1. Comment #68268 by The Schuermannator on September 6, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Too awesome - I hope they used "Cornwall" on purpose to mock the twit who posted last week about him.

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

2. Comment #68274 by heathen2 on September 6, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Did Cornwell read the same book as the rest of us? I got angry listening to this. I can't imagine how Richard felt having to respond to it.

Other Comments by heathen2

3. Comment #68279 by Johnny O on September 6, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Might I suggest you all start listening at about the 19 mins and 30 secs point? Listening to Pavarotti belting out "Nessun Dorma" is always inspiring and uplifting.

As to the interview... I can't believe these Fleas can get away with this nonsense. I wish the interviewers had some knowledge of TGD themselves so they can also take them to account for the gibberish they say.

Hearing Cornwell backtracking from a comment he made when Richard was off air, about him stating that "All religion was extremist", was disgusting. You can hear him clearly in the background trying to add in the word, "Potentially", when Richard slaps him down again.

I only wish it could have gone on for longer

Other Comments by Johnny O

4. Comment #68292 by jaytee_555 on September 6, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Everyone who has read TGD - even those who disagree with Dawkins - must recognise that what Cornwell said in this program was a clumsy, but nonetheless willful and disgraceful attempt at character assassination.

Even a totally partisan theist idiot would not believe that Dawkins would dream of making such stupid statements. This apology-of-an-apologist-cum-liar must surely have lost all credibility with those who listened to the interview - including the theists.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

5. Comment #68298 by Dr Benway on September 6, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Short interviews are very difficult, as you have to think about how much time you'll be allowed before you speak, and it takes some thinking to deliver the answer you'd like to give in just a few words. What I wish Prof. Dawkins had the chance to say:

"I've used the term 'virus' as a metaphor for how cultural ideas or 'memes' propagate amongst us. Some fads and fashions spread rapidly; some don't. We can appreciate what makes an idea more likely to take hold and spread, just as we can study what makes a virus a good replicator.

"Religions contain a number of ideas that make them good replicators. For example, the notion that children ought to be indoctrined in a particular religious tradition before they're able to think critically about the belief system - this notion helps religious memes to spread from one generation to the next.

"And yes, I do feel this is child abuse. By labeling children as members of a religion before they're old enough to decide what religion makes sense to them, we're effectively removing their power of informed consent. We're depersonalizing and dehumanizing them.

"In some ways, this dehumanization is worse than being on the receiving end of inappropriate affection or touching from an adult, but perhaps my comparison to pedophelia is unfortunate. Pedophilia is a strongly emotional issue for most people, and emotion can distract from the point of an argument. My point is, children have a right to think for themselves about their own relationship to reality.

"We allow children the right to make up their own minds about politics and economics - for example, it's absurd to speak of a Marxist child or a capitalist child. So why can't we do the same with respect to religion?"

Other Comments by Dr Benway

6. Comment #68301 by Evil Genius on September 6, 2007 at 5:40 pm

I felt sick on Richards behalf listening to this.

It makes you wonder why a distinctly average book (by Richards particularly high standard) can generate such malice in so many reviewers.

One can't help but feel that such interviews prove him absolutely right though. Religion does make good people do bad things.

Other Comments by Evil Genius

7. Comment #68310 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 7:16 pm

I listened to this with some trepidation, wondering how it would come across.

Fortunately, Richard emerged the clear winner of the debate. He demonstrated that Cornwell was drastically simplifying and distorting his views, to the extent that Cornwell's version was nothing like what Richard had actually said in The God Delusion. Cornwell should have been pretty unhappy with how this went.

But the interview also showed how dangerous public debate can be. Cornwell was prepared to pronounce in such a confident-sounding manner, with his smooth style and patrician voice ... while grossly misrepresenting Richard's position. If Cornwell had been given the last word, and if it had included some further shameless misrepresentation, the overall impact of the interview might have been very different. So much depends on exactly how an interview is conducted.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

8. Comment #68317 by Beachbum on September 6, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with all the previous comments, only to add that I found The God Delusion to be a bit soft on some of these very points until I first logged on to this site and read the comments and reasons for the tolerance from what has become my enlightened point of view. Cornball had better be cautious with his ill aimed banter, many of us can stoop to his level with no ill effects.

Coming in after Russell Blackford, I feel like the little sister that kicks the bully in the shins only after the big brother plants a well deserved right hook.

Other Comments by Beachbum

9. Comment #68319 by Theocrapcy on September 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Cornwell either: understood The God Delusion and chose to ignore or misrepresent it which makes him wicked; didn't understand it at all which makes him incredible; or didn't read it properly, if at all, which makes him a rogue.

Whichever the case he is obviously no Dawkins.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

10. Comment #68323 by Janus on September 6, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Yup, dishonesty of the worst kind. I mean mendacity. :P

But then, all religious believers who've had a chance to question their faith and have nevertheless remained believers are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

In the less scrupulous ones, this intellectual dishonesty turns into dishonesty, period.

Other Comments by Janus

11. Comment #68330 by Tumara Baap on September 6, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Books by Dawkins and Harris were bound to cause acute cognitive dissonance in the faithful. I think everyone anticipated a response based on emotion rather than an interest in truth. Cornwell epitomizes the vitriol of someone jilted and scorned. He approaches TGD with an embittered slate to nit pick, distort, misrepresent and demonize with anger and threat steering his project. This could have been done cleverly and on the sly. The fact that Cornwell's riposte is so easily assailable and so plainly daft does bring me a bit of perverse pleasure. The success of books by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is laudable. Just as enjoyable has been the floundering counter-attack. It helps the cause.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

12. Comment #68333 by 82abhilash on September 6, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Reminds me of Rudyard Kipling, and his poem IF

'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'

John Cornwell is being a knave, and he thinks people are foolish enough to believe him. He has laid his trap for fools. I wonder how many fools he will trap with this trap.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

13. Comment #68337 by roach on September 6, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Cornwell (and every other apologist for religion) really has to stop applying Dawkins' arguments against religion as an ideology to believers as people. It's a tiresome strawman. The New Atheists are criticizing ideas, not people. It's a simple point that is constantly misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented.

I thought Sam Harris' Nazism analogy in his debate with Chris Hedges illustrated this point particularly well.

Other Comments by roach

14. Comment #68340 by waxwings on September 6, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Separating a person from his beliefs is not always easy, especially a belief system like religion that has such a pervasive influence over how one thinks and interacts with others.

Nevertheless, if the criticism is valid, perhaps these apologists should stop crying foul and actually pay attention.

That guy very seriously misrepresented Prof. Dawkins' views. Shameful.

Other Comments by waxwings

15. Comment #68347 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 7, 2007 at 12:15 am

I think Dawkins came off very well in this interview. Just the right town of bemused disbelief that anyone could so misunderstand him.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

16. Comment #68355 by IanG on September 7, 2007 at 1:22 am

I agree with Atticus_of_Amber.

Picking up on Dr Benway's observations about the problematic nature of short interviews, I think that RD's handling of this interview was pitch-perfect. He was at all times calm and good-natured whilst being firm on the issues. He didn't get diverted into spending too much time on any one issue – his comments were admirably terse and focused. The air of patience and bemusement with the incomprehensible workings of the minds of some people was so much better than getting testy, defensive or over-didactic.

Given the pitfalls of these interviews, (we've heard some experienced politicians fail to get it right), I came to the end of the interview feeling that Cornwell had found each of his points answered clearly and firmly and that it had really been no contest. RD didn't really need to get out of second gear.

An added pleasure was the delightfully gentle way that RD managed to highlight the doubts that any intelligent sceptic might reasonably hold as to Cornwell's intellect and trustworthiness, without ever crossing the line into rudeness.

Other Comments by IanG

17. Comment #68360 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 2:08 am

Cornwell either: understood The God Delusion and chose to ignore or misrepresent it which makes him wicked; didn't understand it at all which makes him incredible; or didn't read it properly, if at all, which makes him a rogue.

I think this is too simple an analysis. As I have posted before, I think things work rather like this: Someone like Cornwell gets a strong gut reaction, which they trust, and which they feel they have to defend. Given this, they will obviously try and 'spin' what Dawkins says to match their prejudices. This is a pretty common human reaction. Science is about overcoming such normal reactions and learning how to be critical.

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #68380 by ft77 on September 7, 2007 at 3:35 am

---

Tumara Baap on September 6, 2007 at 9:24 pm said

Books by Dawkins and Harris were bound to cause acute cognitive dissonance in the faithful. I think everyone anticipated a response based on emotion rather than an interest in truth. Cornwell epitomizes the vitriol of someone jilted and scorned. He approaches TGD with an embittered slate to nit pick, distort, misrepresent and demonize with anger and threat steering his project. This could have been done cleverly and on the sly. The fact that Cornwell's riposte is so easily assailable and so plainly daft does bring me a bit of perverse pleasure. The success of books by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is laudable. Just as enjoyable has been the floundering counter-attack. It helps the cause.
---



Nicely put Tumara.
Although maybe I'm naive in that I expected someone of Cornwall's education and position to be reasonable and calm.
On the contrary. Right from the beginning you could hear his rage at someone having the temerity to question religion.
His tactic was to use whatever methods necessary to 'win' the argument, regardless of if the claims he made about the book were true or not.
Unfortunately the host just took the modern relativist position. And if he had read the book chose anyway to make no interjections from a neutral position when Cornwall mischaracterised Prof. Dawkins.

Other Comments by ft77

19. Comment #68387 by Dinah on September 7, 2007 at 3:58 am

It is a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy, not to mention desperation, that most of the negative criticisms of Professor Dawkins' book have focused on what he didn't say rather than on what he did. It must be infuriating for the Professor – does he ever go out into his garden and have a good scream? Being such a reasonable fellow, I mean Fellow, I suppose not.

Other Comments by Dinah

20. Comment #68388 by pewkatchoo on September 7, 2007 at 3:58 am

I think that I would have ended up flooring the guy. Prof Dawkins was just too polite. Using Beachbums analogy, I am the pet dog who rips up their slippers and craps on their pretensions.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

21. Comment #68389 by Yorker on September 7, 2007 at 3:59 am

I didn't listen to the interview but noticed that Johnny O had mentioned Pavarotti so I thought a little tribute to him is not out of place here.

As an opera aficionado, Luciano was not my favourite tenor but on the three occasions I heard him he was in stunning form. I think Sir Dennis Forman said it best in his marvellous book "A Night At The Opera": "Pavarotti can be a life-enhancing experience". He had a unique voice, not especially powerful and neither lirico nor spinto but one that was awe-inspiring nevertheless. Many credit him with bringing opera to the masses and dispelling its elitist image, but opera goers know that it was never elitist in the first place. There's no question however, that "Fat Lucy" as his fans called him, certainly raised consciousness about it.

I must admit it was difficult to stop the rolling of a tear down my cheek when I learned of his death. We have become the poorer for it.

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #68391 by Jack Rawlinson on September 7, 2007 at 4:02 am

Well, that was frustrating to listen to. It boiled down to Cornwell repeatedly telling lies about what RD had said and RD repeatedly pointing that out. What made it frustrating was that it was not possible for RD to give specific examples of the lies, with proof, as he did in his recent "Willful mendacity" post here.

One can only hope it will prompt people to read the books and judge for themselves. Although of course, many will prefer to simply believe the person who represents their "side".

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

23. Comment #68413 by Student Grant on September 7, 2007 at 5:23 am

Don't be frustrated people. The fact that the supernaturalists constantly have to resort to dishonesty in responding to The Dawk/Harris et al is symptomatic of two things; 1. The weakness of their case 2. The fact that they are unaccustomed to having to defend their delusions.
Expect them to twist and manipulate the facts and you won't be disappointed. Remember that the religious mind can justify almost anything in defending its own version of 'truth' (including, in extreme cases, mass murder). Telling a few 'white lies' to misrepresent an opponent's position wiould not even register as being morally questionable.
Committed delusionists like Cornwell will probably never be influenced by rational argument, and they are not who we should be seeking to address. There will be many listeners to The Today Programme who will read TGD and the responses of the flea circus, and discover for themselves who is telling the truth and whose pants are on fire. The more exposure RD/TGD/the flea circus receive, the better. Bring it on.

Other Comments by Student Grant

24. Comment #68488 by doodinthemood on September 7, 2007 at 9:17 am

It's times like this that remind you just how much you love Alister Mcgrath. This attempt to counter Dawkins wasn't even that, it was some wild stab at a character that could only exist in a hypothetical asylum. The problem is, I can't help but think it's a very pursuasive wild stab for some people.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

25. Comment #68541 by darwin2 on September 7, 2007 at 1:21 pm

People like Cornwell frighten and annoy me. They tend to distort what people say and write. It seems like religious fundamentalists excel at doing this. Dawkins addressed the ridiculous criticisms of Cornwell and gave the latter a good lashing. Although I strongly believe in God and disagree with Dawkins on this issue, I strongly agree with Dawkins on his criticisms of organized religion so accurately expressed in the God Delusion.

Other Comments by darwin2

26. Comment #68581 by DantheAtheist on September 7, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Yet again we have a religious person twisting the words of an obviously intelligent man to try and "get 1-up" on him. It seems to me like in their heart of hearts, they know they're wrong but they're too thickheaded to admit it. Hence the fact that this Cornwell bloke obviously read what he wanted to read rather than the actual words on the page.

Example:
One of the point Cornwell makes against TGD is that Dawkins says that all moderates are potential extremists.

It would have been shriekingly obvious to him that that was not what Dawkins had said, had he read the book properly. Dawkins says that moderation is the mask which hides extremism because of this, to be quite frank, stupid stigma that says criticising religion is wrong "just because."

Oh, and Cornwell has clearly never read his beloved bible if he talks about people turning INTO extremists and hijacking religion. How many times does it say in the bible that the penalty for such and such a crime, including things as trivial as cursing at your parents is being stoned to death? Hmmm...

Other Comments by DantheAtheist

27. Comment #68589 by Tumara Baap on September 7, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Steve99 hits the nail on the head when he writes positioning ourselves on a gut reaction is a common human occurence. According to French cultural anthropologist G. Clotaire Rapaille and American psychologist Drew Westen, this sort of visceral thinking is far more ubiquitous and innate than many of us think. (Google these guys ... it makes me wonder whether atheism itself may be too cerebral to ever catch on). An overwhelming majority of us have a deep emotional association with any given idea, issue or object. When asked to explain a choice made, we reach out for cerebral tools that graft a reasonable sounding explanation for a position already reached at a gut level. Most people with a vested interest in shaping public opinion grossly underestimate the power of this under-the-radar phenomenon. (an exception might be Republicans, who are such cavemen to begin with, they're unusually adept at sniffing visceral instincts lying just barely below the conscious surface). Magnetic resonance brain scans seem to indicate we're all gut-level thinkers to an extent. What makes Cornwell stand out is that he's not particularly bright. (Sorry Cornwell)

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

28. Comment #68604 by NormanDoering on September 7, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Excuse me for going off topic, but would any readers here care to help answer some questions about what makes great art from an atheist point of view?

If so, go here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-great-art-in-our-brave-new.html

The context of the question is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White where I thought Hitchens agreed with too much of what White was saying. Mr. White said that great art needs a "higher vision," whatever that means (I think it's just code for great art should be religious/Christian). Hitch said, I think, that it should be transcendent (whatever that means).

I think the best art today is fairly realistic. And if these guys think it should be transcendent, then why aren't they reading a lot more science fiction?

Other Comments by NormanDoering

29. Comment #68606 by Shuggy on September 7, 2007 at 8:32 pm

He clearly thinks that religious believers shouldn't be members of civil, democratic society.

Whaaa- !

He parallels religion with a cultural virus

Cornwall doesn't seem to have heard of memes, and thinks the parallel with a virus is condemnation of the vilest kind, rather than a simple analogy based on their shared simplicity, replication, selection and hence evolution.

which has terrible precedents in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany

OK, Godwin's Law. Bzzt! Thank you for playing.

Other Comments by Shuggy

30. Comment #68614 by robotaholic on September 7, 2007 at 10:16 pm

It was very short

Other Comments by robotaholic

31. Comment #68661 by UncleJJ on September 8, 2007 at 3:19 am

It was far too short a time and the wrong fornmat for such a serious and detailed subject. Cornwall is a typical religious truth twister who willfully misunderstands and misrepresents other people to make his points. Who could trust what such a person says or believe any criticism he has of others. Richard did not have enough time to seriously wound his arguments or expose him.

I am not sure Richard does the right thing in engaging with this man in debate anyway. It only popularises his book (which I have no intention of reading) in the same way as engaging with creationists popularises their lies. It is probably better to be contemptuous and not give them the status of being something worthy of debating.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

32. Comment #68687 by qoquaq on September 8, 2007 at 6:42 am

Richards Dawkins is way too polite..the other guy is too rude! I think RD should attack as well as defend.

Robin

Other Comments by qoquaq

33. Comment #68692 by Logicel on September 8, 2007 at 7:03 am

Tumara Baap wrote: When asked to explain a choice made, we reach out for cerebral tools that graft a reasonable sounding explanation for a position already reached at a gut level.
______

Obviously, we are not born with a manual describing how to handle our complex, delicate emotional/cognitive machinery. In addition, we do not learn how to either through education. We are disciplined like parrots--we often just imitate such behavior, without honing the skills to be able to filter our emotions through practiced cognition.

Often, at this site, commenters will mention that critical thinking is a neglected subject. I would add that the challenge of being human, of being of both a rational and emotional make-up, is also not given the attention required in order for us to be comfortable with and within ourselves.

Religion, both the Eastern and Western approaches, rely on depriving/punishing the body, in the mistaken belief that this is the best, and perhaps the only, way to control the mind. We need to get away from this focus and use the knowledge which cognitive/evolutionary psychology and neuroscience are providing to understand humanity more effectively, so any cerebral tools which may be chosen brings out the best in us emotionally.

Other Comments by Logicel

34. Comment #69140 by Patrick McArdle on September 9, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Mr. Cornwell gets it wrong from the start. RD, in TGD, does not consider religious extremism alone to be a problem; as the very title says, the book considers religion itself to be a problem; extremism is one manifestation of that overall problem.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

35. Comment #69592 by notsobad on September 11, 2007 at 7:59 pm

All this responses are alike. They keep setting up straw man arguments and repeat already answered and explained questions.

Other Comments by notsobad