The Four Horsemen The Discussion that Sparked an Atheist Revolution Foreword by Stephen Fry

I am on a bit of a hate-listen-to-atheists binge. Not necessarily because I disagree with everything they say - a lot of the things they say are true and I agree with them - but because of their attitude, and because of a fundamental flaw in their logic. The former being the pretentious, righteous, all-knowing bullsh*t (that they ironically hate so much in the religious people they are critiquing). I have no doubt that some of the four men in this discussion are humble (or think they are - for example Dawkins' essay on how science is humble but religious is hubris), but boy, some of the things they say make it hard to believe (for example claiming that science is humble but religious is hubris). Their followers are even worse. However, this attitude is made even worse by the latter point - the fundamental flaw in their logic. That flaw is that denying the existence of God (being an atheist, not agnostic) requires as great a leap of faith as believing in God. Some atheists try to get around this by saying that religious people claim there is a God, therefore have the onus of proving their claim, and if they cannot prove their claim, there is no God. However, they have no good answer to the agnostic, who says there is no way to tell whether there is or is not God. In that situation, the atheist is making the claim there is no God, therefore by their own logic must prove there is not a God, and cannot do so. The common retort is "but being an atheist is brave" (I'm looking at you Dawkins), implying that being agnostic is not because it is "giving too much" to religious people. But, it is brave because it requires a leap of faith. Just like being religious. Regardless of my dislike for atheists, this was an engaging discussion. It was mainly helpful in showing the different focusses of the four "new atheists", therefore giving me direction for my future hate-read/hate-listens. It's looking like Dawkins, for engaging with the philosophical question of the existence of God instead of looking at the historical question of the "terrible" consequences of religion. I am also intrigued by Harris' exploration of the spiritual outside of theism (though desperately want to avoid his historic analysis, particularly his anti-Muslim tirades). Audiobook 'read'. Some interesting ideas: - The worst parts of religion cannot be separated from the essential nature of religion itself (big statement, not sure if I agree) - For an argument to be good it must make sense logically and empirically (reason and fact) - Non-overlapping magisteria (Stephen Jay Gould) - science and religion represent different areas of inquiry - Dawkins claims ignorance for a scientist is an itch asking to be scratched, but for a theologian, something to be washed away by making something up - A fact is no more than a hypothesis that may one day be falsified. But, Stephen Jay Gould: in science, must accept fact confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. The possibility apples may start to rise tomorrow does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. - Science's inability to answer questions such as why there are certain physical constants (laws) does not mean that religion can - Zinc as a sacrificial anode on ships to protect steel from corrosion. Similar to politicians using extremists so they can present their own views as more acceptable. Political strategy relies on being able to disavow more extreme opinions. - There is a difference between believing something for good reasons and believing it for bad reasons - Religion unites people, but by amplifying tribalism and spawning moralistic fears that would not otherwise exist - Religion is the only thing talking about self-transcending experiences, which are real. Taboo to criticise because talking about some of the most important experiences of peoples lives. - Harris - should ask whether you should reveal/discuss the truth (e.g. about free will) because of its consequences. Harris decided to. - Aesthetic case: it is an impoverishing thing for stars to be reduced to the pettiness of astrology (in light of astronomy). Same with universe and religion. Petty, parochial and cheapening to believe in supernatural creatures/interferers. - Difference between using your attention wisely and our perpetual distraction. Historically, religion has been the only institution trying to clarify that difference. - Distinction between the numinous and the superstitious