A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_Moniker]

I'm turned off by the ridicule. I doubt I'm alone in that. Have you read Dennett? I truly enjoyed reading him (though the only notion of mine he challenged was that I should consider that religion should be taken on and should not be off-limits) because he wasn't condescending or arrogant.

Arrogance turns me off of a person -- even if I may agree with what they say.

[_Moniker]

Well, sure, nobody's perfect, but these guys claim to have received correspondence from people who say they have been persuaded by Dawkins' and Harris' books (in the video I linked in the OP). I can understand why they may turn you off, but that doesn't make them non-persuasive to others. Thank goodness there are other guys like Dennett who do appeal to the people Harris and Dawkins lose due to style.

I actually think Harris is the most persuasive of the four, but I have tremendous respect for all of them.

I respect people for how they treat others. Not on what their message is. There are people I may absolutely agree with that lose my respect because of how they treat their fellow man.

That there is such condescension shown for a large population of our earth bothers me. It just does. The idea (I've seen often on this board) that theists are poor thinkers or are in some dumb religious mode is disgusting to me and makes me bristle. I don't care that people say it -- yet, I find it quite boorish and it makes me wonder whether having a superiority complex in fact makes one superior at all.

[_Ren]

I'm turned off by the ridicule. I doubt I'm alone in that

I'm sure you aren't either. Just saying that it didn't turn some people off. They managed to get 'persuaded' by it.
I think different people are persuaded by different approaches.

Have you read Dennett?

Not yet - but I am going to. Thank you for sharing the link. I'm gonna try and make some time to read it over the next few days.
I have seen him speak a few times, and I know some general details regarding his work. But I wanna get down and read this book properly...

Arrogance turns me off of a person -- even if I may agree with what they say.

I respect Dawkins when he is talking about the 'science of Atheism'. I think he is VERY effective at getting the concepts across - he is a great teacher in that respect.
....but as far as his approach to religion? ...doesn't do much for me...
I found 'The God Delusion' equally brilliant and dismal. Pretty much.

Yes, his tendency towards arrogance does switch me off to his character a bit. I don't respect that aspect of his approach. But I can separate his character from his arguments...

[_Some Schmo]

That there is such condescension shown for a large population of our earth bothers me. It just does. The idea (I've seen often on this board) that theists are poor thinkers or are in some dumb religious mode is disgusting to me and makes me bristle. I don't care that people say it -- yet, I find it quite boorish and it makes me wonder whether having a superiority complex in fact makes one superior at all.

I don't think I've ever heard any of these guys claim that theists are poor thinkers in general; they just claim that they don't apply the same rigorous scrutiny to their religion as they do other intellectual facets of their lives. In fact, they often express their wonder at how good thinkers actually can be persuaded by religious arguments.

I think it's interesting that people characterize Dawkins as arrogant. I find his approach to often be gentle, even handed, and well-thought out. That he regularly states plainly what he regards as the truth about things shouldn't be confused with arrogance.

[_Ren]

I think it's interesting that people characterize Dawkins as arrogant. I find his approach to often be gentle, even handed, and well-thought out. That he regularly states plainly what he regards as the truth about things shouldn't be confused with arrogance.

I think you're right to an extent. I think Dawkins can come across as more arrogant than he means to be sometimes.
But I think he is - overall - more arrogant in his approach than someone like Dennett. I really don't think that can be reasonably disputed.

...you could describe that as Dennett being 'timid' if you like, but that's just saying it a different way in my mind.


I actually think Hitchens is the most out-and-out arrogant of the four at that table... (Although I'm not actually that familiar with Harris - just going by the impression I got from that video).

[_Moniker]

That there is such condescension shown for a large population of our earth bothers me. It just does. The idea (I've seen often on this board) that theists are poor thinkers or are in some dumb religious mode is disgusting to me and makes me bristle. I don't care that people say it -- yet, I find it quite boorish and it makes me wonder whether having a superiority complex in fact makes one superior at all.

I don't think I've ever heard any of these guys claim that theists are poor thinkers in general; they just claim that they don't apply the same rigorous scrutiny to their religion as they do other intellectual facets of their lives. In fact, they often express their wonder at how good thinkers actually can be persuaded by religious arguments.

I think it's interesting that people characterize Dawkins as arrogant. I find his approach to often be gentle, even handed, and well-thought out. That he regularly states plainly what he regards as the truth about things shouldn't be confused with arrogance.

Well, that's the way he comes across to me. Coggins says things that he regards as the truth -- do I think he's arrogant at times? Yep. All sorts of people are seen as arrogant for speaking their mind -- I think how you speak to those that disagree with you can ensure your message will or will not be listened to.

No doubt Dawkins comes across to others in different ways. I think speaking of "mental infections" and the like certainly isn't helpful when approaching theists. It turns me off -- and I've never even been any sort of theist since my pre-teen years (and this was absent any organized religion). I do enjoy reading Dawkins on evolution and did enjoy the Selfish Gene -- just if his attempt is to reach those that are theists I can't imagine he makes much of a dent. Perhaps, perhaps not? Just my take on it.

Harris I find to be the least compelling of the bunch. But, then again, he's not trying to get me to let go of some fanciful God notion. Yet, do I need to be convinced that religion is dangerous? I would say people like me (in the middle) are those that need to be persuaded....

[_GoodK]

Harris I find to be the least compelling of the bunch. But, then again, he's not trying to get me to let go of some fanciful God notion. Yet, do I need to be convinced that religion is dangerous? I would say people like me (in the middle) are those that need to be persuaded....

And I thought we would make such a good couple:)

I actually find Harris to be most compelling, and to me he articulates and presents his arguments more succinctly than any of the other three. But you really have to see him in person.

If you read his debates, and compare them to the debates of Christopher Hitchens, Harris comes across as the better intellectual hands down.

Here are a few (look for me in the second row on the Hedges debate!)

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20 ... the_world/

Harris and Rick Warren

http://richarddawkins.net/article,825,T ... n-Newsweek

Harris and Dennis Prager

http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_wh ... sam_harris

[_Some Schmo]

I think it's interesting that people characterize Dawkins as arrogant. I find his approach to often be gentle, even handed, and well-thought out. That he regularly states plainly what he regards as the truth about things shouldn't be confused with arrogance.

I think you're right to an extent. I think Dawkins can come across as more arrogant than he means to be sometimes.
But I think he is - overall - more arrogant in his approach than someone like Dennett. I really don't think that can be reasonably disputed.

...you could describe that as Dennett being 'timid' if you like, but that's just saying it a different way in my mind.


I actually think Hitchens is the most out-and-out arrogant of the four at that table... (Although I'm not actually that familiar with Harris - just going by the impression I got from that video).

I fully agree with everything you wrote here although I have read quite a number of Hitchens' articles and part of his book God is not Great. You're right; he really does come off as arrogant, but since I agree with much of what he says (certainly not all), I find him entertaining rather than insulting. Since he even admitted that he likes the argument between faith and reason, it's unlikely he gives a damn what people think of his delivery.

As for Dawkins, it's not hard for me to see how others might regard him as arrogant; I just personally don't feel it. There's little doubt that Dennett is the most palatable of the bunch from a theist's perspective, however.

[_Moniker]

Harris I find to be the least compelling of the bunch. But, then again, he's not trying to get me to let go of some fanciful God notion. Yet, do I need to be convinced that religion is dangerous? I would say people like me (in the middle) are those that need to be persuaded....

And I thought we would make such a good couple:)

Oh! No! I take it all back! ;)

I actually find Harris to be most compelling, and to me he articulates and presents his arguments more succinctly than any of the other three. But you really have to see him in person.

If you read his debates, and compare them to the debates of Christopher Hitchens, Harris comes across as the better intellectual hands down.

Here are a few (look for me in the second row on the Hedges debate!)

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20 ... the_world/

Harris and Rick Warren

http://richarddawkins.net/article,825,T ... n-Newsweek

Harris and Dennis Prager

http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_wh ... sam_harris

Thanks for the links, I'll look over them.... please don't give up on us yet!

[_dartagnan]

The only difference between god and Santa Claus is that there are several adults who believe in god. Coming to believe in god in adulthood says nothing for it's truth value;

It says everything about why and how humans come to believe God, which flies in the face of Dawkins's silly analogy with Santa.

Children are indoctrinated about Santa. Adults reason their way into theism on their own; some are indoctrinated but indoctrination is not required for belief in God - it is for Santa. If you don't think this is a significant difference then I don't know what to say for you. Children won't have to be told by their parents that Santa doesn't exist because they will reason to that conclusion on their own. In adulthood people reason their way to theism, even though they were raised atheist, such as Antony Flew, Francis Collins and even Alister McGrath.

Dawkins is a bigot because he insists people cannot reason unless they are reasoning as he does. That is a huge turn off in academia. This was similar to JAK's insistence that logic can have nothing to do with theology, even though our resident logicians proved otherwise. JAK knew nothing about modal logic, but fought tooth and nail that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with theology because that was his presupposition.

Even career atheists end up coming around to theism. So Dawkins invents his little "meme" theory as a means to explain all the details about what and why people reason and why they have certain ideas. Everything for Dawkins has to have a genetic, evolutionary answer. It is a naïve and unproved assumption that he has to adopt in order to stay so stubborn about the necessity of the scientific method in everything. When questions are raised that cannot be answered using science, he thinks he can just dismiss this problem by saying, "I'm not interested in those questions." Amazing. When free will or the existence of matter is raised as stumbling blocks, he simply avoids those problems by saying, "I'm not interested in that." It is as if he really doesn't have the faintest clue how any of these issues prove crucial in reasoning whether or not a God exists.

And I can't get over his precious meme argument. It is hilarious. Nevermind the fact that this meme nonsense is nowhere near supported by science, which is precisely what he complains about theism! For those who know better, he be quickly becomes an inconsistent hypocrite. He cannot let go of the meme idea because it is his last hope to show that "science" can explain everything about how and why humans believe in God. His "scientists are working on that" excuse sounds too much like charity arguing that archeologists are working on finding proof for the Book of Mormon. For Dawkins, religious beliefs are ideas that just come to people as they are passed on in memes. They just jump from one brain to the other like a virus. That's his argument!

So he presents himself not as a bigot trying to eradicate belief systems that have given civilizations so much to be thankful for. No, he instead presents himself as a doctor with a nobel cause in eradicating a disease of humanity. A disease to which roughly 99% of the world has fallen prey. That 1% loves Dawkins because it makes them feel so special. They're disease free! It gives them a sense of identity and purpose which is another sociological trait Dawkins doesn't understand or appreciate. He is creating a loyal tribe of religion haters, but don't think academia doesn't notice.

Dawkins' antics and extreme negativity reveals his bias and agenda. The fact that he is always bringing up the worst historic events to point a finger at religion, while constantly ignoring the tragedies of secular governments and their persecution of religious people, is proof positive that he isn't interested in truth as he likes to claim.

He has no required knowledge of the Crusades or the Inquisition. He is not a historian, yet pretends to speak authoritatively about history.

He is not a philosopher, yet he pretends to speak authoritatively about the relevance or irrelevance of philisophical concepts that have been instrumental in creating both theist and atheist for centuries.

He is not a sociologist, but pretends to speak authoritatively on the social construct of religion and its nature. Hell, he doesn't even seem to acknolwedge the relevance of social science!

He is not a psychologist, but pretends to speak authoritatively on what and why humans believe what they do.

He is a zoologist who thinks he can make his particular field of science answer theological, psychological, sociological and even phiolosophical questions. What arrogance.

What McGrath does is get experts in every field listed above to refute Dawkins' ideas as naïve and downright uneducated. He is out of his gourd if he thinks he can just get away with this in scholarship, which is why so many scholars are not supporting him, even atheists.

Dawkins is only interested in anecdotal evidence in as much as it suits his agenda. He is interested in a recreation of history to scare people. This is precisely what the Soviet regimes did when it justified the eradication of religion in its country. This is probably a main reason why he is rejected by many atheists on his side of the fence. So you're not going to get away with dismissing all of this evidence under the claim that he is only criticized because, "Nobody likes to have their imaginary friend taken away."

All these kinds of comments prove is an utter ignorance about what's going on behind closed doors at Oxford and Cambridge and American academia as well. McGrath gives us a peek into that world, even sharing emails from colleagues who have criticized Dawkins. Not all or even most scientists support Dawkins.

The reason Dawkins' film wasn't shown in the US had nothing to do with a religious crowd in protest. It had everything to do with the fact that it is crapola. Pseudoscholarship. Even the whacked out show, "What the bleep do we know?" got on the air, but Dawkin's film was bigoted and uncalled for. He even admitted that the title of the film would not be compromised by channel 4 in England, it was all their idea to make it as negative and bigoted as possible. They cut McGrath off during a debate they were filming for the "documentary", when he started to get in his points. The only slightest leeway they would give Dawkins was to toss a question mark at the end of the title so as to make it a question isntead of a statement of fact. Hence, the question mark at the end of McGrath's book.

Anyway, you guys should really not be reading only one side of anything on any subject. Isn't that exactly what you criticize religionists for? There are plenty of reasonable answers to Dawkins aside from McGrath. If you don't want to pick up the book or spend money on it, then here are some other alternatives:

Transcribed lecture given at Cambridge in response to Dawkins:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgrath/

A radio debate between Dawkins and David Quinn:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727564/posts

Here is another impressive response by Deepak Chopra which is in a seven part series responding to seven primary arguments in his book:
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006 ... sio_7.html

And here is another
http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/dawkins.shtml