~C4Chaos

“It is well known that in the struggle of the weak against the
strong, it is easier to attack the former. Those who resist will always
be accused by the cowardly of exciting the hatred of the powerful.” — Pascal Bruckner’s essay in defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

So I just finished watching the two-hour video of The Four Horsemen (aka The New Atheists).
This video is like a status report from the battefield of religion vs.
science. It’s the first time I’ve seen the four–Dawkins, Dennett,
Harris, Hitchens–in the same discussion. I enjoyed watching it because
of the intellectual breadth of the discussion, and because it also
confirmed what I’ve been ranting all along: they are as diverse as the religion they criticize; they have different motivations and approaches to religion; there is a spectrum
of the New Atheists. Dismissing the New Atheists in sweeping
generalizations as if they are a leviathan with a single head that of
Dawkins is to miss the point of the partial truths of each of their
intellectual arguments. If you haven’t read any of the New Atheists
books yet, I highly recommend watching The Four Horsemen because the discussion reflects the central arguments of their books.

I find it entertaining, as it is insightful, to watch Hitchens puffing
away, sipping alcohol while displaying his encyclopedic knowledge of
Western religious history, culture and politics. I love Dennett’s
fatherly approach to religion and his optimism that society could get
rid itself of the toxicity of religion without exterminating religions
altogether. I admire Dawkins’ intellectual machismo. He’s the
uber-champion of rationalism among the four of them. But my personal
favorite is Sam Harris. He’s the one who asked insightful
self-reflective questions which framed most of their discussions. Among
the four of them only Harris has the propensity to take the discussion
to a level beyond rationality (i.e. beyond every day attention, nature
of consciousness, “spirituality”). This is not surprising because among
them, from what I know, only Sam Harris has taken the practice of meditation.
There wouldn’t be much of a discussion anyway in the realm of expanded
awareness with intellectuals who don’t have experience with
awareness-expanding practices such as meditation.

However, what is lacking from their discussion is the perspective of psychological and cultural development
from which religious beliefs and rational thinking arise. It is implied
in their discussions though not articulated enough in their arguments.
But I think Dennett has a solid grasp of this, that’s why his main
proposal in his book is to teach world religions to kids at a very young age.

That said, The Four Horsemen revealed a more human
side of the New Atheists that is not captured by their books. Their
tone in the discussion is different from their published books and
essays. In this video we can see their humility in their own
understanding and their careful treatments of religion. We can also see
their frustrations for not having the impact they want in persuading
other people to acknowledge their rational arguments. They are not mean
people who want to trample and exterminate religions. They are
intellectuals who deeply care about the current state of culture and
society. Yet these men of big ideas are so different in their
motivation and approach to religion (and spirituality, and
consciousness). The things that bind them together are good intentions,
courage, rationality, intellectual honesty, and… alcohol(?).

Unfortunately, they didn’t have enough time to answer the concluding questions asked by Sam Harris:

“What are our most grandiose hopes and fears? What do you think we
could reasonably accomplish in the lifetime of our children? What do
you think the stakes actually are? And is there something we could
engineer apart from just mere criticism, like practical steps? What
would a billion dollars could we do to affect some significant change
of ideas?”

I wanted to hear Dawkins, Dennett, and
Harris respond to these questions. Too bad Hitchens’ pessimistic
outlook dominated the final minutes of the conversation.

But I think Hitchens is realistically
right. In the current zeitgeist, they are on the losing side,
politically, and on the winning side, intellectually. Godspeed to them.