









Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival2. Comment #65612 by Crazymalc on August 25, 2007 at 5:52 am
3. Comment #65623 by Friend Giskard on August 25, 2007 at 6:59 am
He stated the reason for British editors not publishing them as prudence, as opposed to cowardice.
4. Comment #65629 by mdowe on August 25, 2007 at 7:44 am
... whether books like The God Delusion, which are at the opposite extreme would spur the extremist elements on even further ...
5. Comment #65644 by impious on August 25, 2007 at 9:55 am
Friend Giskard, I disagree with your analogy. If an editor is certain that publishing the cartoon is going to cause riots somewhere and get people killed, what must he/she do?6. Comment #65651 by jesus_christ_himself on August 25, 2007 at 10:39 am
Not an mp3, but here's an audio of the discussion -7. Comment #65665 by dhweaver on August 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm
8. Comment #65666 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm
9. Comment #65669 by Paine on August 25, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Giskard and monoape. I think what Dawkins meant by prudence was the intimidation and violence(real or perceived), not pandering to religious sensibilities.10. Comment #65671 by Friend Giskard on August 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm
11. Comment #65672 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 1:12 pm
12. Comment #65673 by pissinintothewind on August 25, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I enjoyed the laughter coming from Muriel...verrry nice!13. Comment #65680 by Paine on August 25, 2007 at 2:09 pm
yeah, I would agree that in that position if your safety is at risk to publish a caveat saying that it is the violence and not fear of offence that prevent the publishing.14. Comment #65683 by 82abhilash on August 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I am betting lot of people convinced by Dawkins's book where border line cases, who considered themselves religious, but did not take it as a seriously, until he brought it up the way he did.15. Comment #65698 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 6:54 pm
16. Comment #65769 by ceebuler on August 26, 2007 at 12:02 pm
The article says that Dawkins believes the reason that the Danish cartoons were not published was out of prudence, not cowardice. It doesn't say that he endorses this position! The people "disappointed" with Dawkins' position on this issue fail to see that he does not, according to the article at least, take a position on this issue.17. Comment #65771 by Bertybob on August 26, 2007 at 12:53 pm
18. Comment #65809 by greg_m on August 26, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Is there any chance some kind and clever soul (excuse the misnomer) could convert this to an MP3? My place of work does not allow streaming.19. Comment #65811 by jagmarz on August 26, 2007 at 8:44 pm
As to the final question - whom does this book convert... Well, it strikes me that, if it pushes the radical religionists even further out on their tenuous branches, so much the better. The more crazy rationalizations and arguments they make, the further they distance themselves from the mainstream, and THAT is a good thing.20. Comment #65834 by hungarianelephant on August 27, 2007 at 2:32 am
21. Comment #65842 by Flagellant on August 27, 2007 at 4:00 am
Figure at the gates of paradise saying to large numbers of approaching dead suicide bombers: 'Stop! We've run out of virgins!'It's very funny and makes a serious political point. We have been appeasing the nutters ever since the fatwah on Salman Rushdie.
22. Comment #65853 by JeanB on August 27, 2007 at 6:00 am
Sounds as if not everyone was thrilled at Richard's visit - see the Herald newspaper -23. Comment #65859 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:42 am
24. Comment #65869 by oxytocin on August 27, 2007 at 7:21 am
25. Comment #65897 by JeanB on August 27, 2007 at 9:39 am
Having listened carefully to the audio, I have to say that the writer of the Herald article is right about the event. Having that giggling, fawning woman in the chair was not actually a help to Richard, and it leaves a bad taste.26. Comment #65902 by geckoman on August 27, 2007 at 9:48 am
Re#23 Flagellant27. Comment #65946 by theedinburghblog on August 27, 2007 at 1:50 pm
First off, books like the TGD are *NOT* 'the opposite extreme'...
28. Comment #66037 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 2:24 am
29. Comment #66081 by mdowe on August 28, 2007 at 12:00 pm
30. Comment #66086 by JeanB on August 28, 2007 at 1:54 pm
You're right, Veronique - Muriel Gray was aggressive, over the top and an acolyte - but you're saying that's all right because she kept the irreligious bent going? She was supposed to be the chairperson of the gathering at the book festival. If religious people were to say that an anti-atheist chairman was aggressive and over the top and an acolyte but it was OK because they kept the religious bent going, you'd have slaughtered them. The end doesn't justify the means, whether it's by religious people or atheists.31. Comment #66090 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm
32. Comment #66093 by scottishgeologist on August 28, 2007 at 4:00 pm
33. Comment #66103 by Yorker on August 28, 2007 at 5:21 pm
1. Comment #65611 by PaulJ on August 25, 2007 at 5:51 am
Other Comments by PaulJ