A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:41 pm

This is the first part of an interesting conversation among Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens talking about various things, including what it's like trying to talk reasonably with religious folks. Part two is here.

Enjoy!

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:46 pm

I'm glad they did this. This actually came out last September. I have both part 1 and 2 on my iphone, and I listen to it regularly. It's interesting to see how many things the four-headed monster disagrees on.

Post by **_Ren** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:27 pm

Brilliant. Thanks for posting that Schmo.
I preferred the second half to the first half. The first half was ok, but the second half is where it got really interesting - for me anyway:

* Hitchens says one of the reasons he wouldn't like to see faith 'disappear completely' is because then he'd have nobody to argue with! Heh. I don't think he was kidding either... ;)

* Pretty much everybody around the table dismissed astrology as 'untrue, but essentially harmless'. (Hmmmmmmm!)

* Harris saw a real need to isolate 'spirituality' - a sense of awe of the universe and a feeling of 'worthy action' - and very specifically tackle that notion separately from religion. He thought there was a real need that wasn't being addressed there. Dennett also saw this. He also mused on the notion of 'dangerous ideas' that - even if true - should not be investigated.

* Dawkins seemed to be the most adamant about the ideal of wanting to see nobody going to church - as a GOOD thing. Dennett seemed far less convinced, and started talking about a church which was mainly 'ritualistic' in nature - where 'the irrationality has simply been long gone'. He actually seemed to see that as a distinctly positive 'goal'.

* Harris came forward with the opinion of 'shooting themselves in the foot' by declaring all religions and religious attitudes equally 'bad'.
Dawkins brings it back to the fact that it is about whether they are 'true' or not. And that's what he really cares about.

* Wow! 49:20 mins. Hitchens claims that all religious should be considered 'dangerous' (sound familiar? ;) ).
Dawkins, Dennett and Harris ALL seemed to question that claim to some extent, but Hitchens takes the rest of the time without the others really getting much chance to say much further. (I did think that Hitchens would tend to hog the time sometimes...)

Anyway - very good discussion overall. And indeed GoodK - interesting to see the range of opinion presented...

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:37 pm

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:* Pretty much everybody around the table dismissed astrology as 'untrue, but essentially harmless'. (Hmmmmmmm!)

Except when Reagan consulted astrological signs while in the White House. I think Hitchens brought that up, I'll have to watch it again.

Post by **_Ren** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:40 pm

GoodK wrote:Except when Reagan consulted astrological signs while in the White House. I think Hitchens brought that up, I'll have to watch it again.

I thought it was Dennett actually. And he seemed to share it more as a joke than as a serious point.
...I think he quickly clarified that he didn't take that point that seriously...

I'll try and look it up and double-check...

EDIT: OK - Hitchens brings up the subject of astrology itself. At about 15 mins. But Dennett takes it further and talks about Astrology as 'unharmful' - including the Regan bit.

His words here:
"I mean, I don't care about astrology. I don't think it's harmful enough... I mean it was a little scary when Regan was reportedly using Astrology to make decisions. But that - I hope anomalous case aside - I find the superstition that Astrology is important to be relatively harmless. If we could only do the same thing - if we could only relegate the other enthusiasms to the status of Astrology - I'd be happy!"

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:46 pm

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
GoodK wrote:Except when Reagan consulted astrological signs while in the White House. I think Hitchens brought that up, I'll have to watch it again.

I thought it was Dennett actually. And he seemed to share it more as a joke than as a serious point.
...I think he quickly clarified that he didn't take that point that seriously...

I'll try and look it up and double-check...

Let me know what you find, my stupid office internet won't let me watch videos... sheesh... what do they expect me to be doing right now?

by the way I have to say I love Dan Dennett. He's the most huggable of all the scary atheists!

Post by **_Ren** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:51 pm

Edited my last post GoodK.
Dawkins at about 17:50 mins also declares Astrology to be 'harmless'. (Well, he says that it 'probably isn't harmful')
Dawkins argument wasn't that astrology was 'dangerous', but that people were missing out on such a wonderful universe if they believe it... ('Things' like that...)

by the way I have to say I love Dan Dennett. He's the most huggable of all the scary atheists!

Heh - agreed. He's great :)

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:58 pm

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
GoodK wrote:Except when Reagan consulted astrological signs while in the White House. I think Hitchens brought that up, I'll have to watch it again.

I thought it was Dennett actually. And he seemed to share it more as a joke than as a serious point.
...I think he quickly clarified that he didn't take that point that seriously...

I'll try and look it up and double-check...

EDIT: OK - Hitchens brings up the subject of astrology itself. At about 15 mins. But Dennett takes it further and talks about Astrology as 'unharmful' - including the Regan bit.

His words here:
"I mean, I don't care about astrology. I don't think it's harmful enough... I mean it was a little scary when Regan was reportedly using Astrology to make decisions. But that - I hope anomalous case aside - I find the superstition that Astrology is important to be relatively harmless. If we could only do the same thing - if we could only relegate the other enthusiasms to the status of Astrology - I'd be happy!"

Good stuff, thanks for checking. My mind isn't as gone as I thought it was :)

Post by **_dartagnan** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:05 am

Oh wow, a convenient echo chamber. Yea, we're sure to learn plenty.

I wonder why Alister McGrath wasn't invited to their little tea party.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:11 am

I have both part 1 and 2 on my iphone, and I listen to it regularly.

OK, now that's just creepy.

Could one argue that you listen to it religiously?