Book Review: The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens By Vox Day
Published June 24, 2008
“A Marxian Apostate” is reserved for Christopher Hitchens. Day chooses to let his footnotes (there are a lot of them and not all of them are helpful) do the talking in this chapter, as he takes about five pages in the form of a chart to discuss direct quotes from Hitchens’ god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Day insists that the quotes from Hitchens’ were made without substantiation and, thus, can be refuted without evidence.
Vox Day moves beyond his Unholy Trinity to take on Daniel C. Dennett in “The Pragmatic Philosopher.” Originally intended to be a part of the Trinity, Day explains that Hitchens’ fame actually flung him to the front of the line and left poor Dennett in the backdrop. Day is unseasonably kind with Dennett here, showing admiration for his work and many of his philosophical conclusions. He finds Dennett to be the most thoughtful and courteous of the New Atheists and the chapters regarding him are quite docile.
Day’s final target is an elusive one and a French one. Michel Onfray is given the Vox Day treatment with “The Robespierre of Atheism.” Having read Onfray’s book recently, I found this chapter particularly interesting. Day’s assessment of Onfray and his rejection of common morality are pretty much on target. His notation of Onfray’s “spirituality of the profane” deserves a look, as does his setting apart of the French philosopher from the rest of the New Atheists with Onfray’s “evilness” well in tow.
Day finishes up the book with a succession of chapters that take part in the usual game of Matching Atrocities and playing with comparative behaviour. These chapters are all worth a look, but tend to drag as the book carries on. No one group can claim imperviousness from human horrors; we all have blood on our hands.
Overall, Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist is a level-headed deconstruction of the New Atheists and their particular tomes. It is engaging, snappy, and crammed with derision and humour. A read-through of the reviews at Amazon will find that Day’s writing style is a sticking point for many of his opponents, although they seem to praise Harris, Dawkins, and especially Hitchens for proceeding along the same lines. Will wonders never cease?
If an intelligent and well-written evaluation of the New Atheists’ core arguments is an attractive notion, Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist is one of the most precise works available to date.
- Book Review: The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens By Vox Day
- Published: June 24, 2008
- Type: Review
- Section: Books
- Filed Under: Books: Philosophy, Books: Nonfiction, Books: Religion
- Writer: Jordan Richardson
- Jordan Richardson's BC Writer page
- Jordan Richardson's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
"libertarian"
A libertarian who obeys commands from his god regardless of whether or not they seem to be atrocities? That's NOT a libertarian.
"Day insists that the quotes from Hitchens' were made without substantiation and, thus, can be refuted without evidence."
In other words, I don't like what you have asserted, so I will assert the opposite.
"usual game of Matching Atrocities and playing with comparative behaviour"
And this seems like a rational "argument"?
"evaluation of the New Atheists' core arguments"
And this "evaluation" is what you have discussed above? Phooey on you and him.
onein6billion, have you read the Vox Day book? I merely gave it a brief overview and my review should by no means be a substitute for actually having read the material.
Let me help you out a little further, actually:
The "libertarian" claim is one Day makes himself both in the book and on his website over at Vox Populi. I put the claim in quotation marks for a reason and any beef you may have with his claim to be a libertarian would have to be taken up with him. He does not go into it in the book.
In other words, I don't like what you have asserted, so I will assert the opposite.
As #1 says, that's pretty much the case. Hitchens himself is aware that his arguments are largely anecdotal (that's not to say they aren't convincing or admirable) and, as is the general theme of Day's book, the tactic used against Hitchens' material is similar. You'd have to actually read the chapter to frame this in a proper context and, as this is merely a review of the book and not a reprint of it, I leave that to interested readers.
And this seems like a rational "argument"?
As with the libertarian distinction, you'd have to take this up with Mr. Day. I did not speak of this portion in the book in a very flattering way and I referred to it as "the usual game." But Day's book has no intention of actually framing any arguments on its own; it is merely an attempted retort or rejoinder. I don't know if the argument is "irrational" in any sense of the word, nor do I know that Day was trying to particularly be rational. Again, you'd have to read the book to grasp the concept, but Day doesn't really get into much self-politicking.
Phooey on you and him.
Yes, bravo. Very RATIONAL of you to "phooey" a book reviewer...
I must suggest to all Christians and Atheist to read this book "The End of Reason" by Dr. Ravi Zacharias. This book forces the reader's mind to do the critical thinking that is so lacking in Christianity today. It should also be considered required reading for the atheist who has never really looked at a logical argument for the existence of God, or the Christian who has never really critically analyzed his own faith. Check out more information on The End of Reason here
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/78372)
The reason "Day insists that the quotes from Hitchens' were made without substantiation and, thus, can be refuted without evidence." is because Hitchens' himself claims that in his book. Day just lists all the unsubstantiated claims Hitchens makes.