User Reviews
Rating: really liked it
"You don't have to boast a PhD or have read Thomas à Kempis, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Siddhartha (or indeed On the Origin of Species and Principia Mathematica) to be able to take part in such wrangling and disputation. But boy, isn't it wonderful when you can eavesdrop on four who have." ~Stephen Fry
Oh, to have the sagacious chops to merit a seat at that table! A secular Mt Rushmore. An evolutionary biologist, a neuroscientist, a philosopher, and Hitch (sorry, I couldn't describe Christopher Hitchens with just one word. Historian? Journalist? Contrarian? Sage? Even collectively they fall far short.)
One of my utopian fantasies would be to live in a world where all of us could practice and embrace rational discourse at this level. It's a pipe dream that has absolutely no chance, but I like to ponder the implausible. (I have a lesser utopian fantasy where I'm spooning with Uma Thurman, but I digress...)
Rating: really liked it
"If you go through the world thinking that it's OK to just believe things because you believe them without evidence, then you're missing so much.... The universe is a grand, beautiful, wonderful place, and it's petty and parochial and cheapening to believe in jinns and supernatural creators and supernatural interferers." I'm not sure what I expected from this book but am a little let down. The God Delusion, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Letter to a Christian Nation, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon are among my all-time favourite books. I thought this book, a conversation amongst the four authors of those books, would be incredible. However, it's just that... a conversation. It is intelligent and witty and energetic, and I enjoyed reading the book, but it's not astounding. Not incredibly deep. Not what I was expecting, though again, I'm not sure what it was I was expecting. There were a few bits I really loved, some witty remarks and I do love straight talk about religion and how dangerous it is. They discuss the particular dangers of particular beliefs for our modern times and also point out the intellectual and moral courage of atheism.
I prefer a deeper discussion than what is in this book, but it's still worth reading if you're interested in the subject or admire these men as I do.
You can watch the conversation here if you prefer to view rather than read it.
"Ignorance, to a scientist, is an itch that begs to be pleasurably scratched. Ignorance, if you are a theologian, is something to be washed away by shamelessly making something up." ~Richard Dawkins
Rating: really liked it
Let me immediately say that this booklet angered me. Not so much for the content, namely the atheist critique on religion, but for the cheap sales trick behind it: this transcription of a 2007 debate is presented as the start of an atheist revolution. This is absolute bullshit. To begin with, Richard Dawkins himself states that 5 books published in the years
before the debate heralded the real beginnings of what has subsequently been dubbed the “New Atheist Movement”. Moreover, the term "revolution" also seems preposterous. After all, 12 years after date, there seems to have been no upheaval at all: religions are thriving as well or as bad as before, and you can hardly say the atheist movement is flourishing.
Another reason to be outraged by this booklet: the transcribed conversation did indeed bring together four prominent voices of the new atheism, but you can hardly call it a discussion. After all, you are dealing with four like-minded people here, united by their visceral aversion to everything that has to do with religion (which is their right, of course, but that's not the point). The consequence is that the participants mainly are preaching to the choir, and it does not help that they are four white, Anglo-Saxon males. To be honest, in the end Sam Harris seems to initiate some critical remarks about their stance, but it is significant that he is systematically gagged by the others, especially Hitchens. But is is the publisher that gives the death blow, by giving this book the pretentious title “the Four Horsemen”.
Of course, there are some interesting elements in this book (for example, the introduction by Richard Dawkins). But the conversation itself remains very superficial, and it makes you only a little bit wiser about the content and arguments of the new atheism (namely that it focuses almost exclusively on the 'truth-question' in religion). On top of that, after 12 years many of the contextual references (politics and such) in the conversation are dated. So I don't understand why it was published now? My advice is to better read the works of the participating authors themselves. In fact, that is what I'm doing right now.
(rating 1.5 stars)
Rating: really liked it
I think they're going to end up by destroying civilization. I've long thought so. But not without a struggle. -Hitchens
Much chuckling. I really do want to watch this. Reads like a fun cocktail party.
DENNET:
If you really can't defend your view, then, sorry, you can't put it forward.- Life would be so much more pleasant and tolerable if this were true.
DAWKINS:
The universe is a grand, beautiful, wonderful place, and it's petty and parochial and cheapening to believe in jinns and supernatural creators and supernatural interferers. I think you could make an aesthetic case that you'd want to get rid of faith.- Indeed, the veer off into fetishizing religion is charming.
HITCHENS:
It's a good old Norse booze-up. And why the hell not?- Psst. They all had Christmas trees.
HITCHENS:
We would, for the reasons given by Sophocles in ANTIGONE, have a natural resistance to profanity and desecration. We leave it to the pious to destroy churches and burn synagogues or blow up each other's mosques. And I think that's a point that we ought to, we might, spend more time making. Because I do think it is feared of us--which was my point to begin with--that we wish for a world that's somehow empty of this echo of music and poetry and the numinous, and so forth. That we would be happy in a Brave New World.- When I first read Brave New World I was unsure if it was suppose to represent a dystopia or utopia. I thought it sounded peaceful.
They discuss the irrationality and cognitive dissonance people live with and they finally come around to broaching the sociological framework that religion provides in secular states. Obviously, in theocracies it's a whole different ball of wax. Arguments that religion inspired great artwork dances around the issue that for centuries it was the primary source of funding; therefore, religious based art. They never made the leap into how absolute monarchies also funded extraordinary art, of course, when you claim your right to rule is given by a deity it muddies the water. But there are works from the Russian, French, Austro-Hungarian, and Italian states, not to mention Mughal, Chinese, and Japanese empires that also have fantastical artworks. It's all about excessive wealth.
I think Dawkin's parting comment during his introductory statement is spot on:
As an atheist, you have the moral courage to live to the full the only life you're ever going to get: to fully inhabit reality, rejoice in it, and do your best finally to leave it better than you found it.There's nothing new here for me, but it was entertaining. I can't believe this will be what will get me to watch Youtube.
Rating: really liked it
This is a difficult book to review. I am torn between reviewing whether or not it delivers what it claims to deliver or reviewing what I think of the contents. In the end, in giving it three stars, I think I am compromising between the two.
Cards on the table, I am a Christian which obviously tells you something about my own views. It would be wrong of me to say ‘I disagree therefore the book is bad’ but I do have some criticisms here. I have lots of positive things to say as well but I want to move through the book in order.
It opens with an introduction from Stephen Fry which consists mostly of what I’ve come to think of as the ‘no true strawman’ fallacy. He portrays the religious as all being so intellectually bankrupt that the only argument we have to fall back on is the no true Scotsman fallacy. It’s really quite silly but I didn’t buy this book to read what Stephen Fry thinks so I’ll excuse this from my rating.
Then we have an essay from Dawkins who makes some well formed and utterly valid criticisms of the abhorrent abuses of power and sheer arrogance shown by religious institutions. In moments like this I am thankful for people like Dawkins who will call out this kind of behaviour. Bizarrely however, he then lists a load of scientific facts and says ‘ha! None of these discoveries owe anything to theologians’. I’m quite sure this is true but I shouldn’t think they owe anything to bakers, gardeners, or policemen either. When Dawkins talks about science and the scientific process, it really is beautiful and compelling. When he talks about theology, he seems remarkably out of his depth.
Daniel Dennett offers rather a disappointing essay in which he says ‘some religious people are nice’ then proclaims that no religious people are concerned with proof.
I’ll confess that I thoroughly dislike Sam Harris and his style of writing so perhaps it’s no surprise that I was unimpressed with his essay. He makes the frankly ridiculous claim that suffering is a categorical proof that God does not exist and uses a heartbreaking example of a woman being bitten by a mosquito carrying the Zika virus. This causes her twins to be born with microcephaly. According to Harris, nobody has ever dealt with this problem, which I think would come as a great surprise to the hundreds, nay thousands of Jewish and Christian (speaking only from my own knowledge) writers and philosophers who have spilled gallons of ink over thousands of years on this very problem! Harris also offers up ‘art, literature, sport, and philosophy’ as what he calls ‘true sources of hope and consolation’. All truly wonderful things but quite how they help the poor woman mentioned above, he does not say.
How I wish Hitchens were still here to contribute an essay. Few men can write with the biting wit and absolute charm that he could.
Then, finally, we reach the real treat. The actual conversation. And it really is a joy to read. Regardless of your beliefs, reading a discussion between such brilliant thinkers (ok, maybe only two of them are ‘brilliant’) is compelling and intriguing. I appreciated that it was presented without any annotation other than the occasional footnote to add context to names discussed. It’s also very interesting to read them talking in an unrehearsed and untidy way so to speak. It highlights just how witty and intelligent Christopher Hitchens was. He is consistently the most interesting, insightful, and thoughtful of the group.
Unfortunately, these four horsemen usher in rather a disappointing apocalypse. Again, they argue very compellingly that religion has caused a great deal of suffering. I absolutely agree. The rest falls into self-congratulatory destructions of straw men. Sam Harris claims faith is ‘belief without evidence’, one of them (I think Dawkins) says Christians don’t take certain bits of the bible literally anymore because science has beaten them (no mention of the wide array of styles and genre in the bible and the need for very simple literary understanding), and, most amusingly, Christopher Hitchens states that all religious arguments are old. We offer nothing new!
Despite my grumbles, I did enjoy reading this book. However, for me it typifies some of the worst excesses and delusions of the so called ‘new atheists’. There is so much wisdom to be taken from these men, so much wonderful instruction and education to be drawn from them. I have been moved almost to tears on occasion, listening to Richard Dawkins talking on biology. It’s beautiful. Please don’t take that as cynical concession of ground to lend my criticisms more weight. I really do admire the minds of these men.
Sadly, these insights are often lost amidst self adulation (we’re all so terribly courageous), poor theology, and a rather nasty tendency to get very personal with arguments (usually immediately followed by saying ‘but we mustn’t mock people. We’re humble and above such things).
As I said, despite my misgivings about the content, I am giving this three stars because it’s a fascinating read and it delivers on its promises. My dissatisfaction with the content prevents me from rating it any higher, my love of interesting books prevents me from rating it any lower.
Rating: really liked it
I am an agnostic and a scientist, and I am profoundly disappointed in this book because I expected serious and engaging discussion and analysis of the issue! Unfortunately, this book does not reflect the level of scientific thinking/writing expected in the academia. I was trying to find redeeming qualities, alas, I couldn’t, most of this book was dreadful! I bought the hard copy thinking I would love it and instead I am in utter disbelief. Had this book being published by four unknown people it would have been immediately discarded for its very low standards. The discussion that took place and is narrated in this book is a poor reflection of the way scientific minds analyse various issues. Quite frankly, I expected good logically developed arguments, based on peer reviewed articles and rational opinions shared by scholars; instead, I felt that I was reading the conversation of four simpletons who had nothing else to do but bitch (what I read here wasn’t well articulated criticism) about religion; moreover all four: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens uttered arguments based on well established fallacies. If you want to learn about how NOT to make a case then read the arguments they poorly articulate here. If you pay attention you will identify the following types of fallacious arguments: argumentum ad verecundiam, false dichotomy, petitio principii, hasty generalisation, etc,. I paid for a book that I thought would explore the subject logically and critically; I did not pay to read an emotional rant, a conversation that could have been held by four uneducated people having drinks in a pub.
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens claim to support scientific rigour yet they have no qualms making ridiculous claims- claims that can easily be obliterated by more rational minds. I will be quoting some their overstatements below:
Hitchens (2019:68) ‘no religious person ever...’- Hitchens consistently makes overstatements, has he spoken to every single religious person who has existed since human life appeared on Earth? - A ridiculous generalisation.
Harris (2019:56): ‘And every religious person makes the same criticism of other religions that we do’ - Clearly, here Harris makes another bold claim, which facts have proven to be incorrect , anyway.
Dawkins (2019:118): ‘Anybody who makes that criticism couldn’t possibly have read any of our books’ - Oh, Dawkins! How risible is this! A reader can critique a book he or she reads, and identify weaknesses even if the author of that book thinks there aren’t any weaknesses in his/her work! How obnoxiously petulant is Dawkins’s statement. Reading this it is easy to understand why his reputation has suffered even among other atheist scientists- which is not the same as being an anti-theist atheist.
Dennett: (2019:68) ‘And believe me, if they grudgingly admit that there is a proof, it’s a proof. And there’s nothing like that in religion- nothing like that!’ - History has proven you wrong, Dennett! Your opinions are not facts, so deal with it! There is strong evidence that supports the notion that many religions have evolved and changed positively, even if they are far from flawless. Objectively talking several religions have embraced new modern points of view and their members have admitted past misdeeds. Dennett’s words suggests that he hasn’t really undertaken serious religious studies (from a researcher perspective), or undertaken any research on the field; he just makes claims without proper reflection whatsoever; claims that even a serious atheist scholar who studies religions can easily refute.
Generalisations are a big ‘no no’ in the scientific world, we scientists refuse to make them. Generalisations cannot be proven, generalisations are expected to be uttered by the populace not by respected members of the academic community. Ironically, these ‘four men’ accuse religious people (all of them, not just religious bigots or religious extremists) oflacking critical thinking; they refer to believers as arrogant and simple minded, yet this book evidences that these four are guilty of these defects.
Another topic of discussion was art and religion. These four ‘horsemen’ went as far as to affirm that very little or nothing good comes of religion and even dared to claim that Michelangelo could have built a great ‘ceiling museum of Science’ that was as outstanding as the Sistine Chapel, has he being inspired by science! Seriously! ‘if, if, if’.
These four men have fields in which they are considered experts, but they are clearly not intellectuals. To be an intellectual you need more than a degree, a PhD and research. It seems that many people don’t know the difference. There four have a tendency to be unidimensional and cannot move across topics successfully.
Finally, one of the reasons why agnostics like me, (real agnostics not people who label themselves as agnostics without knowing fully well what being an agnostic means) and a great percentage of atheists disapprove of these four anti-theists ‘horsemen’s is because these anti-theists’ arguments seem to come from a place of hatred, rancour, and disdain; rather than from logical and analytical thinking; ergo, their bias are conspicuous. In sciences reflexivity is essential yet Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens don’t seem to be familiar with that the term or with what it entails. Moreover, the four horsemen’s academic degrees alone cannot make the argument for them. Their academic qualifications may help them promote and sell their ideas/books well,specially to those who like to refer to the ‘four horsemen’ because of their names, but the argument presented in this specific book will not stand scientific scrutiny.
Certainly, as an agnostic person, I too want to be free to criticise any religion or ideology I believe is oppressive without being accused of any ‘ism’, but I cannot ignore many of the positive aspects/roles that religious beliefs play in some communities for doing that would be irrational and infantile of me. Paradoxically, Dennett presentation starts admitting that but when he starts talking to the other three he completely changes his tune, did he feel pressure to retract from his original views? Admittedly, this conversation took place when Hitchens was still alive. Dennett doesn’t seem to be immersed in the anti-theism movement anymore and has distanced himself from both Dawkins and Harris.
By the way, I would like to finish this review emphasising that my criticism is a criticism of this book, I am not criticising the four horsemen’s general position and neither am I criticising their previous works. I give this book two stars because I enjoyed the first and last pages of the book, they bestowed it with some balance. Having said that, in principle I disagree with anti-theism because it is not a scientific position. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the position that is best aligned with scientific enquiry for it is rational not emotional. It is fact based. It is in harmony with the tenets of science.
I was going to give Dawkins’s books a go but I will have to reconsider that. I have enjoyed Harris’s Free Will and I didn’t hate Hitchens’s God Is Not Great even though I though if it as mediocre. I found Hitchens’s Mortality to be really good and it made me tear; so I am not a hater but neither I am sheep , I am a critical, logical reader and an academic and my review reflects this.
I shall edit this review later, I truly don’t have time to do it now and neither do I have the desires to make changes to my review at this stage.
Rating: really liked it
I am so behind on reviews again! Anyway, a short, delightful little book with four atheists discussing themes that are regularly thrown at them. It doesn't bring much new to the table, but it was much fun listening to them discuss.
Rating: really liked it
Interesting.
I read this book because I wanted an introduction to the four horsemen outside of YouTube. My first approach was to read their books, but then I found this one book with all four of them and it seemed like a good start.
I found the introduction I was looking for. Whether the judgments I formed are accurate or not is yet to be confirmed, but I heard the voice of each of them and saw their lines of reasoning, that should be enough for a start.
In addition to what I was looking for, my horizon on the subject was considerably broadened through this reading. My view on religious intolerance, for instance, has changed.
Pick up 4 great thinkers and put them in a room, something fruitful is bound to come up.
I found the four interesting and I will now proceed to read their distinct works in due time.
Rating: really liked it
This is so utterly disappointing.
As a non-believer, I want to enjoy the conversation of the four famous atheists... especially having read much of their work and enjoyed much of it.
To start, many years ago, I read the God Delusion, God is Not Great, Letter to a Christian Nation, The End of Faith, Breaking the Spell, and others... I had some reservations on some but did largely find the propositions resonated with how I thought about religion either a lot (Hitchens and Dennett) to somewhat (Dawikins) to not much (Harris).
Then comes this, and I found it on a bookshop shelf and couldn't resist. I wish I could... Hardcovers are expensive after all.
This is a conversation that happened among the four a decade ago when Hitch was still alive and it is hyped to be The Conversation. It is not... It is intellectually shallow in addition to being condescending and at times pure silly.
It is easy, to start with, to "debate" with people you entirely agree with... no opposition or other opinion except what you are generous enough to mention... any of the four would have been more interesting debating a believer.
Secondly, one cannot help but feel the privilege of middle aged white men with Western education and entitlement oozing condescension to everyone who doesn't exactly share every detail of their opinion. I am "on their team" and yet I do not share all their convictions and I have no doubt that they would have torn me to pieces if I was present there in their debate. They weren't defending "the oppressed", they were ridiculing them, and that made me angry.
I did finish the book, grudgingly, and I am a little sad that I did this to myself. I used to like them, and that should have stayed the case as I read them when I was young and more impressionable... I believe now I would be much more critical if I read their books again.
One thing that will keep me from being entirely regretful, is that this line of reading got me to reading more of Hitchens who writes absolutely beautifully and is worth reading for that if not for anything else. May he rest in peace... or not, since he doesn't believe in it anyway!
Rating: really liked it
This is a wonderful, casual discussion between some of my favorite philosophers. The topic meanders a lot but there are some real gems in there.
Rating: really liked it
An interesting conversation between them with some great questions. I couldn't keep straight who was who as this was an audio book & I only recognized Dawkins & Fry, though. Doesn't really matter, even though they weren't always in agreement. The thought they've given to their secularism is well shown. It's short, didn't really add much to my knowledge, but it did give me another author to read, Daniel C. Dennett. I wasn't aware of him at all, but then I haven't really looked for atheistic writings. Just sort of stumbled on them.
I don't need any more proof since I attended Episcopal schools most of my life & have actually read most of the King James version of the Bible. I've never understood why more haven't thrown up their hands after reading it. This seems to be a common attitude among the 4 & they discussed how to best to get people to look at it logically. They didn't come to any conclusions, but had a few suggestions, all very polite even though their detractors generally aren't.
All in all, it was good to spend time listening to them. Definitely recommended, although I think their books expanding on their ideas are probably better. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens is good & Dawkins' The God Delusion is absolutely fantastic. I'm looking forward to reading more by all of them.
Rating: really liked it
The main text of
The Four Horsement: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution is the transcript of a 2007 discussion between four secular heavyweights: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. As I expected, it was fantastic to read the ping-ponging of unhallowed goodness between the four great minds. I will now watch the video of this meeting.
As an added bonus the book also contains a Forward by the always interesting Stephen Fry and chapters by the three living horsemen. Unfortunately for the world, Christopher Hitchens died in 2011. I need to read more Dennett. I've read some Harris and own a few more of his books that are on my TBR list. I own most, if not all, the Dawkins there is to read. He is my favorite living scientist and it was an absolute thrill to meet him in Dallas last fall. I still can't believe it.
It was wonderful to read a book in which these four great minds skewer all things religion. Reality is a beautiful thing. Embrace it.
Rating: really liked it
The most influential conversation of my adolescence. Most importantly, it introduced me to Christopher Hitchens.
Rating: really liked it
Two conversations among the four horsemen.
All 4 of them are among my favorite authors.
Rating: really liked it
This is a transcript of perhaps my favorite conversation of which I was not a part. The foursome of Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris is one which is frequently thought of as a monolith as opposed to four highly individual thinkers and writers who perhaps have a bit of overlap on the issue of the supernatural. As the conversation makes bare, they have an agreement on what they find to be problematic and stark disagreement as to how best to approach the issue and what they wish the results of their efforts to be. This makes for fascinating conversation and insight into the number of angles such erudite scholars/writers have found to address issues of great importance. Though of course, more than 10 years later, there have been numerous idiotic simplifications, lies, distortions, caricatures, and re-statements of their work from the mouths of the ever-willing-to-boast humble religious types and tedious regressive leftists but this has amounted to merely the whine of a gnat amidst the roar of the ocean. Having read all of the books each of these authors has written I am a very biased source but I can say that conversations such as these would be a welcome regular occurrence in society at large. The introduction from Stephen Fry is worth the price of admission alone and the new articles from the three surviving members of this quartet provide a wonderful précis to the larger discussion that follows. If you haven't viewed the original, it can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc...
