Dennett usually tries to be as non-controversial about his views as he can in order to get them to the “other side”. I heard him speak at my college once, and he was always careful not to mix his views on god with the ideas he’s trying to convince people about.

For example, when he’s trying to promote the idea of investigating how religions work/evolve, he doesn’t focus on that they aren’t true. He focuses on how important it is to understand them in any context.

Hitchens: Freaking hilarious idiot.

Two days ago, I watched this 90-minute debate between Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (author of Kosher Sex), and I realized I’m getting sick of these debates. They’re the same every time. Boteach kind of made a fool of himself in front of an unsympathetic audience. I almost felt sorry for him.

I actually saw Hitchens speak in person. Closest to god I’ve ever felt.

Harris: Definitely gets fundamentalism, but seems to be stuck in a post 9/11 rut unable to move past his first reaction, interesting ideas about spirituality that I hope explores more

Hitchens: Entertaining idiot

Dennett: Thoughtful and so non-provocative I don’t think he really counts as a horseman

~David D.G.

Dawkins, I think, is on some level offended by irrational behavior by believers. He (rightly) believes science to be the only means to whatever truth there is in the universe, and is (rightly) offended when non-scientists make unscientific pronouncements about reality.

Harris, is disgusted by the consequences of behavior by believers. He sees extremist religion as dangerous.

Hitchens likes to argue, likes to be inflammatory, and loves to poke at sacred beliefs. If it weren’t religion, it would be something else, and he would be witty and dead-on while doing that too.

Dennett gets mis-characterized quite a bit. His writings about religion are explanatory or a call for explanations. Breaking the Spell is very different from The God Delusion, although commentators (who haven’t read it?) ignore this point.

Not that this is very relevant to, er, religion and that.

I got that from the “Four Horsemen” video.

Also, the obvious one is that Harris is (slightly) more interested in spiritual/mystical experiences than the rest, although all of them agree with him that “deep” experiences can and need to be investigated rationally. (Hitchens speaks of separating the “luminary” experiences from the irrational dogma that they are connected with, for instance.) They just don’t use the words “spirituality” or “mysticism”, as those words are likely to bring to mind the irrational parts of those philosophies as well as the rational parts, as Sam Harris has mentioned. But Harris thinks those are the best words we have for the phenomenon, although he readily admits how ambiguous and misleading they are.