Pretty interesting reading, but he says

Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka

I wish to differ. According to wikipedia

Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. ...The king Kamsa, Devaki's brother, had ascended the throne by imprisoning his father, King Ugrasena.
Afraid of a prophecy that predicted his death at the hands of Devaki's
eighth son, he had the couple cast into prison where he planned to kill
all of Devaki's children at birth. After killing the first six
children, and Devaki's apparent miscarriage of the seventh, Krishna
took birth....

read more»

Pretty interesting reading, but he says

Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka

I wish to differ. According to wikipedia

Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. ...The king Kamsa, Devaki's brother, had ascended the throne by imprisoning his father, King Ugrasena.
Afraid of a prophecy that predicted his death at the hands of Devaki's
eighth son, he had the couple cast into prison where he planned to kill
all of Devaki's children at birth. After killing the first six
children, and Devaki's apparent miscarriage of the seventh, Krishna
took birth. As his life was in danger he was smuggled out to be raised
by his foster parents Yasoda and Nanda in Gokul, Mahavana.

Yeah, I worry about this with Hitchens as well. He may be many things, but he's not a scholar of world religions and he shouldn't pretend to be. He cites a lot of stories he's heard from varrious religions without attempting to understand him. He tends to casually presume that all faiths are as literal-minded as contemporary Christian Fundamentalism, which isn't true.

Many people see their religious scriptures as complex metaphors, and would be insulted by the suggestion that they should be interpreted as something so mundane as the literal truth.

This is a key chink in his argument against faith, namely that his experience with faith is very limited, and he generalizes it well beyond his ...

Yeah, I worry about this with Hitchens as well. He may be many things, but he's not a scholar of world religions and he shouldn't pretend to be. He cites a lot of stories he's heard from varrious religions without attempting to understand him. He tends to casually presume that all faiths are as literal-minded as contemporary Christian Fundamentalism, which isn't true.

Many people see their religious scriptures as complex metaphors, and would be insulted by the suggestion that they should be interpreted as something so mundane as the literal truth.

This is a key chink in his argument against faith, namely that his experience with faith is very limited, and he generalizes it well beyond his ability to support the argument.

It's not that he doesn't have a point, he just reaches to far. I think he would be much more persuasive if he just focused on the examples he's most familiar with.

But the issue of referencing Hinduism is still problematic for me. (Sohil has a very good clip on this)

By using thinking of "Hindus" we are really talking about an artificial western mis-interpretation of Indian philosophy through the lense of western religion.

These stories about Krishna are common, but they aren't authoritative. They don't come from authoritative canonized texts like the Bible or the Quran. There is no obligation for Hindus to believe in them.

Which brings me to the crux of the problem. In the west, to belief plays a central role in our interpretation of Religion. Dennet and Hitchens make arguments against beli...

But the issue of referencing Hinduism is still problematic for me. (Sohil has a very good clip on this)

By using thinking of "Hindus" we are really talking about an artificial western mis-interpretation of Indian philosophy through the lense of western religion.

These stories about Krishna are common, but they aren't authoritative. They don't come from authoritative canonized texts like the Bible or the Quran. There is no obligation for Hindus to believe in them.

Which brings me to the crux of the problem. In the west, to belief plays a central role in our interpretation of Religion. Dennet and Hitchens make arguments against belief, but they don't seem to understand that not all religions function the same way.

Many westerners think that all it takes to become a part of a religion is to say "I believe it to be true." Western "Hindus" are very surprised when they are barred from South Asian temples, because believing in a religion has very little to do with being part of it.

Many Eastern religions focus on action or practice and philosophy, on taking ideas and incorporating them into your life. Belief in asserted facts is almost wholly irrelevant, if not out-right discouraged.

By grouping all religions together when they argue against "faith" or "belief" many people betray the fact that they only really understand the major Abrahamic Religions and the Western World View.

The critiques remain good, I think, but Hitchens and Dennet both tend to stray beyond their fields of expertise.