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?