[ExI] Tolerance

[JOSHUA JOB]

> 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. Certainly he  
believes religion is terrible, both from the things it has directly  
caused over the years and by its very base tenet: faith. He makes  
clear arguments that faith is antithetical to science and our modern  
society. Reason is the basis of our society, and if you give up reason  
and accept something on faith, then you are empowering the radical  
fundamentalists by your assent to their core beliefs, and it makes it  
much more difficult to make an argument against them. He also makes a  
number of arguments against religion from purely logical/empirical/ 
scientific grounds as well.

He's always seemed eloquent to me, even if he is passionate about it.  
Passion does not mean irrationality. It is rational to be angry when  
you judge something to be a tremendous evil or a huge weight on the  
world. Emotions and reason do not have to be opposed, and in Dr.  
Dawkins case, I do not believe they are.

I thought the whole "brights" thing was dumb too, just fyi. But I  
understood what he was trying to do, even if he didn't pick the best  
name.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com