1. Comment #100076 by debaser71 on December 18, 2007 at 8:00 am

Haven't watched it yet but what's with the blurb? It reminds me of a Fox News blurb...ex: can democrats be trusted?

eta" what a terrible introduction as well. I expect better from CBC, but perhaps I shouldn't.

eta2: wow my brain hurts. I envy Richard's ability to answer the same questions over and over, and patience when dealing with people who clearly haven't read the books.

Other Comments by debaser71

2. Comment #100079 by Matt H. on December 18, 2007 at 8:12 am

'BBC documentary'?

Channel 4 more like.

The guy screwed up in the pre-interview, and then in the interview himself he went beyond just playing devil's advocate... he was actually openly aggressive and dismissive.... at one point I thought he was going to turn into Dinesh D'Souza.

Richard held his own as always, I nearly cheered when he defiantly said 'Which we are' in response to the 'if we are evolved apes' question. But I could see him getting very annoyed by the end, and rightly so. The interviewer was a moron.

Other Comments by Matt H.

3. Comment #100081 by papavb on December 18, 2007 at 8:19 am

what a prat that interviewer is

Other Comments by papavb

4. Comment #100082 by FreeThink25 on December 18, 2007 at 8:21 am

Wow....I'm always impressed with how Dawkins deals with these snide questions and biased journalism.

Good to see that Skippy from "Family Ties" has found work these days....

Other Comments by FreeThink25

5. Comment #100083 by phatbat on December 18, 2007 at 8:23 am

Some good comebacks from Richard there.

Cant believe the Stalin thing is still coming up. I think the response to this now needs to be changed to try and get it into people's heads.

Perhapse something along the lines of:

When you bring up Stalin, Hitler and Pott you are just bringing up other ideologies that we are anti just as we are about the religious ideologies we are discussing now. They are all bad for many different reasons but it is through reason that we justify why they are bad.

Probably not that well worded but something along those lines that groups those crazy ideologies in with religion while leaving atheism out of it.

Other Comments by phatbat

6. Comment #100084 by thedrewjones on December 18, 2007 at 8:24 am

Even if you only take the first minute they claim 'The root of all evil' was a BBC documentry and say RD's goal; is nothing less than ridding the world of religion' and '...especially at this time of year he is the Grinch that is trying to steal Christmas'

How much research of facts do you need nowadays before you can call something journalism or news?

Other Comments by thedrewjones

7. Comment #100085 by tatestreet on December 18, 2007 at 8:25 am

Despite the interviewer's irritating manner, he pretty much gave Dawkins softball questions. Nice to see RD swings a pretty big bat.

Horny to be good. Well, there are many horny priests out there.

Other Comments by tatestreet

8. Comment #100086 by Thanny on December 18, 2007 at 8:25 am

That interviewer is a moron. There is no way in which any reasonable person can claim anything more than a decent probability that MLK was inspired by religion. The evidence suggests he was inspired by human decency, and used religion as a tool.

And what's with the lead-in garbage about ridding the world of religion, stealing Xmas and other religion holidays, etc.? Is he really that stupid that he can't even read what Dawkins has actually said on "religious" holidays?

Update:

Good grief. I should have watched the second half before commenting. That interviewer isn't just a moron, he's a complete wanker. Listening to his drivel is demeaning to human intelligence in general.


Other Comments by Thanny

9. Comment #100088 by tatestreet on December 18, 2007 at 8:27 am

Other Comments by tatestreet

10. Comment #100089 by debaser71 on December 18, 2007 at 8:28 am

I think the interviewer was trying to throw fastballs but he ended up lobbing softballs at Dawkins. And Dawkins, of course, hit homeruns.

Other Comments by debaser71

11. Comment #100090 by tatestreet on December 18, 2007 at 8:29 am

I like that RD, when the interviewer says "Darwin says we evolved from apes," says, "We did." The interviewer clearly didn't not want to admit that. It's like he was just itching to say, "I didn't evolve from an ape."

Other Comments by tatestreet

12. Comment #100091 by seanwupton on December 18, 2007 at 8:29 am

I can't take that interviewer seriously, and the quicker we get rid of the ridiculous "Stalin, Hitler" debate the better, as it has absolutley no validity and is entirley off topic.

Dawkins was fantastic as usual.

Other Comments by seanwupton

13. Comment #100094 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:31 am

Almost nothing this interviewer said was factually correct.

Other Comments by Rtambree

14. Comment #100095 by tatestreet on December 18, 2007 at 8:33 am

I can't take that interviewer seriously, and the quicker we get rid of the ridiculous "Stalin, Hitler" debate the better, as it has absolutley no validity and is entirley off topic.

Dawkins was fantastic as usual.


I think Dawkins would agree with you. "You're not seriously going to bring up Hitler?!"

Other Comments by tatestreet

15. Comment #100098 by Aaron on December 18, 2007 at 8:36 am

I have to disagree with Dr. Dawkins on his theory that altruism towards strangers is a misfiring of our moral mechanisms.

I think an argument can be made that the process that articulates morality within the brain starts with senory information about the state of being of any individual and when that state of being is made better our reward centers fire and reinforce the act of making the state of being better for other individuals and that the genes that code for this mechanism and process have been selected because they promote a healthy environment for their propagation within offspring. This means the rule by which this mechanism functions would state something like "Increase the well being of individuals within your environment to ensure it is safe for your offspring."

This idea maintains the selfishness of genes and gets rid of the idea disliked by many (including me) that morality towards strangers is a malfunction of some kind.

Other Comments by Aaron

16. Comment #100100 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 8:37 am

This was actually rather good. The interviewer was blunt, but at least dealt directly with important issues, and gave Dawkins a chance to respond. Especially compared with the relative lack of engagement in other debates, this was useful. It was nice to see Dawkins being so forceful as well. People may mock the interviewer, but I would far rather see the direct posing of questions that most religious actually ask than the vagueness of, say, a McGrath.

Other Comments by steve99

17. Comment #100101 by spiderdancer on December 18, 2007 at 8:39 am

Absolutely top marks to Dawkins here. I've watched so many of these and this one was very good. Seemed to talk at a higher tempo than normal and with a smile. Not so aggressive but full of fluent answers.

Other Comments by spiderdancer

18. Comment #100103 by matiuk on December 18, 2007 at 8:42 am

I feel bad as a Canadian watching a fellow Canadian appearing as a disrespectful and (it seems more so a) dense journalist. Perhaps some people are still not old enough to talk about sex.

Keep coming to Canada Dr. Dawkins, we can still be saved!


-M

Other Comments by matiuk

19. Comment #100104 by Styrer- on December 18, 2007 at 8:42 am

This is perhaps the best performance from the Professor I have seen in his many TV interviews. Absolutely superb.

There is a terrific speed of attack here, rapid and compelling dispatch of the key arguments, and above all a supremely energetic confidence in delivery. Unmatched.

After seeing this, I am thrilled to recognise that there really is no greater fighter against superstition and irrationality out there today.

I feel rather moved!

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

20. Comment #100106 by clatz on December 18, 2007 at 8:44 am

Fancy Darwin talk?

Halarious, this guy would have been king of the playground.

Other Comments by clatz

21. Comment #100107 by Jon_Sociologist on December 18, 2007 at 8:45 am

I think we need to be careful how we try to "get rid of" the Stalin/Hitler debate. Many Atheists are saying "we shouldn't debate the body count argument", many "neutral" observers are going to take this as a tacit admission of defeat. The problem with public debate is that the public has a very poor collective memory. I think that we, as defenders of Atheism, need to challenge and refute the 'body count argument' every time it is brought up publicly. Any failure to counter it, including saying, "we shouldn't debate the body count argument", is a defeat in the court of public opinion. While Dawkins tried to avoid it in the first place, he did respond in the end with a refutation rather than a dodge.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

22. Comment #100109 by entheogensmurf on December 18, 2007 at 8:46 am

The interviews duration was not long enough. However, Prof. Dawkins explained the concepts well enough within the permitted time.

Thanks for the posting of this video.

Other Comments by entheogensmurf

23. Comment #100118 by MarcCountry on December 18, 2007 at 9:03 am

The childish interviewer made an ass of himself. I too am embarrassed by him, as a Canuck.

Just because the Christians don't want to claim Hitler as one of their own, I don't see why we should have to take him in...

Other Comments by MarcCountry

24. Comment #100119 by Ole on December 18, 2007 at 9:03 am

Richard was great!

The sad thing to meet all the time are people like this interviewer who never gave any quality time to understand Darwin and evolution.

It is not enough to know a few words, like natural selection etc.

A great paradox - Darwin's dandy idea is possible to grasp with some intellectual efforts, while Einstein's theory of relativity is much harder to understand.

I'm sure this interviewer would not start talking about the "horny" mass-energy equivalence, E = mc2. ;-)

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

25. Comment #100121 by Matt H. on December 18, 2007 at 9:07 am

'Horny to do good?'

Heh, Richard gave him a right bollocking when the interview said that. Just look at his face. Go, Richard!

Other Comments by Matt H.

26. Comment #100126 by maton100 on December 18, 2007 at 9:16 am

This interviewer looks like Sean Hannity in training.

Other Comments by maton100

27. Comment #100128 by Madonna's Stardust on December 18, 2007 at 9:19 am

My favourite RD line in this is "You're not going to bring out Hitler and Stalin again are you?"

Other Comments by Madonna's Stardust

28. Comment #100129 by Henri Bergson on December 18, 2007 at 9:20 am

Someone slap that thick spastic interviewer hard in the face... We have not only evolved benevolence but also malevolence.

The only only mistake Dawkins makes is to suggest that 'evil' is a real thing. It's relative.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

29. Comment #100130 by Diacanu on December 18, 2007 at 9:21 am

That went well.
*Thumbs up*

I'm not gonna be too hard on the interviewer though.

His questions were a combination of what the average person might ask, and his incredulity reactions are from that christianity is so used to dominating the cultural landscape, and going uncriticized, that it's in flabberghasted shock.

Long as that flabberghasted incredulity doesn't bare its fangs like with Coulter/D'Souza I mentally pat it on its head and give it a cookie.

Other Comments by Diacanu

30. Comment #100131 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 9:23 am

I'm not gonna be too hard on the interviewer though.

His questions were a combination of what the average person might ask, and his incredulity reactions are from that christianity is so used to dominating the cultural landscape, and going uncriticized, that it's in flabberghasted shock.

Absolutely. Those being hard on the interviewer misses the point: he represents the reality of mass Christian opinion, which is why this interview was so useful.

There is no way in which any reasonable person can claim anything more than a decent probability that MLK was inspired by religion.

They clearly could, as King was a Baptist minister, who helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It is clear that his philosophy was inspired by religion in general, even if it was non-specific. This is shown by his statement:

"In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation."

Its the bizarre yet familiar 'objective morality argument'.

Other Comments by steve99

31. Comment #100132 by rev on December 18, 2007 at 9:24 am

Richard Ace, him plonka.

Other Comments by rev

32. Comment #100133 by RevStyle on December 18, 2007 at 9:25 am

I really can't believe that someone actually asked Dawkins if we are horny to do good. I'm sure all his buddies at the sports bar will give him a lot of high-fives followed by "that was freekin awesome bro!"
Other than that,I rather enjoyed the questions as they cut through the usual fluff.

Other Comments by RevStyle

33. Comment #100134 by Bonzai on December 18, 2007 at 9:35 am

For some of the atheist fundies here apparently all interviewers of Dawkins' would be morons unless they just say yes and act as if they are totally in awe of Dawkins' presence short of prostrating before him.

It is not an interesting interview if the interviewer doesn't ask provocative questions and challenge the guest's answers. Also the interviewer asks questions that (s)he thinks the general public would ask, not what Dawkin's groupies would approve. I suppose there is no good question for some here unless the questioner accepts all of Dawkin's premises and just "respectfully" asks him to clarify the fine points like a student would to a professor.

Some questions may be stupid for atheists who have been debating these questions forever, but for the general public these are relevant questions so they should be asked. IMO Evan Solomon is an excellent host and all his questions and rejoinders are legitimate, Dawkins actually appeared to have lost his cool.

I know, atheism is not a religion in principle but some recovered fundies apparently "practice" their atheism as though it is.

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #100136 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 9:37 am

Very embarrassing to be Canadian. I wrote CBC to comment on the interviewer, Mr Evan Solomon, and his embarrassing behavior.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/hosts.html

I also found this information illuminating:

"Born in Toronto, Solomon graduated from McGill University with a joint B.A. in English literature and religious studies. In addition, he has a masters in religious studies from McGill."

Other Comments by Aequitas12345

35. Comment #100137 by whig on December 18, 2007 at 9:38 am

This was fun to watch, as it was so easy for Dawkins. They were on two completely different levels, Dawkins talking about the parallels in nature, such as the altruism of the cuckoo's foster parents, as he did in The Selfish Gene, the first of his books I read. I think Dawkins deliberately decided to play the interview that way, treating his questions with the derision the lack of intelligence in them deserved, but coming across as very knowledgeable. I cheered when he said, "You're not going to bring up Hitler and Stalin, are you?", and then dealt with it properly when he had to. I think an uninformed viewer watching this would be reasonably impressed with Dawkins' responses.

I was sorry he didn't ask him about Christmas, given that in the intro he described him as akin to the Grinch. His answer there would have further endeared him to the ordinary viewers.

Other Comments by whig

36. Comment #100138 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 9:39 am

You were great, Richard.



Bonzai:

For some of the atheist fundies here apparently all interviewers of Richard's would be morons unless they just say yes and act as if they are totally in awe of Dawkins' presence short of prostrating before him.

It is not an interesting interview if the interviewer doesn't ask provocative questions and challenge the guest's answers. Also the interviewer asks questions that (s)he thinks the general public would ask, not what Dawkin's groupies approve as good question (I suppose there is no good question for some here unless the questioner accept all of Dawkin's premises) Some questions may be stupid for atheists who have debating these questions forever, but for the general public these are relevant questions that should be asked.IMO Evan Solomon is an excellent host and all his questions and rejoinders are legitimate, Dawkins actually appeared to have lost his cool.

I know, atheism is not a religion in principle but some recovered fundies apparently "practice" their atheism as though it is.

Then again, maybe we really think the host was an idiot.

There have been dozens of Dawkins interviews where the interviewer asked the questions that uneducated Christians would ask, and in the many cases it was actually done well, no one called the interviewer stupid. Solomon wasn't one of those interviewers.


As for you, has it occurred to you that the people who disagree with you on subjects like this one don't share your opinion because they have rational reasons to do so? Your accusation of "atheist fundamentalism" is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at poisoning the well. But, well, I guess that if you didn't keep moaning about atheist fundies in every other thread, you wouldn't be Bonzai.





Other Comments by Janus

37. Comment #100139 by debaser71 on December 18, 2007 at 9:41 am

"I'm not gonna be too hard on the interviewer though.

His questions were a combination of what the average person might ask, and his incredulity reactions are from that christianity is so used to dominating the cultural landscape, and going uncriticized, that it's in flabberghasted shock."

But the interviewer legitimizes such low caliber thinking.

Other Comments by debaser71

38. Comment #100141 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 9:44 am

Very embarrassing to be Canadian. I wrote CBC to comment on the interviewer, Mr Evan Solomon, and his embarrassing behavior.

I find this a rather extreme response, that may actually have a negative effect. We are supposed to have views that can stand robust debate. For goodness sake, what do we expect from an interviewer:

"Please, Professor Dawkins, may I humbly request that you honour us with your wisdom regarding religion? The studio is yours while I retire to make you some tea."

I have to go with Bonzai on this.

Other Comments by steve99

39. Comment #100142 by Gymnopedie on December 18, 2007 at 9:47 am

"Fancy Darwin talk"

I stopped taking him seriously right there.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

40. Comment #100143 by artemisa on December 18, 2007 at 9:48 am

Religites intentionally or ignorantly mix ideologies with atheism. To me atheism is the result of thinking thru ideas and claims and requiring evidence, nothing to do with idealogies. Stalin, Hitler etc., are all idealogies just like religions. Maybe I'm being too simplistic here. If so I welcome any comments.

Other Comments by artemisa

41. Comment #100144 by Diacanu on December 18, 2007 at 9:50 am

What Bonzai and Steve99 said.

Other Comments by Diacanu

42. Comment #100145 by Bonzai on December 18, 2007 at 9:52 am

I have mistaken Jon_Sociologist to be brian because of the avatar.

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #100148 by SRWB on December 18, 2007 at 9:57 am

I have to agree with Steve99 and Bonzai - no need to tar and feather the CBC just yet! And I am Canadian too. Initially, while watching the interview last Sunday, I was of like mind with some of the other opinions, as I had pegged Solomon as a bit of an unbeliever for reasons related to his other works. Perhaps he is, and was merely playing devil's advocate to make the interview more interesting. Nevertheless, RD handled himself well and cut through all the BS in his usual forthright manner. If I wasn't already convinced, I would be now!

Other Comments by SRWB

44. Comment #100149 by room101 on December 18, 2007 at 9:58 am

#17 Spiderdancer:

Absolutely top marks to Dawkins here. I've watched so many of these and this one was very good. Seemed to talk at a higher tempo than normal and with a smile. Not so aggressive but full of fluent answers.

Agreed. I like this Richard Dawkins interview. As brilliant as he is, often he comes across with a frown and appears to get frustrated (not that anyone can blame him - can you imagine going up against these pinheads all the time?).

Here he was calm, smooth, fluent and genuinely amicable.

Other Comments by room101

45. Comment #100150 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 10:00 am

steve99,

I am all for rigorous debate and opposition of ideas. I am referring specifically to Mr Solomons attempt to undermine RDs knowledge of evolution, even social evolution, his completely unoriginal questions ("You're not going to bring out Hitler and Stalin again are you?") and his complete failure to bring anything other than the 'religion does good for people/society' argument.

I expected a much more intelligent interview from CBC.

Other Comments by Aequitas12345

46. Comment #100151 by Divineosaur on December 18, 2007 at 10:04 am

Even though I know rather well by now what Dawkins' answers will be, it is still such a pleasure to hear him give them. It may be cliche but it IS like music to my ears! Such a dynamic combination of his speaking style and most importantly the sheer reasonableness of what he is saying. Each successive sentence locks into the one before it as puzzle pieces.

Then there is the interviewer and the interview itself which seems a microcosm of the problem in getting through to people. He was not trying to listen and to understand with an eye towards gaining some more knowledge of the world. His sole interest was clearly in refuting. He wants to say that it is demeaning to our impulse to do good things by saying it is an evolved behavior. Never realizing that if anything it is demeaning to attribute it to some other thing for which there is no evidence so that we are not responsible for the good we do. And that aside, evolution seems to me to elevate the impulse to do good because it is such a wonderful and lucky thing that we have this tendency. Natural Selection makes it more precious since there was a chance that we might not have developed it the way we in fact did.

Other Comments by Divineosaur

47. Comment #100153 by Arcados on December 18, 2007 at 10:07 am

That was a bit more combative than I would've hoped, but Prof. Dawkins handled it very well. My worry is that much of the answers to his ill-posed questions would take a chapter or two to explain fully, and interviews like this automatically disadvantage the explainer.

Other Comments by Arcados

48. Comment #100157 by Bonzai on December 18, 2007 at 10:18 am

Janus,

As for you, has it occurred to you that the people who disagree with you on subjects like this one don't share your opinion because they have rational reasons to do so? Your accusation of "atheist fundamentalism" is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at poisoning the well. But, well, I guess that if you didn't keep moaning about atheist fundies in every other thread, you wouldn't be Bonzai.

If they have rational reasons for their outburst against ES they certainly haven't expressed them well. Most of the diatribes are irrational and not unlike the way groupies react when they think that their idol has been dissed.

As for "poisoning the well" I don't mince words in order to keep up the facade of politeness. You of all people should appreciate straight talk. I don't really care if people are religious, but I can't stand fanatics, and fanaticism is not the sole domain of religion.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #100158 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 10:19 am

I am referring specifically to Mr Solomons attempt to undermine RDs knowledge of evolution, even social evolution, his completely unoriginal questions ("You're not going to bring out Hitler and Stalin again are you?") and his complete failure to bring anything other than the 'religion does good for people/society' argument.

How can asking blunt questions "undermine RD's knowledge?". And his questions may not have been original, but as we have seen from video debates, and discussions on this site, they are the questions that the religious are actually asking.

I think this debate is a very useful reference, as it addresses such common questions, and I have been astonished at the attacks on the questioner, which, to be honest, makes us appear insecure in our views.

Most of the diatribes are irrational and not unlike the way groupies react when they think that their idol has been dissed.

I would not go so far as to say "irrational", but I agree with the sentiment.

Other Comments by steve99

50. Comment #100160 by gr_man on December 18, 2007 at 10:21 am

what the hell just happened?

In the past CBC interviews and interviewers have been at least in part reasonable. This guy was behaving as though this was a practical interview for a spot on O'Reilly's show.

I guess that is what you get on sunday...thank Zeus that mainstream CBC stuff during the week is less.......well less like that!

Other Comments by gr_man