[ExI] Tolerance

[Brent Neal]

On 7 Dec, 2009, at 11:39, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Stefano writes
>
>> 2009/12/7 JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
>>>> It depends on why they insist. I find the so-called "new  
>>>> atheists" whose
>>>> arguments against religion amount to little more than "Religion  
>>>> Sucks!
>>>> Nyeah!" to be incredibly tiresome people.  Compare and contrast the
>>>> eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens, to the
>>>> emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you  
>>>> believe in God
>>>> you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get  
>>>> it? Huh? Hur
>>>> hur hur.")
>>>> Brent Neal, Ph.D.
>>> Dawkins arguments aren't at all like what you suggest.
>> I am surprised that one may find Hitchens, with his heavy, moralistic
>> rhetorics, more "rational" than Dawkins, who if anything makes for a
>> much more pleasant reading...
>
> Odd. My reaction is the reverse. I enjoyed Hitchens' book "God is
> not great" very much. It was extremely insightful at quite a
> number of points. His conclusion, reiterated again and again,
> that "religions poisons everything" of course cannot be taken
> too literally, but his examples are very impressive.



Lee's comments on Hitchens vs. Dawkins are pretty much in line with my  
own views. Hitchens lacks the emotionally charged rhetoric that  
Dawkins employs on a regular basis. Hitchens sets out to condemn  
religion and religiosity with an a posteriori approach - i.e. "look at  
what religion has done, and judge them based on that." Very  
analytical. Dawkins is the quintessential spin doctor, outlining  
arguments that are at times specious and are certainly a priori as to  
why religion is bad, then using emotional rhetoric to distract the mind.

Dawkins is more pleasant reading for most of us, simply because he has  
mastered the language that excites us and confirms (most of) our own  
views. Hitchens makes the same points, but in a tedious fashion that  
requires us to at least actively engage in his own "moralistic"  
judgements. Much more psychologically draining that way.

At least, that was my opinion after reading them both. (The God  
Delusion and God is not Great) YMMV, and all that. If you don't like  
Hitchens as an example of rational atheism, substitute Robert  
Ingersoll, or more recently, Michael Shermer.

B



--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>