Four Horseman

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:37 am

Has anyone seen this DVD of Dawkins in conversation with three others including Christopher Hitchens?

And if so, is it worth me giving up two hours to watch it?

Thanks y'all!

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:27 pm

Not me, though I'm not sure what to make of Hitchens - though to be fair I don't know enough about him. Personally I'd watch it for the Dawkster but then that's just me.
Is Dennet also in there somewhere?

rich · Post by **rich** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:36 pm

Here ya go Ish and W/A:

http://thinking-critically.blogspot.com ... arris.html

The Four Horsemen - Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, And Hitchens

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:14 pm

Thank you, Rich. I already had the movie, though. My question was, is it worth watching.

I have now watched an hour of it, and have made some interesting (well, to me anyway) observations.

1. Christopher Hitchens does not know where to put his hands if he hasn't got a cigarette in one and a glass of whiskey in the other.

2. Every time he said something like: "Well, as I was saying to the Bishop of Southwark the other day" in his posh, Oxford acccent, all the other three nearly fall of their chairs with admiration. My view on him, as always, is that he wouldn't do so well in his country as we're less easily impressed by that sort of thing.

3. Dawkins turns out to be a lot more likeable than I thought he would, and I've become more open to him.

4. There was an interesting discussion about the importance of separating the numinous from the supernatural. In other words, people do have real 'mystic' (for want of a better word) experiences, where they have a Damascean revelation that they are one with nature. But they don't need to attribute it to religion, although many do. They are singing my tune!

5. I picked up a useful phrase to describe my attitude to much of modern science's view on the cosmos, although they were saying it wasn't "all based on a tissue of uncashed cheques" - in other words, theories predicated upon theories that haven't been proved. I like that and I'm going to use it.

I'll report back on section 2 if I get the time to watch it.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:35 pm

Ishtar wrote: 3. Dawkins turns out to be a lot more likeable than I thought he would, and I've become more open to him.

Always found him very likeable, not least due to the raw enthusiasm he conveys when writing about biology - there's an entire chapter in 'Climbing Mount Improbable' on the sex life of fig wasps which I'd almost call poetry. Aside from this he descends from Mount Olympus to post on his own forum (usually to seek a general consensus of opinion on something or other) with some frequency, and invariably comes across as a genuinely nice guy.

The thrashy punk band I used to be in (UNIT, see wikipedia if bothered) did a 7" EP called Richard Dawkins Is Together With Us, the cover based on a 7" we found of Maoist songs from Communist China - all of us band members marching along holding up our beloved science books with a big glowing Dawkins head in the sky behind - a sort of pro-science pastiche of the Maoist original. Anyway, we sent a copy to himself, and eventually got a letter from his secretary saying 'Professor Dawkins thanks you for your EP and wishes to let you know that he looks forward to listening to it as soon as possible.'

On reflection, I suspect he may have thought we were taking the piss, and although we weren't, I still kind of hope he didn't listen to it.