[ExI] Tolerance

[Brent Neal]

On 7 Dec, 2009, at 14:25, Dave Sill wrote:

> 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?

if you're going to say "scientific," be VERY sure what you mean here.  
I consider neither of their approaches to be scientific, as neither  
makes argument by falsification. A scientific approach is not possible  
to this problem since it is not likely that we'll ever be able to  
approach religion with scientific inquiry.

Yes, I do think that "God is Not Great" was less emotionally charged  
than "The God Delusion."  In answer to some other poster, while  
Dawkins did not coin the term "Brights," the God Delusion, amongst his  
other writings -including several essays at least one of which was  
published in John Brockman's Edge essay series, does very much espouse  
the childish "hur hur" sort of argument. By Dawkins' arguments, the  
religious is a sign of moral and intellectual inferiority.  I have  
very little patience for that sort of name calling.

The utilitarian argument is much more compelling. If the thing  
produces good results, then the thing has merit. If it does not, then  
it is meritless.

B

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