Dennett part Deux

Now there's this. My main man Richard Swinburne takes him to task. Dennett's gambit is drippingly saccharine and (therefore) insincere. Swinburne doesn't buy it. He opens with a really nice summary of his apologetic strategy. He then excoriates Dennett for casually brandishing the "well there could be an infinite number of universes that exist uncaused" defense of atheism.

But that's not his main defense. His main defense is...Pat Robertson. That's right. Pat Robertson sucks, so God must not have created humans. Maybe I'll write a book called _The Problem of Pat_ on the model of C.S. Lewis's _The Problem of Pain_.

(Dennett, trying hard to look like Darwin)

Like others, I was struck by this remark from Dennett.

"we must set aside the traditional exemption from scrutiny that
religions have enjoyed"

Yeah! Nobody *ever* criticizes religion! What's the deal with that! Um, what millennium has he been living in?

Dennett comes off as knowing little more about epistemology than religion. I know some intelligent atheists (though not many who know much about philosophy of religion), but Dennett isn't one of them.