A Tale of Two Tactics: Dawkins versus Dennett

[John21]

I made a poor attempt at addressing the issue of how an atheist presents their argument a few days ago, so I'll try to use two well known atheist writers and their way of presenting their points, to hopefully pose my question with a little more.

Daniel Dennett quote:
[ QUOTE ]
I think the main problem we face today is overreaction, making martyrs out of people who desperately want to become martyrs. What it will take is patience, good information, and a steady demand for universal education about the world’s religions. This will favor the evolution of avirulent forms of religion, which we can all welcome as continuing parts of our planet’s cultural heritage. Eventually the truth will set us free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Dawkins quote:
[ QUOTE ]
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comparing Dennett's, Breaking the Spell, with Dawkins', The God Delusion, here's how the general tone of both author effected me: With Dennett, it was reflective and philosophical. With Dawkins, it was judgemental and activist. At least from my perspective, one argument is presented in a way that opens the door to dialog, while the other puts someone on the defensive, if they don't accept his point of view.

So putting aside any beliefs, points-of-view, or agendas, what tactic do you feel would be more effective in presenting the argument to the majority of people who fall some where in the middle of the road as to their religious convictions?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What it will take is patience, good information, and a steady demand for universal education about the world’s religions


[/ QUOTE ]

Dennett should start with Dawkins.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I made a poor attempt at addressing the issue of how an atheist presents their argument a few days ago, so I'll try to use two well known atheist writers and their way of presenting their points, to hopefully pose my question with a little more.

Daniel Dennett quote:
[ QUOTE ]
I think the main problem we face today is overreaction, making martyrs out of people who desperately want to become martyrs. What it will take is patience, good information, and a steady demand for universal education about the world’s religions. This will favor the evolution of avirulent forms of religion, which we can all welcome as continuing parts of our planet’s cultural heritage. Eventually the truth will set us free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Dawkins quote:
[ QUOTE ]
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comparing Dennett's, Breaking the Spell, with Dawkins', The God Delusion, here's how the general tone of both author effected me: With Dennett, it was reflective and philosophical. With Dawkins, it was judgemental and activist. At least from my perspective, one argument is presented in a way that opens the door to dialog, while the other puts someone on the defensive, if they don't accept his point of view.

So putting aside any beliefs, points-of-view, or agendas, what tactic do you feel would be more effective in presenting the argument to the majority of people who fall some where in the middle of the road as to their religious convictions?

[/ QUOTE ]Dawkins is winning. "We think science is pretty darn cool, and if you don't think so. You can [censored] off." Then again I'm not sure that Dawkins wants to convince people as much as he wants people that have allready been convinced to speak up. As well as those who have not allready been convinced of god, to get a quality education.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins wants to convince people as much as he wants people that have allready been convinced to speak up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your opinion and with Dawkins' one. It is very important that it be done.

[soon2bepro]

They're not mutually exclusive, much to the contrary, both are right. Dawkins is more specific.

[Siegmund]

I wonder if the stylistic differences pointed out by the OP are, in a nutshell, the reason why Dawkins's works get quoted frequently in the popular press, while Dennett is a name I've seen in the popular press exactly once in my life ("leading atheistic philosopher" is perhaps not the pinnacle of glory it sounds like - the only reason I recognized his name that one time was because of Douglas Hofstadter's collaboration on The Mind's I.)

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if the stylistic differences pointed out by the OP are, in a nutshell, the reason why Dawkins's works get quoted frequently in the popular press

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Dawkins gets quoted more because he's got bettter soundbites.
I think. while his books on evolution are great, he's part of the reason evolution is having such problems being accepted by a lot of people. He needs to zip it sometimes.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if the stylistic differences pointed out by the OP are, in a nutshell, the reason why Dawkins's works get quoted frequently in the popular press

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Dawkins gets quoted more because he's got bettter soundbites.
I think. while his books on evolution are great, he's part of the reason evolution is having such problems being accepted by a lot of people. He needs to zip it sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not allowed to quote or support Dawkins on SMP until I've read the books by other authors that you and others have recommended to me.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if the stylistic differences pointed out by the OP are, in a nutshell, the reason why Dawkins's works get quoted frequently in the popular press

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Dawkins gets quoted more because he's got bettter soundbites.
I think. while his books on evolution are great, he's part of the reason evolution is having such problems being accepted by a lot of people. He needs to zip it sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not allowed to quote or support Dawkins on SMP until I've read the books by other authors that you and others have recommended to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, please continue to do so (although I could do with a little less of the religious stuff). I didn't mean to come off anti-Dawkins. I just referenced him today in that other thread.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
hI think. while his books on evolution are great, he's part of the reason evolution is having such problems being accepted by a lot of people.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm very sorry Rduke, but dawkins would not exist if people didn't have such problems accepting evolution. Athough I respect your opinion on matters regarding matter such as this, I'm afraid I believe I have solid ground to stand on, on that point. If you disagree I'll come up with a better argument.