[ExI] Tolerance

[Dave Sill]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> On 7 Dec, 2009, at 14:25, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> 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.

OK, pretend I said "more analytical".

> Yes, I do think that "God is Not Great" was less emotionally charged than
> "The God Delusion."

OK. I disagree.

> 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.

Could you provide an example? I don't remember anything like that.

> By Dawkins' arguments, the religious is a sign of moral
> and intellectual inferiority.  I have very little patience for that sort of
> name calling.

I don't know that it's name calling, really. Don't you have even the
slightest problem respecting the intellectual abilities of people who
believe unlikely (absurd, really) things without extraordinary
evidence? A person can be a brilliant physicist, mathematician,
chemist, etc., but if they honestly believe, for example, that the
Bible is the word of God, aren't they also exhibiting a massive
intellectual defect?

> 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.

Can't say I'm a fan of that one.

-Dave