Dennett v. Dawkins
Daniel Dennett reviews Richard Dawkins’ recent book here, and it’s an eye-opening read. At only five pages, it’s worth looking at to understand why I favor Dennett over Dawkins (and Harris) in these kinds of questions. Dennett sees the difference between he and Dawkins in two major areas: first, the question of whether the world is better off without religon (Dawkins says absolutely, Dennett is agnostic); second, their approach to debate. I think the two are linked. If you tend to create straw men in order to rebut them, then you’ll be more likely to want to rid the world of those straw men. Here’s the key section about their two styles of engagement:
Sometimes [Dawkins] just cannot conceal his mounting impatience with the arguments he has obliged himself to consider, and when his disrespect, or even contempt, shines through in spite of his strenuous efforts–I know just what he’s going through–he must surely lose many readers. Good riddance to them? Well, no, this is a problem. Serious argument depends on mutual respect, and this is often hard to engender when disagreements turn vehement.
Dennett says this is the “same thing” he wishes were different about his own book, Breaking the Spell, but from my read, Breaking the Spell has a drastically different tone than The God Delusion.
Hat tip: Prosblogion.