Extract

The Four Horsemen

Book: Pages 91-99 [From the last paragraph of page 91: “So, a question I wanted to ask …” to Hitchens’ last remark on page 99: “I could not possibly agree with you more.”]

Hour 2 of 2

URL: 00:09:40 to 00:18:39 timer

DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

This material and Hitchens’ question below appear in the context of the second hour of the conversation between the four friends, at the start of which Harris states the following: “Two issues converge.  One is the question, ‘What do we want to accomplish?’  What do we reasonably think we can accomplish? And then there’s this article of faith …” (page 85). Following this ― six pages on into this discussion ― we see Hitchens repeat the question:

01

Hitchens: 

“So, the question I wanted to ask is this. We should ask ourselves what our real objective is. Do we in fact wish to see a world without faith? I think I would have to say that I don’t. I don’t either expect to, or wish to, see that.”

Book: page 91

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 00:09:38 timer

Analytic commentary

Sam Harris already puts forward the question of what the Four Horsemen’s objectives should be on page 85.  Harris’ question involves the formulation of rational, achievable objectives.  Harris’ objective is a “positive” achievement.  It is clear from the self-representations of Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, in the pages that follow up to page 91, that they prefer a world without faith.  For these three thinkers, the long term consequence of their project is a world without faith.  Their objective clearly promotes a world where the faculty of understanding ― the scientific mindset ― not merely dominates, but should become the single point of reference on everything.  For them, the logical consequence of their scientific approach to the problems they experience with religion is a world without faith.    

Hitchens only now asks the same question on page 91, but with quite a different approach to it.  He asks: “Do we in fact wish to see a world without faith?” to which he answers: “I think I would have to say that I don’t [wish to see a world without faith].”  Hitchens expresses on page 92 what he wishes the objective would NOT be ― an objective about what should NOT be done.  Hitchens’ is a “negative” statement: “I think I would have to say that I don’t.  I don’t either expect to, or wish to, see that.”  From this we can see that Hitchens’ conscious mental process functions in a different way to that of his rational friends.

From this it is apparent that Hitchens goes beyond the isolated fact of a rational objective.  His approach thus mitigates Harris’ rational intention and questions the logical consequence of the thinking objective of his friends.  Hitchens’ irrational intuition allows him to go beyond the reason of his friends.  It is as if the said irrational perception dropped into Hitchens’ head. 

02

Hitchens’ statement evokes a directed response from his friends.  They are seeking a rational basis by which to clarify their understanding of his views.  Harris is the first to interrogate Hitchens as to what he means by “faith”, to which Hitchens replies and, in turn, to which Dawkins’ responds:

Hitchens: 

“Faith … replicates … extraordinarily fast … And then the other thing is: Would I want this argument to come to an end, with all having conceded, ‘Hitchens really won that round. Now nobody in the world believes in God’? … Now, apart from being unable to picture this … I’m not even completely certain that it’s what I want.”

Book: page 92

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 01:09:54 timer

Dawkins:

“I find that an extraordinary thing to say. I don’t understand what you’re saying.  I mean I understand you’re saying that it will never work, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t wish it [a world without faith].” 

Book: page 92

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 01:10:43 timer

Analytic commentary

Here Dawkins’ statement affirms that, from the rational point of view, Hitchens’ view is not understandable. Hitchens is unable to explain his viewpoint in rational terms: His intuition is beyond reason.

In the course of the conversation that ensues, all three his friends probe Hitchens further, leading to Hitchens introducing or responding to extra themes with short narratives such as extirpating jihadists, witchcraft spreading like weeds, and daily horoscopes.  

03 

Dawkins:

“But Christopher, going back to your point: It sounds as though you like argument. You like having ― it’s almost the theatre of having ― an intellectual argument, which would be lost.”

“And it sounds as though you don’t want it [faith] to be eradicated, because you want something to argue against. And something to sharpen your wits on.”

Book: pages 94, 97

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 01:12:33 | 01:15:36 timer

Hitchens:

“Yes, I think that is in fact what I want.” 
Book: page 97

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 01:15:45 timer

Analytic commentary

In contrast, Dawkins’ rational viewpoint cuts through Hitchens’ statement ― he points out what he thinks Hitchens is wanting, namely, a stage for argument.  Eventually Dawkins’ rational viewpoint does help to clarify that which Hitchens’ irrational intuition is unable to justify on a rational basis ― as can be seen in Hitchens’ last comment on page 97: “Yes, I think that is in fact what I want.”  From the above we see that Hitchens is unable to explain his own intuitive view on the matter in question in rational terms and that Dawkins’ rational view actually provides a rational basis for Hitchens’ viewpoint. 

04

Hitchens:

“But I’d love to hear: Would you like to say that you look forward to a world where no one has any faith?”

[Note that this question by Hitchens arises from an immediate experience earlier on the same day in which he was asked a similar question in a TV interview (page 98)]. 

Book: page 99

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 01:17:25 timer

Here, finally, Hitchens poses the question back to his friends, to which Dawkins provides another rational viewpoint and with which Hitchens again agrees. 

Dawkins:

“Yes, I want to answer this … I want to live in a world where people think sceptically for themselves, look at evidence … And it’s such a wonderful experience to live in the world and understand what you’re living in the world, and what makes it work … The universe is such a grand, beautiful, wonderful place … I think you could make an aesthetic case that you’d want to get rid of faith.” 

Book: page 99

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 01:17:29 timer

Hitchens:

“I could not possibly agree with you more.”
Book: page 99

Hour 2 of 2
URL: 01:18:36 timer

Analytic commentary

The material above contrasts Hitchens’ irrational intuition with the rationality of his three friends.  He offers his viewpoint without being able to ground it on a rational basis.  Hitchens’ intuitive content is not derived but seems to “appear” as if it fell from heaven.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY

To reiterate for the sake of clarity, Jung says that the intuitives “… try always to take in the whole of a situation, and then suddenly something [the intuition] crops up out of this wholeness.” CW. 18, par. 30  Furthermore, Jung writes in Psychological Types that the contents of intuition “… have the character of being ‘given’, in contrast to the ‘derived’ … character of the contents of [the thinking function].” CW. 6, par. 770 Jung points out that with intuition “a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence.” CW. 6, par 770 This sentence is formulated from the viewpoint of the observing subject who rationally seeks to understand how intuition operates.  Jung puts it in even stronger terms in The Tavistock Lectures when he says that intuition “… presents itself as if it had fallen from heaven.  The Germans call this an Einfall, which means a thing which falls into your head from nowhere.” CW. 18, par. 26

Jung further investigates the said problem of intuition from the perspective of the experiencing subject.  He formulates his observations as follows: “Usually when one asks people [intuitives] the reasons for their so-called understanding [intuition], they are unable to give an explanation.” CW 18, par 577 They are often unable to explain their viewpoint in rational terms.  Put differently, they are often unable to ground their intuition on the safe basis of reason.  Simply put, intuition is beyond reason.

Hitchens uses his irrational intuition habitually.  Hitchens’ intuitive orientation to problems dominates throughout the discussion.  His final response at the end of the second hour of the conversation is when Dawkins states: “Unfortunately we are running out of time” (page 130). Hitchens then responds to Dawkins’ statement by saying: “And possibly tape.” The statement that they are possibly running out of tape is an intuition, and Hitchens once again shows that he habitually uses his intuition function for conscious orientation.  Hitchens ends his participation in the discussion in the same way as when he first responded to Dawkins’ initial question at the beginning of the discussion.  This shows that irrational intuition is not merely one of many mental adaptive approaches to problems for Hitchens but that it is indeed his typical approach to problems and decision-making.