Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, August 25, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

by The Edinburgh Blog

Reposted from:
http://www.theedinburghblog.co.uk/edinburgh-festivals/richard-dawkins-at-the-edinburgh-book-festival/08-20-2007/index.html

I had been looking forward to Richard Dawkins' appearance at The Edinburgh Book Festival for quite some time. The main arena was packed to capacity when Dawkins and Muriel Gray walked onto stage and placed themselves on two Philippe Starck chairs. The paperback and hardback editions of Dawkins' million plus bestseller The God Delusion lay before them.

The session was of the question and answer form, with Muriel Gray (referred to as the 'chair') asking the questions until near the end when audience members were invited to join in the discussion (described as "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" by Muriel). Throughout the session I thought Muriel Gray a strange choice to chair Richard Dawkins' talk. Muriel is a carved in stone antitheist who consistently demonstrated this fact to the audience, culminating in her proud display of The Out Campaign T Shirt (The Out campaign is designed to encourage Atheists to publicly share their idealism). It was Richard Dawkins who appeared as the calming force, emitting a far more balanced and reflective opinion than the chair. In fairness to Muriel she knew her stuff about the book and did facilitate much useful conversation.

Richard Dawkins' intelligence is striking. I thought he looked a little uncomfortable sat down at first, perhaps more used to delivering speeches from behind a lectern. His passion for the subject at hand first became evident, and subsequently stayed for the entirety of the talk, when speaking of the Muslim cartoons, which caused widespread violence and threats a while ago. He stated the reason for British editors not publishing them as prudence, as opposed to cowardice. You could see his point. It was noted that there must be some underlying problem if violence and death threats are utilised by some elements of a religion in order to defend it. Why should this be necessary?

Dawkins continued that labelling a child by their parent's religion amounted to child abuse and asked why religion should be any different to decisions such as which political party a child supports or which football team they support. i.e. the child should choose their beliefs. Dawkins was also worried about creationism being taught in schools and how benefactors south of the border could influence such curriculum decisions. His astonishment to how long ago the scientific community believe the world began as opposed to creationists was elegantly put in terms of distance in the United States of America.

Later came a few well constructed questions from the audience, including the obligatory how could something have been created from nothing. "Same problem - how did we create God from nothing", was Dawkins' immediate counter.

One question asked how much success Dawkins had observed in turning God believers into non-believers. His honesty was apparent when saying the majority of his readers already did not believe in the existence of a God or were sceptical before becoming sworn Atheists. So not a large conversion rate for those pre-committed to a Religion. This led nicely onto the last question, which was the best of the day.

Dawkins was asked how he thought his book would help counter the radical elements of certain religions: those with extremist views and sometimes deadly intentions. It was queried whether the moderates of such religions should be the ones who play the major role (and have more effectiveness) in this and whether books like The God Delusion, which are at the opposite extreme would spur the extremist elements on even further. It was an excellent point, if Dawkins ideology couldn’t convert moderate religious believers, what hope would it have on the extremists? Might it not make their views more extreme? Whilst Dawkins acknowledged the work moderates must play, he described his own strategy in terms of forming a two pronged attack against such extremists. For once Richard Dawkins lacked a convincing answer.

After the talk Richard Dawkins proceeded to a book signing, where he was greeted with a very large queue. Given the audience seemed very comfortable with the content of The God Delusion; it seemed certain many would end up with duplicate, albeit it signed, copy of his book.

To listen to the audio of this event, go to:
http://www.edbookfest.co.uk/readings/index.html#l


Comments 1 - 33 of 33 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #65611 by PaulJ on August 25, 2007 at 5:51 am

 avatarThis is a strangely uninformative article. The (anonymous) poster obviously has opinions on the talk, but didn't expound on them, apart from some veiled comments about RD's passion (without giving examples) or RD looking 'uncomfortable'.
Whilst Dawkins acknowledged the work moderates must play, he described his own strategy in terms of forming a two pronged attack against such extremists. For once Richard Dawkins lacked a convincing answer.
Well, I wasn't there, but I'd like to hear something of the description of RD's strategy "...in terms of forming a two pronged attack against such extremists." But this article tells me nothing. RD "lacked a convincing answer"? From this article, who knows?

Other Comments by PaulJ

2. Comment #65612 by Crazymalc on August 25, 2007 at 5:52 am

 avatarCome over to Korea Prof. Dawkins!

And bring Daniel Dennett with you!

Other Comments by Crazymalc

3. Comment #65623 by Friend Giskard on August 25, 2007 at 6:59 am

 avatar
He stated the reason for British editors not publishing them as prudence, as opposed to cowardice.

It is disappointing to see Richard taking this line.

It was prudent only in the sense that the Vichy regime's co-operation with the nazis was prudent.

(We need an mp3 of this event.)

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

4. Comment #65629 by mdowe on August 25, 2007 at 7:44 am

 avatar

... whether books like The God Delusion, which are at the opposite extreme would spur the extremist elements on even further ...


First off, books like the TGD are *NOT* 'the opposite extreme'. This is a blatantly false assertion. Prof. Dawkins never advocates, or in any way insinuates, that we should suicide bomb churches. He doesn't even suggest we selectively kill those choice people we figure the world could do without. It seems Professor Dawkins is a just boring 'moderate'... gasp. He just looks tough because the "people of reason" which he represents by their very nature oppose extremist, violent, views.

Other Comments by mdowe

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?

Other Comments by impious

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 -

http://www.edbookfest.co.uk/readings/index.html#l

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

7. Comment #65665 by dhweaver on August 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm

 avatarI completely agree mdowe. Statements like that show just how prejudice even the moderates can be towards atheists. We're not extremists...when will they understand?

PaulJ's right too. There's no purpose in getting upset over this article when it's clearly pointless.

Other Comments by dhweaver

8. Comment #65666 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm

 avatarWith regards publishing the Danish cartoons, I also disagree with Richard's "prudence" argument. What could / should have happened is that every publication on the planet published those sketches. It's been a mainstay of 'western' civilisation for hundreds of years that we mock the pompous and self-important with cartoons and caricatures. The fact that large numbers of Muslims wish to make Denmark, England, France, Germany, etc., etc. their home is not good enough reason that we moderate our irreverent view of life and our open questioning of authority and stupidity.

As for the Muriel Gray 'interview', this reminds me of the moment Michael Schumacher lined up on the grid with the fastest car (after years of inferior equipment) ... like shooting fish in a barrel, but still enjoyable to watch.

Other Comments by monoape

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.
It's easy for us to be judgemental, but when your employees face injury and possibly death, it's not immoral to make their safety a priority.

just my 2 cents worth... RD does not need 'team orders' to be successful ;)

Other Comments by Paine

10. Comment #65671 by Friend Giskard on August 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm

 avatarRegarding the Mo cartoons, perhaps it is a bit strong to compare the newspaper editors with the Vichy French, but the two do lie on a continuum of prudent cowardice.

However, I can almost sympathise with the editors. Perhaps I would do the cowardly thing too, under the same circumstances. But I would at least be honest about my reasons, with something like this in the editorial:

"It should not be inferred from our omission to publish these cartoons that we are guided by considerations of sensitivity or respect towards the muslim community. We are not publishing these pictures simply because we are scared of the muslim community."

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

11. Comment #65672 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 1:12 pm

 avatarPaine,

Are we not discussing the moral backbone of those who choose to take on the role of editor of public sources of information? If I somehow found myself with the choice of accepting a position of editor of The Times, I would give some thought to the moral and social weight that goes with it.

Editor of a national / international publication will certainly require some brave and tough choices. Of course, easy for any of us to say "stand up and be counted", when we won't be hit with a fatwa ... but some responsibility comes with that salary. There's more to it than choosing the model for the cover of the lifestyle section or the astrologer for the weekend.

However, if every publication on the planet published those (really very mild) cartoons, the risk of retribution would be greatly reduced, if not diffused.

Other Comments by monoape

12. Comment #65673 by pissinintothewind on August 25, 2007 at 1:14 pm

I enjoyed the laughter coming from Muriel...verrry nice!

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

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.

Ideally, all of them should have collectively agreed to go ahead and publish. It is an indictment of the journalistic community that they failed to stand together when their profession was threatened.

Other Comments by Paine

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.

The 'moderates' who did not think too much what their religion was or what it meant or even practice it regularly, but followed the social norm and remained respectful of religion and annoyed by extremists.

I think people like Dawkins are forcing them to one extreme or the other, creating a scenario where it is impossible to remain neutral or indifferent. That is OK, there is a crisis, and when the freedoms you love are threatened, you have to make your stand.

He may inadvertently swell up the ranks of the extremists in the short run. But he is also helping mount an effective defense against such elements which in the long run can remove the toxicity from religion (if not religion itself) and help safeguard the values that make a free and open society, possible.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

15. Comment #65698 by monoape on August 25, 2007 at 6:54 pm

 avatarBeth,

You're missing the point - an editor of a national publication has some responsibility to do the right thing.

He shouldn't publish based on whether the subject is likely to issue a threat of violence. Imagine if newspapers excluded any 'scary' group from their pages: IRA, KGB, Scientologists, some serial killer still at large, etc. What sort of newspaper would that be?

Further, if a bunch of murderous god botherers can control what we read or hear or who we give awards to, then we're on a slippery slope to losing the fight.

Other Comments by monoape

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.
CB

Other Comments by ceebuler

17. Comment #65771 by Bertybob on August 26, 2007 at 12:53 pm

 avatarWell I can class myself as one convert to atheism as a result of TGD.

I'm not from a Religious background I confess, I was baptised in the Church of England so that hardly counts!!

For a long time I was a "teapot agnostic", TGD allowed me to see the probability of existence for what is is.

My brother and sister in law are very committed "born agains", but at least they will debate with me even though I shake my head at the "earth is 6,000 years old bit" and "the dinosaur fossils are all a forgery" (I really could not get over that one). One hell (forgive the citation) of an expensive forgery, who paid for it!!

I do feel liberated as a result of my "coming out" and for the first time have been able to say to friends "I am an Atheist". I still get some reactions even from non-faith heads of my friends, It is easy to see how far the indoctrination runs.

Anyway - Keep up the good work RD.

Any chance of some "out" merchandise other than T shirts. Car stickers, lapel badges etc???

Other Comments by Bertybob

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.

Other Comments by greg_m

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.

-- Mario

Other Comments by jagmarz

20. Comment #65834 by hungarianelephant on August 27, 2007 at 2:32 am

 avatarBeth (19) - The problem with that argument is that you can't isolate the cartoons and their immediate effect.

The Islamist response to the cartoons was a test for western civilisation, and we failed it. We showed that we could be bullied into not speaking freely by sufficient threat of violence. IMO that will breed further threat, further violence and further diminution of our liberties in the long run.

In fact I was more upset with the response of politicians than newspapers. If they genuinely believe that most Muslims are "moderate", then the sensible political response would have been to say, "I understand that these cartoons can cause offence to Muslims. I don't condone that, but I do stand up for free speech. Free speech is crucial to our society. It is not something we have in order to idle away the time. It is the way that we test ideas. It is the way that we make progress. It may offend, but free speech is the right to offend: a right to speak only if it does not offend is not a right at all. If you do not like what someone says, you are equally free to reply. Everyone here, Muslims included, has the right to speak freely. That is our birthright, and we will defend it."

I wonder why we got the "Islam is a religion of peace" blah instead.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

21. Comment #65842 by Flagellant on August 27, 2007 at 4:00 am

 avatarRight on hungarianelephant (22) #65834! Of course we should have published at least one of the Danish cartoons:
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.

I was working in W. 23rd St, New York in 1989 when the original Satanic Verses furore began, just a few doors away from Viking Penguin, Rushdie's US publisher. The police were doing a good job of keeping the demonstrators under control, so I had no hesitation in going out to harangue the mob about the nastiness of Khomeini's fatwa and Mohammedanism's ridiculous 'sensitivities'. I told them to grow up. I was livid. But a group of US writers, Norman Mailer among them, went further: they held public readings of The Satanic Verses in a Manhattan hall. I was unable to get in, such was the demand.

The general attitude in the US was one of robust confrontation. And what was the reaction in the UK? Virtually blaming Rushdie for the whole business and hoping that it would just go away. John le Carré, by comparison with Mailer et al, was pathetic. I have wondered why the UK authorities were so craven, ever since. What they did was create an environment in which Mohammedan extremism could flourish. To confront it now is far more difficult than it would have been in 1989.

I am often critical of the US tendency to be 'in your face', but I have to say that they got it right, then. They now seem to have a lesser problem with home-grown Islamism than we do in Europe, with our 'more diplomatic' approach. Subsequently, Iqbal Sacranie, one of Rushdie's principal persecutors, got a knighthood! The shit should have been imprisoned.

For too long, governments have listened to those who would have Mohammedanism dictate what we should and should not do in this country. I do hope we've learnt the lesson about encouraging this dark-age relic; it should be robustly confronted. The knighting of Salman Rushdie may be one indication that we have at last realised that a more robust stance is warranted but we've had it wrong for nearly twenty years.

There are two similarities between the Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons. The 'blasphemous' nature of Rushdie's book was highly debatable but it was seized upon by Khomeini as a political focus; the Danish cartoons were exaggerated by the inclusion with them of two very crude and unfunny drawings, that never appeared in print. They were obviously included as a rabble-rousing device.

We create problems for ourselves when we let allow religiosi of any sort to lie, explicitly or implicitly, about any aspect of our society. We compound the problem by appeasing the liars; it only emboldens them and it makes it far more difficult when we ultimately decide to react. If we had reacted properly in the UK when there were 'kill Rushdie' threats in the UK, we wouldn't need to be having this debate about the Danish cartoons.

And, right back on thread, besides the full hour's chat between RD and Muriel Gray at Edinburgh, there's also an interesting talk by A.C. Grayling. http://www.edbookfest.co.uk/readings/index.html#l




Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

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 -
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1644757.0.0.php#comments

Other Comments by JeanB

23. Comment #65859 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:42 am

 avatarInteresting link JeanB.

I hope Josh puts this up.

Other Comments by Corylus

24. Comment #65869 by oxytocin on August 27, 2007 at 7:21 am

 avatarI posted on the article listed by JeanB...I had to comment on the author's use of the Courtier's Reply.

Other Comments by oxytocin

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.

Other Comments by JeanB

26. Comment #65902 by geckoman on August 27, 2007 at 9:48 am

Re#23 Flagellant

Great comments. Posters, myself included, are quick to bash the USA on here and it's good to get some balance.

Couldn't agree more with all you say. Freedom of speech and an independent press (such as they are) are absolutely crucial. The fact that the islamists burnt Danish flags while the Danish Government was pointing out that the paper involved neither represented Denmark, nor was under their control, illustrates most islamists' utter inability to grasp these concepts. Don't try to drag us down to your level, I say to them.

Other Comments by geckoman

27. Comment #65946 by theedinburghblog on August 27, 2007 at 1:50 pm

First off, books like the TGD are *NOT* 'the opposite extreme'...


mdowe: That is not what I meant in the article. By the opposite extreme I meant absolute zero belief in a God as one extreme and absolute total belief in God as the other extreme. Absolutely nothing to do with a need to resort to violence.

Other Comments by theedinburghblog

28. Comment #66037 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 2:24 am

 avatar24. Comment #65853 by JeanB

I have just entered my diatribe to the Herald. Small fry, but one has to do what one can.

The comments, from people in my country, irritate me. I attempted to be non-confrontational and, instead, informational. Not very good at curtailing my contempt:-). I did try!!

I have to add that I really liked Muriel Gray's laughter. It was infectious (to me!!) Yeah, sure she could be seen as over-the-top, aggressive, an acolyte (yukko), but she sure kept the irreligious bent happening. So good on her!!

Thanks for posting the link, mate
V

Other Comments by Veronique

29. Comment #66081 by mdowe on August 28, 2007 at 12:00 pm

 avatarRE: Comment #65946 by theedinburghblog

Well then, I will take you at your word, sir, as to what you what you meant. However, in the context of your paragraph, use of the term 'opposite extreme' was somewhat ill-chosen.

The term 'extreme' when applied to religion generally implies violence and death. Curiously, it is frequently applied to atheists just for having the gall to actually open their mouth and state an opinion, or demand that the law actually be followed. So perhaps I'm a bit touchy about it.

I should also add that atheists virtually never ride the opposite of 'absolute belief in God'. I say this because those with an 'absolute belief in God' take the position that *absolutely nothing* will change their view. Dare I say that our position is that there is no evidence to indicate that there is a God. Thus, in principle, we are open to evidence to the contrary. It would not be reasonable for me say I have an absolute (unassailable) disbelief in God, because I simply have no way to check to confirm that I am right.

Other Comments by mdowe

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.

Other Comments by JeanB

31. Comment #66090 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm

 avatarJeanB, you are right. I stand chastised. I have no excuse to offer, other than I enjoyed the Gray 'interview'. The audience appeared to as well.

Maybe that is because I can also be aggressive (assertive may be a better word, in my case, maybe not) about my passions. I can also be over the top. She sort of took over the session and I have been known to do that as well. Ah, dear – no one's perfect.

I only thing I am not, is slavish, nor am I a follower of fashion. Obviously I was not in Edinburgh, but writers' festival attendees are there for titillation as much as anything else.

I think they got it. They enjoyed the session. 'Nuff said.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

32. Comment #66093 by scottishgeologist on August 28, 2007 at 4:00 pm

 avatarA couple of points: Muriel Gray is unbelievably amusing - she has an ability to cut through BS like no-one else I can think of, and with bucket loads of humour. So when it comes to religion, she is going to be firing on all cylinders. However, she IS a full frontal atheist, so perhaps not the best choice to chair a debate / discussion.

Having said that, I think she's great - her book about hillwalking "The First Fifty" is an absolute classic of scottish mountaineering literature, and let me tell you, there are some seriously heavy hitters in that particular field.

So I am totally biased, stuff it, I'm happy!

Cheers!
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

33. Comment #66103 by Yorker on August 28, 2007 at 5:21 pm

 avatarYes, I too like Muriel, I've yet to read any of her writings I disagreed with and her atheism came across strongly. In places she had that enthusiastic catch in her voice that women sometimes display when aroused, I got the feeling she wanted Dawkins to give her one! I mean that in the nicest possible way of course. And yes, perhaps she was a bad choice if non-bias was expected but actually, I don't think it was.

I was slightly pissed off that I couldn't get a ticket even though I'd tried months ago and I had to listen to all those foreigners who had! :)

Other Comments by Yorker
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: