1. Comment #50907 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 11:40 am

Harris might (understandably) feel slighted at the presenter calling TDG the origin of the species of anti-God books.

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #50911 by maton100 on June 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Turning into toads. Nice!

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #50916 by Johnny O on June 20, 2007 at 12:24 pm

There is a link on the original site to an excellent debate held by an audience after watching "The root of all evil?", in which Prof Dawkins takes part.

Other Comments by Johnny O

4. Comment #50925 by Fouad Boussetta on June 20, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Excellent interview. I'm glad Dawkins gets all this exposure here in Canada. People here are not as religious as in the US, but nevertheless, I can't wait for the churches (and other religious facilities) to go bankrupt, especially since they're given a definitely undeserved fiscal free ride. I'm also very happy of the example Dawkins chooses to illustrate the very important point that "moderates" enable "fundamentalists": the Catholic Church sympathized with the fatwa-waving muslims looking to kill author Salman Rushdie.
Great job, Professor.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

5. Comment #50929 by TIKI AL on June 20, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Yes, Richard, the chimp IS as stupid as he looks. Bush has just vetoed the 2nd stem cell bill of his 21st century Supreme Court appointed presidency. The sun revolves around the earth bill sailed thru untouched, however.

Rest easy, Godbots, your microscopic children are safe from the evil atheist scientists. The Bush Theocracy is alive and well. His presidential libarry will be in a wing of the creation museum in Kentucky.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

6. Comment #50938 by flyingscot on June 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Another good one Richard.
.......'nevertheless he is quite a stupid man.'
Priceless!

Other Comments by flyingscot

7. Comment #50941 by Nails on June 20, 2007 at 2:53 pm

I love the way he turned around a very tough question regardng quakers and extremists!!
That could have been a real stinker but he eased his way through.
The performances are getting better and more polished - if RD was a aportsman he would be considered to be on top of his game right now.

Other Comments by Nails

8. Comment #50947 by Bonzai on June 20, 2007 at 3:30 pm

love the way he turned around a very tough question regardng quakers and extremists!!

So indeed he has back peddled away from the very unreasonable position that moderates are coconspirators of the fundamentalists by redefining "moderates" to mean "the not really so moderate". Good for him even though it is rather sneaky. But many people on this site apparently are still incanting the slogan "moderates are the enablers of the fundamentalists" like a mantra.

Other Comments by Bonzai

9. Comment #50955 by Levid on June 20, 2007 at 4:49 pm

There is a link on the original site to an excellent debate held by an audience after watching "The root of all evil?", in which Prof Dawkins takes part.

This is a very good debate indeed, and sometimes very funny, especially the fat guy. Here is the link: http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/media/evil_debate.wvx

Other Comments by Levid

10. Comment #50958 by artemisa on June 20, 2007 at 5:16 pm

TIKI AL

Very, very funny. I'm still laughing.

Other Comments by artemisa

11. Comment #50965 by Insightful Ape on June 20, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Bonzai, what are you talking about? I saw no sign of Dawkins backtracking. And yes, by telling us that belief in the absence of evidence(i.e. faith)is a virtue, the moderates do pave the way for extremists.

Other Comments by Insightful Ape

12. Comment #50968 by Yorker on June 20, 2007 at 6:33 pm

9. Comment #50955 by Levid

Yes, the fat guy {McVety) was funny but only because he was a complete idiot. It is a fact that I sit here at a wooden desk typing. Evolution is a fact. It is a fact that some people are fucking stupid enough to think they can have an opinion about a fact. I think RD should attack these dolts with that kind of hard-line simplicity; force them to see how utterly idiotic they truly are.

Other Comments by Yorker

13. Comment #50970 by Big T on June 20, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Alas, Bush HAS vetoed a stem-cell research bill. Oh well, on the bright side, there are many brilliant scientists in other countries who will still be doing research in this vital area. And that mediocrity in the White House will be gone in one year and seven months (who's counting? I am!) 01/20/09 - The End of an Error!

Other Comments by Big T

14. Comment #50972 by Russell Blackford on June 20, 2007 at 6:54 pm

First, great interview.

More specifically, I always squirm a bit at this "moderates pave the way for extremists" argument. As a generalisation it is too strong.

However, I'm quite happy with what was said in this interview, i.e. that a lot of mainstream religion is not moderate at all.

OTOH, I don't think the Quaker example is such an extreme or obscure one - one of my dearest teachers was a Quaker with moral and political views that didn't involve any of the cult-of-misery stuff that we see from the Vatican, but did involve strong commitment to peace and to the environment. So, for me, the example is quite close to home. Even though I did not agree with him enirely - I am not a pacifist, for a start - I genuinely respected his beliefs on their merits. I don't know whether he had any literal supernatural beliefs, and even if he did that is something that I can live with in itself. If all religious believers were like that, I'd have no terrible problem with religion. We should acknowledge, though, that there are plenty of people who are much more like that than they are like Ted Haggard. Such people don't do a lot of harm and probably do a lot of good.

The idea that all faith must be respected does partly come from mainstream religionists, and Dawkins is right to criticise it, but I think it comes just as much, or even more, from secular intellectuals with their post-colonial anxieties. This is also the source of much vulgar moral relativism. I think that the idea that we must respect everyone's beliefs, no matter how bizarre, has probably entered the Zeitgeist more by that route, or by way of the Christian Churches' own guilt about their past behaviour towards indigenous peoples, and it's not an entirely bad thing in that context. It becomes a bad thing when it means that we are discouraged from criticising religious belief from a rational perspective.

That was not the intellectual climate back in the 1970s, when I was a young student at high school and university, and it seems to be a product of 1980s political correctness. The intellectual community in the West took a wrong path quite recently, and I think that secular people of my baby boom generation (and the people a little older than us who led us down this path a couple of decades ago) need to blame ourselves to a large extent.

One of the good effects of the books by Dawkins and others is that they provide an opportunity to reconsider. What is rather galling is seeing the Terry Eagleton and Stanley Fish types rejecting the opportunity.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

15. Comment #50975 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I think that the idea that we must respect everyone's beliefs

This to me, is one of the biggest problems we face trying to get reasoned discussion. If someone thinks that they have a "right" to hold irrational and possibly dangerous beliefs and that "right" includes us respecting it. And we play along by assuming the duty of saying that their view is valid. We're all screwed.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

16. Comment #50981 by Vardu on June 20, 2007 at 8:57 pm

I think Sam Harris makes the best case (The End of Faith) in identifying just how moderates in religion pave the way for extremists.

Other Comments by Vardu

17. Comment #50985 by youmemeyou on June 20, 2007 at 9:21 pm

BAEOZ
This to me, is one of the biggest problems we face trying to get reasoned discussion. If someone thinks that they have a "right" to hold irrational and possibly dangerous beliefs and that "right" includes us respecting it. And we play along by assuming the duty of saying that their view is valid. We're all screwed.

With steady orbit, in around the sun, the oceans could be dry in a billion years. Cyanobacteria have been found out to 3.5 billion. We're definitely screwed, but I'm still going to respect people who take spiritual questions with some rigor and seriousness.

So long as they maintain a sense of humor, I suppose.


Vardu, Thanks for the Tip.

I differ from Dawkins in my esteem for engaging the poetry of mysticism on it's own level. More often I prefer traditionalists' resourceful dissonance to the slightly offhanded professions of diplomatic doctrinal vagaries.

The wisdom in ANY great religions is far greater than my mine. Though as Hamlet-in-Nietzsche misquoted: 'there is more wisdom in your body than in your philosophy'.

Other Comments by youmemeyou

18. Comment #50989 by alovrin on June 20, 2007 at 10:01 pm

But many people on this site apparently are still incanting the slogan "moderates are the enablers of the fundamentalists" like a mantra.

You could be right, I'm not sure, maybe a poll should be taken.
One thing I do have trouble with when coming across a "moderate" whatever that is,( some who have visited here have called themselves "liberal christians"). Is they wont acknowledge they get their inspiration from the same source as fundamentalists. It is after all the same book, the same god from which inspiration has been drawn for so many heinous acts through time.
Which somehow tho' remains above criticism in their minds because it exists outside of the physical realm and is superior to it, as perhaps an objective reality, because of this existence above the base world we inhabit. This is surely a problem as it so often leads to abuses in/of this real world.

So maybe moderates may not be enablers, but fellow travellers in fancier pants. And when faced with a choice between an atheist candidate and a xtian one, they can stand alongside fundamentalist voters without knowing it. It is a thorny problem for sure.

Anyway the I/V, The doco "The God Delusion" was it called that in Canada? And that atrocious pun Sheez, Get a new script writer. RD must have to deal with all manner of situations and he does remarkably well in dealing with them. Kudos to him.

Other Comments by alovrin

19. Comment #51000 by doodinthemood on June 21, 2007 at 1:54 am

Avi Lewis was really very good, especially in the audience debate. He seemed reasonably pressing and didn't come down too heavily on either side, allowing the relative rationalities of every view to shine, or be exposed as void.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

20. Comment #51004 by tieInterceptor on June 21, 2007 at 2:29 am

I'm watching this debate and I'm pretty sure I saw this a long time ago...

anyway, ...when the religious guy started talking about their point using Adam and eve as a fact that brings weight to their argument, makes me roll my eyes so hard that it hurts my head.

and the guy who didn't like that "evolution is a fact" line ... and went all hippie with 'everyone needs to be free to think what they want'...

pleeeaseeee, lets teach that 2 + 2 = 3, we are all 'free' ... we don't want nasty facts to get in the way of 'freedom' to believe lies.

this arguments are so tiresome to the intellect.

.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

21. Comment #51005 by alovrin on June 21, 2007 at 2:39 am

Yes this debate has been shown before.
The arguments put forward have been soundly refuted.
I guess its instructive to see again to realise how much ground has been covered, but will have to be gone over again and again.
Ah patience or is it patients.

Other Comments by alovrin

22. Comment #51009 by Pi Guy on June 21, 2007 at 3:43 am

It's not an original thought but I think a good response to "disbelief" in evolution is to point out that you don't have the option of "believing" in gravity or in entropy. Objects fall earthward and heat redistributes itself without seeking the consent of the faithful and non-believers alike. Likewise, evolution occurs whether you believe it or deny it. If there was a story in Genesis that explained how heat energy came into being then the faithful would demonize Clausius along with Darwin.

Ever notice how nobody is ever referred to as a Clausiusist? (perhaps because it's difficult to say...) But Ms. "God is Love" asserts that rational thinking people sit in the pews of the Church of Scientism in an effort to relabel science as a religion. Does she think that by naming it so that she's reduced its findings to mere matters of faith? I think that's exactly why people of faith say it. They realize that it's becoming harder and harder to openly acknowledge many things that are central to religion and that many are beginning to question faith as a virtue. So, rather than producing evidence to support their claims they mount a PR campaign. But people are catching on.

One more thing: I never hear a person of the Hebrew persuasion use the label of "Judeo-Christian" when describing society or a set of values. Only Xians like McVety seem to think that that term has any tangible meaning, a feeble attempt at seeming inclusive when I suspect that the opposite is more likely the case. I've got to believe that there are Jewish people cringing in large numbers every time someone utters that phrase. Tolerance my ass!

They're circling the wagons, I tell you!

Other Comments by Pi Guy

23. Comment #51010 by Logicel on June 21, 2007 at 4:07 am

The most useful handle I got from reading TGD regarding how to understand the nebulous and often hard-to-see connection between moderates who use science, reason, and fact to make major decisions in their lives and the fundamentalists who don't, was in identifying that both regard belief in belief and non-evidential faith to be virtuous.

When Bonzai trots out her/his opinion from time to time that uniting moderates and extremists is dubious--one could say Bonzai's opinion is becoming mantra-like itself--I always pause and think of the moderate religious people that I do know, and though they clearly do not inspire fear in me as do fundamentalists in the sense that they will harm me in some direct way, I do perceive their embracing non-evidential belief as being a boon for humanity is problematic and indirectly harmful to me and my welfare. And in the way they can adeptly slide between their firm grasp of reality and their slippery embracing of a jelly-like religious substance that can't be pinned to any reality wall that I can identify, they can inspire some pretty serious apprehension on my part also.

Other Comments by Logicel

24. Comment #51020 by SRWB on June 21, 2007 at 6:57 am

Striking a balance between lumping all the faithful together or sorting them into discrete benevolent-malevolent piles is difficult. If we focus on the issue of belief without evidence, which is the common thread pulling them together, atheists have a point. The problem for the moderates, when they distance themselves ideologically from the fundamentalists, is that they are virtually forced to admit they are interpreting the scriptures to suit their own personal comfort levels, i.e, they are cherry pickers. Moderates are now on shaky ground since logic then dictates that, if it possible to consciously disregard all the BS in the "good books" in this way, then it is also apparent that it should be no great leap of "faith" to live morally without such supernatural guidance.

However, it would also be presumptuous to automatically lump all the faithful together. There usually is a marked difference in behaviours between moderates and fundamentalists, and that may establish a clear dividing line. To illustrate, in the recent past there were numerous threads related to Sam Harris's much debated comments with respect to "killing people for their beliefs" (to be clear, that is not what Harris advocates, and he has been misquoted repeatedly). The whole point was about the unambiguous divide between thoughts and beliefs, and behaviours and actions. Most of us would agree, based on previous commentary, that people should be free to believe what they like. I think we would also agree that those beliefs should only be countered vigorously, with more pre-emptive force than verbal sparring, when such religious thoughts and beliefs become manifestly threatening or actual violent action.

Other Comments by SRWB

25. Comment #51056 by JesusH on June 21, 2007 at 10:00 am

Dr. Dawkins typical self righteous arrogance is on full display here.

Calling Bush stupid is sure to get a big rise out of all the other smug liberal minded head in the sand fools but does the same 'stupidness' apply to Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens and everyone else who supports the Iraq war ?

Well, we will see who is stupid circa 2040 when Britain becomes Britain-istan and people like Dawkins can use their much valued hindsight to wonder why we didn't all fight back when we had the chance.

Unfortunately given his age he probably won't be around to see it but the signs are clearly there for anyone is not too 'stupid' to see it.

Hitchens and Harris are infinitely preferable to Dawkins any day.

Other Comments by JesusH

26. Comment #51061 by konquererz on June 21, 2007 at 10:24 am

Pretty good interview. Nothing out of the ordinary. But as usual, Richard shows perfect form with an answer for every question. He pauses to ensure maximum impact of his words. Brilliant as usual.

Other Comments by konquererz

27. Comment #51307 by maton100 on June 22, 2007 at 8:53 am

Dawkins Vs. Benedict XVI

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

28. Comment #51345 by BY CHANCE on June 22, 2007 at 12:14 pm

I like how Dawkins says that in hingsight the incursion into the Middle East is wrong and that Bush is stupid. Really Dawkins, in hindsight? What was Dawkins belief before hindsight?

Other Comments by BY CHANCE

29. Comment #51407 by sane1 on June 22, 2007 at 5:11 pm

25. Comment #51056 by JesusH on June 21, 2007 at 10:00 am ...

1. Bush is obviously stupid for more reasons than his Iraq War. Or can't you see it?

2. If arrogance bothers you, how exactly can you prefer Hitchens?

Other Comments by sane1

30. Comment #51408 by sane1 on June 22, 2007 at 5:13 pm

28. Comment #51345 by BY CHANCE on June 22, 2007 at 12:14 pm

You weren't listening carefully enough before the war, or to the interview: Plenty of people doubted the WMD argument when it ws first made, and plenty of people, apparently RD included, thought the war was a mistake, before it was launched.

Other Comments by sane1

31. Comment #51772 by darko on June 24, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Well, we will see who is stupid circa 2040 when Britain becomes Britain-istan and people like Dawkins can use their much valued hindsight to wonder why we didn't all fight back when we had the chance.

You seem to be suggesting that it is only the Christians who are capable or willing to put up a fight in the face of rising islamic influence in the West. If you listen to RD's message you will see that he is no more friendly to islam than he is to christianity. We secularists would prefer it if neither was around.

Other Comments by darko

32. Comment #53985 by ZeusInventedTeapots on July 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Jesus H,

As usual a post like yours doesn't actually say anything productive (or at all). It's the usual impulsive reaction of someone who is on one "side" and is therefore against the "other side".

I love the fact that the religious are constantly proclaming science arrogant. In fact the most arrogant statement you can make is simply that you know the truth with no evidence and are right because you imagine it to be so. Science is at its heart open minded and willing to change. That sounds like the opposite of arrogance to me.

Other Comments by ZeusInventedTeapots

33. Comment #54010 by pewkatchoo on July 5, 2007 at 12:34 am

ZIT (ZuesInventedTeapots)
We have to be honest here. Scientists also have a tendency to arrogance and, in a collective, can be equally as resistant to change as any other group of humans. It is only when evidence becomes totally unrefutable that they are forced to change. And that is the real difference between science and religion. Religion never needs to change whereas science is forced to. But we can never say that it is not suffused with arrogance.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

34. Comment #58079 by robotaholic on July 23, 2007 at 10:13 am

ahh, an we see Ted Haggard yet again.... "Well... there may be some things you get right and somethings you don't but please in the process don't be arrogant" - what a hypocrite! everytime I see mr. haggard I wanna halfway laugh, get angry, and also purchase a firearm lol - I am so happy with the way Richard Dawkins handled him - he didn't go out of his way to be rude to Ted Haggard even when he definitely had the opportunity. Richard Dawkins is so refreshingly mature and also he's a gracious person. I really like him.

Other Comments by robotaholic