but the argument that Hitchens has used is factually wrong. For example, in chapter 4 he writes, “An official of Pakistan’s AIDS Control Program told Foreign Policy magazine in 2005 that the problem was smaller in his country because of ‘better social Islamic values.'” There may be grounds to challenge and refute this claim. But it is very persistent.” Unfortunately, he lost sight of this reasonable approach while putting his book together.Īt places in his book, he has also overstated the facts. Hitchens, himself, has corroborated this view in his acknowledgments, where he writes: “The voice of Reason is soft. In this author’s opinion, one should demonstrate the irrationality of religious belief without being derisive, arrogant, or imposing. The tone of Hitchens’s book is definitely derisory. People somehow think atheism is linked to being derisory.” Cusack, “people assume that you despise religion. “I think if you just say I’m an atheist,” says Dr. “If somebody says they’re religious, it means they have principles and morals.” The reverse seems to apply to atheists.
Carole Cusack, chairwoman of the department of studies in religion at the University of Sydney, but Australians still view being religious positively.
It may be true that fewer Australians attend church than ever, says Dr. The following observation of Thornton McCamish underlines my point: Hitchens seems needlessly overabrasive with regard to theism and theists, and his aggressiveness seems to mar the appeal of this book. God Is Not Great, another addition to the recently growing literature against religion and God, is quite different in style from Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.
0 kommentar(er)
