1. Comment #39713 by Rtambree on May 11, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Anyone know how to get this FULLSCREEN?

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #39716 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I've only watched the first ten minutes, but the interviewer here seems like an ignoramous.

Other Comments by IQHQ

3. Comment #39720 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm

This guy is far too weak to be conducting hard-edged and provocative interviews. He's like a big kid with a microphone.

Other Comments by IQHQ

4. Comment #39724 by davyB on May 11, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Why does Dawkins believe Jesus was real man? There's no direct evidence.

Other Comments by davyB

5. Comment #39726 by Russell Blackford on May 11, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Not only can I not get it to play fullscreen, I can't get it to play very well at all. :(

Anyway, it's the wrong question. The obvious answer to the question as phrased is, "No."

Well, it's obvious if you're a good Humean like I am. Reason can tell us about the universe, etc., but we need our desires, values, emotional attitudes, etc., as well, and though reason can appraise these in certain ways, they cannot be determined all the way down by reason. Beyond a certain point, rational criticism of what Hume called "the passions" runs out, and reason is, if not exactly the slave of the passions, at least no more than their high-level advisor.

I doubt that Dawkins would deny this ... or if he would on the basis of some Kantian argument, it isn't something he's ever emphasised.

The better question would be, "Can we live without the supernatural?" The clear answer to that one is, "Yes."

I suppose I'm playing word games a bit, given what was probably meant, but there is an important point here. You can be an atheist, you can have an entirely naturalistic worldview, you can place great value on reason and the life of the mind, but none of that means that you thereupon live some kind of bloodless existence based on "reason alone", which is neither possible nor desirable. Did any of this come up?

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

6. Comment #39727 by Bonzai on May 11, 2007 at 6:30 pm

I agree with Russell Blackford. This is a stupid question in the way it is framed.

Knowing the cause of something is not a substitute for the experience itself. Reason allows us to understand our experience in a third person sense, but it cannot replace the first person experience.

Since I don't know any Kant or Hume I will put it in my own pedestrian way. We all know that the moving images on the TV screen are formed by little dots when electrons hit the back of the screen. But knowing the electronics and the physics would not allow you to reproduce the experience of watching your favourite show.

Another example is love. We all know about the selfish genes, but I don't think anyone would look at his/her romantic partner(s) as just a vehicle of spreading his/her DNAs.

Other Comments by Bonzai

7. Comment #39729 by AtheistJunkie on May 11, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Rtambree
Try this http://www.tvo.org/theagenda/video/TAWSPfull051007.swf

It worked for me

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

8. Comment #39742 by Raigen on May 11, 2007 at 8:12 pm

As an Ontarian, who loves to watch TVO for its (usuallly) wonderful programs, I really feel I need to issue an apology here. That show was pretty much garbage, and the "debate" that followed it was nothing of the sort. The host was childish, and quite frankly, not intellectually all together (I.E. dumb as a brick). I was shocked at the "panel" for the "debate" that was obviously lined entirely with religious apologists, I mean the UofT Professor might as well should have had something more fitting under his name, for his "views". "Dawkins has no imagination"? Are you kidding me.

Ugh. Okay I'll calm down now, I hope.

Just had to get that off of my chest.

Host: "Well it appears that 84% say Yes to the World Being Better Off Without Religion and 16% say No. Wow."

Professor: "Well they all just tuned in to see Dawkins anyways."

*goes hunting for Big Red "Detonate Ontario" Button*

Other Comments by Raigen

9. Comment #39744 by Liveliest Crib on May 11, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Well that was an odd experience.

The host was civil enough, but he truly creeped me out. He was so smarmy, and dripped with condescension. Even his less silly questions made me queasy.

Then they went to their panel of religious people to discuss Dawkins. (Perhaps having one guest followed by a panel of three who discuss that guest is the typical format of this particular program. I don't know. But, it seems to be a common format for discussing disbelief. Some unbeliever is put on the spot on his own, while a panel of believers then get to talk about him, and why he was so wrong after he's gone.)

Anyway, the whole thing just got more bizarre. I actually found myself respecting the Imam. He had actually read Dawkins' book, and was making intelligent points. I didn't necessarily agree with them, but they were worthwhile. The Jesuit/spiritualist lady actually didn't drive me as crazy as I expected either. She was just typical in her beliefs, atypical in her willingness to listen to Dawkins and absorb his points -- which was actually pretty cool.

Then there was that psychologist, Peterson. I figured I would be most interested in his perspective. He proved to be the only fool on the panel. He either hadn't read or had completely misunderstood Dawkins' book, muttered a bunch of tired points (albeit eloquently), and had the gall to say repeatedly, "Dawkins never addresses . . . " such and such. If he had read the book, he was also a liar.

Weird experience the whole way through. Civil host whom I had trouble enduring; two religious people who give me a little (ahem) faith in religious people again; a psychologist who enraged me and demonstrated little understanding of Dawkins' actual arguments. Wow.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

10. Comment #39751 by Shuggy on May 11, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I didn't find the interviewer to be an idiot, I just thought he was standing back and letting RD talk, as a good interviewer should (but as maybe few US interviewers do).

I think the imam has an interesting point about the 3% who would save their pants rather than a drowning child, but I would want to interrogate their values further: where did they learn to value their pants more than a child? Parents who whopped them for dirtying their Sunday Best??

The woman talks about "a good religion" but what does she judge a religion against?

Other Comments by Shuggy

11. Comment #39753 by krispar on May 11, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Comment by davyB
Why does Dawkins believe Jesus was real man? There's no direct evidence.

Dawkins probably does believe that Jesus never existed, but to state this emphatically would be too confrontational.
The fact is, that contemporary historical evidence verifying anything about the existence of Jesus, or for that matter any of the stories as related in the New Testament, is completely non existent.
When asking about any available evidence the first and favored response is always the "Testimonium Flavianum " even though it's authenticity is very much in doubt.

Since the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. In AD 93 this response is not even contemporary to Christ's time and demonstrates the complete lack of any factual contemporary historical evidence of the existence of Christ.
It is only in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea under the leadership of the emperor Constantine that the 4 Gospel stories were chosen out of many more available and then constituted into the Canon of the New Testament.
These arbitrarily chosen stories were subsequently declared to be inspired writings by uninspired men
The rest is history.



.

Other Comments by krispar

12. Comment #39754 by Shuggy on May 11, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Contrary to the psychologist, I didn't hear RD say a good god would want people to love Him(/Her/It). That sounds most improbable. Why should He(/She/It)? He might have said something about a god-meme being more stable if it "wanted love" (just as it's more stable if you go to Hell for not believing), but that's very different.

Other Comments by Shuggy

13. Comment #39767 by Dagor Bragollach on May 11, 2007 at 10:12 pm

If you took Pascal's Wager seriously, shouldn't you be a Hindu instead of a Christian ?
There is only one Christian God but i don't know how many Hindu Gods. Maybe one of them exists. And they don't even mind that you prayed to other gods aswell.

Other Comments by Dagor Bragollach

14. Comment #39768 by Arcados on May 11, 2007 at 10:12 pm

On behalf of rational Ontarians I'd like to apologize for the host's interviewing technique. As a general rule, I think an interviewer may play the Devil's Advocate, but never show his/her bias, and this guy certainly failed at that.

This is the first time (that I remember) Prof. Dawkins explaining the concept of the moral Zeitgeist as a source of morality, and was very well put.

I still think Breakfast Television would have done a better job than Canada AM. Hopefully next time you're in the neighbourhood Prof. Dawkins we'll have a better show for you to appear on!
In honesty, it wasn't so horrible.

Other Comments by Arcados

15. Comment #39771 by Cyboman on May 11, 2007 at 10:43 pm

I have to say I really enjoyed this. Its amazing how good RD is in an interview. I guess it takes 3 theists to respond to him.

Other Comments by Cyboman

16. Comment #39776 by Bonzai on May 11, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Actually I don't think the psychologist is even a theist. He's just a jackass.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #39779 by RickM on May 11, 2007 at 11:01 pm

On the second part of the vid - Once again, over and over again; you're not talking about my god. I'm so sick of this.

==

I couldn't listen to the whole thing; too much bull shit.

Other Comments by RickM

18. Comment #39793 by the great teapot on May 12, 2007 at 12:26 am

Unlike many above I thought this was one of the best interviewers Richard has had. He acted as devils advocate so that Richard could get his points across and then sat back and allowed Richard to give full answers to his questions.A child would not have done that.
I enjoyed it.
Shuggy, Richard did say if he were God he would want people to love him, that suprised me too, but he didn't say he would deny them eternal life or torture them for eternity if they didn't.
But I agree the panel trotted out the usual nonsense.
The woman says love is the basis of religious faith- is it? That surely then means God is a man made concept to achieve Love.
If God exists surely he is the sole Basis of religious faith, after that Religion is whatever he wants it to be or am I being thick.
And the chap who says that the Bible is part of what has created the Zeitgeist of today, why does he presume that Richard would deny this, Richard would agree and has agreed with him. The point is the Bible was also a reflection of the Zeitgeist 2000-3000 years ago. (and also the fact that geist means spirit in german is completely irrelevant, we could just as easily say mood of the times)

Other Comments by the great teapot

19. Comment #39795 by Lagomort on May 12, 2007 at 12:41 am

Wow, that Steve Paikin is a freakin' moron...

Other Comments by Lagomort

20. Comment #39796 by the great teapot on May 12, 2007 at 12:47 am

The psychologist says that if you follow what Richard says everyone would have been immoral before the enligthenment and then accuses him of been philosophically naive and not a deep thinker.
Which Atheist including Richard has ever said you need to be rational to be moral? Plenty of xians think atheists are immoral but I have never heard an atheist condem the irrational as immoral.
He is clearly no intellectual thinker.
They are also forgetting one important point . There is no god.

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #39801 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 12, 2007 at 1:06 am

I quite liked the interviewers style, Richard was well able to respond, and given plenty of time. He also asked, good, clever and probing questions.

It was refresing in some ways.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

22. Comment #39803 by Russell Blackford on May 12, 2007 at 1:22 am

Well, it's pretty obvious that you don't need to do a lot of reasoning to have the dispositions of character that we call "moral virtue" - kindness, truthfulness, and so on. You might need to use reason to explain why human beings value these things and how we came to be the sorts of creatures that do so. But no one, including Dawkins, has ever claimed that everyone lacked those traits before the Enlightenment. No one has ever said anything that even implies something so preposterous. What's more, there are evolutionary explanations for us having at least some natural tendency to have some of those traits, as Dawkins himself has discussed in various places. Reason helps, particularly in discarding pathological or outdated moral norms, but that's all it does ... and of course Dawkins knows this (or something like it; he might not agree with the exact way I've expressed the idea). Sounds as if the psych guy was totally ignorant of Dawkins' work.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

23. Comment #39824 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 3:49 am

Paikin conducted a fantastic interview, the best that I have ever seen made with Dawkins. Kudos, Paikin. As for the 'smarmy' manner of Paiken's interview style, my assumption, and it is a silly one at that, but I am going to let it rip nonetheless is the following:

Perhaps my artistic ability to draw portraits has made me notice that Paikin's face is very sharp-featured. His nose could make a loaf of uncut bread shiver in fearful anticipation of getting mercilessly sliced in a second flat, while his chin could do justice to an overcooked roast beef, taming it toughness and making neat, pretty slices of it. And not to mention that his wiry hair could scour out both the bread pan and roasting dish! So if I looked like that, I would try to temper my angular features with sheepishly scrunching my shoulders, hoping that would make them look softer therefore less threatening and frequently smiling though the smiling is done in a tight, tiny, frozen way, which is the only way my impossibly narrow jaw would allow.

Other Comments by Logicel

24. Comment #39835 by CJ on May 12, 2007 at 4:35 am

18. Comment #39793 by the great teapot on May 12, 2007 at 12:26 am

Unlike many above I thought this was one of the best interviewers Richard has had. He acted as devils advocate so that Richard could get his points across and then sat back and allowed Richard to give full answers to his questions.A child would not have done that.
I enjoyed it.

Happy to recycle the above comment. While a lot of what was said grated on my nerves it was still one of the better programmes I've seen.

I would really like to see RD take on the Muslim chap.

Other Comments by CJ

25. Comment #39870 by Thor on May 12, 2007 at 6:40 am

Alright, I just can't resist adding my two cents:

no matter if you liked the interviewer or not, the interview as such was just great. The good thing about it was that because of the insistence the interviewer showed on some qestions - which many above interpreted as his own bias shining through or him not fully grasping the issues, which may be true or not but is irrelevant to the outcome - anyway, because of this insistence Dawkins was forced to elaborate on some issues, like morality, much more than he usually does.

Consequently, the whole interiew was a pleasant variation on the usual stock questions and answers - because regardless of Dawkins' eloquence, some arguments you can only hear so many times.
Some others above have already noted that. I think for this reason the interview was indeed quite worthwhile.

Other Comments by Thor

26. Comment #39881 by Severus Snape on May 12, 2007 at 7:13 am

Steve Paikin has been a mainstay of TVO for years, and he is an excellent interviewer. He is a very intelligent person. That said, I was a little disappointed in the interview at times, as I didn't like the position from which Mr. Paikin was playing Devil's Advocate, as he clearly was. But, the thing to remember of course, is that the show is made for the general public, and not for Dawkins's fans. Dawkins got lots of time, got his points across in detail, and you can't ask more than that.

Other Comments by Severus Snape

27. Comment #39908 by L.Minnik on May 12, 2007 at 8:49 am

From the interview, Richard Dawkins:
"There's absolutely no reason to think that religion comes from scripture."
ha ha That was probably not meant to be that way, but it was funny. Host didn't notice.
Ok, I agree, scripture comes from religion.

Good interview.

The panel afterwards was confusing. A psychologist arguing for religion. Imam Shabir Ally argues that without religion, there is no reason to be good. I may be wrong, but I think that having a modern good judicial system is a better deterrent than an ancient fear of god. There is also the factor of social disapproval for those who feel absolutely no compassion for others. And they could have at least noticed that animals living in groups may respond to the needs of another, and this is not due to religion. The statement that believing in god without being part of a religion is dangerous because of "the possibility of self-delusion" made me smile. All of these persons claiming that they are the ones who have the TRUE belief...

Other Comments by L.Minnik

28. Comment #39910 by scooternyc on May 12, 2007 at 9:00 am

This was a fun website that I'd been using before I stumbled onto Richard and this site:

http://godisimaginary.com/

Great stuff to toss those "open your mind - break the spell" molotov cocktails on other sites! : )

Other Comments by scooternyc

29. Comment #39944 by Mr. Mark on May 12, 2007 at 11:17 am

Ha!

The lady on the panel said that it's hard to find god on your own, and that without organized religion, there's no one to guide you and to keep you from self-delusion. Self delusion! As if corporate, institutionalized delusion is a better option!

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

30. Comment #39950 by Liveliest Crib on May 12, 2007 at 11:24 am

23. Comment #39824 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 3:49 am

You might be right about the host's physical features' affecting my emotional reaction to him. Part of why the experience was so odd for me was that he was civil, asked questions not entirely ridiculous (which is what I've come to expect watching American hosts), and yet, still creeped me out. I might be having an entirely prejudicial reaction.

But there were also moments I thought his "Devil's Advocate" questions were supposed to be check mates, and that the host smiled because he thought he'd caught Dawkins off guard. If Dawkins got flustered at all it was because of nonsense statements like, the host doesn't believe in fairies today, or, that the mere fact that billions of people believe in god means it has to be taken seriously for its truth value, and thus accorded respect.

Heh, and as to whether Dawkins was being disrespectful of religion, I figured he would simply have told the host, "Yes, I am. That's the point." I also think one of the points we must make repeatedly to the religious is that we disrespect their beliefs, but we do not disrespect them as equal human beings with equal human rights. Not only is that something moderates fear about the currently transpiring debate (that we'd take away their right to believe), but it immediately distinguishes us from theocrats who clearly do not respect the rights or equality of either atheists or moderates.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

31. Comment #39951 by HappyPrimate on May 12, 2007 at 11:26 am

I am always thrilled to see RD have the opportunity to speak to an audience of people who are not just fans like us but are possibly hearing from him for the first time. I thought the interview was fair and RD was excellent in his presentation. For myself, I enjoy his lectures more than interviews but know interviews are very important. The necessity of having THREE religious proponents to rebutt RD seemed over the top and their crawfishing around the points was rather amusing. It seems that at best they must agree that hardcore religion is bad and must be tempered by what they now believe should be a kinder, loving religion of peace and love instead of the stoning, burning at the stake and shove it down your throat kind. A wee bit of progress? Maybe. At least they aren't saying science is nonsense. I was amused at their faces and response to the results of the poll. Sort of like their ship got rammed.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

32. Comment #39956 by gcooke on May 12, 2007 at 11:39 am

This is the best interview from the other side of the pond so far. Good value for money, it could be said.

Other Comments by gcooke

33. Comment #39974 by SnowDog on May 12, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I live in Ontario and watched this when it was aired. I thought the interview was pretty good, the panel "debate" that followed was somewhat ridiculous with no opposing point of view and not even the host working to keep the panelist honest. The Imam at least read some of the God Delusion. The psychologist constantly misrepresented Dawkins. Frankly he (Peterson)seems like little more than Bill O'Reilly lite. Someone who just makes up whatever is necessary to keep talking.

TVO recently had a five days of faith series with pretty much the same format. Theists bashing atheists with no opposing points of view. Quite sad.

Other Comments by SnowDog

34. Comment #40008 by ricey on May 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm

I thought the interviewer was fair. Dawkins seemed to take him seriously enough. Sadly the download I got cut out the panel's debate. It would have been interesting to hear their thoughts ... or was it just the usual drivel?

Good to see the Prof refusing to rise to the ego-enducing bait "you are one of the most certain people I have ever heard interviewed ... ". No! Present the evidence; I will change my mind if it is sufficient (to paraphrase). Correct.

Some contributers to this web site should recall that the case against "a god" is not yet proven and probably never can be.

Other Comments by ricey

35. Comment #40015 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 12, 2007 at 4:59 pm

The interviewer was better, I thought, than Bill O'Reilly. At least this was a discussion! Paikin's questioning is obviously just the standard issue repeated yet again, to our disappointment.

I think we can safely assume that arguments in favour of faith aren't ever going to get any better as time goes by. How long have we had Pascal's wager now? 100 years? 200? I don't know. What I do know is that it has long been shown to be absurd and yet it is still offered up as a tenable piece of reasoning!

The arguments given in favour of God/religion are consistently poor. And what else can they be? It is pretty obvious that some of the people on the panel find logic somewhere down their list of desirable things. Argument itself is based upon rules of logic, so we're already off to a bad start. If we suspend logic for the "special" case of religion (which is what we do when we "respect" it) you effectively remove the point of, and, need for, argument. As such, you simply can't win with these people! They always have the "trump card" not so much up their sleeve but face showing, down on the table. Hence, we always find people of faith incapable of accepting ANY of the logical arguments being made. The jewish (?) lady started off by saying that she agreed with a "great deal" of what Dawkins had said but couldn't expand convincingly on that and then contradicted her statement as the issues were discussed further; "But its OK! because I'm being illogical! I can agree with both points of view!!"

More annoying still, when Paikin exhibits gestures of understanding to Richard's arguments and then in the very next breath repeats a different contortion of the same question as if he hadn't, actually, understood a single word.

Religious people are almost universally unmoved by every logical argument one can make against their belief. It follows that if they were more logically inclined then they probably wouldn't be as religious. Firstly; there is a cop-out going on, guided by various emotional motivations such as family/culture etc. Secondly, it is a tactical move that is intended to show us that argument against faith is fundamentally futile and the sooner we realise this and shut up, the better.

That is the nature of the challenge that faces those who want to excercise their right to question those of religious faith.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

36. Comment #40020 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 12, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Did I say we couldn't win?

84% - 16% against religion.

We kick ass!

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

37. Comment #40056 by phatmeat on May 12, 2007 at 10:54 pm

I felt this was a very good broadcast. I truly enjoyed it from beginning to end.

Other Comments by phatmeat

38. Comment #40080 by mooch on May 13, 2007 at 3:15 am

If I were to pick just one Richard Dawkins interview which had a chance of persuading 'fence sitters' and wavering christians to embrace rationality, it would have to be this one.

The interviewer asked all the questions which, I believe, the average christian and agnostic would usually ask, and Dawkins demolished each and every one of them so completely. I really enjoyed this.

Other Comments by mooch

39. Comment #40092 by MrEmpirical on May 13, 2007 at 4:39 am

The clinical psychologist said:

"Dawkins is a very predictable rationalist".

Huh?

Well, I guess it's predictable that Dawkins will always be rational!

That panel at the end was rubbish. They shouldn't have separated Dawkins from the panel. Instead, they should have interviewed Dawkins and the panel at the same time, so that Dawkins could respond to all of their fallacious claims.

The imam didn't know what he was talking about! "The 3% were being controlled by their genes just as the 97% were being controlled by their genes". Not only did that statement demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and social scientific methodology, but it was dead wrong and Dawkins would never agree with it. Dawkins argued that almost all of us - due to our shared genetic heritage - share a universal moral sense, which explains why we hold such similar moral priniciples regardless of religion. But that doesn't mean our moral sense can't be overridden by an abusive upbringing, a traumatic experience, etc. I suspect that the 3% who indicated that they would rather preserve their pants than save a drowning child would have been either (a) joking/lying (this is not uncommon in social science); (b) sociopathic (i.e. lacking the shared moral sense possessed by the rest of us); or (c) screwed up by a negative life event (e.g. child abuse, trauma).

The God Delusion present the genetic explanation for why we are moral AND the shifting zeitgeist explanation. The imam was wrong when he said "what Dawkins said wasn't in his book".

And the Christian woman was just as mistaken. She used the tired old "Dawkins isn't talking about my God" argument. Did she miss the part of Dawkins' book in which he explicitly says that his arguments apply to ALL supernatural creative intelligences? And did she miss the part in which Dawkins pointed out that all other definitions of God essentially define God out of existence (i.e. the Einsteinian God, God is Love, etc.)?

I would have loved to have seen Dawkins own all three of them.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

40. Comment #40096 by redkris on May 13, 2007 at 5:07 am

The first half of the show was entertaining, Dawkins as usual giving his position with clarity to the common theistic questions. The second half was embarrassing- not least because of the apparent lack of intelligence being exhibited by the three fairy worshippers. And because of the system that these shows have of the non-believer on first, then a gallery of theists given free licence to say what they want without challenge.

Other Comments by redkris

41. Comment #40102 by pewkatchoo on May 13, 2007 at 5:36 am

I believe that, in TGD, Dawkins discussed both the genetic and Zeitgeist theories for moral behaviour. However, the most important point he makes and keeps making is that the belief in God can not and can never be a basis for morality. The social imperative must be the major basis for morality with the moving zeitgeist as the basis of our legal systems being the clear imperative for moral behaviour. No religion necessary. One only has to look at the secular laws of a society such as Britain or France and then look at Sharia law to see where a religious law takes us. We have in the past had laws based on religion in Europe too. This led to burnings at the stake, torture, slavery, social deprivation, disease, child abuse, female persecution, etc. Only with the separation of state and religion did some sort of sustainable morality start to be imbued in law and the body politic. Sharia law, as practiced in Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others, would take us back to the middle ages.

According to the devout, we are all going to burn in hell for all eternity and they really want this for us. I just think that some day they and we are all going to die so enjoy your life. Who is the most moral?

So the imam, though the best of the 3, was still incorrect in his proposals. The psychobubble was intellectually dishonest and obscurantist while the woman simply talked a load of old bollox.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

42. Comment #40134 by mooch on May 13, 2007 at 9:27 am

The worst thing of all about the second half of the video, was the parting shot made by the psychologist when confronted with the results of the poll. Because he didn't find the results favourable, he merely stated something along the lines of people merely "voting for Dawkins". I thought this not only presumptuous, but incredibly patronising.

Other Comments by mooch

43. Comment #40146 by the great teapot on May 13, 2007 at 10:56 am

I think he said watching for Dawkins.
As though there was a campaign behind it.
I dont live in Canada but Judging by church attendance I would say there must have been some theists voting twice.

Other Comments by the great teapot

44. Comment #40190 by catchy_nick on May 13, 2007 at 5:30 pm

OOOokay! Ofcourse most of us have already heard everything what RD said in his part of the interview, I want to point out one thing in the panel part that people dont seem to be talking about here. Why is it that none of the three honorable panelists tried to refute any of RD's arguments posed in TGD? All I heard was three cry babies complaining about his "approach" or his "dismissive style". How he isnt a "deep thinker". Where are their rebuttals to the content of RD arguments? Ofcourse they had nothing to say. These arent invented by RD, he just "breathed" some "new life" into them into a highly readable book (pun alert). If the rebuttals existed we would've heard of them by now. Total nonsense. So tired of "you can catch more flies with honey, be nice you big meanie!! WAAaaa!!" garbage. Its nothing more than a desparate cry to stop the erosion of blind faith by hard hitting reason.

P.S. Lets not forget the female spiritual advisors comment about how she shouldn't have to prove god's existance becuase it is an "inner thing" (paraphrase). But she also says you cant have religion without a sense of community??!?!?!?! So keep it to yourself but also keep spreading you self-proclaimed "absolute truth" to others!?!? What bullshit! As much as I dont like Chris Hitchens, I love this one line (paraphrase again); "I'm not trying to take your toys away from you, I just dont want you to bring them over to my house to play with them".

"Heres another group of people who ought to be repeatedly smashed in the face with a chunk of concrete" - George Carlin

Other Comments by catchy_nick

45. Comment #40754 by Suspenders on May 14, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Im a new user here, and a fan of "The Agenda". I take exception to some of the other comments here about Steve Paikin; he is a great host and most definitely not "dumb as a brick", or "childish". Those two characterizations are particularly galling. Anyways, this was the first interview I've ever seen with Dawkins, and I thought it was fantastic.

Other Comments by Suspenders

46. Comment #40807 by Dianelos Georgoudis on May 15, 2007 at 3:01 am

L. Minnik,

You wrote: "Imam Shabir Ally argues that without religion, there is no reason to be good. I may be wrong, but I think that having a modern good judicial system is a better deterrent than an ancient fear of god."

But the issue of morality, as Dawkins himself made clear in the interview, is not which system is better for deterrence. After all morality is about wanting to do good. And Imam Shabir's point was, I think, that without God morality loses its objectivity, it becomes a convention that can and will be understood as ultimately pointless. Here is a practical example: Suppose an atheist and a theist confront an ethical dilemma where they must choose between two paths of action, one good and one evil. Suppose further that as is often the case the evil action is the one that better serves each one's interests. Suppose further that there is no deterrence that applies so that both are free to decide without any fear of retribution. Logic dictates that it is more probable that the theist will choose the good action, because the theist, all other personal factors being the same, has one more reason to behave ethically: namely his or her belief that life on earth is just a short prelude to a much larger life, and that therefore to behave badly for some gain in this short earthly life is rather pointless. In contrast to that the atheist who believes that all there is is one's earthly life will have one less reason to behave ethically.

I think that Dawkins is a genuinely good person (this is quite obvious when you see his interviewing the Anglican bishop of Oxford in a non-confrontational setting). On the other hand his atheism is having a somehow blinding influence on him I am afraid. For example in this interview he repeatedly makes clear that he does not see why one should show more respect to religious ideas than to political ideas, but the answer should be obvious: Because the former hurts a lot of people, that's why. Indeed one can equally well, if not better, argue for atheism while showing respect for other peoples' views. So I think that atheism has planted a mean streak into an otherwise excellent person.

But the main thing I criticize Dawkins (and much of popular atheism) for is the tendency to trivialize the issues. The so-called argument from morality for the existence of God is a serious one and knowledgeable atheists must struggle with it when they debate knowledgeable theists one to one. Another example of how the issues are trivialized is when Dawkins in this interview repeats a popular atheist line saying "God is in the same status as fairies". This is not only a disrespectful statement; it is trivially wrong. After all there are no serious arguments for the existence of fairies but there are several serious arguments for the existence of God, so God is obviously not in the same status as fairies. As far as many theists are concerned (including Nada Conic in the panel after the interview) Dawkins is fighting a paper tiger. If you really care about the truth then reason dictates that you must search out and think about the best theistic worldviews and not about the most popular ones or the most official ones. And the fundamental theistic thesis is that the best theistic worldviews have more explanatory power and are more conducive to a fulfilling and ethical life than the best atheistic worldviews.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

47. Comment #41765 by tuibguy on May 16, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Then there was that psychologist, Peterson. I figured I would be most interested in his perspective. He proved to be the only fool on the panel. He either hadn't read or had completely misunderstood Dawkins' book, muttered a bunch of tired points (albeit eloquently), and had the gall to say repeatedly, "Dawkins never addresses . . . " such and such. If he had read the book, he was also a liar.

As in the http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/emperors-new-clothes-and-courtiers.html" Courtier's Reply, (read both Moran and Myers in one post at no extra charge. Woo hoo!) there are far too many apologists who use this dodge when they are unable to face the fact that the emperor has no clothes. Wny not discuss the invisible pretty buttons? Why not discuss the wonderful invisible hat, the earrings? Is it because they don't really want to look at a nekkid emperor?

Apologists really should be able to do better than this. They have had so many thousands of years to make up better replies.

Because they aren't there, is why!

Other Comments by tuibguy

48. Comment #42156 by johnnyrocket on May 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm

The religious folks didn't really hold up their end of the argument to the most basic criticisms of religion ( can be a tool for bad, old testament god is ruthless, etc. )

They ALL conceded the major flaws of religion!!

And really the only argument they made was: "If people are disrupted in their thinking [about god], chaos will follow."
Well, that's a pretty obvious claim, but they're assuming this "chaos" would be a detriment to mankind.

I would call it progress.

Other Comments by johnnyrocket

49. Comment #44075 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 9:04 am

Jordan Peterson, the psychologist, is a horse's ass. Utterly misunderstood or misrepresented most of what TGD and RD say. And he clearly was afraid of what people would do without religion to keep them in line. Sometimes I worry too.

Loved the 84% - 16% web poll at the end on whether the world would be better off without religion.

Other Comments by sane1

50. Comment #45330 by Jopses on May 27, 2007 at 7:42 am

11. Comment #39753 by krispar on May 11, 2007 at 9:18 pm

It is only in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea under the leadership of the emperor Constantine that the 4 Gospel stories were chosen out of many more available and then constituted into the Canon of the New Testament.

The canon of the New Testament as we know it today was NOT decided upon at the first Council of Nicaea in 325. It is mainly known for the condemnation of Arius and the failed attempt to establish a uniform date for Easter.

It was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE that Augustine of Hippo threw his weight behind a list of books that Atanasian pushed forward in his famous letter of 367 CE, resulting in its acceptance.

Still, there was no official, churchwide pronouncement on the matter until the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century. The canon of the New Testament thus appears at first to be ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.

Ref. Lost Christianities. The battles for Scripture and the Faiths we never knew. by Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford University Press, 2003, page 230 and 245.

Other Comments by Jopses