For over 25 years, Leon Wieseltier has been the literary editor of The New Republic. In that capacity, he has worked with some of the leading writers of our time.
He regularly pens TNR's Washington Diary column and has established himself as one of the most important and erudite critics at work today. He is also the author of the widely acclaimed Jewish theological rumination Kaddish.
Bio
Leon Wieseltier
Leon Wieseltier is literary editor of The New Republic, a post he's held since 1983. He is the author of Kaddish, among other books. His essays on political, literary, and religious subjects have appeared in many publications. He was educated at Columbia College, Balliol College, Oxford, and Harvard University, where he was a member of the Society of Fellows. His small acting career has included a part on "The Sopranos."
Richard Wolin
Richard Wolin is a highly regarded authority in the field of modern European intellectual history. He received a B.A. from Reed College, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from York University in Toronto and has held faculty positions at Reed College and Rice University where he was D.D. McMurtry Professor of History. He is the author of several books on subjects such as Martin Heidegger, Heidegger's influential Jewish students (Hannah Arendt, Karl Loewith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse), Walter Benjamin, the history of twentieth-century ideas, and modern cultural criticism. In addition to his scholarly writing, Professor Wolin is a regular contributor to such publications as the New Republic, Dissent, Tikkun, and The Los Angeles Times, which has earned him a reputation as a leading public intellectual. He is on several editorial review boards and has received grants and awards from the German Marshall Fund, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.
Religion:- "Organized fear of a man-made Monster". Why do you need Religion? religion is not needed to expound Ethics. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that non Theists can and do live decent lives without the superstitious baggage that accompanies it, like the threat of torture after death by default! I am no intellectual, but as I see it, Ethics is, after all, simply an encompassed acknowledgement of the rules in our collective consciences which evolved with us for our own personal protection in and for the good of Society.
You make the mistake of most proffessing religious, of attributing evil to all "non Believers" wherein lies an insidious flaw.
unfortunately, both Hitchens and Dawkins arguments are all mythical/religious as well. Neither of them has ever, or can ever, provide a purely rational basis for a single idea they advocate. Hitchens says that religion is responsible for everything bad, what he doesn't go on to say, is that it is also responsible for everything that he considers good. Thats because all value claims come from religion. It kills me when "intellectuals" like the folks in the comment section here obviously have no real knowledge of the history of moral/philosophical ideas. The philosophes of the enlightenment basically ripped off ideas from religion a la carte with the belief, yes belief, that they could eventually rationally justify the parts of religion they liked, and then organized religion would disappear. They failed. 400 years of abject failure. Not a single philosophical innovation/breakthrough was found for how to create a moral system based on reason alone. So why don't Hitch/Dawkins quit using religious language. They are both intellectual charlatans (like most atheist), in that they declare that religion is a sham, but can only do so by using the very moral arguments created by the religions themselves. If religion is a sham then human rights are a sham, too. But Nietzsche said it much better than I do.
A question for the atheists here: please point me to a purely rationale argument that supports condemning the Nazis for the holocaust. in fact, all atheists/rationalists should fully support making the holocaust museum a part of the Museum of Natural History.
i agre. hitchenson is a idiot. he is always whining. he sounds like an intellect, but isn't. i switch stations whenever i see he is a guess on a program.
Hmmm "are nonreligious because of cultural or emotional reactions to bad religion" it would seem you are suggesting there is something other than bad religion. I for one cannot think of one, an enslaved mind is a terrible thing.
When did this man venture out into daylight? Moving on from his semantics of modern day religion, would Mr.Wieseltier hold the same notions if he found himself about to be decapitated By Fundamentalists? doesn't he recognize that generations of young Americans for example are taught that the history of the earth & it's geology are only authorized by Genesis? That Darwin & Huxley are disciples of the Devil?He should have a chat with Pat Robertson or Benny Hinn! Hitchens & Dawkins do civilization a great service by trying to shake it free of these juvenile & unscientific notions.
Religiosity, like schizophrenia or depression, is a mental disease. It needs to be treated as a disease. A somewhat contagious one. We don't know the cure and so we search. Hitchens is searching and so is Shermer, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and others.
I agree, there's not too much of an intellectual fluff in the modern atheism, and it's good. Intellectuals are annoying with their heaviness, self-importance, inefficiency and emptiness. All the words they use to suffocate thoughts and waste time. Today's atheism's pithiness, sear, technicality, and gruffness are some of the newly evolved strategies. They may not work for the already sick, and the sorry intellectuals - those will have to die out - but they may slow down the spread of the poison into the youth - by quick and dry pointing out the ridiculousness of even considering believing in the likes of Santa Claus. Like with cigarettes, don't start, it's a fool's crotch hard to kick.
By the way, my parents told me that Santa Claus actually really does not exist.
I came to Atheism in my early 20's, having lived all over the world as a young person and seeing the different beliefs first hand so to speak. I think he is trying to say, and I believe this too, that without the thought behind your convictions, (I have read almost every spiritual text that exists, and I put a great deal of my philosophy together from comparison and contrast on the philisophical level,) modern atheists have an exuberance similar to the modern Christian or "born again" gets from the mega church pastors. When Hitchens speaks on atheism, its got a star quality, cheap but pretty, wheras you get a more "meat and potatoes" from Dawkins, who ties the philosophy into his arguement. I disagree with a lot of Hitchens style because, like the guy above, I see it as a bit thin and showy (more like the born agains.) My atheism came from years of reading and experiencing religion, and the only way to dispute the religious is to know their material better than they do. Because the absurdity of their arguements is so evident, once you know them. I don't think religion or the lack of should come to anyone quickly, it should come through knowledge and wisdom, both of which take some time to fully blossom. We can't dismiss the wisdom and humanity within the religious texts, we need to seperate the Humanistic qualities from the fiction, since wisdom does come with experience, and many parts of all of the religious texts contain human truths. We just need to recognize that and we can begin to show believers a different kind of light, the light of humanity and science, not a burn the bible type of attitude that seems more prevalent in today's atheist.
@slahteine, "As a person who is fascinated by consciousness, by the nature of reality, and by the mind as both a natural phenomenon and as a cultural creation, I see immense value in the psychological aspects of meditation and other contemplative practices... "
"meditation and other contemplative practices" and "the social facet" are self-contradictory, don't cha think?
And to think, in order to believe in any of the thousands of gods amongst which one can choose requires one to engage in willful ignorance. And choosing just one, as Mr. Wieseltier has, requires a very discriminating, willful ignorance.
Man proposes gods. Man disposes gods.
Athiests are not concerned with any of them.
The problem about which Mr. Wieseltier complains is a problem for theists.
The new Atheists are the only beam of light in all this religious nonsense we are living right now... Clearly Mr Wieseltier is selectively humanistic when he condemns the massacres of Sebrenica and Rowanda and does not condemn the Israelis occupation and displacement of Palestinians ... How can one be an intellectual when his religious affiliations fog his judgment in such an obvious matter... Many of the new atheists have Jewish heritage yet completely understand the terrible injustice that the Palestinians face in these modern times...
member. 
