{"id":2642,"date":"2019-06-17T10:34:48","date_gmt":"2019-06-17T10:34:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/?p=2642"},"modified":"2019-06-17T11:13:54","modified_gmt":"2019-06-17T11:13:54","slug":"review-the-four-horsemen-the-conversation-that-sparked-an-atheist-revolution-by-christopher-hitchens-richard-dawkins-sam-harris-and-daniel-dennett","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/?p=2642","title":{"rendered":"Review: The Four Horsemen. The Conversation that Sparked an Atheist Revolution, by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Back in 2007, four intellectuals, the figureheads\nof New Atheism, met for drinks and an informal discussion of their views. Each\nindividual had taken it upon themselves to bash organised religion in the wake\nof 9\/11, and the resulting video of the conversation, recorded for posterity, quickly\nwent viral. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, twelve years later, a transcript of that\ndiscussion has been published by Random House, complete with preliminary essays\nand statements by the three surviving \u2018horsemen\u2019 and a bookselling foreword by\nStephen Fry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The arguments and opinions of Hitchens, Dawkins,\nHarris and Dennett retain their validity within their own, rhetorical scope.\nWhat is missing, however, is any widening of that scope. In the interim between\nthe discussion and its recent publication, much work has been done to highlight\nthe socio-economic foundation of religious and superstitious belief. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart,\nin their 2012 book Sacred and Secular<\/em>, draw on the vast pools of data\ncompiled by a series of World Values Surveys, to convincingly argue the existential\nsecurity hypothesis; that \u201ctranscendent religion is usually weakened by a sense\nof existential security \u2013 that is, a feeling that survival is secure enough to\nbe taken for granted.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite such widely published studies and surveys,\nour horsemen cling possessively to the opinion that religion itself is \u201cthe\nroot of all evil.\u201d In his introductory essay, Dawkins claims that: \u201cRather than\nrehearse old themes, I thought I\u2019d use this essay to develop new points that I\nmight make…today.\u201d He then goes on to bash away at the same old familiar\ntropes, well-honed since The God Delusion<\/em> (2006): religion is\nirrational, arrogant and dangerous; science is humble, questioning and honest;\nand that \u201cthe atheistic worldview has an unsung virtue of intellectual courage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curiously for such a devotee of Scientism, and an\nactual scientist, the scientific studies of Norris, Inglehart and others (which\nalso aim to promote atheistic secularism, though less rhetorically) never touch\nDawkins\u2019 worldview. For someone who claims, rather naively, that \u201chaving won\nthe battle against religion, we can go back to science,\u201d Dawkins appears willfully\nindifferent to the way in which science can be used to highlight the\nsocio-economic foundation of organised religion\u2019s mass appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many ways, The Four Horsemen<\/em>\ntranscribes a discussion of morality. Hitchens argues that he would not do away\nwith religious faith as he would then lose a dialectical opponent on which to\nsharpen his arguments. Dawkins, unsurprisingly, cannot fathom such a position,\nand dreams of a pure future where investigative science rules supreme, all\npower and politics mysteriously drained from the world along with religious\nfaith. Dennett argues that, at least hypothetically, there is knowledge we\nwould be better to prohibit ourselves; pushed and goaded by Hitchens, however,\nhe is unable to supply a concrete example. The four discuss whether all\nreligions are equally bad, whether religious artworks would be equally moving\nunder secular patronage, and whether military force is justified in the face of\nreligious extremism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of these arguments are developed to any\nsatisfactory extent, and are all carried further in the horsemen\u2019s bestselling\nbooks, published before this discussion took place. More importantly, however,\nfrom today\u2019s perspective, the discussion feels comfortably smug rather than\noutwardly offensive; a commentary on the world from the safety of armchair\nrhetoric rather than an honest attempt to reach possible solutions. There is\nmuch discussion of what they would like to achieve but, other than Hitchens\u2019 flagrant\nsupport of the American military (\u201cthe 82nd Airborne and the 101st\u201d), very\nlittle talk of how such goals may come to pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early in the discussion, Dawkins states that it\nwould be \u201ca good idea to have somebody from the political right who\u2019s an\natheist, because otherwise there\u2019s a confusion of values,\u201d brazenly aligning\nhimself and his compadres with the political left. This alignment is nonsense. The\ngroup leans firmly to the political right: Hitchens\u2019 later-life role as White\nHouse apologist and espouser of capitalism as a revolutionary force (complete\nwith sinister Social Darwinist undertones) and Harris\u2019s outspoken support for\nIsrael, show both men attempting to legitimise Western imperialism. In light of\nthese later positions, Hitchens\u2019 reformulation of Harris\u2019s question as to whether \u201call religions are equally bad\u201d feels ominously\nleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has also been argued, by Eagleton, LeDrew and\nothers, that New Atheism is fundamentally political; that \u201cits latent project\nis the universalization of the ideology of scientism and the establishment of\nits cultural authority\u201d and that it is \u201conly manifestly a critique of religion.\u201d\nIf the bashing of religious faith is indeed a smokescreen, this may help to\nexplain the lack of evolution in the New Atheist argument. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can Dawkins really be innocent of such political\nobservations? If he is, then it is to his discredit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the publication of The Four Horsemen<\/em>\nserves a purpose (other than shameless self-promotion and increased book\nsales), it is as a soft introduction to the thoughts, opinions and rhetoric of\nthe New Atheists — or as a collectors\u2019 item for the converted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There can be no doubt that these men raised the\nprofile of Atheism as a world view. Today, however, the arguments themselves\nfeel woefully out of date. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is to the source of mass religious and\nsuperstitious zeal \u2013 socio-economic inequality and insecurity \u2013 we must look to\ncounteract its dangers, rather than simplistically and belligerently dismissing\nreligion as a root cause of violence in itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The common worldview in post-industrial and developed countries may be shifting from faith to science, with much overlap and conflict in between, but politics and economics always propelled the powerhouses of Western organised religion. With the rise of scientism, the playing field may be changing, but the game remains the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Four Horsemen: The Conversation that Sparked an Atheist Revolution, by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, is published by Random House. 160 pp. \u00a39.99. <\/em> <\/p>\n<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Back in 2007, four intellectuals, the figureheads of New Atheism, met for drinks and an informal discussion of their views. Each individual had taken it upon themselves to bash organised religion in the wake of 9\/11, and the resulting video of the conversation, recorded for posterity, quickly went viral. Now, twelve years later, a transcript […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":124,"featured_media":2645,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1408,1393],"tags":[1619],"coauthors":[1586],"class_list":["post-2642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-media-and-culture","category-reviews","tag-religion"],"amp_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Review-The-Four-Horsemen-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/124"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2642\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2642"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcoauthors&post=2642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}