The four horsemen The conversation that sparked an atheist revolution

Review by Booklist Review

Most of this small book is taken up by a transcription of the only discussion that the four-man vanguard of the new atheism ever had. Not open to the public, it was yet meant for the public and probably has had more watchers on YouTube than the best-sellers of its participants Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris have had readers. The conversation's opening topic is how science purportedly offends religion, and it closes in concern with ongoing, religiously powered conflict in Palestine. The bases touched in between arise from contrasting faith and reason, superstition and theory, and what may surprise some discussing the aspects and products of religion that must be conserved. Besides the talk, the three remaining interlocutors (Hitchens died in 2011) contribute new essays. Dennett on the new atheism's progress and Harris on the Zika virus are quite brief, but Dawkins expands on The Hubris of Religion, the Humility of Science, and the Intellectual and Moral Courage of Atheism. All three miss Hitch, who in these pages remains the best communicator of the four.--Ray Olson Copyright 2010 Booklist

From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.

---

Review by Publisher's Weekly Review

This meandering, unmoderated discussion among Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, a group dubbed the New Atheists, presents their unique positions in provocative but underdeveloped arguments. Composed mainly of transcriptions of a conversation among the four that was posted to YouTube in 2007, the book opens with introductory essays highlighting key points from the three surviving thinkers (Hitchens died in 2011). The writers open the conversation by defending themselves against claims of being overly arrogant; they argue that religion is a much less humble theological belief than atheism. Topics covered include the gap between academic theology and what preachers preach, religion's problematic reliance on authority and ancient texts, and the potential for danger in all religious belief. Moments of genuine disagreement arise, including a relatively heated argument from Hitchens that religion should not disappear because he enjoys having a sparring partner. There is some begrudging respect for Christianity's aesthetic achievements and a constructive section on which arguments could convince them to moderate their attacks (such as artistic merit), but the tone is generally harsh and unsparing. Readers who are looking for a taste of new atheism will get a good sense of the tone and style of these thinkers, but those familiar with the arguments will see this as an unpolished curiosity. (Mar.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

---

Review by Library Journal Review

In September 2007, four key proponents of New Atheism, popularly called the Four Horsemen, gathered for a two-hour filmed conversation in which they both explained their atheistic positions and addressed criticisms from theistic opponents. The discussion among Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and ethologist), Christopher Hitchens (journalist, essayist, and political historian), Sam Harris (neuroscientist and moralist), and Daniel Dennett (philosopher) was viewed widely on YouTube. This book contains the entire transcript of that influential meeting as well as current reflections and comments by the group's three surviving members, as Hitchens died in 2011. Having the conversation available in book format is beneficial since current statements can be examined more closely and compared with arguments found in other writings. As the ideas of New Atheism in general and those of these four authors have received significant criticism over the years, revisiting the meeting allows these scholars to respond to criticism and contemporary readers to reflect anew on their ideas. VERDICT Spanning religion and philosophy, this work will appeal to readers of both, especially those interested in atheism and apologetics.-John Jaeger, Johnson Univ., Knoxville, TN © Copyright 2019. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

---

Review by Kirkus Book Review

A commemoration of the only extended conversation the four bestselling authors ever had.It was the loosest of confederations that united these "Four Horsemen" of the literary atheist apocalypse. The publication, around the same time, of bestselling challenges to organized religion by neuroscientist Harris, philosopher Dennett, biologist Dawkins, and journalist/essayist Hitchens linked them in the public's mind, as each of them participated in increasingly public debate on the ascendance of atheism and the decline of religious faith. The bulk of this slim volume is a transcript of a two-hour cocktail conversation among the four, in 2007, at the annual conference of the Atheist Alliance International, filmed by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and subsequently available on DVD and YouTube. Padding what would otherwise be a 90-page transcript in large print are a biographical and contextual introduction by Stephen Fry ("sitting in on these dialoguesreminds us that open enquiry, free thinking and the unfettered exchange of ideas yield real and tangible fruit"), a new essay by Dawkins ("The Hubris of Religion, the Humility of Science, and the Intellectual and Moral Courage of Atheism"), and considerably shorter introductory pieces by Dennett and Harris. Though the conversation has plenty of wit and bite, it is the atheist equivalent of preaching to the choir, capable of reinforcing convictions but unlikely to topple or change any. It's a convivial conversation without agenda, as the four thinkers try to figure out what they're collectively trying to accomplish and what the best outcome might be. Dawkins takes the hardest line, hoping that organized religion will simply disappear as the world comes to its collective senses; Harris is the most mystical, confirming the sacred and practicing meditation while distancing both from God; Hitchens wants the debate to continue forever; and Dennett appreciates some of what churches do, though not what they believe.Mostly for devotees of the New Atheism. More than a decade later, not much has changed, as the faithful and the skeptics continue to talk past each other. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

---

In Good Company Sam Harris Ever since the phrase 'the New Atheists' appeared in print, I have found myself celebrated or abused in the same breath with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. Needless to say, I've been greatly honoured by the association. It has, however, conveyed a false sense that we often schemed together in person. Although two or three of us would occasionally meet at conferences or other events, the book you are about to read provides a transcript of the only conversation the four of us ever had. Christopher died in 2011, which gives this record a special poignancy. There is no question that his absence has been keenly felt in recent years. More times than I can count, strangers have come forward to say, 'I miss Hitch.' Their words are always uttered in protest over some fresh crime against reason or good taste. They are spoken after a bully passes by, smirking and unchallenged, whether on the left or on the right. They have become a mantra of sorts, intoned without any hope of effect, in the face of dangerous banalities or lies. Often, I hear in them a note of reproach. Sometimes it's intended.  I, too, miss Hitch. But I will resist the temptation to offer further eulogy here. After all, the time will come when the rest of us have also left the stage. However, it seems that a record of our conversation will remain. We filmed it almost as an afterthought. I'm very glad we did. Treating Richard, Dan, Christopher and me as a four- headed atheist has always elided significant differences of emphasis and opinion, but it was fair enough on the important points: Is there a distinction between believing things for good reasons and believing them for bad ones? Do science and religion differ in the degree to which they observe this distinction? Put this way, the debate is over before it even begins. However disparate our interests, each of us was acutely aware that religious dogmatism hinders the growth of honest knowledge and divides humanity to no necessary purpose. The latter is a dangerous irony, of course, because one of religion's most vaunted powers is that it unites people. It does that too, but generally by amplifying tribalism and spawning moralistic fears that would not otherwise exist. The fact that sane men and women can often be found doing good for God's sake is no rejoinder here, because faith gives them bad reasons for doing good when good reasons are available. These are points that each of the four of us has made again and again, whether to applause or to stony silence.  In truth, not much need be said to close the door on belief in an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent deity of the sort imagined by Christians, Muslims and Jews. Open any newspaper, and what do you find? Today, a set of identical twin girls born with microcephaly in Brazil. How does something like this happen? Their mother was bitten by a mosquito carrying the Zika virus - which God, in his abundance, also made. Among the many unhappy effects of this virus is to produce tiny heads, tiny brains, and commensurately tiny lives for the offspring of any woman unlucky enough to be infected. Imagine the woman herself a few months ago, doing everything within her power to prepare a happy life for her unborn daughters. Where does she work? A factory. How often does she pray? Daily, no doubt. But at the crucial moment she sleeps. Perhaps she's dreaming of a world better than the one we live in. Pic- ture a lone mosquito finding her open window. Picture it alighting upon her exposed arm. Will an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly benevolent God muster the slightest defence? Not even a breeze. The mosquito's proboscis pierces her skin immediately. What are the faithful to believe at this point? One suspects they know that their God isn't nearly as attentive as he would be if he actually existed.  So there was nothing to stop this tiny monster - descended from a long line of monsters that have been spreading disease for some 200 million years - from drinking this woman's innocent blood and, in return for a meal, destroying the lives of her unborn girls. The facts of a single case dismantle whole libraries of theological hairsplitting and casuistry. And yet the hor- ror compounds. Picture the woman noticing the welt on her arm the next morning - just a minor annoyance in a life soon to be filled with tragedy. Perhaps she's heard reports of Zika and knows how the virus is spread. Her prayers now acquire a special fervour. To what end? Can the consolations of a faith so utterly misplaced outweigh the irony of worshipping a deity this impotent or evil - or, indeed, imaginary? In the absence of God, we find true sources of hope and consolation. Art, literature, sport, philosophy - along with other forms of creativity and contemplation - do not require ignorance or lies to be enjoyed. And then there is science - which, apart from its intrinsic rewards, will be the true source of mercy in the present case. When a vac- cine or a cure for Zika is finally found, preventing untold misery and death, will the faithful thank God for it? No doubt they will. And so these conversations must continue . . . Excerpted from The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

---