1. Comment #1926 by Hylo on October 18, 2006 at 4:08 am

I love it! I've never seen Stephen Colbert before but he is very funny and Richard dealt extremely well with his question. It was great to see a different side of RD.

2. Comment #1931 by Kevin Ronayne on October 18, 2006 at 4:24 am

Good interview! I've never seen Stephen Colbert before either. I guess he was just playing "Devils Advocate" in a light-hearted way. Richard obviously knew what the tenor of the show would be like. It would have been nice to have had a longer interview - say, 10 to 15 minutes - which is what you would have gotten on the same sort of show in Ireland or Great Britain.

3. Comment #1942 by One Eyed Jack on October 18, 2006 at 4:47 am

Nicely done. Stephen Colbert can be a tricky interview if you don't understand that the show is a humorous spoof of conservative news programs. I've seen several guests come off badly because they didn't understand the premise of the show. Mr. Dawkins did a fine job as always.

4. Comment #1956 by Anonymous on October 18, 2006 at 5:27 am

Yeah, Stephen Colbert is always "on" on the show, so even though I have little doubt he's actually an atheist himself (and a liberal, and highly critical of non-thinkers), he's cultivated a celebrity personality that's decidedly American neo-conservative and supernaturalist-friendly. You'll notice he doesn't come "out" of character much, and certainly not on the show. But then you have stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOprXKpuVRc

(Colbert's roast of Bush at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.)

5. Comment #1972 by siener on October 18, 2006 at 6:14 am

I thoroughly enjoyed this.

If there are people who still don't get it: the Colbert Report is satire. Go look at some Colbert videos in youtube - most of them are hilarious.

What makes this interview so unique is that Stephen didn't seem to know what to say most of the time - definitely a first.

I don't think he's ever been exposed to such clear and careful arguments. The Ali G analogy above is fitting - they both try to provoke their guests into saying something careless or something that can be taken out of context ... and then they pounce. Prof. Dawkins simply never gave him ammunition to work with.

6. Comment #1981 by Laurence Boyce on October 18, 2006 at 6:39 am

Nice one Richard - relaxed and assured. All the best for the US tour.

7. Comment #1994 by Karen Owens on October 18, 2006 at 7:20 am

To clarify matters, I attend the same church & teach at the same Sunday School as Stephen Colbert. It must be true because it says so in my bio on Philosopedia.
Karen Owens, trustee
RDFRS

8. Comment #2010 by Zaphod on October 18, 2006 at 7:50 am

Well this wasn't as bad as I was expecting. I have seen some Colbert interviews and he is usually much more of a jackass. He is supposed to act like your typical dumbass right wing republican and when he says his mind hurts and its easier just to believe in god. WOW. I wish natural selection and cut out republicans from the gene pool.

I feel Richard got his point across though and didn't get as badgered as I had feared. :-D

9. Comment #2014 by Cristian on October 18, 2006 at 8:06 am

Yes, Colbert is Catholic, but obviously of the liberal persuasion. The Pope and the Church are frequent targets of his comments on the show and they frequently include words like "nazi." He's an equal opportunity offender.

Someone mentioned the boos that came from the audience at one time. As a frequent viewer of the show, I suspect that, like some guests, some in the crowd also buy into it and take it serious sometimes, at least to some degree. Colbert frequently tells them "you're an awesome mob" and other things of that sort.

10. Comment #2015 by Youssef51 on October 18, 2006 at 8:07 am

Excellent, Prof. Dawkins!

Dr. Dawkins was absolutely first rate. He did a marvelous job of getting his viewpoint across given the severe constraints of the Colbert format.

Those of you worried about any booing can take heart. Dr. Dawkins charmed the hell out of the studio audience and sold a huge pile of The God Delusion in the process.

You can all be certain that many, many thousands of Americans who had never heard of Richard Dawkins have ordered the book and are going to read it and be changed by reading it because of that brief, distracted sound-bite.

We speak the languages we are given and do the best we can. Dawkins is a true hero.

11. Comment #2017 by DrBrianRobinson on October 18, 2006 at 8:09 am

test only

12. Comment #2018 by Alan on October 18, 2006 at 8:10 am

As others have stated, as an American citizen, I often feel like a tiny island of rational thought surrounded by an ocean of insanity. I am so thankful for this website, and the many posters here that have reaffirmed my fading hope that there are others in this country who still have a functioning brain.

And, of course, I salute Prof. Dawkins (and the sadly missed Carl Sagan), as well as all the other brilliant men of science who are trying to help us all to understand humanities' apparent desire for self-destruction. To quote Sagan himself, "Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable."

As for the Colbert interview, as enjoyable a parody as it was, its brief, soundbyte nature is entirely reflective of our whole culture. The average American has the attention span of a three year old, which is why the Right Wing's penchant for expressing "beliefs" and political and moral positions in three and four word catch phrases is successful.

The easiest way to confuse a conservative? Speak in articulate literate sentences. For proof, just find any video of Bush.

13. Comment #2020 by Cristian on October 18, 2006 at 8:16 am

It's also worthy of mention that Colbert used to host the segment on The Daily Show called "This Week in God." It could be described as at least irreverent towards religion of all kinds, including Colbert's own, Catholicism. Colbert may not an atheist, but he's always attacked unreason. Which is what he still does with his parody of right-wingers.

14. Comment #2024 by Yorker on October 18, 2006 at 8:40 am

Richard did well on the Colbert show but I don't go for that whiz-bang style much. I can see why it was a short interview, a longer one would have seen Dawkins silence the guy.

I don't believe 95% of Americans think God exists. I'm British, but lived and worked for ten years in the USA, most of my colleagues were atheists so I think it's likely that 95% of Americans *say* they believe in God because they have to for many reasons. Admittedly, I worked in an environment (software) where a fair degree of intelligence is a prerequisite but even so, it can't be that only 5% of Americans have a brain!

15. Comment #2025 by Stephen on October 18, 2006 at 8:44 am

At least one comment from an actual American who regularly watches the show and is in on the joke:

The job of everyone that is interviewed by Colbert is to be the straight-man to Colbert's antics. If he were actually attacking Rchard Dawkins you'd know it because he can be quite scathing (e.g. the White House Correspondents Dinner and most interviews with politicians). Otherwise, he plays the ridiculous right-wing nut with clear ad hominem attacks where he creates his own fictional logic landscape. If you play along as the straight-man, the joke flows perfectly. If you attack him back you just look like an idiot for attacking a fictional character in a contrived universe.

As such, Professor Dawkins played perfectly.

And just because Stephen teaches Sunday School and is a practicing Catholic does not place him near the same league as the religious nuts this site is attempting to address. I suspect if all religious people believed as Stephen this site would be nearly useless. He's progressive, open, and understanding. In fact, I suspect some atheists could learn something from his acceptance of others beliefs.

16. Comment #2026 by Cristian on October 18, 2006 at 8:45 am

For a little insight into Colbert's actual nature, here's a couple videos that allow a peek at the real Colbert.

Him on 60 minutes, this will also clarify matters as to the nature of the show:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-495888344925269806&q=colbert+minutes&hl=en

Him involuntarily breaking out of character while still working at The Daily Show. He rarely breaks out of character and here he really loses it. Funny as hell too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M6VTB0_5-8

17. Comment #2032 by Brian on October 18, 2006 at 9:31 am

From a loyal reader of Dawkins and a faithful viewer of The Colbert Report, I thought it was a great interview. As people have already mentioned, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on American shows without reverting to the two second soundbite culture; apparently we just don't have the attention span for a 15 minute conversation, commerical free.

I truly wish I could have been a fly on the wall if Richard and Stephen (the man, not the character) went out for a drink after the show and continued where they left off the show. At any rate, it's always refreshing to see and hear a voice like Dawkin's, especially in the Gawd-soaked United States.

Keep up the great work, Richard!

18. Comment #2034 by Kelly on October 18, 2006 at 9:43 am

Excellent interview! My favorite lines were:

Colbert: "We're all just monkeys and we should fornicate through our feces."
Dawkins: "That's up to you."

"And who just did God then?"

Colbert's audience is smart and educated, and many of them will buy your book because of this interview. I've actually bought books because the authors appeared on his show! (I'm an American.) This was a great way to reach people.

19. Comment #2038 by Bakari on October 18, 2006 at 10:17 am

I've only seen Colbert on a couple of occasions--one being the roast he did on Bush. I generally think he's funny and he make some very saterical remarks that make sense. However, I just wish Dawkins were given more time to make his point. One of the reasons I don't watch much t.v. is that discussions and debates like these simply do not get fair play. They either result in back and forth shouting matches or they get undermined by too many wisecraks such as you see in thi segment.

I've heard Dawkins interviewed on the Infindel Guy's Show, and it was great just to hear two inelligent people having a discussion and providing much needed insight to a very important and critical topic.

It's sad that Dawkins has to waste his time on shows like this.

20. Comment #2041 by Russ on October 18, 2006 at 10:22 am

Dr Brian Robinson said "To be honest, that made me glad I don't live in America, though more seriously I wondered how they still manage to produce some of the world's best intellectuals."

I'm an American and, sadly, I have to admit that, at times, I've considered packing up my family and leaving the US for a place, like the UK or Canada, where informed reason, as opposed to uninformed religious faith, dominates as the socially preferred decision-making model. My hope, however, is to be on the leading edge of a wave of rationality propagating through American society as more and more people recognize that religion is a wasteful enterprise at best. As mindless religion gains a better foothold in US politics, I increasingly view this country as the greatest potential danger to the human community: fundamentalist Christians with the resources of the US military at its disposal could cause such devastation as to make the World Wars, the Crusades, and the vast plagues of smallpox, influenza, and malaria insignificant by comparison. So, here, I make a stand for reason, buttressed by intellectual compatriots like Professor Dawkins and Sam Harris, because I truly think humanity hangs in the balance.

The quandary of how the US produces some of the world's best intellectuals can be resolved using the same single-word answer as how the US became so irrationally religious: MONEY.

Religion thrives here due to money alone. In addition to some clergy personally raking in millions of dollars each year from church donations and product sales, churches also spend billions each year on advertising and political lobbying, billions more on promoting their specific sects through missionary work. More and more, as the profit-taking and political directives predominate, they spend less and less on humanitarian causes.

On the intellectual front, it must be understood that colleges and universities abound here - the US has more than 4100. In my own state of Michigan - slightly larger than England in area, and population of around 9 million - there are over 100. [Ironically, much of the hypocrisy exhibited by religionists is exemplified by their demonstrated understanding that in the absence of the specific information afforded by education, their god is completely powerless. So, while claiming faith in god, they demonstrate their inability to rely on god by attending universities.] Among a small fraction of the population - maybe one to two percent in recent decades, there has been a strong rational tradition providing the drive to seek the upper echelons of intellectual achievement. That small fraction of the population still constitutes several million people highly motivated to make an intellectual mark. Combine that pool of eager people and the accessibility of advanced educational opportunities with the financial resources we throw at the top 100 universities - many of them have annual budgets of over a billion dollars a year - and it's not unexpected that some Americans will reach elite status in academic or intellectual circles.

Americans won four of the Nobel Prizes this year. Unfortunately, these accolades will justify a couple of years of resting on our laurels while the attacks on science, reason and rationality continue unabated. Here, I make my stand for reason.

21. Comment #2043 by Siamang on October 18, 2006 at 10:24 am

I wouldn't worry so much about the booing. Big deal.

I thought Dr. Dawkins did very well. I'm glad he got in front of a nationwide audience and made the points he did. Very good to get those ideas out there.

To Justin's question, where did matter come from? Here's a good answer: we don't know.

But at least we know matter exists. We can touch it, feel it, smell it, measure it... etc. We can suppose some invisible magical process by which it came into being. But then we have to imagine a magical process that caused that process. And one that caused the cause of the cause of that process.

Have you wondered if matter itself is God, and therefore always existed? Not top down, but bottom up? Not a creating top-down intelligence, but a developing, bottom up intelligence -- just as we see in biology?

But that's philosophy, as far as science goes it's more parsimonious to say "we don't know" than to invent a word that really means "it's a mystery" and that word is "God", and act like that explains the whole thing.

Neither you nor I really know by which process the first hydrogen atom came about. You don't know any more than I do. I'm just honest about it.

22. Comment #2049 by Janus on October 18, 2006 at 11:03 am

Phenomenal job, Richard! As many have said, you did as well as anyone (and better than most) who's been on the Colbert Report.

As I've said on a few forums, I was a bit worried that this interview would go very badly, since it's obviously impossible to make well-supported, clearly-explained arguments in such a setting. I also expected you to be so stunned by the sheer inanity of Colbert's questions that it would look as though you were stumped for a few seconds.

But it turns out I needn't have worried in the slightest! _Colbert_ (or rather, his nutty persona) was the one who looked stumped. You had a quick, condensed answer to his every question, and that's the best you or anyone can possibly do under those circumstances.
You've also managed to make a few very important points, such as the fact that natural selection is anything BUT random. That alone must have shocked quite a few Christians.

Most importantly, (and I think you understood this) the Colbert interview was about improving your image in America. As you no doubt know, many if not most Americans who know your name think of you as 'that arrogant, bitter fundamentalist atheist'. I think it's safe to say that almost anyone who's watched the Colbert Show has had that preconception shaken to its core. Very well done.


_Justin Shannon says:_
_Richard says "well where did God come from?" And like most people, Colbert was stumped, and thus took the "easy way" out. However, look at the other side of the debate with the same argument. Well where did that original matter come from to create our universe? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, correct?_

Prof. Dawkins' argument was about complexity, not matter. Some kind of fundamental building blocks of some kind _had_ to pop into existence (or else they've 'always' existed), or else not only the universe but even a hypothetical deity couldn't exist. What needs explaining is organized complexity, such as bacteria, trees, and intelligent forms of life such as us, and this hypothetical deity. Saying that the first human just popped into existence wouldn't satisfy anyone, since the human body's organized complexity is simply too improbably to assemble itself in one single, giant step, and the exact same goes for God. If there IS a God, it must have been 'formed' by a gradual, step-by-step process such as evolution. But then, most people wouldn't call such an entity God. 'Extra-universal alien' might be a better word.

23. Comment #2050 by siener on October 18, 2006 at 11:10 am

Justin Shannon:
If Christians are correct, your ETERNITY depends on it.

That is just a variation of Pascal's wager. If you can't figure out by yourself why that is a very bad argument, read the God Delusion and be enlightened

24. Comment #2051 by Jonathan on October 18, 2006 at 11:26 am

Well done, of course - as well as anyone could do in 7 minutes with Stephen Colbert. An infectious smile and the meme of science as an intellectual tool (not a religious one). I wish you many successful tour dates.

25. Comment #2055 by siener on October 18, 2006 at 12:03 pm

Bob P.:
Where does this "95% of Americans believe in God " come from? That's a totally exaggerated figure. I'll bent it's closer to 50% than 95%!

If you were speaking of any country in Europe you might have been right. Unfortunately things are different in the U.S. Recently secularly minded people celebrated when the first poll showed that more that 10% of Americans don't believe in God. The highest figure I've heard is 17%

26. Comment #2057 by Siamang on October 18, 2006 at 12:09 pm

Bob P.

Where does your "50% of Americans believe in God" figure come from?

That's just as unsupported as the other one. If you're going to complain about someone else's figure, properly attribute your number.


According to Adherents.com, 13.2% of Americans describe themselves as non-religious.


http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html


You got a better number?

27. Comment #2066 by Anonymous on October 18, 2006 at 1:16 pm

A few people won't get that my comment #38 is a spoof in precisely the same humorous tradition as Colbert. If I remove it, it will not be because I think comment #79 is correct. I don't. There is Stephen Colbert, the real person, who gave us a wonderful gift last night: Stephen Colbert, the character -- an idiot, a buffoon, etc. for Richard to play off of. Colbert was neither speechless nor stumped. He wanted his character to be defeated. He sacrifices himself regularly on the altar of comedy for us. However it takes a quick and clever person like Dawkins to seize the opportunity effectively. Be thankful for both Dawkins & Colbert. The real biography & views of the real Colbert are not something you will readily find (unlike the orchestrated bio of the character Colbert, Sunday school teacher). He is master of the spoof. Perhaps it's just as well that people misunderstand. Once everyone is in on the joke, it will cease to be such an effective tool & he will have to move on to another format.

What I'm not sure of -- and it may be that one had to be in the audience to be sure -- is the alleged "boos". A few times I thought I heard "oohs" rather than "boos", in recognition that Richard was trouncing the character Colbert, & an affirming "yeah" right after Richard said "one god further". Did anyone else hear 'oohs'?

28. Comment #2071 by mintcheerios on October 18, 2006 at 2:03 pm

I think Dawkins came off much better than Harris on the Colbert Report. Dawkins understood the show before he went on (as noted in his journal) which prepared him to be cut off and showered with satirical irrational comments. Sam Harris on the other hand was too serious and tried to explain too much in the time allotted. Also Sam has often appeared on right-wing shows that just look for people with unpopular opinions to destroy which I hope Dawkins doesn't do.

It is exciting though that these people are making American national television shows.

29. Comment #2076 by John P on October 18, 2006 at 3:03 pm

Rae said:
>>>Has anyone else noticed the jump in sales of The God Delusion? Last night, before The Colbert Report, it was at #11. Now it's at #4.

I just checked. It's at #3, now, behind the Woodward book, and John Grisham. And way ahead of Bill O'Reilly.

30. Comment #2077 by Siamang on October 18, 2006 at 3:28 pm

Craig wrote: "Having read several posts re: the religious beliefs of Americans, I would suggest to anyone interested in the statistics to read the 2001 "American Religious Identification Survey", which queried over 50,000 people, conducted by the City University of New York"

Yeah, thanks. That's the study that the Adherents.com page I linked to was citing.

31. Comment #2092 by Skeptyk on October 18, 2006 at 6:07 pm

And Richard was ever so charming and appealing with his head cocked a bit to one side, and his lovely smile.

That was not "BOO", it was "Ooh" and "Whoa!" and even a "Yeah!" Listen again. There were some sounds that may have been disapproving, but the long, drawn out "ooo" sounds were more of a "Whoooa! Dude!" a tone of awe at the knackers RD has to actually say what he does.

Try some of those Dawkinsian talking points yourself and you will see a similar reaction from a relieved, if minority, part of your audience. Freethinkers, especially those who have not found the cyberskeptic world community, are terrifically excited and relieved when a Dawkins says something so blazingly obvious but never ever ever heard on major US media.

32. Comment #2093 by Skeptyk on October 18, 2006 at 6:07 pm

And Richard was ever so charming and appealing with his head cocked a bit to one side, and his lovely smile.

That was not "BOO", it was "Ooh" and "Whoa!" and even a "Yeah!" Listen again. There were some sounds that may have been disapproving, but the long, drawn out "ooo" sounds were more of a "Whoooa! Dude!" a tone of awe at the knackers RD has to actually say what he does.

Try some of those Dawkinsian talking points yourself and you will see a similar reaction from a relieved, if minority, part of your audience. Freethinkers, especially those who have not found the cyberskeptic world community, are terrifically excited and relieved when a Dawkins says something so blazingly obvious but never ever ever heard on major US media.

33. Comment #2094 by Xena on October 18, 2006 at 6:12 pm

Richard Dawkins makes Atheism Sexy!

34. Comment #2096 by Bob Russell on October 18, 2006 at 6:39 pm

Bravo Richard....

35. Comment #2137 by Ninas Grandpa on October 19, 2006 at 5:44 am

I also think it was a good job by both of them. Despite hs alleged religiosity, it seemed to me that Colbert was very sympathetic towards Dawkins, and handed him some soft balls to hit. Near the beginning when Richard was talking about Thor and Zeus, Colbert said something like "Hey, but those are just pagan gods. Nobody believes in them!". This was a perfect setup line for Richard's one god further comment, and I think that Colbert knew it was just that.

36. Comment #2151 by Siamang on October 19, 2006 at 9:43 am

If Colbert didn't read the book, some of his writers and staff certainly have. I'd love to read Dawkins' impressions of doing the show, and what they talked about before the taping.

Colbert, I imagine, is probably a Dawkins fan. He doesn't agree with his theological opinions, but I bet he sees what we see: an honest, clearly spoken deep thinker.

37. Comment #2157 by simplicio on October 19, 2006 at 11:03 am

It Worked!

A Mormon friend of mine watched the Colbert Report interview and now wants to borrow my copy of the God Delusion. Going on a variety of different shows is key to getting the message out!

38. Comment #2167 by Russ on October 19, 2006 at 11:55 am

Liz in post #97 Comment #2083 talked about human spirituality and meaning and, in part, said, "Religion can -- when pursued in a general, non-dogmatic way -- provide a framework or a portal through which to pursue a more non-specific spiritual quest." This response is a bit long, but some ideas need more than a soundbite to express.

Please permit me to express a cautionary note regarding religion as a tool for seeking meaning and exploring spirituality.

With regard to meaning, I think the "Big Three" Abrahamic religions, Judaism and both of its daughter species Christianity and Islam, offer no insight at all. It's important to understand that much of what they want you to accept as your "meaning" in life comes directly from their predefined and essentially impersonal religious processes of prayer, ritual, and other religious activities. They have a doctrine-based framework into which you are supposed to shoehorn yourself and then look for meaning in your life. The observed human experience is far too expansive to be contained by such strictures. Very few people actually find meaning in religion, but they frequently have a thing imposed on them that they are prodded to perceive as meaning by the religious social group.

Daniel Dennett, philosopher and author of "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", was once asked after a lecture about meaning for an individual's life. I think his response says a lot about the way that real people, religious or not, find meaning in their lives. He stated simply: find something you love and pursue it. Though it seems an almost trivial statement, from my experience, it seems he is quite right. The people I know who speak with the greatest passion about the meaning in their lives - and who are the most convincing - are those for whom the meaning arises from pursuing the thing they love. Religions have always recognized this deep human need for meaning, but they have always attempted to force those within its influence, especially children, to frame the meaning in their lives in terms of objectives benefitting the church, not the wants or needs of the individual. Clergy will of course deny it, but religions intentionally impede people's search for the thing they love and, thus, the meaning they hope to find.

Religions miss the boat on spirituality as well. They contend that they possess the one true path to spiritual fulfullment, but they're not even close. They refuse to understand that human spirituality is a 100 percent supernatural-free phenomenon of the physical human brain: the organic matter itself, together with the thought processes and memories.

The organic matter part, and often the human spirit, is frequently influenced by other matter - alcohol(he only hits me when he's drunk), illicit drugs, pharmaceuticals, hormones, nutritients, endorhpins, dehydration, naturally-occuring psycho-active plants, fungi, bacteria, poisons, nicotine, caffeine, industrial chemicals, paint fumes, among lots of others. Here in the US many early primary school children are forced into drug-induced stupors to maintain classroom order. Ritalin-induced calm shrouds a euthanized human spirit, but is nothing supernatural. Brain matter is also influenced by changes in its own structure due to physical damage - diseases like alzheimers, concussions, open head injuries, neural damage by oxygen deprivation such as in strokes and the like. Alzheimers destroys the physical brain matter and thus the very basis of anything construed as spiritual. Again, not a hint of supernatural anything.

I think it's undeniable that the spirituality of the 9/11 attackers was strongly swayed by the thought processes their religion had taught them, and they, no doubt, felt it was a good thing. Not supernatural, just simple mental conditioning.

Our memories, that is, the very specific contextualized information we have accrued in life and that we alone possess, comprises most of who we are, including our spiritual sides - the wonder, the awe, the humor. If you don't know of Dicken's "Oliver Twist" and the character Fagan, you'll gain no insight when I tell you my mother-in-law is much like him. The absence of specific information, a void in your knowledge or memory, leaves you not knowing how to feel, or respond.

For me, the human spirit is the capacity for phenomena we experience - whether from our surroundings or from our own minds - to stir our emotions, sometimes to a sufficient degree that we feel compelled to act on it. According to Professor Dawkins, "The God Delusion" resulted from just such a compulsion.

If, through our memories, we have no frame of reference or context for something we observe or learn, our emotions remain unmoved. Only a tiny fraction of humanity experienced the attacks of 9/11 directly, but billions were emotionally, and so spiritually, effected by the knowledge of the events. Remote tribes with no knowledge of the event were unaffected. Similarly, if you do not understand "extinct," you also will not comprehend the harm that would be done in making the blue whale "extinct," and, you definitely will not be stirred to act on its behalf.

Ponder the following sentence for a moment. "Insanely enraged, he threw it to the ground and repeatedly crushed it under his boot." How you respond emotionally depends entirely on what "it" is. What you think of "he" depends on what "it" is. Your curiosity about the circumstances depends on what "it" is. How you respond based on what "it" is suggests things about you. If "it" is a cell phone, you might chuckle. If "it" is a kitten, you might not. "It" is very important for your response to the world. Religions want exclusive control over "it."

Religions want "it" to be what they tell you "it" is. They want your emotional responses to be what they tell you they are. They see your spiritual life, not as the demonstrably all-natural product of your own knowledge, understanding and experience of the world, but as theirs to manipulate for their own ends. Depending on the emotional response they want to induce or who gets the credit or blame, "it" becomes "god"(good thing) or "satan"(bad thing) or "god's plan"(completely random) or "free will"(your own damned fault). Clergy will of course deny this too, but religions intentionally obstruct people's quest for spiritual fulfillment by guiding them to a supernatural fantasyland to look for the 100 percent non-supernatural experience for which they so deeply yearn.

39. Comment #2175 by Libertas on October 19, 2006 at 12:46 pm

I was disappointed with the interview -- only because I wanted to hear more of Dawkins, especially since I'm just finishing the book.

But it's good to see him promote the book and his ideas, even in the context of Colbert's shtick.

40. Comment #2312 by Cristian on October 20, 2006 at 2:26 pm

Here's what Richard Dawkins says in another section of this website about his Colbert experience.

"I had a good time in New York. The Colbert show was fun, notwithstanding my misgivings before (which I have removed, because they now seem misplaced). While I was waiting, he came in to see me as himself, introduced himself and made sure that I understood his act: “You know I play a complete idiot?” I must say, when he is in character, he does it extremely well. The real

Colbert is obviously highly intelligent and a very nice man. Aficionados seem divided about 50/50 over whether the real Colbert is religious. He is obviously too intelligent to be religious in any simple conventional sense. I suspect either that it amuses him to blur the distinction between his ‘character’ and the real Colbert. Or perhaps he is religious in the Einsteinian sense that all of us are, and goes to church because, like Martin Rees, he ‘believes in belief’ (Dan Dennett’s happy phrase)."

41. Comment #3480 by Anonymous on October 29, 2006 at 7:31 am

Some people making comments here seem to be a bit confused. to find a catholic that believes in evolution and pokes fun at 'fundamentals' is not unusual. Dont be surprised in finding out that Colbert is a catholic. They dont mind 'becoming all to all men' as Paul the apostle said. they merly take the view "If you cant beat them, lead them". Why do you think most anti religous shows is comedy? And not usually treated with any seriousness? Its like alcohol to the natives, drugs to the slaves, religion to the poor. christian leaders can justify that , they can justify comedy to the atheist/agnostics. What ever keeps you amused, and makes the money in the process.
I still love the Colbert show, but am completely aware it is not really taking the nonreligous side seriously, on purpose.

42. Comment #5323 by Bob Johnson on November 9, 2006 at 12:45 am

On the evolution of my car

Doctor Dawkins, I am responding to your assertion that some products such as cars and your book are intelligently designed. To look at the the car sitting in my driveway it would be simple to believe that somebody, a single somebody, sat down and created this marvel. Fuel injection, high performance tires, multi-speaker sound systems - it couldn't just happen. But it did. And the evolution of the automobile is only another example of improvement over time via natural selection. A walk through any junk yard is akin to digging for fossils. The record is there in rusted steel. In the bottom-most layer the skeletal remains have no radios, then AM and a single speaker on the middle of the dash; higher up you may find a 8-track player, my old Dodge had one. It may not be as impressive as an eyeball, but then it took less than a hundred years. I am an engineer, specifically a software engineer, and I design things. When I contemplate iPod technology coupled with voice dialing on cell phones, the old radio on the dash is a prime candidate for extinction.

Your latest book, which you hoped was intelligently designed, I suspect also went though various lives, losing a chapter here and gain more examples in other places. And the careful reader can discern an editor if they read no farther that page six. Yes, some people read the Preface. I would hypothesize that your office or computer's hard disk contain the various bits and pieces which only became frozen in time when the publisher demanded, "No more changes."

Natural selection is the great idea that the biological sciences have given the world. It explains so much in so many fields. It is a way of looking at systems.

43. Comment #6835 by James on November 15, 2006 at 6:56 pm

As to the statistic that 95% of Americans believe in god, I don't doubt that, but remember that the majority of those are not evangelical or southern baptist and their views more closely resemble those of biologist Ken Miller in his Colbert appearance:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/talks/colbert.html

I was reminded of Miller's appearance when I saw the Dawkins' segment.

On another note, I always worry about people outside of the US seeing the Colbert Report and, missing the social context in the US, assuming it is anything but an over-the-top satire of the conservative media. I know some will get the concept, but to many it must be a frightening (if untrue) confirmation of their worst stereotypes about the country.

44. Comment #30745 by sane1 on April 9, 2007 at 4:10 pm

This probably needs to be relinked with something on comedycentral.com.

Other Comments by sane1

45. Comment #33950 by Tatarize on April 22, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Oddly enough, the Colbert line of "95% of Americans believe there is a God." -- that statistic comes from the Baylor study which was published several days earlier (September 2006) than that interview takes place. Though, the study was probably quite valid in the gathering of information, though 56% response rate is rather low, it was a little skewed with the information processing.

The real problem I have with it is how it got that 95%. An actual glance at the study itself will quickly show you this:
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

The study makes it clear "Atheists are certain God does not exist." It lists atheists as the exception to their four gods listing at 5.2% of respondents. Ergo, 95% believe in one of the four gods they list Critical, Benevolent, Critical, or Distant (depending on their religious views).

Now, a quick glance at the survey (they appended it the end of the study to their credit) will reveal something odd about that. They don't ask the question. They ask one question at #26:

In your opinion, does each of the following exist.
a) God --- Absolutely, Probably, Probably Not, Absolutely Not

That's how they determine atheists, those who chose "Absolutely Not". This wouldn't be that odd, except that Dawkins would have said "Probably Not", and thus would have been lumped into the 24% of respondents in the Distant God category ("theists" who think god neither interacts or is angry), rather than get classified with the atheists.

So who would fund this hackjob? -- The last page says "A Research Project Funded by the John M. Templeton Foundation" -- As if it was going to be a grand mystery.

Other Comments by Tatarize

46. Comment #34432 by Cormac on April 24, 2007 at 3:42 am

Does anyone know if this vid is available anywhere as an MP4 or WMV? I can't stand quicktime, and dislike Apple since Woz left for the first time.

In any case, I can't play quicktime on my non-ipod Media Player or on my PDA.

Other Comments by Cormac

47. Comment #35476 by scooternyc on April 27, 2007 at 9:40 am

Richard truly is a brilliant man and he's very funny, too.

Who did god? Hilarious!

Other Comments by scooternyc

48. Comment #67167 by schumi_4_ever on September 2, 2007 at 11:21 am

'And who did God?'
another superb quote from dawkins - 0wned!

Colberts banter is all a bit of an act, his show his hilarious with it, i doubt he actually believes in a god (an american version of one anyway)
I think he would have chatted to Dawkins beforehand about what to expect from the show etc... coz i've seen backstage footage of him doing that with other guests.
check out Colberts speech he did for Bush at the White House Correspondents dinner (youtube it) - its hugely witty and to the point.

Other Comments by schumi_4_ever