Tuesday, June 19, 2007 | Reason : Interviews | print version

The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

CBC The Current, Richard Dawkins

Audio requires QuickTime Player 7. Download the free player here.
Streaming :

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200706/20070619.html

The Current: Part 3

The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Consider these signs: Creationist science museums opening in Kentucky and Alberta … a Broadway revival of a play about the 1925 Scopes evolution teaching scandal, current school boards debating whether evolution and intelligent design should be taught together in science classes...you could say Darwin hasn't been so newsworthy since Queen Victoria was on the throne.

But now new lines are being drawn. For several years, evangelical Christians, many of whom believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, have largely set the tone of public and political discourse in the United States. But an insurgent atheism has staged a coup on the best-seller lists. And Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, has been one of the most controversial salvos in the latest skirmish in the culture wars.

To its supporters, Dawkins' tome is a desperately needed corrective to a society lurching toward an anti-science dark age. To its critics, The God Delusion is a shrill, intolerant attack on all religious belief, period.

This morning, we wanted to discuss not only that book but the fallout from its approach. We began with Richard Dawkins, himself. He's one of the world's most influential evolutionary biologists and he's the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Richard Dawkins joined us in our Toronto studio.

Dawkins Panel

Well, we wanted to continue the discussion on The God Delusion and the schism between science and religion with two academics who have their own takes on the book. Lawrence Krauss is a Canadian physicist who is director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He was in our Toronto studio. And Michael Ruse is director of the History and Philosophy of Science program at Florida State University. We reached him at a hotel in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 35 of 35 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #50726 by ThomasB on June 19, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Refreshingly, the critics were not the usual tiresome faith-heads, but rather, advocates for science who find some fault in RD's tone.

If one can be damned with faint praise, then surely RD's argument was elevated by faint criticism from Krauss and Ruse during the panel discussion.

Other Comments by ThomasB

2. Comment #50734 by mpslg on June 19, 2007 at 6:21 pm

If the only fault is Dawkins' tone, then we're making progress.

Other Comments by mpslg

3. Comment #50737 by phasmagigas on June 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm

regarding RD tone in the book, maybe some people are reading it and picturing a screaming madman with spit frothing, when they hear him in person they then hear a more tempered voice, maybe they need to reread the book with the tempered voice. I am really sick of people criticising for its harsh tone, if it does have a harsh tone, so what? Are people of faith so vulnerable to criticism, they should be invulnerable to any criticism, afterall they are the ones with the unshakable beliefs. Unfortunately the harsh tone meme is already spreading and now being used as an ad hominem. The criticism is indicitive of the very thing dawkins attacks, basically its people saying 'tread lightly so one doesnt offend'.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

4. Comment #50738 by aleph0 on June 19, 2007 at 6:43 pm

MP3 link for those who can't/won't use real player
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20070619_2611.mp3

Other Comments by aleph0

5. Comment #50741 by _J_ on June 19, 2007 at 7:00 pm

I agree with the above posts. Those invited to comment in the second half were reasonable, scientific types (like Laurence Krauss, who is extremely praiseworthy and familiar to anyone who has weathered the whole of Beyond Belief 2006). Their criticisms of Dawkins seemed to be limited to the observation that his tone seems a little different in conversation than in print. I rather think that this has more to do with the difference between recorded conversations and print than anything else.

Other Comments by _J_

6. Comment #50746 by peahix on June 19, 2007 at 7:20 pm

speaking as one who has not read the book, but rather listened to the audiobook, which is read by dawkins himself, i have to say that i had no such problem with the "tone" of the writing, at least when spoken in dawkins' own well-mannered style.

Other Comments by peahix

7. Comment #50757 by Enlightenme.. on June 19, 2007 at 8:36 pm

My god, is Ruse bitter or what!

The only 'vitriol' I can remember in Dawkins' book is that reserved for the Templeton prize seekers.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

8. Comment #50758 by SamHandwich on June 19, 2007 at 9:04 pm

I guess I'm going to give my experience with his tone.

My first Dawkins book was The Selfish Gene. Of course, that book is not harsh in tone at all. Also, I actually had seen a video interview with Dawkins before I read The God Delusion.

I think that these two factors led me to interpret his tone in The God Delusion not as harsh, but as intelligent, entertaining and engaging.

Other Comments by SamHandwich

9. Comment #50768 by GodlessHeathen on June 19, 2007 at 11:16 pm

I find it odd that Dawkin's explanation that his tone seemed strident and harsh because of the taboo against "disrespecting" or criticizing religion was brushed aside as untrue simply because there had been critiques before.

Those previous critiques were also considered harsh, when they didn't spend time padding their edges.

In some very early critiques, well... nothing says harsh like a good hangin'

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

10. Comment #50772 by Pieter on June 20, 2007 at 12:10 am

there's a creationist museum opening up in alberta?? this i gotta see!

Other Comments by Pieter

11. Comment #50776 by drH on June 20, 2007 at 12:42 am

so its now an atheist insurgency eh?

Other Comments by drH

12. Comment #50782 by scottishgeologist on June 20, 2007 at 1:13 am

Pieter. this link must be the one:

http://www.bvcsm.com/

Notice the not so subtle opening date: 7/7/7 (777 the number of God as opposed to 666 the number of the beast...)

The usual creationist drivel

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

13. Comment #50783 by wezza_ on June 20, 2007 at 1:17 am

When reading the God Delusion, I never seemed to have picket up on the "aggressive" tone that Dawkins has supposedly used, especial when you compare it to "God is not Great".
As for the idea of trying to "woo" religious people into idea like evolution instead of saying 'you're wrong this is right', trying to 'woo' people into science is how you end up with things like intelligent design. These semi-sciences morphed with religion. And as a result we taint the very science we're trying to teach.
So it seems the way that Dawkins argues for atheism and evolution, even though it has political problems, is the best way to argue

Other Comments by wezza_

14. Comment #50784 by appaZ on June 20, 2007 at 1:25 am

If the harsh tone in Dawkins book is what grabbed peoples attention - Good. If it inspires, challenges or invokes some kind of outrage that wills people to join the debate, if for no other reason than to denounce Richard himself as a nutter, and thereby assisting with giving this subject the public airing that it needs - even better

Other Comments by appaZ

15. Comment #50790 by godisanidiot on June 20, 2007 at 2:20 am

Hmm, Ruse doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

16. Comment #50797 by OZE2 on June 20, 2007 at 2:38 am

Having read both TGD and the more recent best seller "God is not GREAT" , I do not think RD has been vicious or "Vitriolic" as asserted by Michael Ruse. In fact it is milder in tone compared to CH's book although both books are master pieces. RD did say that his adjective laden discription of god is meant to be comical although still soundly based. Religion should not be treated with the velvet glove. Period.

Other Comments by OZE2

17. Comment #50802 by Pieter on June 20, 2007 at 2:47 am

thanks my good scotsman. i think i'll head out to the grand opening, or maybe later when it won't be so busy, and have a look-see. i'll fill you all in on how good it is.

Other Comments by Pieter

18. Comment #50803 by Pieter on June 20, 2007 at 2:47 am

19. Comment #50804 by Corylus on June 20, 2007 at 3:03 am

OZE2

RD did say that his adjective laden discription of god is meant to be comical although still soundly based.

I have for a while held the theory that many of the objections to this sentence are born not out of shock over the invective used. I suspect instead that many people don't like it because (dozy illiterates that they are) they had to spend time looking up all those hard words...

Other Comments by Corylus

20. Comment #50820 by Diplo on June 20, 2007 at 4:50 am

It was good to hear a non-adversarial debate between intelligent, literate scientists. Tone is a subjective thing but what is important is that they were all agreed on the fundamentals, and it's important people hear that unity.

Regards Richard's tone: I think it's all down to preconceptions. If you pick up the book, not ever having heard him speak of read any of his work, and you still haven't adjusted to the idea that religion should be subject to the same degree of criticism as any other belief-set, then you will probably be shocked. A taboo is being broken and this will initially cause offense to some people.

However, it needs someone to lead the way. Someone has to break down the barriers, someone has to have the guts to make the case. Not that long ago DH Lawrence was seen as "obscene" - imagine that! Hopefully we will come, in time, to regard criticism of religion as no more shocking than we regard the odd allusion to sexual congress. One day, I hope, we'll look back and wonder whatever was the fuss about.

Other Comments by Diplo

21. Comment #50835 by jonecc on June 20, 2007 at 6:33 am

Having read most of his books, I thought the God Delusion was similar in tone to the others. Not having a scientific background, The Blind Watchmaker was my first experience of the precision and clarity of thought that science can offer. Of all his books it remains my favourite.

He's always written passionately, and he's always debated robustly, occasionally possibly a little too robustly. In particular, I thought comparing Stephen Jay Gould with creationists was a rhetorical flourish too far, and as I recall he himself said afterwards he thought he might have overstepped the mark.

He also made the notorious remark about that British Airways woman having a stupid face. Again, though, he had the grace to admit afterwards that it wasn't his finest hour.

So the impression I'm left with is of a committed and articulate polemicist with an elegant turn of phrase, who very occasionally goes over the top and then admits it afterwards. Who among us could claim to be doing any better than that?

Other Comments by jonecc

22. Comment #50845 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 7:26 am

By the way all, here is a REALLY good interview with Hithens on the BBC including a bust up with a church of england vicar. Great! I am hoping this site will post a link to it. THE INTERVIEW WAS ON MONDAY, make sure you click on the MONDAY tab.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml

Enjoy!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

23. Comment #50847 by waxwings on June 20, 2007 at 7:30 am

Gee, how many ways can the interviewer rephrase the same question?

Other Comments by waxwings

24. Comment #50849 by waxwings on June 20, 2007 at 7:42 am

The calls for religious moderation, once again, distort reality. Less than half of American Christians believe in hell?

Not according to this poll: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173838,00.html

"What about the dark side? Almost three-quarters of Americans (74 percent) say they believe in hell and two-thirds in the devil (67 percent)."

Or this poll: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359 , where 69% of respondents believe in Hell.

What the fuck about the reality of religious belief makes it so difficult for these self-described 'moderates' to accept?

Other Comments by waxwings

25. Comment #50852 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 7:49 am

That Fox poll is disturbing. Forget the 87% that believe in heaven and the 74% of Americans that believe in hell, what of the 34% that believe in ghosts and the 24% that believe in witches! and the 37% that believe in astrology and the 27% that believe in reincarnation.

This is very tough to comprehend - it means there must be some subset of the US that claims to believe in heaven/hell *and* believe in reincarnation - which I would have thought is mutually exclusive!!

Other Comments by Benjamin Michael

26. Comment #50853 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 7:56 am

25. Comment #50852 by Benjamin Michael

Good point. I've often wondered why so many Christians also believe in astrology, which is theologically incompatiable (undermines free will) and also believe in a whole host of other non-Christian superstition.

It just goes to show that most religious people don't even know the doctrines and theogolical foundation that comprise their faith. Many Catholics thinkt the Immaculate Conception has something to do with Jesus' virgin birth.

Belief is just "gut". The same susceptibility to one load of rubbish means you're just as vulnerable to any other rubbish floating around the meme-o-sphere, even if it's mutually exclusive.

The human brain is a curious organ - its ability to effortlessly hold two incompatible beliefs simultaneously is astonishing.

Other Comments by Rtambree

27. Comment #50906 by newcomer on June 20, 2007 at 11:37 am

I admire Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens for their
courage.

Other Comments by newcomer

28. Comment #50931 by Rational Thinking on June 20, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I was interested to hear the book The God Delusion described as "bitter" and "vitriolic" by Michael Ruse. Presumably that was the tone which he didn't like?

On a personal level I don't like the tone of the bible much, but I don't think that would constitute a valid argument against its contents. Fortunately (from my perspective), there are people like Richard Dawkins who provide reason-based evidence to support their arguments. The God Delusion, to me, is intended as a wake-up call. It attempts clearly to differentiate faith-based belief from scientific proof. I don't believe, ultimately, that one can effectively do that without being direct. I'm glad Professor Dawkins took the gloves off. I think the book is honest. And I don't think the tone matters at all. I think this is a case where content matters more than form.

If the book hadn't been so effective in ruffling some sensibilities, I doubt it would have been so widely publicised and disseminated. I'm very glad to see the debate that it has generated.

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

29. Comment #50988 by youmemeyou on June 20, 2007 at 9:43 pm

I have an extremely strong conviction that people are highly variable in how they believe.

Any rationalist deserving the name must understand the insensitivity of polls to the actual state of people's highest conviction.

When Socrates or Emmerson speak of Gods, I get the sense that their implications are far removed from Pat Robertson. And quite frankly, for very specific reasons, I regard Muhammed as the Shakespeare of gangster Rap.

Other Comments by youmemeyou

30. Comment #51392 by sane1 on June 22, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Michael Ruse seesm to be quite the putz! Look RD wrote a book making an argument. If he wants to write a different one, let him have at it...

Other Comments by sane1

31. Comment #51506 by Jonathan Dore on June 23, 2007 at 7:02 am

Michael Ruse understandably has some personal motive for his attitude -- after all, it can't be pleasant to find oneself labelled a Neville Chamberlain, even if it's justified. More generally -- and with great respect for the part Quakers played in the struggle to end slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries -- if all believers were like today's Quakers in their beliefs, no-one could have worked up enough indignation to write an atheist book to counter them. By the same token -- and for the same reason - today's Quaker scientists like Ruse aren't going to make much impact in countering creationism and the other politically dangerous aspects of contemporary theism. They're simply too accommodating.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

32. Comment #53324 by robotaholic on June 30, 2007 at 8:03 pm

my biggest problem is that my parents are not able to be talked to - it totally sucks but any evidence, or information they reject without even a discussion... It really is a bad thing and inhibits our relationship - I wish things were different and I wish Richard Dawkins would write a book about how to deal with that type of situation. I sooooooo know everything Dawkins does and keep track of it - I just wish he would provide some help in that area....

Other Comments by robotaholic

33. Comment #54551 by alexkx3 on July 7, 2007 at 5:55 pm

The panelists do make a good point that with his approach, Richard is not going to get alot of people except those that already agree with him to listen. But I think his approach was justified and important in the sense that, it dethrones (sp) the untouchable status of religion in todays society, by offering it little respect. And that concept I feel is important inorder to shift societies relationship to religion, which will lead to a more objective view of religion, so that further criticism will not be seen as radical and so more people will listen to it.

Other Comments by alexkx3

34. Comment #92965 by dragonfirematrix on December 1, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Science offers planet Earth intelligence, peace, and hope.

Religion offers planet Earth stupidity, war, and depair.

Wayne (Forest, VA)

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

35. Comment #92967 by dragonfirematrix on December 1, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Dr. Richard Dawkins is a breath of fresh air in a world, gone fanatic with the fantasies of religion.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix