1. Comment #49393 by MikeJ on June 11, 2007 at 7:01 pm

It's always a pleasure to hear Professor Dawkins speak. Dawkins seems to have to answer the same basic set of questions in most interviews he gives, but this interviewer brought up a couple (semi) new talking points and RD was able to go into greater depth than usual with his responses.

Other Comments by MikeJ

2. Comment #49406 by pkmusic on June 11, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Great interview. It's always refreshing to hear the calm reason of Dawkins.

Other Comments by pkmusic

3. Comment #49407 by artofwar420 on June 11, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Indeed, I really like this interview, and the interviewer, he asked good questions.

Other Comments by artofwar420

4. Comment #49410 by 5537P06 on June 11, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Aside from being a delusion, as Richard Dawkins rightly classifies it, God is also the end of reason for a lot of people. It is a stated refusal to continue to investigate, to use one's facilities of reason in seeking the truth. It is an acknowledgment of one's limited capabilities to comprehend, an acceptance of one's lack of patience to wait for the evidence, which may never surface. It's an excuse to never have to strain the brain, just say "God" and presto! Problem solved.

Just a thought this conversation has provoked. A great interview.

Other Comments by 5537P06

5. Comment #49412 by philos on June 11, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Yes - good questions in last half.

Here is a link to his mentioning of cultural relativism and Kennewick Man from the old Simonyi site (about a little over half way down):

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-03-24science_and_sensibility.shtml

Other Comments by philos

6. Comment #49436 by crystalstar79 on June 12, 2007 at 1:10 am

Good interview. I'm glad he clarified how he feels about people like the Bishop of Oxford. I would say that people who "cherry pick" the bible have more of a Deistic concept of God, whether they know it or not and whether they admit it or not. They throw out the parts that are offensive to their reasoning abilities. About Kenwick man, I live in the US, and I remember the controversy. Religion was part of it, but so was race. Apparently, several KKK groups starting going around saying that if Kenwick man was "white", then it proves whites were in the US first so they had the "right" to butcher the native Americans and take their land. They even made threats and the tribe got scared and didn't want a DNA test so they could claim him as one of their own. So while yes, religion was part of it, so was race. I don't know how it is over in the UK, but here we have a bad problem with racism and it's on the rise b/c of the Mexican immigration issue.

Other Comments by crystalstar79

7. Comment #49446 by Shuggy on June 12, 2007 at 2:04 am

I'm a little unhappy about his dismissal of the Yakama Indians' concerns about Kennewick Man, and especially his carelessness with their name. These things can be resolved with a bit of diplomacy: they might have been reassured to know how very little of the tissue would be needed for a DNA test, and that they could have the bones back for their rites when the scientists were finished - though the racist issues chrystalstar mentions would throw a spanner in the works.

Other Comments by Shuggy

8. Comment #49465 by Roy_H on June 12, 2007 at 3:07 am

"Wishy-washy", what a good adjective! How often I have endured a church service ( funeral, christening etc. ) looked at the priest and thought to myself:- "Does this guy really know what the heck he is talking about?" and more importantly, "Does he really believe it?"

Other Comments by Roy_H

9. Comment #49466 by The Wee Flea on June 12, 2007 at 3:12 am

Great interview - I loved the first answer - I totally agree that it is very difficult to find out what some bishops believe. It would be good to see Dawkins engage with those who do actually believe.

By the way how do you use the term deluded in a 'non-insulting' sense?

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

10. Comment #49468 by BillySands on June 12, 2007 at 3:20 am

Bring back the real wee flea! Then he can answer the questions put to him on other threads

Other Comments by BillySands

11. Comment #49470 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2007 at 3:31 am

What? Is that Wee Flea an imposter? Darn it! I was hoping he'd answer my questions too, since the Dawkins/Winston thread seems to have shrivelled up and died. Ah well...

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

12. Comment #49471 by Biblebeltheretic on June 12, 2007 at 3:49 am

"Offense is what people take when they can't take argument"

Great line. Is it a Dawkins original?

Other Comments by Biblebeltheretic

13. Comment #49473 by palebluedot on June 12, 2007 at 3:52 am

Great interview, as always.

Can I just point out that this has nothing to do with the BBC?
Sorry to nitpick, carry on.

Other Comments by palebluedot

14. Comment #49474 by BillySands on June 12, 2007 at 4:01 am

Quetz, I'm worried about him, this is his 3rd post on different threads where he has not called us fundies or been generally abusive.
I'll make it easy for him:
I don't care about reason, religion must be eradicated by force - kill fundies - kill kill - fundies are Japan and I am Godzilla - exterminate all gods in the name of atheism!

That should put the colour back in his cheeks :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

15. Comment #49477 by tieInterceptor on June 12, 2007 at 4:21 am

Amazing interview, and Mr Dawkins even sounded a bit more assertive sometimes but still with the usual polite balance, tricky thing to do.

Did not know about the American Indians story,

really it must be so infuriating for the archaeologists that where going to study it, and to be stoped by a bunch of chronically alcoholic elders blabing about ancestor ghosts stories... so 80's.

.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

16. Comment #49479 by Philip1978 on June 12, 2007 at 4:23 am

Billy & Quetz
I am going make a wild guess here and say that the spectacular post J put on his website (the link is in the Winston Debate thread) might have almost changed a few things, I am only making galactic sized assumptions here, obviously I would need David to comment about it of course before I go any further

Great Interview, enjoyed that tons

Other Comments by Philip1978

17. Comment #49481 by _J_ on June 12, 2007 at 4:39 am

9. Comment #49466 by The Wee Flea

By the way how do you use the term deluded in a 'non-insulting' sense?

I'll have a go:

During two or three periods in my life so far, I have been in love with someone. This experience, on each occasion, partook of delusion.

This isn't just because all of those episodes have now ended. If I'm lucky, at some point I'll fall in love again, and find myself in a relationship that gradually becomes a solid, worthwhile sort of companionship that'll last me the rest of my days. However, it'll probably start out with a period of intense feelings which entail a strong conviction that we two are meant for each other. This feeling is a delusion.

It's not a bad delusion. It's a natural and valuable delusion, and we'd be the poorer without it. On the other hand, we need to be a bit wary about it, because the delusion of love can lead us, in extremes of emotion, to do unjustifiable things that can be very harmful. (For example, you will probably think it right that I should regard my romantic partner as the most important person in my life, but you would not support my beating someone to death for flirting with her in a bar.)

Were Professor Dawkins to flatter me by attending my wedding, and then to stand up as we're exchanging vows and shout 'You're deluded, the pair of you!', then that would be rather offensive. On the other hand, if he wrote a book entitled The Love Delusion detailing the science of romantic love and how it can be regarded as a delusion, that would be perfectly reasonable.

And if, in that book, he could point to numerous cases where an unquestioning acceptance of the experience of romantic love as a paramount truth had led to crimes of passion, and used that to support an argument that we could do with taking a more responsible attitude to the facts of the subject, then that - a rather more direct demand that we consciously recognise ourselves as delusional - would also be entirely justified. Again, this couldn't legitimately be taken as an insult.

I can understand why Dawkins is backing away a little from blanket application of the word 'delusion' in interviews like this, but I think he can afford to stick by his guns. His remark about taking offence got it right. 'Delusion' is an accurate word in the context in which Dawkins uses it. As long as he isn't screaming it at baptisms and tagging words like 'moron' to it, he's every right to go on using it.

Other Comments by _J_

18. Comment #49482 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2007 at 4:40 am

Philip1978- haven't read all of that post yet, but it is very impressive.

Billy- Godzilla? That's so 1920's. What we need is a flight of the Dragons of Atheism, burning religion from the face of the earth with the fire of science and reason.

Then afterwards there could be a barbecue.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

19. Comment #49484 by _J_ on June 12, 2007 at 4:47 am

Quetzalcoatl,

You are my favourite person of the day, because you have mentioned Flight of Dragons.

Its like being ten years old and at my Grandma's house all over again.

Other Comments by _J_

20. Comment #49487 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2007 at 4:55 am

_J_: I did wonder if anyone would get the reference! I always rooted for the evil wizard anyway.

By the way- is your avatar supposed to be a big eye or something?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

21. Comment #49489 by BillySands on June 12, 2007 at 5:00 am

Thanks Philip, I thought he had something up with him that prayer cant fix like---welll....anything at all.
Quetz, Do I still get to play Ride of the Valkyries when I happens?

I'm happy to accept that I was once deluded in faith. There is no other way to put it. Many christians no doubt think the devil has deluded me. That's their opinion, I couldn't really care what they think. I may think they are silly, but dont take offence - its called maturity - sticks and stones etc. If christians take offense at being called deluded, well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.

How do you tell someone they are so morally corrupt that they are going to burn in hell for all eternity with out causing offence?

Other Comments by BillySands

22. Comment #49490 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2007 at 5:02 am

Billy- Flight of Dragons had a pretty good theme tune which I want to play. But I see no reason why you can't play your tune afterwards!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

23. Comment #49495 by _J_ on June 12, 2007 at 6:05 am

Quetzalcoatl,

Flight of Dragons had such a memorable theme tune that I can still hum it. For about four bars. (Probably wrongly.)

My avatar is supposed to be an eye, yes. I hope it succeeds, actually, since it is a photograph of my own eye. (I will be in trouble when iris-scanning becomes a popular security measure.)

Other Comments by _J_

24. Comment #49501 by The Spaghetti Monster on June 12, 2007 at 7:16 am

Comment #49489 by BillySands

"I'm happy to accept that I was once deluded in faith. There is no other way to put it. Many christians no doubt think the devil has deluded me. That's their opinion, I couldn't really care what they think. I may think they are silly, but dont take offence - its called maturity - sticks and stones etc. If christians take offense at being called deluded, well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.

How do you tell someone they are so morally corrupt that they are going to burn in hell for all eternity with out causing offence?"

______________________________


Billy, Billy, Billy….

I applaud your maturity

You know as well as I do that it is not my words or the words of others that cast condemnation upon those who reject the innate truth within themselves. It takes effort to turn away; perhaps freedom really does have a price.

With all this talk of who's 'delusional' and who isn't… I find it interesting that people (I'm a pasta monster, so I don't have the ability to participate) conjecture at random, what they do not know, and then believe blindly in their own conjectures.

I can almost hear the Christ reproaching, in his last dying sobs, Jehovah for having abandoned him…

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

25. Comment #49544 by eno on June 12, 2007 at 10:48 am

Another excellent interview and I really liked the answer on Native American religion.

"Evidence is Evidence". Brilliant.

Other Comments by eno

26. Comment #49545 by CJ on June 12, 2007 at 10:51 am

The question of morality pops up again in the article. A little while ago I posted this thread in the Faith & Religion forum called The Five Bases of Morality. If you are new to the site it may be of interest.

Other Comments by CJ

27. Comment #49549 by Rtambree on June 12, 2007 at 11:04 am

It's funny that the Guardian calls it an "EXCLUSIVE" interview, when it's almost identical to just about every other one. How do the world's journalists all manage to ask the same questions? Is this evidence for human 'Nature'? The alternative explanation, that they look up what Richard Dawkins has been asked 1,000 times before, and ask it 1,001th time, doesn't make sense, unless journalists are actually zombies. In that world, it's critical to be THE FIRST journalist, so your questions are the ones repeated ad infinitum for the world tour of the hardcover, and the repeat world tour of the paperback.

RE: Native beliefs. These "cultural beliefs" are unfortunately often tied up with land claims. The concern from liberals might be that if the cultural beliefs tying them to the land are proved wrong by science, then corporations may have a stronger legal case to extract resources from their lands, etc.

Personally I don't see why the truth (however it comes out) should infringe on native title claims.

The same happens in the south Pacific where some of the Polynesian natives only arrived at their islands a few hundred years before Europeans, although they claim a lot longer in their myths. I don't see why it should make a difference - if they've been there 10 years before White Man or 1,000,000 years before, they should still have the same rights.

Morality - It's OBVIOUS that it can't be from reliigon, as when Europe was MOST religious (1,000 years ago), morality was very different to what is acceptable today. Secular countries have better ethical standards than the religious ones.

Other Comments by Rtambree

28. Comment #49555 by konquererz on June 12, 2007 at 11:26 am

I like this interview allot. It was different than most interviews with Dawkins and allowed the conversation to get into areas where he usually doesn't get to tread.

Other Comments by konquererz

29. Comment #49558 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 11:31 am

Spagettio's wrote: ...,what they do not know, and then believe blindly in their own conjectures.
__________

If the neutered one is still at its goofy computer and hopefully it has not yet got blinded by all the brighty brightness, perhaps it can read these answers:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/40_many_atheists_criticise_faith_but_isnt_atheism_also_based_on_faith

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/37_why_do_atheists_insist_on_trying_to_rationally_understand_god

Other Comments by Logicel

30. Comment #49560 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 11:34 am

More for the reading pleasure of the neutered one:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/14_do_atheists_have_doubts_concerning_their_atheism

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/32_why_do_atheists_delude_themselves_in_regarding_themselves_as_being_entirely_rational

Other Comments by Logicel

31. Comment #49563 by Rtambree on June 12, 2007 at 11:44 am

Who's neutered?

Other Comments by Rtambree

32. Comment #49610 by Corylus on June 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Rtambree

Who's neutered?

I do believe that it is the vile, venemous, catty little troll that is Spaghetti Monster. N.B. I don't normally insult trolls outright* but this particular individual is something else. Every post it makes it oozes black bile and also, I suspect, deep jealousy. Methinks the internet it's only form of communication and the only way it can get people to respond... sad really.

I do recall in a previous thread s/he/it refusing to be drawn on the subject of gender.

Maybe I am being insensitive to poor SpagMon though, it might he that s/he/it is merely another incarnation of that (obviously sadly troubled individual) on another thread who decided to tell a load of internet strangers about his sex change.

If that is you SpagMon please accept my sincere apologies... I will try to be more PC in future.

*I'm a soft-hearted type and I hate to think of someone in a back room somewhere sobbing over something I have said. I even have time for Bizarro: BTW: lets all be a bit nicer to him guys and help him get himself out of "Liberty" - he's not stupid and its a crying shame he's in there. More recommendations for further reading please, and less gratuitous insults...

Say what you want about Spaghetti Monster though...

Other Comments by Corylus

33. Comment #49720 by Ewan D on June 13, 2007 at 6:29 am

Thanks Philip for mentioning this link:

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg32;topicseen#msg32

J deserves a standing ovation for that! No sign of a wee flea response as yet, which is an encouraging sign.

Other Comments by Ewan D

34. Comment #50221 by Chrisboe4ever on June 15, 2007 at 7:41 pm

I agree that Professor Dawkins has the same general answers in a lot of his interviews, but that is only because he is asked the same questions. I do agree with the whole "calling it God stops the argument dead in its tracks" bit. I have a religious friend who I occasionally debate with, but he always tosses down the God Card, and it is completely unfair. I tell him about how unfair it is, and his only response is that "Human logic has no way of grasping the logic of a God, including its origins" and stuff like that.

He gave that kind of response when I explained how a complex deity showing up instantly makes less sense than The Big Bang. He was all "Human minds cannot understand the origins of a God. You're only trying to bring him down to your level of logic."

Other Comments by Chrisboe4ever