The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens(10/12)

On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.

All four authors have recently received a large amount of media attention for their writings against religion - some positive, and some negative. In this conversation the group trades stories of the public's reaction to their recent books, their unexpected successes, criticisms and common misrepresentations. They discuss the tough questions about religion that face to world today, and propose new strategies for going forward.

Credit:
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
http://richarddawkins.net/

If you are interested in purchasing a high-quality DVD of this presentation, you can find it here:
http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products...

(Note: All proceeds from the sale of this DVD will go to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust.)

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Atheism
• Atheist
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Daniel
• Dennett
• Sam
• Harris
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Religion
• Christianity
• Islam

[44SuperShredder]

Please tell me thats a revolver on hutchens hip

[Logoscyth]

Maybe the point of alcohol in intellectual conversations is to allow a point for them to end - someone will eventually call it quits...

[EmmeMck]

@logicallunatic1 More ancient literature is because the majority of literate people in the past were monks. Its also not about stuff thats biblicaly influenced its stuff that contains relgious references of mentions God. For example nobody belives in ancient Greek Gods but to understand Homer you need a basic knowledge of them. Even more than literature knowledge of religon is neccesary for history becasue of the massive part it played in all aspects of our past

[logicallunatic1]

@EmmeMck

One need not be well versed in the bible to the extent Dawkins is making it out. How much much of literature is biblically influenced would you say? What about Joyce? Orwell? Dostoyevsky? I think Dawkins is giving the bible too much credit here.

[EmmeMck]

@logicallunatic1 Well you dont have to read the bible I am sure you know what a church is you know what prayer is you know the storys of jesus and moses etc. If you had never heard of any of it though the majority literature like poetry would not make sense for example Wb Yates or T.S elliot. Even further back the majority of literate people were monks. So to properly inderstand literature you need a knowledge of the bible otherwise it wont make sense

[logicallunatic1]

@EmmeMck

Maybe, but you certainly don't need to read the bible to appreciate anything really. It's irrelevant. But so much is about religion? Really? Out of 100%, how much would you say is about religion? Have studies been done?

[EmmeMck]

@logicallunatic1 He means that so much poetry, literature and music is about religon, God or has referances to the bible and that kind of stuff that if you had never heard of the religion or never even contemplated the notion of God then alot of shakespear for example would not make sense

[logicallunatic1]

@drazzellstarfish

I disagree. He made himself as clear as can be here. Conversational shorthand? Come off it! What has history and the bible got to do with understanding music? For example, I play guitar and sing, and I have a good understanding of music. The bible's "historical reasons" had absolutely nothing to do with this. This is one of the very few times where Dawkins is just plain wrong.

So, I CAN understand art and music perfectly well WITHOUT the bible.

[drazzellstarfish]

@IzabelParis Your confusion arises because you're having to look at the world through a cultural lens that itself is still emerging from confusion. I think that I first heard the term "secular sacred" proposed only about ten years ago. That's how new it is to popular discourse! But it makes perfect sense. Don't look in the dictionary, look up at the stars as our ancestors did. Do you feel any less wonder, knowing that they're not angels but nuclear furnaces thousands of light-years away?

[drazzellstarfish]

@logicallunatic1 Dawkins says "You can't understand art and music without the Bible," and then adds a moment later, "... For historical reasons."

His intention should be absolutely clear.  He's using a conversational shorthand here - among his educated peers - referring to what we would distinguish as western, or occidental, art and music and literature, if we were comparing it with other creative artifacts from other cultures than our own. If he were speaking universally, you'd be right.

[drazzellstarfish]

4:10 Sam Harris: "You raise the issue of whether we would wish the churches empty on Sundays. ... I'd want a different church. I'd want a different ritual, motivated by different ideas. But I think there's a place for the sacred in our lives - under some construal that doesn't presuppose any bullshit."

[Ashiman12]

@IzabelParis I think he means "sacred" in a much broader sense. For example: When I go out at night and look at the stars, I am filled with awe and humility; the trivialities and mundaneness of everyday life fade away, and there's a sense of weightiness, importance, profundity, even reverence that has nothing to do with the supernatural. I think he means "sacredness" as a mode of existence apart from the banalities of our typical modes. This distinction is a basic human need.