Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Hitchens is much better at rhetorical flair than actual argument. The guy can certainly write.
He's entertaining to read, there's no disputing that, but what I mean is that the moment he's close to gaining an insightful view about something important in his discussion (which I'd grant as an occasional good argument) he distorts everything so much he makes industrial music sound pure and juvenile.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
He's entertaining to read, there's no disputing that, but what I mean is that the moment he's close to gaining an insightful view about something important in his discussion (which I'd grant as an occasional good argument) he distorts everything so much he makes industrial music sound pure and juvenile.
I wouldn't call what Hitchens does "distortion"...more like simplifying. He boils down religious ideas to their essence and then ridicules them because they are indeed ridiculous.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I wouldn't call what Hitchens does "distortion"...more like simplifying. He boils down religious ideas to their essence and then ridicules them because they are indeed ridiculous.
It's been a while since I last read "God is not great", so I can't really explain thoroughly why it is that the book left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I should read it again and write down all that bothered me... and perhaps I should do that to more books, for entertainment's sake.
Moongoose
Its only entertainment if you make it available for everyone else to read.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
Its only entertainment if you make it available for everyone else to read.
Fair enough :)
pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, i havent managed to finish god isn't great. i kinda agree with lira, some of the analogies don't sit well with me.
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Yeah, I thought so. As an atheist, however, I really reallyreally dislike Hitchen's rhetoric - though he's got the occasional good argument, the guy sees as many shades of grey in a debate as a 3-year-old autistic child raised by a soon to be suicide bomber.
If only reality were so simple...
I felt that way about several parts of The God Delusion. The evolution argument is one that's so, so easy to win, and yet he went off on this huge, irrelevant tangent babbling about the motor flanges on bacteria or some rubbish like that.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
I felt that way about several parts of The God Delusion. The evolution argument is one that's so, so easy to win, and yet he went off on this huge, irrelevant tangent babbling about the motor flanges on bacteria or some rubbish like that.
It was the bacteria flagellum.. That was the "intelligent design" proponents' crowning argument until recently. It was the entire basis of their defense in the Dover trial a few years ago where they tried to get ID taught in schools. I suppose he wanted to refute the stupid thing once and for all.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
I felt that way about several parts of The God Delusion. The evolution argument is one that's so, so easy to win, and yet he went off on this huge, irrelevant tangent babbling about the motor flanges on bacteria or some rubbish like that.
So did I.
As a matter of fact (since this is not just about Hitchens any more) I did read "God is not Great", "The God Delusion", and "The End of Faith" one after the other, and I can't say I enjoyed any of these books: the way they deliver their ideas is really problematic, no matter how much I want to agree with them.
The only (recent) explicitly atheist book I've ever enjoyed was "The Brain and the Meaning of Life", which isn't about atheism, though tries to come up with a solution to the problem of a "meaningless life without religion". Still, the author's refutation of religion is anything but convincing.
Is "Breaking the Spell" any good? I'd imagine Dennett, having certainly read Hume and Russell, must have come up with something interesting, though I'm afraid he may have been influenced by Dawkins a tad bit too much :(
Capitalizt
honestly lira, I found all of the "new atheism" books disappointing in that they focused more on the harmful actions taken by religious believers rather than the irrational and psychologically damaging nature of faith itself.
He completely destroys the God concept in the first few chapters and spends the rest of the book adding layer after layer of Pwnage in the realm of epistemology and history. I thought it was a rock solid case against "faith" of all stripes.
This guy completely destroys the God concept in the first few chapters and spends the rest of the book adding layer after layer of Pwnage in the realm of epistemology and history. I thought it was a rock solid case against "faith" of all stripes.
Thanks for the recommendations, I'll try to get hold of them.
Still, my main interest on this topic is not "why X doesn't exist" or something of that sort, even though some arguments are very curious. I'm more interested on stuff like "now that we're not taking X into account, what comes next?".
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Thanks for the recommendations, I'll try to get hold of them.
Still, my main interest on this topic is not "why X doesn't exist" or something of that sort, even though some arguments are very curious. I'm more interested on stuff like "now that we're not taking X into account, what comes next?".
It depends what you mean by "next". :) Are you talking about stuff like secular morality, humanism, etc? The only reason atheists talk about "why X doesn't exist" is because "X" is often a stumbling block in people's way.. In the grand scheme of things however, there is no fixed path from atheism to anything else. There are no dots to connect. It just deals with the removal of a single (albeit huge) obstacle to clear thinking.
