1. Comment #109111 by jimbob on January 8, 2008 at 11:11 am

Hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Other Comments by jimbob

2. Comment #109115 by annabanana on January 8, 2008 at 11:21 am

All I have to say is...excuse me, but what?

Other Comments by annabanana

3. Comment #109117 by ShellfishGene on January 8, 2008 at 11:32 am

Hey, Stephen Colbert is the man and Christopher Hitchens can pretty much implode any one's mind. These guys seem to be awarding the right people.

But I agree with PZ about the mischaracterization of Richard Dawkins, he's defiantly not a misanthrope. He must have stuck a sour chord with her somehow.

(P.S. Hello everyone!)

Other Comments by ShellfishGene

4. Comment #109118 by robotaholic on January 8, 2008 at 11:34 am

one cannot hate what doesn't exist, and by the fact that Dawkins calls god a delusion pretty much means that

Far from the vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens's work is both appropriately respectful and right.

doesn't make sense at all.

Other Comments by robotaholic

5. Comment #109123 by Steve Zara on January 8, 2008 at 11:52 am

vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins

On another forum, I attempted to explain that the way Dawkins discusses religion in TGD is not that much stronger than the tone he has used in the past in discussing the work of other scientists. (You should read some of his writings about Gould). They simply didn't believe it.

Of course, there has been no lack of vitriol against Dawkins..

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #109124 by Nick Good on January 8, 2008 at 11:53 am

PZed wrote:

Did Dawkins make a surprise visit to Minneapolis specifically to shoot Emily Condon's dog or something?

My darling mother would probably just put this down to her needing 'a jolly good rogering'. My Mum's usually right.

Anyway, it's a candidate theory that has the benefit of being plausible and, in the best spirit of Karl Popper, is eminently falsifiable. It just needs someone to err ...step up to the proverbial plate and do the 'field work'. Any volunteers?

Other Comments by Nick Good

7. Comment #109130 by will young on January 8, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I fail to grok a peace loving, liberal leaning, friendly misanthrope.

Other Comments by will young

8. Comment #109131 by Corylus on January 8, 2008 at 12:13 pm

It always astonishes me how men think a women's IQ is (in some fashion) dependant on how many men they have sleeping with them.

That was crass Nick.

Here's a falsifiable proposition. Apologise or demonstrate that you're a prat.

Other Comments by Corylus

9. Comment #109139 by Nick Good on January 8, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Corylus

It always astonishes me how men think a women's IQ is (in some fashion) dependant on how many men they have sleeping with them

It must be very stressful going through life constantly astonished, perhaps some stress relief therapy is in order...

Other Comments by Nick Good

10. Comment #109148 by Corylus on January 8, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Of course, my theory (that Nick is a sexist, ignorant prat, with an overinflated notion of both his own intellect and his sense of humour) is only continguently valid.

However, it becoming increasingly obvious that it is backed by clear evidence.

Again, I give you the opportunity to apologise - or do you want to add 'replicable' to my proposition?

Other Comments by Corylus

11. Comment #109158 by Richard Dawkins on January 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm

What impresses me about the Pharyngula thread on this very same subject (url given above) is how most of the Commenters stick to the point, instead of waltzing off into little private conversations that really should be dealt with in private e-mails.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

12. Comment #109166 by mikecbraun on January 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Said critic probably only read the part on the book jacket about god (were he/she/it to exist) being a malicious, malodorous pervert who sits on his (her/its) spotty bottom while millions die in his (her/its) accursed name. It's true, and the truth usually offends everyone, be they atheist/atheist-leaning or not.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

13. Comment #109179 by Corylus on January 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Blimy!! That was me well and truly told off.

100% fair point RD. I apologise for going off thread and getting more irritated than I generally do.

However, I don't apologise for calling into question a crass comment.

Other Comments by Corylus

14. Comment #109181 by Synchronium on January 8, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I'd love to see the spin they give a *negative* review. :)

Other Comments by Synchronium

15. Comment #109192 by AdrianB on January 8, 2008 at 2:48 pm

No surprise. RD really is Enemy No.1 and so many people now believe he is the horrible man that they have been told that he is.

I mentioned on another thread that a Catholic friend overheard RD's name mentioned in conversation and she decided to tell us what a horrible man he was. When I asked her for her reasons I was shocked to hear her say "Well he thinks I'm a paedophile for a start!"

She's not read anything by RD, seen him on TV, or anything, and yet she is prepared to believe what her Church has told her.

Sad.

Other Comments by AdrianB

16. Comment #109205 by DasSquid on January 8, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Ah, wit is quite probably the highest form of all humor, and this is a weapon RD can wield without even the slightest of effort.

In regards to the post, I think it absolutely ludicrous to think that RD could even POSSIBLY be a misanthrope. I honestly believe that RD does what he does from a stance of absolute love for his fellow humans, even if they hate him or disagree with him, he persists in attempting to get people to recognize the truth, often with hilarious consequences.

I think the face RD pulled on the 'Have your say' program at the Stalin question, or was it the CBC interview? either way, it was just comedy genius. As a stand up comic I truly wish I could wield wit to the caliber of our beloved Richard, however I am not up to that task.


P.S.: Though I guess the writer was also trying to make a (poor) joke in saying Dawkins was a misanthrope...

Other Comments by DasSquid

17. Comment #109207 by annabanana on January 8, 2008 at 3:10 pm

What impresses me about the Pharyngula thread on this very same subject (url given above) is how most of the Commenters stick to the point, instead of waltzing off into little private conversations that really should be dealt with in private e-mails.

This is understandable, but I must say that I've learned quite a bit from the discussions about or derived from these articles. I've also sharpened my debating skills a bit. I suppose I'll wander off to the forum now with my tail between my legs.

Other Comments by annabanana

18. Comment #109208 by Beteo on January 8, 2008 at 3:12 pm

She's not read anything by RD, seen him on TV, or anything, and yet she is prepared to believe what her Church has told her.

Sad.

This is what they seem to do in every issue. Ask their pastor's opinion and then spread it.

Other Comments by Beteo

19. Comment #109222 by Damien White on January 8, 2008 at 3:42 pm

"Did Dawkins make a surprise visit to Minneapolis specifically to shoot Emily Condon's dog or something?"

Mysanthropy, not lycanthropy.

Other Comments by Damien White

20. Comment #109230 by Dr Technical on January 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Well I'm not sure how a book with a sub-title of God "How Religion Poisons Everything" quite fits into the respectful category.

Does anyone know why it was renamed "God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion" in the UK ? That seems somewhat toned down, I would have thought he would have been pressured to toning down the title in the US, not the UK.

Other Comments by Dr Technical

21. Comment #109234 by CJ22 on January 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm

I'd consider the ad hominems a compliment professor. If that's all they got, then we're on the right track. If nothing else, you've proved that honesty is not derived from religion.

Other Comments by CJ22

22. Comment #109237 by Dr Technical on January 8, 2008 at 4:05 pm

I love this sentence "Far from the vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins", Hitchens's work is both appropriately respectful and right."

Just exactly how can Richard hate something that does not exist ?

And a misanthrope to boot ? The writer must have had Mrs Malaprop on the mind methinks, Richard is hardly a misanthrope - he wrote Unweaving the Rainbow for Newton's sake !

Other Comments by Dr Technical

23. Comment #109244 by rod-the-farmer on January 8, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Adrian B, PLEASE track down the woman who said of Dawkins

"Well he thinks I'm a paedophile for a start!"

and dig into the source for this bizarre comment. My jaw actually dropped on reading this. Even if you can't bring her around to a higher level of reason, at the very least it will be amusing to relate her rationale to us here.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

24. Comment #109251 by notsobad on January 8, 2008 at 4:44 pm

...a God-hating...

Which god?

Other Comments by notsobad

25. Comment #109265 by rod-the-farmer on January 8, 2008 at 5:19 pm

I had a thought about the "paedophile" business. RD considers forcing children to attend Sunday School as child abuse (I agree). I wonder if this woman has leapt from THAT comment to paedophilia. A telling thought, that she can perhaps only think of child abuse in those terms....the only thing that can be abused in a child is his/her sexuality. How many times can we say "Sad" about these people.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

26. Comment #109273 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I love it. Hitchens is the nice cop, RD is the nasty cop. I think Emily Condon has been smoking too much crack.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

27. Comment #109276 by DasSquid on January 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I love it. Hitchens is the nice cop, RD is the nasty cop. I think Emily Condon has been smoking too much crack.

Indeed, for anyone to perceive it this way it's quite possibly opposite land there.

THE ONLY way in which people could POSSIBLY conceive RD as the bad cop in any situation is not a matter of what he says, but perhaps of his voice.

It seems that traditionally, when there is the 'bad guy' in american cinema, and when said bad guy is English, he often shares some qualities with RD, namely the elderly man with the thin voice and just oozing intelligence from a position of power. (I consider where RD is sitting as a position of power, yes.). Comparing that with the 'down to Earth' style of Hitch, his support of America's involvement in the war, Hitch's views on popular topics are more likely to gain him more stead in the view of people of like-minded view.

Obviously I can't say for certain but I would assume that the writer of the article is pro-war.

Other Comments by DasSquid

28. Comment #109277 by Matt7895 on January 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Thats the thing, Christopher Hitchens has always seemed to me to be the bad cop. His take on religion is always to focus on its moral aspects, and its role in history. He loathes the idea of a god. Whereas Richard Dawkins, as a scientist, has to keep an open mind and cares deeply about what is true. His critique of religion is very much science based. To me, he seems the more reasonable of the pair. I too dislike Hitchens for some of his politics (mostly his anti-monarchism), but I still like his views on religious matters... I just consider Dawkins to be more moderate.

Other Comments by Matt7895

29. Comment #109330 by PsyPro on January 8, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Thats the thing, Christopher Hitchens has always seemed to me to be the bad cop. His take on religion is always to focus on its moral aspects, and its role in history. He loathes the idea of a god. Whereas Richard Dawkins, as a scientist, has to keep an open mind and cares deeply about what is true. His critique of religion is very much science based. To me, he seems the more reasonable of the pair. I too dislike Hitchens for some of his politics (mostly his anti-monarchism), but I still like his views on religious matters... I just consider Dawkins to be more moderate.

Richard Dawkins as a scientist, has to keep an open mind and cares deeply about what is true.---the implication being that Hitchens, as a respected journalist, doesn't? What cavil and nonsense. Whatever you may believe or think about Mr. Hitchens' politics, do not accuse him of not respecting truth. Or, hold him in that regard any different from Professor Dawkins. Indeed, that steely-eyed preference for truth over personal preference is what I respect most about both men, however much they might differ about follows from said truth.

Other Comments by PsyPro

30. Comment #109354 by Atheist_from_Hell on January 8, 2008 at 10:40 pm

It seems that this reviewer has a "Richard Dawkins is a misanthrope" delusion and a "Hitchens book is appropriately respectful" delusion. WTF?

Other Comments by Atheist_from_Hell

31. Comment #109375 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 8, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Guys, we Dawkins raiders have been "called out" by the atheists sucks brigade:-)

Give 'em erm .... hell ?

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33112&p=602964#p602964

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

32. Comment #109391 by Styrer- on January 9, 2008 at 1:30 am

This article confused me (where did the non-sequitur and ridiculous requirement for 'appropriate respect' spring from, especially in a so-called 'irreverent' organ?) until I understood the lamentable probable 'reasoning' behind it.

Absolutely not more 'respectful' towards religion than Dawkins' own, Hitchens' language often dances around the religious issues in (entertainingly) rather self-consciously erudite manner and lofty style, whereas the Professor's own use of language is devastatingly and unwaveringly precise and direct, mostly forgoing the sweepingly majestic, entertaining but perhaps not wholly necessary digressions typical of Hitchens.

When sheer precision of language is ignorantly confused with 'lack of respect' and with 'vitriolic diatribe' by shoddy critiques like this one, simply because of the content to which such precise language is applied, public commentary is in a sorry state indeed.

And applying the term 'misanthrope' to the man whose writings have done more than anyone else's to make me reflect on the wonder of humankind and of the world surely exempts this particular commentator from making any further public statements on the issue.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

33. Comment #109394 by Paula Kirby on January 9, 2008 at 1:46 am

Far from the vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens's work is both appropriately respectful and right.

Hmmm - I was thinking about this. It's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO far off beam that it would be really fascinating to know what led to it. Somehow I doubt that this woman has just got her comments from her pastor - I find it hard to imagine any pastor raving about Christopher Hitchens.

So how might it be possible to conclude that RD is a god-hating misanthrope and CH is respectful and right? I wonder whether it's because CH actually doesn't write much on the subject of God at all: his book, despite the first 4 words of its title, focuses on the harm that religion has done and doesn't really go into the question of God much. I've found that a lot of believers seem able to cope with this and will readily admit that the institutions of religion can be bad (whilst firmly denying that their own belief forms part of those institutions, of course.) How many believers have you heard say they don't love religion, they love God?

RD, whilst much more measured than CH, actually has the temerity to challenge the truth of God. For many believers this is much, much more offensive than highlighting the failings of religion, which, let's face it, they just put down to the sinfulness of humankind anyway.

Add to that the fact that they're all firmly convinced that RD wrote an earlier book declaring that humans have a genetic right to be selfish, and they're clearly in no mood to attempt an accurate assessment of anything he says now.

But if RD is upset at being called a god-hating misanthrope, can you imagine how Christopher Hitchens will be seething at having been described as "respectful" towards religion!!!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

34. Comment #109400 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 2:15 am

"Far from the vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins...."

Well Richard is an Englishman! As Jeremy Paxman has so well pointed out, the Englsh ARE a nation of misanthropes.

It's worse than that, though, because for centuries the English though God was also an Englishman. So God himself is a misanthrope? Not difficult to believe given the fundamentalists' interpretation of Noah's Flood (or anything in Genesis).

Indeed, Hollywood for years has been portraying English people as the baddies.

No wonder the Scots (Welsh and Irish as well, come to think of it) regard us English as a deeply dubious lot. ;-)

PS, I don't think it a coincidence that two of the four horsemen are basically English.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

35. Comment #109401 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 2:21 am

I've found that a lot of believers seem able to cope with this and will readily admit that the institutions of religion can be bad (whilst firmly denying that their own belief forms part of those institutions, of course.) How many believers have you heard say they don't love religion, they love God?

I think this point is moot. I have heard believers state that they love God more than fresh air, whilst cursing the existence of organised religion.

I think RD's attacks on religion have been aimed clearly at specific targets which many people are personally attached to.

He does so objectively and properly, but like any abused person, an attack on something important to them, something they've internalised to such an extent that they can't separate the idea from the person, is seen as an attack on their esteem and themselves.

Calling God a delusion will almost be like saying that they themselves are a delusion.

RD is in fact absolutely correct in the use of the word and spot on in his writings, but to the believer objectivity is absolutely not important in these matters.

I remember talking to a believer and literally laughing at the idea of a talking snake and a woman made out of a rib being responsible for a deity sending his son out to suffer for the disgraceful crime of eating an apple and then sharing one with her husband.

He thought I was laughing at him and it took a while for me to explain that it isn't him that I find ludicrous at all just the very idea.

Until people see their faiths as the extension of ideas and separate from who they are; until it becomes clear that there are only workable ideas and ideas that do not work, quite simply because they are not true, it is going to be difficult for honest men like RD to be appreciated for their work and not because they make us feel better by lying to us.

Other Comments by Incredulous

36. Comment #109404 by Paula Kirby on January 9, 2008 at 2:28 am

Until people see their faiths as the extension of ideas and separate from who they are; until it becomes clear that there are only workable ideas and ideas that do not work, quite simply because they are not true, it is going to be difficult for honest men like RD to be appreciated for their work and not because they make us feel better by lying to us.

I think you're absolutely right here, Incredulous. RD's real crime is to have subjected the truth claims of religion to the same kind of scrutiny as we'd apply to anything else. This breaks all the rules. Interesting, isn't it, how the response to RD absolutely bears out everything written by Dan Dennett!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

37. Comment #109407 by robotaholic on January 9, 2008 at 2:39 am

Paula Kirby you are a razor of accuracy. You really should write a book!

Other Comments by robotaholic

38. Comment #109408 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 2:40 am

I have to be honest Paula, I haven't yet read Dan Dennet's books, but I do intend to read Breaking the Spell at the weekend. I believe my idea for teaching children more about comparative religion actually comes from him, though I'll still blame an ex colleague who studied Comparative Religion at the University College London for corrupting me like this!!

Other Comments by Incredulous

39. Comment #109412 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 2:50 am

I have arguments with atheist friends who say things like "Well I don't believe in God myself but I don't like Dawkins. Far too arrogant", or somesuch. This impression is always almost entirely based on second hand media reporting.

Some of these are Oxford educated people, who have nevertheless formed an opinion without actually reading anything he has written.

I'm not sure how Richard is supposed to go about changing this impression. I suppose the only way that can happen is if atheists can convince the rest of the population not to give religion a special pass when it comes to discourse.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

40. Comment #109420 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 3:17 am

I have arguments with atheist friends who say things like "Well I don't believe in God myself but I don't like Dawkins. Far too arrogant", or somesuch. This impression is always almost entirely based on second hand media reporting.

Some of these are Oxford educated people, who have nevertheless formed an opinion without actually reading anything he has written.

I'm not sure how Richard is supposed to go about changing this impression. I suppose the only way that can happen is if atheists can convince the rest of the population not to give religion a special pass when it comes to discourse.

I can understand where this "arrogant" view comes from. It is because Richard is challenging not just what people consider to be facts about their world, but what people feel about things. The immediate response of many to just the title of the book is "Sorry mate, but how DARE you call me deluded!". I have heard theists who should know better claim that Richard is saying that they are "delusional", which of course, is not the same thing at all.

This kind of "half-understood" reaction is very common. I remember the reaction to The Selfish Gene when the philosopher Mary Midgley wrote a frankly embarassing review which included a discussion of how genes could not feel emotion, completely missing the fact that the idea was a metaphor.

So, I am sure Richard is used to this, and I don't think there anything that can be done. Once a stereotype has been established it is virtually impossible to shift. Stephen Fry recalled doing an interview dressed in leather gear as he had travelled on a motorbike, but the interview still started "tweedy Stephen Fry...."

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #109423 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 3:26 am

I suppose the only way that can happen is if atheists can convince the rest of the population not to give religion a special pass when it comes to discourse.

This is why I think it was appropriate for Paula to introduce Dan Dennett into the conversation at this point.

As far as I am aware Dan Dennett's book attempts to take religion's special pass away from it and ensure it actually faces the same sanity checks every other human activity has to undergo.

I guess this is why it is important that religious claims are not just seen as the intellectual property of psuedo subjects like theology, but must allow itself to be rigorously health checked by rational processes, namely the same processes used by Science.

I have arguments with atheist friends who say things like "Well I don't believe in God myself but I don't like Dawkins. Far too arrogant", or somesuch. This impression is always almost entirely based on second hand media reporting.

Ad hominem attacks are the price RD will pay for shooting the golden goose.

I do think the media can be unfairly blamed for a lot of the skewed, ignorant and complete tosh that has been written about RD's book and, more sadly, RD.

Reporter's report and many aren't there to analyse but merely to give as many sides to an issue as possible.

At some stage we have to take responsibility for how we process what we read. This comes down to education, which is why I am particularly saddened to hear that Oxbridge types are not being as objective about RD as they, I am sure, would be in their own particular subject.

Again your friends seem to be perpetrating this 'I'm sane but it's ok for others to be as crazy in their beliefs' nonsense.

You would be quick to point out someone's mathematical errors, or errors in spelling, so why not someone's errors in thinking about belief?

Other Comments by Incredulous

42. Comment #109429 by borthers on January 9, 2008 at 3:43 am

As I said on PZ's blog, good ol'Xenophobia may possibly explain this comment, i.e. Hitch is now a US citizen and RD isn't, i.e. not only is RD a God bashing scientist but a foreign one to boot!

Or perhaps its the usual arts vs. science thing as previous posters have eluded to, I suppose it could be said that Hitch is "one of them" in that regard.

Otherwise it seems completely baffling to me.

Other Comments by borthers

43. Comment #109430 by Coel on January 9, 2008 at 3:48 am

the way Dawkins discusses religion in TGD is not that much stronger than the tone he has used in the past in discussing the work of other scientists.

Quite right -- he certainly went for David Sloan Wilson in the New Scientist letters page a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, it would be good to read a Dawkins commentary/response to that DS/EO Wilson article on group selection, since it confused me and I need to be unconfused.

Other Comments by Coel

44. Comment #109439 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 4:20 am

I do think the media can be unfairly blamed for a lot of the skewed, ignorant and complete tosh that has been written about RD's book and, more sadly, RD.

Public perception is one thing (and I quite like Prof. Dawkins "rotweiller" image, I can't imagine Rowan Williams having the same impact if he was on our side), but blatant misrepresentation in the press is another. Media these days spread blatant untruths and seem to be able to do so totally unchecked.

This comes down to education, which is why I am particularly saddened to hear that Oxbridge types are not being as objective about RD as they, I am sure, would be in their own particular subject.

Unfortunately we live in a celebrity culture, where the name of the game is to build people up and knock them down. I find myself saying far too often "I can't stand X" in relation to various public figures, before realising I have no basis for that opinion except what I've picked up through our extremely unreliable media. The truth is, I guess, most of us don't have the time to fully research every person before forming an opinion, but you can't just sit in silence down the pub!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

45. Comment #109445 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 4:37 am

The truth is, I guess, most of us don't have the time to fully research every person before forming an opinion, but you can't just sit in silence down the pub!

You're saying something quite interesting here. I tend to research subjects and not people. I've followed RD's work for 25 years, but have no opinion about RD as a man.

I'm not even aware he has a media image, though he always seems polite and well-mannered whenever I see him interviewed or presenting.

I'm very interested in what he has to say though. But you are right when you suggest we live in a celebrity dominated world, but isn't it that world that RD and his mates are actually challenging!

Madonna misrepresents her religion as science's advisor; Tom Cruise is lauded as a spiritual icon; and every sport star blames god for their sporting prowess.

RD simply says what research has found. Yet he is attributed a celebrity personality - an infamous one at that.

The injustice of it all.

Other Comments by Incredulous

46. Comment #109450 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 4:49 am

Anyway, it would be good to read a Dawkins commentary/response to that DS/EO Wilson article on group selection, since it confused me and I need to be unconfused.

I would like to read some commentary on Sloan's response to Dawkins' response. It made little sense to me. It seem to be confusing the idea of the Extended Phenotype with Group Selection...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #109454 by Matt7895 on January 9, 2008 at 5:11 am

Richard Dawkins as a scientist, has to keep an open mind and cares deeply about what is true.---the implication being that Hitchens, as a respected journalist, doesn't? What cavil and nonsense. Whatever you may believe or think about Mr. Hitchens' politics, do not accuse him of not respecting truth. Or, hold him in that regard any different from Professor Dawkins. Indeed, that steely-eyed preference for truth over personal preference is what I respect most about both men, however much they might differ about follows from said truth.

No, I was only going on what Richard has said himself on the issue. He hasn't come out as a blatant anti-theist, to do so of course would hold an extraordinary bias when contemplating the existence of god, and as a scientist it would be inappropriate for him to hold such a bias. Hitchens, on the other hand, as a political journalist, is very much influenced by his own opinions on the matter. Politics isn't about what's true, and to think so would be dreadfully naive. You can't compare the operations of politics to the operations of science. That is all I was saying. The two men are different, with Dawkins being the more moderate on the issue. DON'T throw a straw man into the argument that I'm trying to insult Hitchens here, or that I think he's a liar. I was only writing what I think are the two major differences between the two men.

Other Comments by Matt7895

48. Comment #109462 by adamhaar on January 9, 2008 at 5:20 am

Far from the vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens's work is both appropriately respectful and right.

I read this in an entirely different light: an attempt at humour that (judging by the reaction) failed the translation from thought or speech into text. Having read both Dawkins and Hitchens, and listened to them both speak (alas only on the Internet), I saw this as a swap, playing for laughs.

Perhaps some of us are getting so used to being attacked that we start to see it where it doesn't exist. Or perhaps I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt.

Other Comments by adamhaar

49. Comment #109464 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 5:23 am

I tend to research subjects and not people.

I guess my post came across as a little shallow in that respect. I may have been conflating the two somewhat. Where a Richard Dawkins book is described as "vitriolic" or "shrill", there is little distinction between an attack on the man or an attack on the book.

That said, most of us are interested in character to some degree. Its just human nature to be interested in other people. It would just be good if we could do it based on the right information.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

50. Comment #109474 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 5:39 am

That said, most of us are interested in character to some degree. Its just human nature to be interested in other people.

This I will never disagree with.

It would just be good if we could do it based on the right information.

Is how I go about it anyway. Someone's got to be fair.

I wasn't criticising you when I said I research subjects and not people; it really was just a statement about me.

I get fed up of learning about other people through their own horrendously jaundiced attacks on other people. I simply believe you give more about yourself away when you discuss other people then you ever could about the person you are assassinating. Don't worry, you're cool.

That's why I like Steve Zara's posts. He sticks to the point and I'm a fraction less ignorant than I was after I read him. Paula and epeeist have that effect as well.

Other Comments by Incredulous