero. Meaning that everyday is meaningless of you believe in eternity.
Reminds me of Edward O Wilson , On Human Nature, and his point that we are aware that life is meaningless because is a recurring cycle of birth, finding a mate, raising children and death. This cycle is reproduced with our children who will find a mate, raise children and die. We are not different from any living thing.

Dennett’s book might be given more strength by the Geoffrey Miller book The Mating Mind that I just read. His hypothesis that we evolved through intelligent design but not by God but our ancestors would destroy the last bastions not yet destroyed by the Universal Acid. The complexity and speed that can evolved through sexual selection rather than natural selection will be revolutionary in the understanding of human evolution and human nature.