[ExI] Tolerance

[Dave Sill]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> 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 -

How can you "set out to condemn" something with an "a posteriori" approach?

> i.e. "look at what religion has done, and
> judge them based on that."

And the selection of evidence isn't tilted toward the goal that he
"set out" to achieve, it just turns out to prove his point?

> 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.

So you found Hitchens, the author/journalist/activist/pundit, to be
more scientific in his approach than Dawkins, the scientist?

> At least, that was my opinion after reading them both. (The God Delusion and
> God is not Great) YMMV, and all that.

I read and enjoyed both. I didn't think either was perfect, but I did
think Dawkins was more logical/scientific and Hitchens was more
haphazard and anecdotal, though slightly more entaining.

-Dave