Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett
 

Been reading the unholy trinity this summer. Dawkins, 'The God Delusion', Hitchens, 'God is not Great', and Dennett, 'Breaking the Spell'. Anyone else reading any of these with opinions that might give our new moderator a workout?
Hitchens is the best writer, Dawkins the best scientist, and Dennett the best thinker. All well worth reading.

I read Dawkins' first popular press book on evolution and was amazed that anybody thought it was necessary to write a popular book defending Darwinism and attacking religionism. I thought the argument had been settled except for a few atavistic throw-backs who failed junior high.

I was blind. Blind, I tell you! I had no idea that tehre were so many, many people who could so easily turn their backs on rationality and embrace a spirit-world explanation for something so obviously in agreement with facts. So okay, there is a need for people to write this stuff, I guess.

On the other hand, who reads it --- the people who could learn from it or the people who are already convinced? I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of readers of evolution apologies are already evolutionists. Just like evolutionists aren't falling all over themselves to study the religious tracts and nutty writings of Duane Gish & friends.

So I haven't read any of that crap since.

From either side.

B

Interesting choice of authors. I've seen them, the first two on C-Span and on Youtube where a conference they were at recently (or a couple of conferences) are posted. Dawkin's has the best comment I've ever seen on TV about Science vs religion. Not quite polite enough to post here :) I think I'll be picking up these books soon.

- Peter.

I'm going to bed. I got a headache reading about Punjab Mathematicians, Jews, and immigrants, all in one thread. I'd rate it if we had ratings.

OK, moderator's in bed, we can talk freely now.

I think Dawkins was the weakest of the three. In some ways he seems to me to be an unselfconscious empiricist. It's no surprise coming from a biologist but he doesn't seem to be seriously aware of the limits of empiricism. Hitchens is by far the best rhetorician. They both have good chapters on religion as child abuse.
Dawkins is more of a straight up defender of evolution whereas Hitchens is way more concerned and informed about the general cultural implications of religion. Plus he's just a sharper wit.
Dennett is the best of the three on the question of the evolution of religion. I think the question of why humans have religion whereas other primates don't is a worthwhile question to ponder. If God didn't give it to us, where does it come from and why does it persist?

I'm not so sure about that. I really do study the religious angle, but it's more of a morbid fascination. In particular, I'm not trying to find ways to counter their arguments; I consider that an exercise in futility.

I have no idea if "the other side" reads texts such as Dawkins.

Does that make it/them a creed of the faithful?

Go forth an prostilitize.

Or is a god necessary to it?

Would you recomend Dennett of the three?

I'm still reading Dennett whereas I've finished the other two so my judgment is tentative. Hitchens is by far the better writer. ( I was reading him when visiting my Pentecostal relatives. I had to turn the book cover inside out so the title wasn't visible. It was kind of like reading porn while staying with Andrea Dworkin.)

I haven't read any of these guys but have listened to Dawkins and Hitchens speak... probably on links you posted Kerry. My problem with their approach is that they seem to catagorize religion and god in a very western way and then, even more so than many religious promoters might, compile everything 'religious' into one. And that in so doing, they assign negitive contributions, superstition, and evil outcomes to it's realm as the only possible result of a 'religious' experience. Seem's to me to be agenda driven... how many books can you sell riding the fence though. I'm interested to here if Dennett has a different approach.

He definitely does. For instance, he is focused on the evolutionary origins of religion. As a result, he can't focus on highly developed religions that we find today, but on their prototypes and the role they played in small human groups.
Hitchens by the way, has a good chapter "There is no Eastern solution" using sources I have posted here in the past.

I read all of the above earlier in the year (I called the books: Atheist Update), and agree with most of your conclusions. I find it humorous that Dennett comes across as the least self-righteous... especially after having authored one of the most self-aggrandizing books of all time: Consciousness Explained. I didn't think Dawkins' offering the weakest; each has its own slant, which I think helps the broader effort by appealing to wider audiences (possibly).

After having read them, and also Sam Harris' two contributions to the same topic, I discovered this interesting article in The Nation :

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson

Ronald Aronson spends a bit of time with each, and makes some good general points. His conclusions, however, are suspect. He outlines a call to arms of sorts to form a religious/secular alliance:

Finally, such an alliance could become one place where Dennett's goal of discussing religion openly and critically--as well as atheism and agnosticism--could begin to be realized. A number of questions might be explored: What, for example, is the common ground and what are the differences between believers and unbelievers? And--I save for last the touchiest question of all--shouldn't all Americans be instructed in the great religious and secular traditions, as well as their greatest books? After all, achieving literacy in both religion and secularism might allow us to discuss them more intelligently.

How do we agree that perhaps the authors have something good to say, and then come to the conclusion that compulsory education in all religions and books should be the solution?

My thought, too. Who do the apologists write for? Usually it's going to be those who already espouse the same views.

Jugurba, your comments tickled something in my mind that I have toyed with in a casual, forgettable fashion.

If people are divided into two categories of theists and atheists; and if theists can be further subdivided into various belief systems; is there an analogous subdivision of unbelievers?

Put another way, is atheism, monolothic? Does the etymology of the definition a-theism demand that any who claim a-theism must have the same belief?

That sounds unclear, so let me try again. Theism has a rich terrain of ideas and perspective (many of which result in mutual bloody murder, but that's for another thread) dealing with the concept of spirituality as a tool for rationalizing existence. Does atheism also have within it a similar search of rationalization of existence? Or does negation of theism mean that the search must only be a-spiritual?

I'm still not clear, am I.

Oh well, maybe one of you can sharpen my impricision.

Theism is a belief system of some sort. A-theism is kind of like a negative or better yet, a vacuum, isn't it? I don't know if you can subdivide nothingness. Wouldn't that be similar to proving a negative?