D'Souza, Hitchens and Strawn update

As related in an earlier post, I attempted to start a conversation relating to a review of the D'Souza/Hitchens debate written by Josh Strawn, who was a pupil of Hitchens at New School in New York.

The "update" in the title is perhaps a grandiose addition, for this update consists of little more than the news that Strawn has not yet elected to respond in substance to the issues I raised with his arguments.

The chief reason for updating at this time is the fact that I revisited a site that led me just days prior to the exchange with Strawn to a review and commentary of Daniel Dennett's book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon."

Strawn had referred me to Dennett along with Richard Dawkins and someone named "Harris"--I hesitate to conclude that Sam Harris is the corresponding personage.

The review, by David Hart, was quite memorable for the comparisons drawn between Dennett and characters from the stories of Lewis Carroll. I daresay Strawn, who expressed an admiration for Hitchens' gift of rhetoric, might find something to enjoy in Hart's treatment of Dennett on that basis at least. I'll borrow an exemplary selection:

I confess that I have never been an admirer of Dennett’s work. I have thought all his large books-especially one entitled Consciousness Explained-poorly reasoned and infuriatingly inadequate in their approaches to the questions they address. Too often he shows a preference for the cumulative argument over the cogent and for repetition over demonstration. The Bellman’s maxim, "What I tell you three times is true," is not alien to Dennett’s method.
(First Things)

I wish I had remembered to reference this review earlier!

It would be uncharitable, of course, to drawn any conclusions about Strawn's ability to answer the problems based on his recent failure to add to the dialog. On the other hand, his choice of authorities (pending the emergence of a Harris with gravitas) promotes the notion that Strawn is properly classed with atheists like Hitchens who appear to have a poor understanding the traditional theist/atheist debate topics.

*****