3 ms·

This is a strong issue for me so I will attempt to be restrained. In the wake of the religiously motivated atrocities of 9/11, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Rich

by ErrantX 17y ago

This is a strong issue for me so I will attempt to be restrained. In the wake of the religiously motivated atrocities of 9/11, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have penned best-selling books This wasn't a good start; I feel it is something of an invocation of a parallel to Godwin's law. The middle bit spends a lot of time debunking the idea of innate morals. I happen to agree there; Hitchens is, I think, wrong in some respects (I only read him once; so there is almost certainly a subtle message as well). But the conclusions drawn are rather inane and, really, fall foul of the same mistakes the writer highlights. I skipped to the end at that point to see the conclusion was "Ayn Rand" - that's a lot of words just to get to that point...

dk 17y ago
A person is not a conclusion. The article ends by advocating Ayn Rand's ideas and works, clearly. Whatever one's views might be of her doesn't invalidate everything that precedes.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Indeed. It was the whole point of the article, really though. The writer took each of the "new atheists", listed their theories and pointed out where it doesn't sync with the writers views. But there were also no solutions (something the writer calls dawkins et al on a few times) to the fundamental questions - until the end when Ayn Rand is presented as the answer (and I mean her works in the possessive)
  - dk 17y ago
    The article argues every step for a reality-based ethics. And the author has one in mind, not surprisingly. Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions. Responding in the form "I agree that..." or "I disagree that..." could start an interesting discussion.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions Of course; I just wish that the writer had mentioned this at the top so I could have given the arguments context. I've read Rand and personally don't find her useful so all that reading led to... nothing insightful (for me anyway) :) There was a lot of use of "The fact is" - this is just bad rhetoric. I didn't feel these sections were well enough argued/presented to constitute a solution to the questions posed earlier in the piece. Ultimately I just felt the conclusion was poor - the article posed a lot of questions and never really addressed them, except to say read Ayn Rand.

by ErrantX 17y ago

dk 17y ago

A person is not a conclusion. The article ends by advocating Ayn Rand's ideas and works, clearly. Whatever one's views might be of her doesn't invalidate everything that precedes.

ErrantX 17y ago
Indeed. It was the whole point of the article, really though. The writer took each of the "new atheists", listed their theories and pointed out where it doesn't sync with the writers views. But there were also no solutions (something the writer calls dawkins et al on a few times) to the fundamental questions - until the end when Ayn Rand is presented as the answer (and I mean her works in the possessive)
- dk 17y ago
  The article argues every step for a reality-based ethics. And the author has one in mind, not surprisingly. Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions. Responding in the form "I agree that..." or "I disagree that..." could start an interesting discussion.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions Of course; I just wish that the writer had mentioned this at the top so I could have given the arguments context. I've read Rand and personally don't find her useful so all that reading led to... nothing insightful (for me anyway) :) There was a lot of use of "The fact is" - this is just bad rhetoric. I didn't feel these sections were well enough argued/presented to constitute a solution to the questions posed earlier in the piece. Ultimately I just felt the conclusion was poor - the article posed a lot of questions and never really addressed them, except to say read Ayn Rand.