the four horsemen (hitchens, dawkins, dennett & harris)

Fascinating discussion between the four authors whose recent books have opened the debate on "the new atheism" over the past couple of years: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. Rather wittily called "The Four Horsemen", it's a filmed two hour discussion which is watchable and downloadable for free from Richard Dawkins' website:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/artic...cussions-With-Richard-Dawkins-Episode-1-RDFRS

A must watch for all atheists, agnostics and anyone interested in the recent debate and controversy surrounding these books. A delight to hear a conversation between four such interesting, knowledgable and erudite men.

 

Kind of like watching the College of Cardinals debate atheism. It would be more interesting if they brought on religious scientists like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, William Dembski, and Michael Behe, and had a real debate ( especially since Miller and Collins reject Dembski and Behe's ID arguments).

 

Dawkins certainly did that in his TV programmes which led to the writing of "The God Delusion", they filmed many hours of debates with scholars from the main religions. Clearly this debate has a different intention. It is a discussion between the four authors whose books have kickstarted the whole new atheism debate discussing the way they have been received, critical reactions, their experiences from book tours etc, and as such is fascinating on its own terms...

Their self-criticisms are particularly interesting, including the consensus which emerges suggesting that if we are to promote the acceptance of atheism then more focus must be placed on what is gained from an atheistic/scientific approach rather than what is bad about religion. They suggest that a major reaction from religious people has tended to focus on the notion that atheists are in some way cultural vandals who wish to destroy traditions or that we are missing out on something, namely 'spiritual' experience. A reading of the books in question would quickly show this idea to be wrong, so it seems to be a presentational issue more than anything. Dawkins' and Harris' books in particular spend a lot of time discussing the positive benefit of a naturalistic worldview, alongside the idea that to accept religious dogma and its denial of nature is to miss so much of the wonder and majesty of the real nature of the universe - secular spirituality in the Einsteinian sense. Hitchens' concept of the 'numinous' as opposed to supernatural spiritualism is really interesting in this regard and this is of course something Sam Harris has also talked about at length.

 

I read the books. I liked the books (much better than the live discussion). I still think they're missing out on something, but so are Christian fundamentalists, whom the "four horsemen" remind me of a lot. First of all, they express surprise that believers find them arrogant, but what else would you call people who obviously believe they've disproved or discredited religion to the point that they're astonished that modern adults can still believe the stuff when scientists like Collins, Miller, Behe, and Dembski believe it? Second, they seem to be enamored with scientism (not to be confused with science), but do not appear to have adequately come to grips with the limitations of human knowledge in light of quantum indeterminacy, relativity, Godel's incompleteness theorem, chaos, etc. They know about and talk about these things, but the implications don't seem to have sunk in. Third, they appear (with the possible exception of Harris) to have overdeveloped left and underdeveloped right brain hemispheres,approaching religion and reality from a reductionist, linear, analytical perspective that neglects the intuitive, integrative role of spiritual thought. Fourth, they want to ease the concerns of religious folk that they mean harm to things sacred. Yet Dawkins longs for a world without churches and (in The God Delusion, thinks the Amish should be prevented from teaching their religion to their kids;Hitchens wants to keep the churches so he can still have something to bash, but thinks all religions, even Quakers, are pernicious. Harris (in his book) argues that moderate Christians share the blame for militant fundamentalists. (If you ain't with us, you're agin us). Fifth, they acknowledge but don't really meet the challenge of the anthropic principle and the "finely tuned universe" which made the formation of intelligent life extremely likely (a "happy accident"?). I don't think these folks have disproven religion any more than religious people have proven it, so neither side has much to be arrogant about. But it was neat to see them interacting, and they did make some points I didnt recall from their books.

 

I like Michael Shermer more than any of these four. At least they left out Chris Hedges; he's too conspiratorial for my taste.

Okie is far too kind in calling Dembski and Behe scientists.

 

None of these books, even some of the most robust statements like "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger ever suggest that God or religion has been "disproved". This mistake is made by a great many critics of "the new atheism", making you wonder how many have actually read what's being said. It is, of course, a logical impossibility to prove a negative. No rational person would entirely rule out any possibility for which there is an absence of evidence. The corollary of that is that neither would they claim to have knowledge of something for which there is no evidence.

The anthropic principle has been dealt with extensively by Dawkins and Dennett: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x must be so. This is not an explanation of why x is so, simply an acknowledgement that it cannot logically be otherwise given that we are making the observation. The reason why the universal constants are at the values they are and the question of whether they could be any different is a fascinating one for theoretical physics; it's an error to assume the strong anthropic principle provides any kind of an explanation, it just leaves you with a version of the teleological argument which is fundamentally incomplete because it cannot explain who designed the designer. As we know, the appearance of design or purpose is not valid grounds upon which to infer, unexplained, the existence of design or purpose.

I agree that the issue of why clever people can believe irrational things is not properly addressed in the public debate, but it formed a key part of Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and has been discussed at length by evolutionary psychologists, I'd recommend Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained" for a very clear discussion of the human instincts that fashion such beliefs. We need to explain why we seem to be "hard wired" to believe in irrational ideas rather than simply to denounce as delusion what more than 90% of the human population regard to be entirely natural, no matter how accurate that description is. I think this is a good objection to this "new atheism" but again it is a presentational issue. Perhaps we can't move the headline debate on to the (absolutely fascinating) question of how and why religion came about in anthropological terms until it is understood why it even makes sense to study it in such terms. It is being studied and explained well by the new evolutionary psychology, though this aspect has not really entered the public debate yet.

I think the discussion (as well as the books) showed that they do not reject the role of the "numinous" and of intuition and inspiration, again this is a presentational issue, it's clear that this aspect of 'Einsteinian' religiosity has not properly come across to the public - at least to those who have not read or understood the books. I think the response to your objection would be that these kinds of experiences are fundamentally important as processes, but there is a problem with drawing conclusions from intuition or from numinous experiences. Nobody (and certainly no author, scientist, philosopher etc) is without these experiences or can deny their importance in the creative process. But the experience itself is not an end, it is an inchoate beginning, to which the tools of rationality and logic must be applied if anything truly knowable is to come about. To claim knowledge based on such personal numinous experiences without testing them with the tools of rationality is foolhardy.

 

I liked the book by Mick Farren.

 

Like Sam Harris alot doesnt seem as pretentious and mean as hitchens. Dennett is alright Dawkins is kinda boring.

 

It is an implicit assumption in the whole discussion on the link you referenced. Otherwise, what are they talking about. And yes, I watched both parts and read the book. "The God Delusion" certainly "suggests" that religion is a delusion, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?

Define "no evidence".

Design implies designer. How the designer came to be is another question. From a strictly logical standpoint, the argument from design leads to infinite regression. Yet intuitively, a high degree of coherence in the universe suggests that something is responsible, and an Intelligent Designer is a possibility. So would be some unintelligent force(s) producing a high degree of coherence, as Stenger suggests. Or the yin and yang of Taoism, etc. It isn't irrational to speculate about such things or to opt for one, if the believer is aware of what (s)he is doing (as admittedly most aren't). It could all be a happy accident, as the horsemen suggest. Or maybe there's more to it, as I believe. The horsemen explicitly reject and ridicule "faith", which I think is essentially intuitive risk-taking.

I read Dennett's book. He is tediously thorough in providing plausible naturalistic explanations for the phenomenon of religion, and it is possible that they can really account for the phenomenon. Another possibility is that 90% of the human population is perceiving a reality that Dennett doesn't perceive, because he's suffering from a psychological or spiritual condition analagous to tone deafness or color blindness. And, by the way, flinging pejoratives like "irrational" about doesn't strengthen the argument (I prefer "nonrational").

I pretty much agree with this, except I think "testing them with the tools of rationality" is difficult if not impossible. I prefer to store them in the "X files" for future reference. Two of the religious scientists I mentioned earlier, Collins and Miller, illustrate a phenomenon that I find paradoxical and you may find supportive of your case. Both are respected scientists. Both have provided impressive, solid arguments in support of Darwinian evolution against I.D. What accounts for their belief? Both give weight to the "finely tuned universe" arguments, but the clincher in both cases is non-rational, extra-scientific. The four horsemen refer incredulously to Collins' "relgious experience" with a frozen waterfall that reminded him of the Trinity. I'd accept your "irrational" label for that one. Miller talks about his Catholic upbringing and believes that the universe was fine tuned to create a high probability that some kind of intelligent life would evolve to know and love the Designer. I've had similar "numinous" life-changing experiences, but I think it's important to recognize their limitations as "evidence".

 

The likelihood that religious faith does not accurately give us knowledge about the nature of the universe is the tacit assumption. The notion that anyone is claiming that the existence of gods is "disproven" is an important misunderstanding.

The idea that it's suggested that creation is a "happy accident" is also a fundamental misunderstanding which overlooks almost all of Dennett's and Dawkins' key arguments, in fact almost all of their oeuvre...

 

An interesting idea, but until you can provide empirical evidence for the existence of this 'reality' which atheists do not perceive then it remains an unparsimonious barefaced assertion and as such is inadmissable as a rational explanation.

 

I think my use of the term "accident" may be the problem. Dawkins and Dennett certainly don't suggest that the universe is accidental, but they do suggest that it is blind. Dawkins, of course, uses the "Blind Watchmaker" analogy in describing natural selection. According to Gould, there were many critical points in the evloutionary process that could have gone differently, leading to the evolution of some other life form which might be incapable of awareness. Miller argues that the fine tunedness of the universe provides a high probablitiy that some intelligent life form would evolve, but not necessarily one like us. I gather that they, good scientists that they are, would say "Of course. So what?" In that sense, the fact that we're here having this conversation would be an accident--a matter of chance or luck. And I think it's happy. At least I am.

 

"Empirical", as I understand the term, includes all forms of experience. In court, the assertion by witnesses that they have experienced something would be admissible as direct evidence. If 9 witnesses say they witnessed something, and one said he was there too and didn't see a thing, the jury, of course, could draw its own conclusions. Do you think they'd be irrational to believe the nine? Truly rational people would simply say that the phenomenon isn't veridical for them, and suspend judgment.

I think a major problem Dennett and the other "Horsemen" have in communicating with ordinary believers has to do with evidence and proof. These men accept the standards of science for acquiring knowledge: refutable hypotheses put to rigorous empirical testing, to the satisfaction of scientific peer referees. That is, indeed, the best way to gain knowledge we can rely on, although in light of quantum and relativity theories, I'm skeptical about the ability of science to "know" ultimate reality (as opposed to making useful predictions). Science is more concerned with avoiding "Type A" errors (accepting something as true when it is false) than avoiding "Type B" errors (rejecting something that might be true). Ordinary people may be more concerned with the latter errors.

There are other valid standards of evidence and "proof" which are used in a variety of contexts. The level of "proof" required varies from one context to another. Courtroom proof is less rigorous than scientific proof, for the practical reason that we can't wait for decades of rigorous testing before making legal decisions. In criminal cases, we set the level of proof at "beyond a reasonable doubt", and innocent people go to death row on this basis. In civil cases, it's a preponderance of evidence--"more likely than not", or 51% probable. In administrative decisions involving important rights, it's even less: "probable cause", "reasonable suspicion", "substantial evidence", not "arbitrary and capricious," etc. I think the applicable standards for religious belief are at this level. At least, that's how I operate. Facing the challenge of getting through life on a day-to-day basis, and deciding what job to apply for, what college to attend, what girl to ask out, what god to believe in, etc., I often make decisions on the basis of limited information. I'm willing to follow hunches and take a chance, rather than hold out for more rigorous proof, which is often difficult or impossible to get. Religious opinion, to me, is a lot like political opinion. Would Hillary, Obama, Gulliani, Romney, etc. make the best President? We can't answer a question like that scientifically, but I don't think it's appropriate to abstain from voting because we can't. I go on the evidence at hand, relying on my best judgment and hoping for the best. Where I think religion can go wrong is in claiming that faith is superior to science as a source of knowledge about physical reality. Where the four horsemen go wrong is insisting that religions provide scientific proof for their claims or give up the ghost, because nothing else will do.

 

No atheist honestly rejects faith or belief, only 'god'.


Some humans have too much going for them, have too much love of mystery to want to be lost to it.


Okie:

What are your thoughts on telepathy?

 

Seriously? I don't think about it much, and am skeptical. But I have to admit that it could very well be that some people have a faculty that I lack.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html This article is a little bit old, but it is a debate (or highlights from a bigger debate) between Dawkins and Collins.

 

Yeah, I read that, and I think it shows the strengths and some of the weaknesses of both of these brilliant scientists. I think Collins "finely tuned universe" was his strongest point, but his notion that human altruism is proof of God strikes me as incredibly lame. On the video discussion among the "four horsemen", I thought it was interesting that Dawkins admits the "finely tuned universe" argument is the one he finds most plausible in support of theism. In The God Delusion, he does a good job of addressing both arguments, especially the one based on altruism. He is able to make a convincing case (to me, at least) that human altruism could have developed through natural selection. I do think Collins nailed Dawkins effectively on the "arrogance" matter, when Dawkins asked Collins why he doesn't disassociate himself from the fundamentalist "clowns".

I'm glad you posted this. It occured to me we now have the ingredients for a really productive discussion--by identifying issues raised in the "four horsemen" video and the Dawkins vs. Collins debate and using these as a framework for our own debate. Anybody game?

There are ten issues I picked up from the video and the Time article:
(1) respect/objectivity: Do atheists and religious folks respect each other's point of view, or are they rude, aggressive and dismissive? (This isn't just a Political Correctness issue if it results in giving inadequate consideration to arguments and evidence).
(2) numinous vs. supernatural:Is it possible/desirable to separate the "numinous" from the supernatural aspects of spirituality, and retain the former while discarding the latter?
(3) faith and reason/science: Is faith compatible with reason/science?
(4) dangers and benefits of atheism & religion: are atheism and religion dangerous? Would the world be better off without either? If so, do they have any redeeming qualities?
(5) science and God: Can God be studied scientifically? Are religion and science compatible?
(6) finely tuned universe and God: Is the universe finely tuned for intelligent life, and if so, is that evidence for God?
(7) God and evolution: Is evolution compatible with God?
(8) altruism: does human altruism prove God?
(9) miracles: Can miracles happen, and if so, are they compatible with science?
(10) war of ideas: Who is winning, atheism or religion? Is victory possible/desirable for either?

I'm open to additions, deletions, revisions. Then maybe we can discuss.

 

People:
As a visceral atheist, the concept of deity renders me physically ill; esp., monotheistic deity. But: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. (Buddhist koan)
How about a joke to lighten the debate:
Question: What's the worst thing about being an atheist?
Answer: No one to talk to when you're having an orgasm.
Also, enjoy responding with the following to Bible-thumpers: "Fuck you. And fuck your god." They might not go ballistic at the former -- "Jesus will forgive you." But they all go ballistic at the latter. To which I respond: "Fine! Speak to my Glock." (9mm with extended magazine)
Another joke:
Q: Why do all Mormons have inverted nipples?
A, with vehement finger-pointing/jabbing: Get off my porch!
Evidence -- only personal yet empiric -- contra Deus:
* alimentery canal + peristalsis + micturation (Only the wildest set of demonic forces -- such as evolution over millions of years -- could have jury-rigged such an arrangement; or the "designer" is a pervert unworthy of even your merest shrug. I mean, Come On! Lack of imagination, efficiency.)
* Tsunamis + volcanoes + earthquakes + droght + flood + fire + tectonic shifts (Acts of an all-loving God?)
* Above all: Napalmed babies or innocent suffering of any type. (Vietnam)
* Not to mention politicians of all stripes.

QED: Fuck God

 

(1) respect/objectivity: Do atheists and religious folks respect each other's point of view, or are they rude, aggressive and dismissive? (This isn't just a Political Correctness issue if it results in giving inadequate consideration to arguments and evidence).varies between people. I would say for the most part they are not rude, but I would definitely say dismissive.
(2) numinous vs. supernatural:Is it possible/desirable to separate the "numinous" from the supernatural aspects of spirituality, and retain the former while discarding the latter?
(3) faith and reason/science: Is faith compatible with reason/science? Yes science takes a bit of faith, especially when trying to predict future events/occurrences.
(4) dangers and benefits of atheism & religion: are atheism and religion dangerous? Would the world be better off without either? If so, do they have any redeeming qualities? Religion can be dangerous. Throughout history this has been shown over and over again. Its dangerous because one can justify killing or invading people/nations based on scripts in their holy book or 'intuitions' from their deity. Although atheist can kill as well I'm unaware of them using a justification on the absence of god.

(5) science and God: Can God be studied scientifically? Are religion and science compatible? I say as of now, no god cant be studied scientifically, and any religion with a creation myth is not compatible with science.
(6) finely tuned universe and God: Is the universe finely tuned for intelligent life, and if so, is that evidence for God? the universe is finely tuned for intelligent life and I think that is evidence for higher power(s).
(7) God and evolution: Is evolution compatible with God? yes, evolution and God are compatible. I don't see any conflict with God setting life in motion and letting it go on its own.
(8) altruism: does human altruism prove God? not in the least. One could have a tough time proving that true altruism even exists. I've heard compelling arguments of 'altruism' satisfying subconcious needs, and even if it does exist there is a bit of a slippery slope saying that is prove for the existence of god.
(9) miracles: Can miracles happen, and if so, are they compatible with science? yes miracles can happen and I think they happen all the time, hence why science uses theories as opposed to calling something straight law. There always seem to be exceptions or variations to much of science.
(10) war of ideas: Who is winning, atheism or religion? Is victory possible/desirable for either?
if I had to choose I would say religion is 'winning.' atheism is really just blossoming in my opinion. I don't believe victory is possible for either side .

 

Step back and remember

What the world needed was passed by years back
Condollezza Rice.
As president. this world would have been made anew.
She refused the role. 'as i might'
It would have eventually killed her.

There is one horse and its rider
Fear.. ridden by envy