Poll
71%
0%
0%
29%
Re: Favorite of the Four Horsemen
Originally posted by gold slorg
well obviously there are guys that talk about the subject of atheism, antitheism etc in better ways in different aspects (like Graham Oppy etc) but among the famous 4 that started the atheism promotion, who was/is the best?
They all offer something unique in terms of perspective.
Sam harris is the most valuable for the layman.
Re: Favorite of the Four Horsemen
Originally posted by gold slorg
well obviously there are guys that talk about the subject of atheism, antitheism etc in better ways in different aspects (like Graham Oppy etc) but among the famous 4 that started the atheism promotion, who was/is the best?
I voted Hitchens, rider of the pale horse
They all have their issues, with Dawkins and Harris we can see that now clearly. They partake in a very performative, shallow "intellectualism". Harris, of course, is still constantly gracing us with his bad takes. Hitchens was pretty good, but I have issue with his war mongering in his later years. I guess Dennet is the least intellectually offensive of them all.
Originally posted by Artol
They all have their issues, with Dawkins and Harris we can see that now clearly. They partake in a very performative, shallow "intellectualism". Harris, of course, is still constantly gracing us with his bad takes. Hitchens was pretty good, but I have issue with his war mongering in his later years. I guess Dennet is the least intellectually offensive of them all.
Care to give an example of one of harris's bad takes?
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Care to give an example of one of harris's bad takes?
I don’t follow him closely currently, since I don’t see much value in it.
But I’ll give three topics I find his analysis weak and unscientific. Number one is his focus on Islam as a particularly big problem in terms of Religiosity and making allies with deeply problematic Christian elements in this hatred of Islam in specific. Like his famous hypothetical that it would be reasonable for Western countries to preemptively bomb Iran, because they can particularly not be trusted with nuclear weapons, when the US intelligence services consider them rational actors, and if anything the United States have shown that they can not be trusted to keep treaties and promises.
Another is his handling of the race science discussion and Charles Murray in particular, rather than actually engaging with the problems that Murray’s “research” and political lobbying he unquestioned gave him a platform to spew it and and he not focused on some perceived “cancel culture” in the criticism of this.
Last a recent example is his take that Trump’s appeal , who he claims to dislike, can be explained by what he considers the “left” and particular Harris’ hatred of identity politics.
I just think anyone would be better of to listen to almost anyone else, it’s a shame that he has such a big platform, as he has a very limited understanding of politics and philosophy.