Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
I agree with almost all of this. It was his writing (along with Nick Cohen's and Bernard Henri-Levi's) on 9/11 and the war in Iraq that I found most interesting and which have definitely caused me to rethink certain things. I've not read much of his stuff on religion but what I have read struck me as being a far more insightful version of Dawkins' position.
|
ditto Nick Cohen. Hitchens always had the advantage of being sexier in print and in voice than almost anyone, but he had the goods to back it up too.
The important thing to remember when comparing Dawkins and Hitchens (et al) is that neither are career atheists, and this shows in how effective they are at arguing against certain things. Hitchens' career was all about history and literature, from which the influence of religion is inescapable, and so when taking down the moral and intellectual shortcomings of religion he was able to draw on his well of knowledge on these subjects in a way that Dawkins (and lets face it, few others) could. This is why the religious apologists respected him more, because he always knew more about how their religion had shaped culture and history than they did, and he knew how to point out the damage this had done.
Dawkins on the other hand, is a scientist, his expertise branched out from this for sure, but when taking on religion his primary objection was to always defend the achievements of science, something he and Harris are better able to do than Hitchens was.
Hitchens' final interview with Richard Dawkins
Man. When i see people swilling around in the mud admiring people like Ron Paul or John Pilger or Alexander Cockburn it makes me shake my head in disbelief.