Re. your first article, let me just say it’s more of a hatchet-job of context-free clips from Singer than “a representative taste of Singer’s thoughts” as its author claims. I do not consider myself an expert on Singer, and disagree with some of what he says, but that sort of treatment is pretty poor.
I think it is a hatchet-job; the article is uncharitable, even ugly in a way.
But they *are* things Singer’s claimed, they flow very naturally from his ethical theory, he’s said them himself, and he’s never taken any of them back. ‘Live by the sword, die by the sword’. I’d call most the works of Dawkins, Dennett, Flanagan, even Paulos, on theological and religious matters, hatchet-jobs; I leave it to others to decide if they’re context-free or just. But none of them are very charitable about religion or religious people, no matter how charming they are in person. I can’t handle that particular kind of conflict.
(I met Dawkins a few years back; he gave a funny but awfully simplistic lecture that in part made fun of some Australian[?] crank who talked about how God must have designed the banana for human consumption. I’ve discovered that visiting speakers often underestimate the intelligence of undergraduates. But he was a nice guy in person, and exceedingly jet-lagged; a rare bout of charity prompted me to let him drink his tea in weary peace and talk about little things.)