1. Comment #78744 by Crazymalc on October 14, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Congrats. Prof. Dawkins!

Other Comments by Crazymalc

2. Comment #78748 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm

An honour.

Do not wear that name in vain, Professor Dawkins.

Bruno would be proud.

Regards and congrats.

Other Comments by Spinoza

3. Comment #78749 by Northern Bright on October 14, 2007 at 5:28 pm

A great honour, and a great speech to mark it with.

I particularly liked the line about the recent attackers in London and Glasgow: "Their brains had been hijacked by faith just like an airliner hijacked by terrorists."

Other Comments by Northern Bright

4. Comment #78750 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I find it very encouraging that the arguments Prof. Dawkins uses just keep getting better as he has been exposed to these last couple of years of criticism, whereas, the religious folks have made no further progress.

Other Comments by Quine

5. Comment #78752 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 14, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Congratulations, Richard.

Until now, I didn't know there was a prize for combating ignorance; I am heartened by that as much as anything.

We are all lifted by this.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

6. Comment #78753 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 6:15 pm

I add my congratulations to the others here. What a wonderful prize to be awarded. Like you PGFM, I am heartened that there are prizes like this one.

I read the wiki article on Deschner. What a marvellous life he has led. RD is a natural to be awarded this prize.

The more public recognition that is given to RD, the more he will come to be seen as someone who stands far taller than any archbish or pope.

I particularly liked his comment that religions are masters of the hijacker's art. Indeed they are. All of them. Every last one of them.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

7. Comment #78754 by Converse02 on October 14, 2007 at 6:21 pm

"As of November 2006, none of Karl Heinz Deschner's books have been translated into English." - Wikipedia.

Wonder if anyone's working on this?
From the English translations of the titles, they seem like really interesting works. There's a big interest in books critical of religion right now.

Other Comments by Converse02

8. Comment #78756 by StephenH on October 14, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Bravo !!

I was putting my hands together along with the audience at the end

Great speech. Superlative ending

Cheers. S

Other Comments by StephenH

9. Comment #78759 by Jack Rawlinson on October 14, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Damn, that was good.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

10. Comment #78762 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 7:05 pm

7. Comment #78754 by Converse02

I think it highly likely that translations will hit the market fairly soon. I would be prepared to bet that RD and others will be pushing for such translations to be made.

Deschner will be in the spotlight for a while now that RD has won this prize. I don't know what sort of money is attached to this prize, but prizes are usually funded by trusts in perpetuity. Trusts can always do with more money.

How's that for a rationalisation for english translations that we would all like to see:-)haha.
Edited
Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

11. Comment #78766 by csquared1 on October 14, 2007 at 7:44 pm

A great honour, Professor Dawkins. Congratulations!

And a wonderful speech as well.

Other Comments by csquared1

12. Comment #78767 by kev_s on October 14, 2007 at 7:58 pm

I really enjoyed the speech.
RD mentioned the possible evolutionary origin of religion as a by-product of the need for children to trust their elders. This seems a very plausible explanation for the presence of religion in all cultures. And if a creator was responsible for setting evolution in motion it was his finest sick joke to give religion an evolutionary origin.

Other Comments by kev_s

13. Comment #78774 by philos on October 14, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Sorry - I cannot get excited about this prize;
a general award for fighting religion by the
anti-religious? Guess I would just be more
impressed by something more specific and scientifically novel, rather than the ancient argument over God. The horse is not only beaten but pulverized. Gentlemen, quit congratulating yourselves and move on.

I have never heard of Deschner nor Bruno, and from their write ups - sounds like nothing
new - thus the market's reason for no English translation, and he's been writing since the 1950's!

Congratulations, nonetheless.

Other Comments by philos

14. Comment #78775 by Richard Dawkins on October 14, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Gentlemen, quit congratulating yourselves and move on.
I have never heard of Deschner nor Bruno, and from their write ups - sounds like nothing
new - thus the market's reason for no English translation, and he's been writing since the 1950's!

Never heard of Giordano Bruno? "Gentlemen"?
Hm!

Sincere thanks to those who are writing in their congratulations.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

15. Comment #78778 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Forgive them, Professor, they know not what they ... well, they just know not, and that's the problem!

Other Comments by Quine

16. Comment #78779 by BAEOZ on October 14, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Giordano Bruno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Well done Richard. You finialized your tour of Australia yet? (hint :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

17. Comment #78781 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Congratulations. (Bruno has long been a hero of mine)

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #78782 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Quine, well, ignorance is the antithesis of true acquiescence of spirit! ;-)

Other Comments by Spinoza

19. Comment #78783 by 601 on October 14, 2007 at 11:30 pm

I was struck by the spontaneous and enthusiastic response from the audience which often followed one of Richard's key points. I had gotten used to a tense anticipation of the nonsensical retort by a religious fanatic. It was very gratifying to see Richard rewarded for his wisdom.

And I like the new hijack frame.

Faith = Emotionally Inspired Willful Ignorance

Other Comments by 601

20. Comment #78784 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Spinoza, E5 P36 Wasn't it?

Other Comments by Quine

21. Comment #78785 by bouwe on October 14, 2007 at 11:35 pm

If you come to Oz Richard, remember to pack your Asbestos Armor of Reason to repel flames from Cardinal Pell's crackling fire. ("Put another atheist on the barbie!")

Actually, on second thoughts, his continual blunderings and idiotic pronouncements do more for our cause than anything else.

Other Comments by bouwe

22. Comment #78786 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Good catch Quine!

Other Comments by Spinoza

23. Comment #78789 by marcdesm on October 14, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Dr Dawkins stated that Templeton encourged those who subvert science. This is true. But then he goes on to mention Al Gore's Nobel prize, as if Gore's efforts to push a baseless theory about man made global warming was worth encouraging.

"isn't it wonderful news that Al Gore has won the peace prize" ask Dr Dawkins.

No.

Dr William Gray, one of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

I can only "thank god" that Gore's prize wasn't for science.

Other Comments by marcdesm

24. Comment #78790 by Marie-Louise on October 14, 2007 at 11:57 pm

Congratulations Professor Dawkins!

I have just got your book TGD in Swedish.I am happy that it was translated so people here in Sweden have possibility to read it.

When will we have a translation of Unweaving The Rainbow? I am looking forward to that!
M-L

Other Comments by Marie-Louise

25. Comment #78795 by Quine on October 15, 2007 at 12:20 am

Thanks, Spinoza, but something can be said for ignorance. My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson is:

Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.

This is the central message of the danger of faith, and why there is no shame to answer questions like the origin of the Universe by, "we don't know, yet."

Other Comments by Quine

26. Comment #78797 by captain underpants on October 15, 2007 at 12:39 am

23. Comment #78789 by marcdesm

Arguing with global warming denialists is just as frustrating as arguing with religionists. In both cases the degree of cognitive dissonance that one comes up against is simply staggering.

Firstly, someone who is unacquainted with the difference between meteorology and climatology is not qualified to make pronouncements on the subject of climate change.

Secondly, the consensus among climatologists is all but unanimous. A small handful of meteorologists say what you want to hear and you think that gives you licence to dismiss a "theory" of which you clearly understand nothing as "baseless"

Thirdly, even if there weren't a clear scientific consensus - and that is most definitely not the case -, surely the mere suspicion that anthropogenic causal factors could be at play ought to be cause for serious concern; that ought to be clear to any halfway sensible person.

Keep driving your SUV while you can, we haven't got much time left.

Other Comments by captain underpants

27. Comment #78800 by captain underpants on October 15, 2007 at 1:08 am

Addendum
I did a spot of googling and found this rebuttal:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Other Comments by captain underpants

28. Comment #78802 by Logicel on October 15, 2007 at 1:15 am

Wonderful acceptance speech, really enjoyed it. Congrats, RD!

Other Comments by Logicel

29. Comment #78804 by toomanytribbles on October 15, 2007 at 1:19 am

congratulations to the prof.

a youtube or direct download would be appreciated for those of us who are geographically impaired.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

30. Comment #78805 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 1:24 am

marcdesm:

Unless you are personally an expert in climate change, the only intellectually honest approach is to go with the (overwhelming) consensus in the subject.

It is not appropriate to pick the expert who's views you like and simply declare them to be correct. It is as bad as when the religious cherry-pick the bible for passages to support their views.

Other Comments by steve99

31. Comment #78806 by irate_atheist on October 15, 2007 at 1:29 am

Superb. Congratulations Prof. Dawkins. Please keep up the good work.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

32. Comment #78809 by Zzyx1170 on October 15, 2007 at 1:43 am

I placed an mp3 of this speech on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/62660956/Deschner_Dawkins-Acceptance-Speech.mp3

Congratulations on winning the award, and thanks for such a beautiful acceptance speech.

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

33. Comment #78815 by elfinabout on October 15, 2007 at 2:12 am

Congratulations, Prof. Dawkins - well deserved.

We seem to be collecting trolls today...

Other Comments by elfinabout

34. Comment #78816 by IanG on October 15, 2007 at 2:21 am

Congratulations Richard, on a well-merited award and on a beautiful speech. I fumbled for a while for the right adjective there and "beautiful" is intentional and considered. The overall impact was moving; it conveyed, for me at least, an impression of personal humanity, compassion and a love of the natural world, providing a context for honesty, passion and resolve.

Your comments on the hijackers as people were magnificent and your parallels of the mind of the child with the design of computers, which I hadn't heard before, (or had heard and not retained), were another tool to add to the armamentarium!

Maybe we should have a Dawkins prize whose value is stated as always being greater than that of the Templeton Prize!

Perhaps we could define it as the "Wisdom not Witchcraft" Prize.

Shall we start the Fund now?

Other Comments by IanG

35. Comment #78821 by Jiten on October 15, 2007 at 2:34 am

Congartulations Prof.Dawkins! Excellent acceptance speech.

I wonder if we can have Prof.Dennett's acceptance speech of the Dawkins Prize here?

Other Comments by Jiten

36. Comment #78824 by IanG on October 15, 2007 at 2:42 am

Sorry, I should have been clearer; I meant another Dawkins Prize, not a renaming of the current one!

Other Comments by IanG

37. Comment #78830 by Flagellant on October 15, 2007 at 3:09 am

A most enjoyable speech and congratulations.

One tiny point, though: didn't the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change win the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Al Gore?

Also, perhaps I've not been paying attention recently but I haven't seen an announcement that TGD stayed on the NY Times' Bestseller List for one year. I'm pretty sure it did...

Anyway, I hope RD doesn't fall on hard times and have to try for the Templeton Prize. No, hang on though; don't wait for the hard times. Have a go! Remember Alan Sokal and Social Texts...

Other Comments by Flagellant

38. Comment #78839 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 3:55 am

I thought it ill advised of Dawkins to describe as 'wonderful news' Al Gore's Nobel 'Peace' prize award, during his acceptance speech.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist, who I'd expect to deal in evidence and facts; to that end endorsing, without qualification hyperbole disseminating hypocrites - Al Gore on global warming - hardly seems the thing. I'm sure I'm not alone in spotting the parallel with Ted Haggard on 'Christian mores' and Haggard's personal life with Al Gore on 'CO2 greenhouse gas emissions' and Gore's personal Carbon Footprint.

Sticking to facts and measured tones I generally find way more persuasive, than all the tosh in 'Inconvenient Truth'.

Richard seems to be developing something of a penchant for hyperbole.

Other Comments by Nick Good

39. Comment #78842 by managementboy on October 15, 2007 at 3:59 am

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Dawkins for this important price, the feeling in the lecture hall was overwhelming. (also thanks for signing both my copies of The God Delusion!)

I am the one who did the recordings and posted them.
Just for the record: The videos are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license, so please redistribute and remix as you like, but keep the attribution: Elkin Fricke.

License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/de/

Original Site:
http://www.elkin.de/pivot/entry.php?id=85

Other Comments by managementboy

40. Comment #78844 by CJ22 on October 15, 2007 at 4:13 am

Gratz Prof.

Other Comments by CJ22

41. Comment #78846 by Eamonn Shute on October 15, 2007 at 4:21 am

I would also like to congratulate Richard.

As for the Nobel Peace Prize, Wiki says that "According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'."
I don't think the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be described as a person! And I don't see how Al Gores work, however praiseworthy it may be, meets the brief. It seems to me that the Nobel Committee have moved the goalposts quite a bit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

42. Comment #78847 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 4:27 am

30. Comment #78805 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 1:24 am
avatarmarcdesm:

Unless you are personally an expert in climate change, the only intellectually honest approach is to go with the (overwhelming) consensus in the subject.

It is not appropriate to pick the expert who's views you like and simply declare them to be correct. It is as bad as when the religious cherry-pick the bible for passages to support their views.


I'd like (as usual) to put the boot in here as well. Anyone disputing climate change, who doesn't have a Phd in climatology and several well received peer reviewed studies on the subject is in exactly the same position as a fundamentalist christian imagining they have anything relevant to say on the subject of evolution.

They have no reason for doing it except naked ideology, and they lack either the honesty or the self reflection to see this. Depressing, but all part of the problem.

It's not just religion that can force people to ignore megatons of contrary evidence, it's unthinking ideology of any kind. Just think Lamarkism in the Soviet Union, a classic example almost as bad as Bush vetoing stem cell research.

Congrats to Dawkins, by golly he has started something amazing, the Enlightenment Part II?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

43. Comment #78848 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 4:30 am

As for the Nobel Peace Prize, Wiki says that "According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'."
I don't think the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be described as a person! And I don't see how Al Gores work, however praiseworthy it may be, meets the brief. It seems to me that the Nobel Committee have moved the goalposts quite a bit!

I don't believe so. One of the predicted outcomes of global warming is increased conflict, partly due to changing distribution of resources (such as rainfall) and due to mass migration.

Also, it is well-established that Nobel prices can be awarded to groups as well as individuals: The International Committee of the Red Cross has won several times.

Other Comments by steve99

44. Comment #78849 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 4:35 am

Eamonn Shute: I don't think the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be described as a person! And I don't see how Al Gores work, however praiseworthy it may be, meets the brief. It seems to me that the Nobel Committee have moved the goalposts quite a bit!

Well Al Gore is hardly setting a precedent for the award of the Nobel 'peace' prize rather stretching its founder's brief. Previous awards have gone to 'Mother Teresa', Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger. The committee even shortlisted Adolf Hitler...as late as 1938!

I do wish Professor Dawkins would be less crazy lefty - not being able to refer to the US President as such, because he - Dawkins - doesn't care for GWB's politics. How infantile. I guess it's good for cheap laughs though.

Other Comments by Nick Good

45. Comment #78851 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 4:45 am

I do wish Professor Dawkins would be less crazy lefty -

Nick .... have you considered that is not Dawkins who is the "crazy lefty", but you who are the "crazy righty"? Although IQ, personal acheivement and razor sharp wit are not everything, not quite, he has us trumped wouldn't you say?

It is hard to argue with the position that Bush has been bad for science, the secular world view and unbelievers generally. Thus, Dawkins comments, although somewhat outgroupesque, strike me is quite rational from an atheist point of view. Still I'm a "crazy lefty" too, but Atheists do seem to lean that way.

Something about reality having a liberal bias:-)?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

46. Comment #78852 by Matt7895 on October 15, 2007 at 4:50 am

Well done Richard, and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to your speech. Whenever I get depressed thinking about my own envitable death, or the death of my loved ones, I need only think of that passage from 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. It is a wonderful universe we live in and life itself has a certain mystical and fantastical quality to it that may never be explained by science. That doesn't mean a God did it, though. I share in Einstein's 'religious' view of the universe just as you do.

Other Comments by Matt7895

47. Comment #78854 by Alitha on October 15, 2007 at 5:08 am

Little more than a year ago a dear friend of mine introduced me to Richard Dawkins when he (my friend, that is), talked about a book he had just read and was very excited about: The Selfish Gene. His excitement was contagious and I started monitoring this site rather regularly early this year but I didn't register until now. I just bought The God Delusion, The Blind Watchmaker and and The Selfish Gene and I'm enjoying them very much. Sorry for my longish introduction, I just wanted to say a heartfelt congratulations to Professor Dawkins, I too stood up and clapped at the end of his speech! Thank you.

Other Comments by Alitha

48. Comment #78856 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 5:18 am

Brian: Nick .... have you considered that is not Dawkins who is the "crazy lefty", but you who are the "crazy righty"?

Not really because as it happens, my political views are generally centrist on the economic laissez faire-command economy axis, and distinctly liberal, on the authoritarian-classically liberal (in the UK sense) axis.
See how you score on the World's Shortest Political Quiz http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

A longer version
http://politicalbrew.com/politest.cgi

It is hard to argue with the position that Bush has been bad for science, the secular world view and unbelievers generally

Bait and switch... I didn't argue that! I argued that it was childish to make the argument about GWB's title that Dawkins did, he's elswere come up with the lefty 'Bush stole the presidency' shtick, this comment, at least to me, was redolent of that. If Dawkins wanted to critique the Bush Admiministration's record on science, Dawkins is articulate enough to do that. And guess what, I'd have agreed - with a couple of exceptions where I thought the Bush administration correct on scientific calls, specifically not signing Kyoto!

Still I'm a "crazy lefty" too, but Atheists do seem to lean that way.

I'd grant that, at least anecdotally, lefties seem to be over represented amongst atheist that are identifiable as such on blogs and in the media. That said, they by no means hold a monopoly, not even close. Leftism by no means leads to atheism any more than visa versa.

So I'm not sure I'd make a general rule of that. Maybe centrist and rightist atheists are less inclined to cluster in these areas and are to be found elsewhere. It's not very difficult to come up with a very long list of rather un-lefty atheists in other spheres. For starters Republican Regan appointed Alan Greenspan, Karl Rove, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and the far right authoritarian Chinese politburo.

I think Professor Dawkins has been reading too much Guardian and Independent and lurking around lefty blogs a little too much for his own good. He does seem to have learnt a goodly few of the hard left's favorite mantras.

Nick - Midrand, South Africa

Other Comments by Nick Good

49. Comment #78858 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 5:40 am

Brian: I'd like (as usual) to put the boot in here as well. Anyone disputing climate change, who doesn't have a Phd in climatology and several well received peer reviewed studies on the subject is in exactly the same position as a fundamentalist christian imagining they have anything relevant to say on the subject of evolution.

Presumably that also includes non climatologist Al Gore? Assuming so, presumably you'd agree with my point that the award made to Gore was....ummm ignoble... and the good Professor Dawkins was ill advised to mention it?

Other Comments by Nick Good

50. Comment #78860 by an_ant_under_a_penny on October 15, 2007 at 5:46 am

Here's the direct link to the avi.file for the technologically challenged (I hope managementboy doesn't mind my posting this):

http://blip.tv/file/get/Managementboy-20071012DeschnerPreisDawkinsRede2917.avi

Here's the downloadable flash video:

http://blip.tv/file/get/Managementboy-20071012DeschnerPreisDawkinsRede2917.flv

For any of the other speeches, the download links are in the lower righthand corner on each page.

Other Comments by an_ant_under_a_penny