91热爆

I'd agree that Richard Dawkins ability to reconsider his position and think on his feet were a sign of true intelligence.
Any true sceptic with a belief in the scientific method would always demonstrate that they are capable of changing their mind on an issue - but this would purely depend on concrete evidence.
So Richard Dawkins I鈥檓 sure would entertain the notion that the existence of a divine being is statistically possible, but as sceptics say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
Even if a divine being does exist, I don鈥檛 think this gives any validation to the Christian faith or any other faith for that matter. Even if we accept that Christ existed as a historical figure, we can still recognise that the Christian faith grew for social and political reasons.
Claims made for miracles (in the bible and modern day miracles) by the church should be treated with as much scepticism as we would any outlandish claims by spiritualists and spoon benders etc.
You may find some of Richard Dawkins views extreme and strongly put, but with the growth of creationism across the world - its time for atheists to stand up and be counted.

I was surprised how much I liked him. I'd read his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' ages ago, and thought it very good, but the last few times I'd seen him on TV, and when he was on your radio programme, he seemed so - I know he rejected the word fundamentalist, but that's the word I would have chosen - so close-minded and hostile, that I didn't even consider buying his new book.

But last night he seemed very open, and he argued his case well.

Slightly off-topic, but I've just reminded myself that when I talked to some Jehovah's Witnesses some years ago, they gave me one of their publications to read, and this book used a quotation from 'The Blind Watchmaker' pulling it out of context so that it appeared to support creationism. I've always wondered if Dawkins knows, and if so, how much the misuse irritated him.

I have been a great fan of Richard Dawkins ever since 'The Selfish Gene' and have enjoyed his clear and concise writing style in which he explains to those interested in Biology, and the interested layman, about the intricacies of the subject, and especially how different species have evolved over the millenia. Even before he came out so publically in defense of atheism he would have been someone that I would have gone out of my way to hear at, for instance, a public lecture.

I have often heard it said that atheists are usually younger people who often tend to moderate their feelings as they get older (perhaps as part of an 'insurance policy' for the end of life!). This is not my experience (I'm 57). As I get older I have become more and more convinced by Richard Dawkins' arguements, and many others, and I now happily and contentedly state that I too am a convinced atheist.

Like Dawkins I was raised in a moderately religious home, both parents attended church and died without their faith being shaken in any way whatsoever. I too started to have doubts early on but spent most of my life not thinking too deeply about what was beginning to occur to me about the 'faith' of my parents (not mine!). It is only in the last few years that I have been actively researching the concept of atheism and have at long last been able to ditch the guilt that my mother heaped upon me about not going to church, not having my children baptised, not believing in 'a loving God', having doubts about whether Jesus was a real person, not believing in 'God's plan' for me, etc, etc.

Believe me the guilt piled upon me by my mother was hard to live with, but now almost 8 years after her death, I no longer feel it so strongly, and I have been able to ditch most of it. My life has taken on a new direction since then and I can see the beauty in the belief that this is all you get, make the most of it, be good to others and the world around you (do your bit for the environment in other words), don't hanker after 'better to come' because when it's over - IT'S ALL OVER. So enjoy your time here.

Dawkins demonstrated in the interview that many of his straw men arguments do not stand up to a little scrutiny.

Dawkin's child abuse argument was a perfect example of his ability to comment outside of his own professional area with great confidence but without appropriate competence. E.g. he happily made outlandish statements about what is happening within the NI education system without providing any evidence.
The God delusion is

William was generous enough not to pursue some of Dawkin's incredulous generalisations regarding people who are 'deluded' due to their belief in God. Dawkin's seems to ignore the fact that he is also relying on faith when he is using the assumptions required to pursue the scientific method.

Overall the interview highlighted why Dawkin's book has had bad reviews by m
any.

Good man, David! I suspect that atheists occupy a significant proportion of the attenders of churches across Northern Ireland.

William, perhaps your 91热爆 pals could do some sort of survey to find out? (Maybe this has already been done?)

One little quibble about David's post: while Jesus McJoseph almost certainly existed, "Christ" is a made-up figure, with little to do with the historical Galilean Jewish Hasid.

I haven't watched the interview yet (hope to get it tonight on the VCR), but one thing that I would like to see RD speak about is the fact that religion has been around so long as a meme, that it must have influenced the selective environment for our genomes. In which case, we are probably *adapted* to religion by now, in the same way that we have adapted to other infectious organisms. It's like those "good bacteria" in the gut - maybe religion (any old religion) fulfils a useful societal role - as long as we remember to love our neighbours as ourselves.

Here endeth the lesson :-)

Without having seen this, I would say a more intelligent person would have thought out his positions with a more coherent worldview so it would be consistent and logical enough not to have to review it on the hop.

It shows opened mindedness to able to do it, but it may raise questions about whether or not Dawkins shoots his mouth off first and thinks later.

for example if you said homosexuality was a form of mental illness you might find yourself under scrutiny by the law, and most people would be cautious in this area legally.

But if you said faith believers were suffering mental illness you could be inciting religious hatred - has he thought this through, and has the 91热爆 for carrying it?

PB

There wasn't much left of dawkins by the end!

Having only a pocket-book knowledge of MR Dawkins and never having read any of his books as yet, I watched the interview with interest to hear what he had to say.
I will not dispute his intelligence (as he seems to do of those who have a religious belief) nor his right to believe what he wishes, but I found myself wanting William to ask the question which Richard alluded to but was not ask.
That being 'If you say that you believe your opinion to be correct, based on the evidence before you, What evidence would you need to make you question your present conclusions?

I am a person that believes that the 'scientific method' has and continues to contribute greatly to our understanding of the universe etc. The science that Mr Dawkins is speaking of, in 'The Evolution Theory' is not proven by the scientific method' but is a BELIEF SYSTEM in it's self. This is a belief system based not on evidence that proves it to be the truth, but on assumptions and postulations which to my knowledge have not been proven. This BELIEF SYSTEM is accepted by Mr Dawkins and others as an alternative to there being a CREATOR GOD that we are all have to answer to.
It is my opinion that we all have a 'belief system' that as rational beings we follow, whether that is one based on a religious belief such as my own 'Christian creational belief' or of Mr Dawkins belief that apparently there is no God nor evidence that will prove to him that there is.

I allow everyone to have the right to choose their own beliefs based on the evidence they have presented before them, but I believe that it is very disappointing to hear an intelectual attack those of differing opinions by bacsically stating ... If you disagree with my opinion, you must be mentally ill!

It was an interesting interview.I was amused at times at some of your facial expressions and couldn't believe the 'child abuse' section. I'd need to watch or listen to it again to remind myself fully of what was said.

I'd the impression that he's another Dan Brown type character, who when he sees an opportunity to make some money does.Firstly he's worked on the 'world's best atheist' image so the public associate him as the main man on anything to do with atheism. That makes him look like an expert in his field.Then at the opportune time, he's written and published a controversial book that's made the best-sellers list. I've the book still in my bookcase and will read it more out of interest to find out, if I can, about the author as opposed to what he's actually written. I'd be interested to find out what was happening around the time he had his previous books published.

It seems, according to Dawkins, we should all trust science because it works. I can make an equally circular claim, we should all trust in God because trust in God works. Neither of these is valid but if Dawkins believes the former I cannot see how he can consistently reject the latter.

Andrew

pb,

Agreed.

I wonder why Dawkin's published his book if he is so easily persuaded to rethink calling theists deluded as he did in the interview.

His comments about Northern Ireland education were worryingly ignorant as his is understanding of Christian theology and theologians.

Just watched the interview - very good, William, but you did give him a pretty easy ride, don't you think? The analysis of our own wee corner of the world was perhaps a bit simplistic (I found this in the book too), and I don't think he has had to deal with the notion that religion has had its own effect on our species *genetically* by leaving its selective imprint on our genepool (so perhaps its removal would be as bad a thing as, say, keeping babies *too* clean).

But it's good to see atheists being featured prominently (even if it is late at night), and for people to be shown that atheism is a legitimate viewpoint. For too long our churches have promulgated the fiction that atheism is "bad".

Interestingly, Dawkins' view of the "Judgement Day" scenario painted by William is very similar to that painted by Jesus McJoseph himself: "Not everyone who says to me: Lord, Lord..." Taking that in conjunction with the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is quite clear that the (probably authentic) view of Jesus was much closer to a humanistic viewpoint than a "religious" one. If he had been around today, Jesus would most likely have been an atheist too. If god *does* exist, it'll be the creationists getting in bother for blaspheming against this brilliant evolution project that god has been running for millions of years!

I think Dawkins would have liked that.

"There wasn鈥檛 much left of Dawkins at the end."

I'm sorry but this is nonsense.
It was an informed debate on both sides; I certainly didn鈥檛 notice Dawkins quaking in his boots.
Dawkins was more than willing to concede the point on the Northern Irelands education system.
As I said earlier any free thinking person would entertain the idea that a god may exist. But the more you look in to the Christian faith the more blatant the plagiarism becomes -Dawkins should just be your starting point, a quick google search for atheism will give you plenty more arguments against the Christian faith.
Many Christians pick and choose what they want to believe in the bible. Many are happy to take a stand against gays but how many Christians do you see suggesting that people who don鈥檛 observe the Sabbath should be stoned.

(Repeat try to post)

The 鈥淒awkins鈥� worldview is one sided in that it proposes that there is only a physical reality and no spiritual reality. Must one's worldview be 'either/or' or can it be 'both/and'?

In his book 'Belief in God in an Age of Science' John Polkinghorne makes a similar point. He quotes Dawkins, River, 132-33 as follows:

"If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of a bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice."

Polkinghorne comments as follows:

"Whatever this bleak judgment is, it is clearly not a conclusion of science alone. It was not his knowledge of genetics that enabled Dawkins to make this pronouncement. Rather, it represents his metaphysical judgment on the significance of the scientific story which is presented to us. In fact, it is 'science' that is 'blind', for as a self-defining methodological strategy it has closed its eyes to the possibility of discerning evil or good or justice or intention. Those who construct metaphysical theories of wider meetings, or lack of meaning, must take science into account, but there is certainly more than one way in which to do so."

Regards,
Michael

I wish I had been able to see this interview. Alas, local coverage of the 91热爆 in Washington State is spotty at best.

PB: I realize that the laws of the US and of the UK differ somewhat, but can one really get into criminal trouble in NI for saying that homosexuality is a mental illness? I deplore the sentiment, but I'd not care to censor it. Usually our limits on Free Speech have to do with inciting riot by shouting "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse (for example.) But if the above example rises to the level of "Hate Speech", then I suppose I have to agree that saying similar things about the faithful meets the same criterion.

Mr. Tweed:

Space and my patience preclude explaining the whole situation here, but rest assured: there are, in fact, testable areas of the science of evolution. Were the dual heirarchies of claddistics and genetics to fail to match, for example, that'd be a pretty strong indictment of the theory. There are many other such imaginable (and achievable) tests of evolution; a quick search online (check out talk.origins, for example) should lead you to them fairly quickly.

Regards,
--Tom

Amen ... will didnt give him an easy ride, he just gave him enough rope to commit intellectual suicide with. That's what dawkins then did!

William:

I consider it a sign of great intelligence when people don't say or write utterly idiotic things in the first place.

Perhaps Mr Dwkins should have his job title changed to "Professor for the Public Misunderstanding of Everything Religious."??

Stephen G.

I thought it was a fine interview - a very thoughtful discussion by both of you. Your (very gracious) comments about Dawkins above seem to me to be quite correct, but you also did a good job in the interview of asking difficult questions, while staying courteous and detached. It would have been a nice performance by a cross-examining barrister.

Dawkins had some subtle points that may have been lost, in part, even in the format of even a relatively relaxed interview like this. E.g., I thought he handled well the argument that science, too, is open to doubt - pointing out that science is really no more open to doubt than is common sense about everyday reality. In both cases, the doubts are based on radical epistemological scepticism. The contrast is that no radical epistemological scepticism is required to doubt religious claims. The doubt arises within our ordinary ways of investigating the world, not from outside of them.

Now, that is a very difficult point to make on television! However, Dawkins did a pretty good job of it - doubtless better than most people who understand the point could have done.

I thought he was almost too willing to back away from the "delusion" issue. The point here is twofold: first, a belief in the existence of a divine being may be seriously mistaken and have seriously bad, but rather indirect, consequences. This may be worth bringing out in a dramatic way. Second, however, it is not an idiosyncratic false belief (assuming that it is, indeed, false), because it is so widely held, and it may not bring about the kind of immediate collision with the facts of the world as a belief that one is Napoleon.

For the latter reasons, i.e. the second point, we may hesitate to call such beliefs "delusional". However, the title of Dawkins' book has the effect of bringing out the first point. It tells us that even though we do not normally classify these beliefs as delusional - even if we think they are seriously wrong - and even though there may be reasons behind this, there may still be reason to point out what they have in common with more obviously delusional beliefs, as opposed to what is different. After all, our society tends to err on the side of recognising the differences - declining to challenge religious belief in a forthright way - so from Dawkins' viewpoint it is legitimate, at least as a dramatic device, to highlight and explain the similarities as well. In the end, he wants to say, belief in a deity anything like the traditional Abrahamic God is both false and harmful, even if it does not share all the characteristics of more obvious delusions.

Well, I think that that's how the title of the book works. It's sort of a half-metaphor: "yes, this is not delusion" by some common standards" is implicit in the very fact that the title is experienced as shocking, and that this is obviously intended; while it is also being asserted that by some other important standards, religion does, surprisingly enough, have some hallmarks of delusion.

I'm not sure that Dawkins himself would understand his title in exactly this way, but I think it makes sense of how the book works, and of his own ambivalence about the choice of the word "delusion" in this and other interviews. Even if he would accept my understanding of how it works, it is another point that is difficult to convey quickly in an interview - even a relaxed one. The whole thing probably works better without explanation. It's the kind of thing that makes sense in the book itself but becomes complicated and messy to discuss - almost like explaining a joke.

Overall, Dawkins handled the tough questions as well as anyone could have, and showed himself as a thoughtful, reasonable person, not the rabid "militant" he often portrayed to be.

I just wish the general quality of TV interviews was this high. Congratulations to both participants.

An excellent interview.

I agree with Russell Blackford that Prof Dawkins was a little too ready to back off on the "Delusion" issue.

A more apt analogy for the "God Delusion" may be with other common delusions that do not necessarily mean mental illness. We probably all have friends who believe in some of the following: astrology, fortune telling, homeopathy, telepathy, reflexology, ghosts, alien abduction, scientology, witchcraft, and uncounted similar examples which provide them comfort zones yet have no basis in evidence.

There are plenty of things that are believed by otherwise sane, intelligent and rational people that cannot be supported by evidence. Belief without evidence is a fair definition of a delusion. On this basis religious belief is delusional.

I thought the interview was excellent, civilised, intelligent and balanced with give and take on both sides.

It is a real shame IMO that these topics are generally considered taboo for main-stream consumption, perhaps if it were possible for more religious people to have access to real debate like this we might live in a better world.

Unfortunately, after thousands of years of religion of a myriad different kinds we still live in a world filled with dogma and hate, dominated by bronze-age texts and 1st century logic, that simple fact always amazes me, how pathetic are we all to allow that to happen.

At least Dawkins has the guts to take the rocky road, and agree or disagree with him you must admit he makes his case with clear logic, civility and charm, he must get really bored dispatching the same old straw men over and over again, evolution = faith, atheists have no morals, science doesn't have all the answers, yawn, yawn, yawn!

Please, theists, if there is anyone out there who can present a cohesive argument with evidence (and that doesn't mean "it says so in the Bible") for the supernatural entity that they believe then, step forwards, we atheists are all ears.

Well done Mr Crawley for helping to stimulate our collective brain cells!

Good show, old chap! ;)

Very, very, very well done. This was a superb interview, Mr. Crawley.

Richard S.
San Antonio, Texas
USA

What an excellent interview.

Regarding the contentious issue of whether religions cause harm via NI schools, I took Dawkins view to be that the division of schools into catholic and protestant was a contributing factor to hate, rather than a claim that teachers teach hate.

The first step to hating is a division into "us and them". If the schools are segregated, any hate, or even merely distrust and dislike, whether from teachers or other pupils, has chances to spread. Whereas, with non-sectarian schools, any bias from teacher or pupils, has less chance to propagate, if the pupils play and interact with "them" and don't see a real difference.

I took that to be the point about sectarian schooling. I doubt any reasonable person thinks teachers deliberately and explicitly promote hate.

I personally find his arguments convincing, but not sufficient to win over those who whose belief depends heavily on emotional feelings.

The question is asked, where is the evidence?

What is evidence?

This usually means 鈥榳here is the sense data.鈥� In asking this the questioner is assuming the point at issue.

Christianity contends that God is a spirit (John 4 v 24), He is not known through the senses.

The atheist giving 鈥榚vidence鈥� this meaning makes it impossible to prove the existence of God. Yet, in hypocrisy, atheists condemn Christians who say 鈥楪od exists because the Bible says so鈥�. One is as circular as the other.

Validating science by appealing to common sense, simply will not do. What is common sense? If the analogy is to be considered valid, common sense must be empirical. This begs the question, and atheism is no further.

Meanwhile William Crawley鈥檚 question remains unanswered, 鈥榳hat about the assumptions of science?鈥� Until this is answered no atheist has any business ridiculing a Christian for believing the Bible.

Great thanks! Best wishes.

Great thanks! Best wishes.

Andrew,

You ask "what is evidence"; it鈥檚 simply information that tends to indicate something is true.

Have you got any?

I think you'll find that in this country (UK) atheists have the right to criticise anything they please, including sky gods, virgin births, talking snakes and burning bushes et al.

You seem to suggest that science is simply validated by common sense that is untrue, I suggest you try reading a few books on it (ideally written in the last 300 years); science is the only philosophy that truly supports our (modern) existence because it enables us to understand how the world works without personal and cultural bias.

Have you ever seen people killing each other over which version of trigonometry is correct?