You said: ”To argue that science and God (in at least some conception) are incompatible IS inescapably stupid”.

I still say the argument is insupportable, arrogant and fallacy ridden (by the way, one of your fallacies is the ‘ad hominem’ attack; calling an argument stupid without actually refuting it). However, you do NOT get points for economy!

Furthermore, you seem to condem some atheist for being “condecending”, “arrogant” “self-righteous” and my favorite “embittered dicks”. But your letter is hardly one filled with tollerance and humility. Sounds like we got us a case of the pot calling the kettle black!

As for reading St. Augustine, I have and I’m not impressed.

You said: “The atheists who think that science and God are incompatible are as inescapably stupid as the fundamentalists who think the same thing. Yawn. I'll pay attention to an atheist talking about theology when they, well, understand the basic precepts of the modern theological, scholarly discourse.”

Rosenkavalier, your argument is insuportable, arrogant and fallacy ridden. But I'll give you points for economy.

“…(What) makes "God Is Not Great" such a disappointing book. Watching a man of his intellect and learning go to work on the indefensible crassness of religious fundamentalism is rather like watching a vainglorious father running rings around his young son in a game of soccer.”

Did we read the same book?

You’ve made a lovely analogy here Giles, but unfortunately I don’t think it applys to Christopher Hitchen’s book. ‘God is not Great’ does not just level it’s criticism at the Evangelical or Muslim ‘fundamentalist’ but at all of the organized monotheistic religions—no matter what stripe they be. I think that Hitchens made a pretty cogent argument that religion does, indead, poison everything. And he wasn‘t just pointing fingers at the ‘indefensibly crass fundamentalist’ ones as you mention but the indefenssibly crass moderates as well.

“Hitchens might have engaged with the nuanced, less easily ridiculed faith of William Blake or Simone Weil, thinkers in whom he would have found worthy opponents.”

I think you are equally wrong on this point. In fact I think that Hitchen’s could take these authors apart with even greater ease than the so called ‘fundamentalists’ you mention. Why? Because they're smart and wouldn’t be able to retreat into the fantasy land that marks the fundamentalist mindset. I would love to see Hitchens debate Blake or Weil. They were both reasonable people (or at least reasonably reasonable people) who would be forced to defend the so called ‘nuanced faith’ against even greater reason.

The debate wouldn’t last half as long as the one Hitchens had with Sharpton Tuesday night at the New York Public Library.

Dear Editor,

Do you read over Camille Paglia’s columns before they go to print or does she get carte blanche to write whatever self-indulgent drivel that spills from her head?

Just curious.

I was trying to think of some way to mock or satirize the situation but how do you parody a parody? This corrupt, paranoid, nepotistic huckster is already a cartoon caricature of himself (The Caligula comparison above comes close but I think even he was circumspect compared to Wolfy).

It absolutely blows my mind that he was ever able to get into a position of power and responsibility in the first place. What’s even more baffling is that he just keeps moving up despite his incompetence and intellectual vacuity.

The only explanation I can think of is that he must have something big on the Bush or Cheney— like pictures of them in a dog and pony show or a video of Laura getting it from Tommy Lee.

There is no other sane explanation for keeping a man like that around.