Peter: Well, thanks for introducing me (twice) to yet another statement by C.S. Lewis that I can’t make head or tail of. How does CSL know that the “flux of atoms” is “meaningless”? What is the meaning of “meaningless” there? Quite a lot of physics is premised on the idea that the “flux of atoms” proceeds according to strong and inviolable laws. Are those laws, or their consequences, “meaningless”? And why should I dismiss the notion that “minds are wholly dependent on brains” as breezily as CSL does? I don’t know whether they are or not; but if you were to remove my brain, put it in a blender, and switch to “puree,” the notion that my mind would have ceased to exist at some point in the procedure does not seem to me to be egregiously preposterous. Etc. etc. Well, I think I shall put off my reading of Mere Christianity for another 5 years.
Dennett has written a work of speculative pop-science. His book probably (I say again, I haven’t read it) contains lots of interesting ideas. Some may turn out to be fruitful. Most will probably look quaint 100 years on. That is the normal fate of this kind of book. What’s Wieseltier so mad about? (“Fairy tale” … “superstition” … “extravagant speculation” …)
At the time of the Bell Curve debate 12 years ago, Wieseltier was saying some very silly things indeed. I put him down as a Left Creationist, based on what little sense I could extract from his remarks. I can’t say I have been keeping up with him very assiduously, but on the basis of this review, he seems to have either flipped to Right Creationism, or to be cherry-picking from both LC and RC according to some personal estimation of whichever author he has decided to be vituperative about.
As to the reification of reason (i.e. its elevation to Reason), this is one of those topics dearly beloved of Catholic intellectuals, but incomprehensible to the rest of us. Goodness knows what Wieseltier is doing with it. He’s not taking instruction from Father Rutler, is he?