The Four Horsemen.
octubre 1, 2009
More on the subject of my previous post, but this is for anyone who may be willing to spend a couple of hours (you don’t have to do it in one go!) watching a discussion with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion and science. It’s more than interesting, and surely worth your time. Give it a go.
octubre 1, 2009 a las 5:12 pm
No one can doubt how intelligently they speak.
octubre 1, 2009 a las 5:59 pm
Mientras tanto, aquí seguimos perdiendo el tiempo con metafísica chunga y filosofías literarias. Afortunadamente, cada vez es más fácil sortear la mercancía defectuosa que se vende como educación y cultura en España. Por ejemplo, aquí:
http://www.openculture.com/2007/07/freeonlinecourses.html
octubre 1, 2009 a las 6:22 pm
Undoubtedly, but not everything is on the form: the merit is in the content.
J (the second one): Thanks for that one, which I didn’t know about.
G.
octubre 4, 2009 a las 3:45 pm
Yes, the content is excellent and it left me thinking about certain things with a new perspective. Some great food for thought and I must watch it again as there were so many great points brought forward by these brilliant minds.
I’d like to ask those who believe in God, why remarkable events or things have to be the cuase of a supernatural being? Why can’t they just be remarkable and things that happen in life? I’d love to hear breadth of their responses!
I will check out your antidote from your previous blog post and let you know what I think.
octubre 5, 2009 a las 9:57 pm
Yes good stuff. I usually can’t stand those mutual admiration societies but you could sense their relief at being able to talk without some imbecile in a mitre going ‘Oh well of course you would say that, you’re an atheist’. All the same, I would have chucked a couple of apoplectic dissenters in to pep things up..
On the subject of ‘moderates’ not admitting where and when they stopped believing in the more absurd tenets of their faith, a friend of mine went to a christening yesterday and noticed that suddenly, whereas the godparents used to be required to ‘reject Satan and all his works’, now they only have to ‘reject all evil’…
So where’s the Devil disappeared to? Aren’t we infidels going to burn in everlasting fires of torment after all? OK then, well do keep us in touch..
Daniel Dennett’s book ‘Breaking The Spell’ is really good BTW and, in my view, a more effective approach than Richard Dawkins who just asks for trouble by his confrontational style – fantastic for preaching to the converted but not much good for convincing the rest, who can just take refuge in Dawkins-hating.
Didn’t you get the feeling, watching that though, that if they’re not careful those guys could (without wanting to) start to attract first followers, then fanatics. Before long the followers will need to build places to meet regularly, perhaps on Wednesdays (not Sundays, God forbid), and in order to keep the group strong, some small ritual will have to be established – for instance the chanting of ‘Down with the Bishop of Durham’ at the start of every meeting. Then one day someone’s swine flu will clear up while listening to Christopher Hitchens and a miracle will be born.
I swear on the beard of Dennett that this shall come to pass.
And this is why, Gara, I Still think Life of Brian was fucking brilliant ;)
octubre 5, 2009 a las 11:13 pm
¡Ja, ja, ja! I know, I should give it another go. Back in London, perhaps, on one of those long cold afternoons after switching the light on at 3:30pm.
As for the risk of turning every kind of meeting with more than three people in it into a well structured creed… Well, yes, I completely agree on this one and that’s precisely why I have an almost innate repulse to groups of any sort. And when I say any, I almost even mean gathering more than six people together around a dinner table. There’s something intrinsically abject about groups- that sense of membership, of brotherhood. I’ve always been quite allergic to it.
But, having said this, if four or more intelligent people decide to go into a debate, one expects that they will not be tempted by taking it any further.
You mention the followers, though, and yes they can be dangerous! But how can they be avoided? People in general seem to need this sense of belonging to groups rather than to individuals, or to individual ideas from different individuals- much more desirable, from a moral point of view.
I wouldn’t, nevertheless, be opposed to some kind of once-in-a-month meeting which consisted in discussing different topics of interest in front of some Stilton and Port or any other variation of the sort: food for thought, but in the real (and double) sense. So shall we start to constitute the association? C’mon, who’s in? Once a month, somewhere in London, just the price of the meal. And in the first one we draw up the Manifesto, which will be of course just the excuse to start up with something, because a manifesto would be the very start of the cancer. So we just tear it up and continue to eat.
That’s my say on this one.
Xx,
G.
diciembre 3, 2010 a las 7:33 am
i thought this was a really great post to read. i’ll check back for new posts by you!
diciembre 3, 2010 a las 10:32 am
great post! i’m bookmarking this!
diciembre 4, 2010 a las 11:23 pm
i’m adding your blog rss feed so that i can see your new posts. keep up the good work!
diciembre 5, 2010 a las 8:14 pm
Thanks, Lani!