More interesting, better argument, etc... who do you vote for?
2007-01-22 17:04:55 · 11 answers · asked by STFU Dude 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
oh, and why?
2007-01-22 17:05:09 · update #1
Harris is a little more readable.
Dawkins has a little more 'tude with his writing.
I love them both....although I will say that if I had to pick just one book from between the two of them, it would be Harris' "The End of Faith".
2007-01-22 17:11:31 · answer #1 · answered by Samurai Jack 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm not familiar with Sam Harris, actually. I'll have to look him up.
I know Dawkins more for his science than for his theology (okay, I know they're connected). He makes brilliant arguments but sometimes I wonder if he's not just preaching to the converted and actually alienating people 'on the fence' or 'in the closet' - he seems to be becoming a bit too militant for my taste these days. I mean, every word he says is true, but I don't know if there's an advatange in pissing so many theists off. The lines in the sand are already a little too deep for my liking...
2007-01-22 17:12:31 · answer #2 · answered by XYZ 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both are good; see also David Mills, Atheist Universe. Of these, I think that Dawkins does the better job of making his case. For more on evolutionary mechanics, see Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow. For a history of evolution, see Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale. For a proof of the correctness of evolution, contact me via avatar.
2007-01-22 17:16:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no matter how solid it is? So which standards are we utilising to evaluate how 'solid' a concept is? i could have concept that reality could have had some thing to do with it. isn't it perfect to oppose a place considering the fact which you comprehend that this is fake? actual if some thing i believe happens to be fake i could want for somebody to show it out, extremely than undertake a good air and declare that as i'm no longer hurting every person i could besides be left to my infantile lack of understanding. in spite of everything, Dawkins provides your objection extremely a large style of interest interior the God fable. in reality his answer is that it is the climate of comprehend for irrational ideals that helps fundamentalism to look and flourish.
2016-11-01 01:37:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't know Sam Harris. I think Dawkins is a bit simplistic. He seems to assume that if there was no religion that people wouldn't find anything else to fight over.
2007-01-22 17:17:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not an Atheist but I think both are poor. But of course I read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason before both of them so my judgment may be of higher standard. Harris especially seems to want to mimic Paine but does such a lousy job, he doesn't even attack things that true Christians believe he just attacks the religious-right, which are virtually identical to the Pharisees that Jesus criticized in Matthew 23.
2007-01-22 17:16:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Dawkins. I think his writing style is more engaging. He's got a more solid background in science and more respectability.
His arguements are also more multi-layered than Harris. he approaches everything, even ethics, more like a scientist and less like a theologian.
2007-01-22 17:08:15 · answer #7 · answered by Laptop Jesus 2.0 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh, no way... no WAY. Won't do it, won't compare the two. Love them both, different styles, different approaches, but love them the same.
Richard Dawkins is so clever. I could listen to him all day long. He's got a solid scientific basis, too.
Harris is very direct, very thorough. He paints with a broad brush, but I think it's effective.
2007-01-22 17:06:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Neither, I don't need any man to use basic reasoning skills and common sense.
2007-01-22 17:10:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do my own thinking it generally turns out the same
2007-01-22 17:09:44 · answer #10 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋