1. Comment #175070 by Rawhard Dickins on May 4, 2008 at 10:26 am

Whack darn ID sir!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

2. Comment #175077 by Alfrescoid on May 4, 2008 at 10:50 am

If this man doesn't change the world - we're all screwed (apologies to Penn)

Please, please, please Richard, come to Australia! The idiocy of religion is perhaps not quite so entrenched as in parts of the northern hemisphere (however apologists and faith-heads abound) - we might just start a mini groundswell here...my bones tell me there are many waverers in the antipodes...

Love your work.

Other Comments by Alfrescoid

3. Comment #175085 by GBart on May 4, 2008 at 11:15 am

Bonobos have language too... sort of.

They at least have some simple spoken language in the wild.

Other Comments by GBart

4. Comment #175090 by JazzGuitar on May 4, 2008 at 11:24 am

You can tell that this interviewer isn't super into RD. Still, given the garden variety ideas she seems to harbor about these questions, you can tell she's trying to be fair, as she sees it.

Other Comments by JazzGuitar

5. Comment #175097 by skip on May 4, 2008 at 11:47 am

I am impressed at how well Mr Dawkins explains his subject matter. It is refreshing to hear him come out strong and loud on issues like homosexuality, politics, childhood education etc.

You are a wonderful compassionate man Mr Dawkins!

Welcome to Canada

Other Comments by skip

6. Comment #175102 by gd_edi on May 4, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness? I would have thought that one's own self is the only entity we 'know' to have subjective consciousness, with all others being automata of various degrees of complexity.

Other Comments by gd_edi

7. Comment #175103 by TearsInTheRain on May 4, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Hmmm, was it me or was the interviewer a bit . . . sedate?

I have yet to see an interviewer attempt to go right for RD's jugular: why base our life on evidence? Why is the scientific approach better than a faith approach? Are somethings just not a question of science? Almost all of RD's answers and defences can be boiled down to 'Where's the evidence?' - but why evidence? Why facts? Are not somethings just outside an evidence based approach? Is the belief in the scientific approach, rather than the scientific answers, not just as fundamental as a faith based approach?

Also, when answering the 'Why are there so many believers? ' question, I'd love to hear RD delve into the nature of the human psyche, the way we all need some kind of mode for living, or comfort, or guidance. In the bronze age, the most pragmatic was a religion. In today's age, it's science and rational thought. Some people choose to philosophize, others express art instead of hunting for answers.

Finally, will that later talk mentioned in the video be available too?

Other Comments by TearsInTheRain

8. Comment #175105 by RightWingAtheist on May 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I can't get it to play or download either.

Fortunately, someone posted this to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxd39SzIi5Y

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

9. Comment #175113 by Wosret on May 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

8. Comment #175102 by gd_edi

Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness? I would have thought that one's own self is the only entity we 'know' to have subjective consciousness, with all others being automata of various degrees of complexity.

I thought the exact same thing. Beyond someone telling me they have subjective consciousness I have no more reason to believe they do than my cat does. Someone telling me something is true hardly is enough to say that it is positively true.

Though I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue, and he would admit the mistake instantly if challenged.

Other Comments by Wosret

10. Comment #175114 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

'local nonsense' i like that!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

11. Comment #175115 by Cristian on May 4, 2008 at 1:09 pm

It's amazing to me how people still find Pascal's Wager worth even bringing up. She started the show with it, but she did a fairly good job of asking questions. A good interview.

Other Comments by Cristian

12. Comment #175116 by The Soilworker on May 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Pretty run-of-the-mill interview. The sound of trucks backing up in the background is rather obnoxious though...

Other Comments by The Soilworker

13. Comment #175120 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Mitchell

I thought the exact same thing. Beyond someone telling me they have subjective consciousness I have no more reason to believe they do than my cat does. Someone telling me something is true hardly is enough to say that it is positively true.

Well of course, philosophically, I suspect you can't even prove you have subjective consciousness (MPhil can sort my thinking out here). However, the fact that you seem to experience it, coupled with the fact that you are human, suggests that other humans experience it too.

Of course, you could just be a lone consciousness running a simulation of everything you experience. But if that is the case, there is no point even talking about "humans", "cats" or "tables". In fact, there would be no point investigating the world at all.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

14. Comment #175122 by Skepsis on May 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Thanks RWA!
Here is a video playlist with all parts
Click on "Play all videos"

Other Comments by Skepsis

15. Comment #175123 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness? I would have thought that one's own self is the only entity we 'know' to have subjective consciousness

That is a rather pedantic thing to say, especially given that Richard is clearly talking as a scientist here (i.e. the evidence for the existence of subjective consciousness in humans is overwhelming, in other animals less so) rather than as an abstract epistemologist (i.e. absolute knowledge of subjective phenomena in others is impossible). To take that as a serious argument against the existence of extra-personal human consciousness in the real world is much akin to the "well you can't disprove the existence of god" line we usually get.

Though if you want to be even more pedantic still I might point out that the language used is sufficiently imprecise to admit either meaning. Take the following syllogism: I am human. I know I am conscious. I do not know of any other being which is conscious. Therefore the category of humans is the only category I know to contain conscious beings. That could quite easily be contained in the phrase "Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness".

I shall resume underlining all the split infinitives in the newspaper now...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

16. Comment #175124 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Cartomancer - thanks for saying, with your usual eloquence, what I was trying to.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

17. Comment #175125 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Of course, you could just be a lone consciousness running a simulation of everything you experience. But if that is the case, there is no point even talking about "humans", "cats" or "tables". In fact, there would be no point investigating the world at all.

thats pretty standard fare im sure, in fact some people probably figure thats the case, do crazy shit and then carry on their 'simulation' of a prison cell for a long, long time. real or not, i prefer my simulation to be a little more varied, preferably outside in the sun.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

18. Comment #175128 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

phasmagigas

thats pretty standard fare im sure, in fact some people probably figure thats the case, do crazy shit and then carry on their 'simulation' of a prison cell for a long, long time.

Yep. And it would dawn on those people, while they were sat in the cell, that it would be fairly illogical to be a lone consciousness which had chosen to experience extended periods of distress. The reality of the situation would become apparent.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

19. Comment #175131 by Chris Jackson on May 4, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Seems like a really good interview, lots of interesting background on RD. My only problem, at the moment, is the way the interviewer feels compelled to use sound-bites and too-short phrases during her questions. A minor, niggling fault, but it just spoils it for me. Otherwise, nice answers, good flow and an enjoyable, friendly (for once) interview.

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

20. Comment #175134 by the great teapot on May 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Did she say " The wonderful story of the ark". Would that be the cracking yarn where god wipes out nearly all of earths inhabitants, even those pate de foie gras geese who have no self consciousness.
Even stalin and hitler left more than one family alive (ed, although this probably had more to do with time constraints) and at least hitler liked his dog.

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #175135 by SteveO on May 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm

It is enjoyable to hear some background and more casual discussion of tangents without hostility bringing it back to banging out the same old points.

The interviewer is daft though - she reminds me of how I must sound trying to be coherent when I'm woken up by a phone call.

Other Comments by SteveO

22. Comment #175136 by liddlefeesh on May 4, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Excellent interview by Richard Dawkins as usual.

Other Comments by liddlefeesh

23. Comment #175137 by HourglassMemory on May 4, 2008 at 2:38 pm

There were 2 or 3 questions that were new.
I didn't have a problem with the lady interviewing him. Sure she was sort of random, but who cares? She asked questions.

And where was Dawkins going to after the interview? I think he was going to give a talk.
She talked about it in the last seconds...

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

24. Comment #175139 by SteveO on May 4, 2008 at 2:55 pm

She was nice enough, it was just a little funny some of the random and ill-informed questions she came up with.

He was speaking at the University of British Columbia that day. Hopefully someone has a video of it.

Other Comments by SteveO

25. Comment #175141 by Chris Jackson on May 4, 2008 at 2:57 pm

The interviewer was alright, but I just didn't enjoy the way she posed questions using so few words; sure, they were good, interesting questions, but her delivery made them seem quite cold. Put simply, she was a bit too terse in her questions, probably in order to extract a good sound-bite for the interview.

Having said that, from about 1/2 way through part 3 she began to warm up.

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

26. Comment #175149 by StephenH on May 4, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Good interview.

Clarity Answers

The Interviewer facial expressions were interesting at times. Maybe it was just intense concentration

Other Comments by StephenH

27. Comment #175150 by mejdrich on May 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm

"No, no, I've never had a letter from a Muslim. I don't think they read my books. No, I meant christian fundamentalists ... actually, I don't they read them either."

LOLOL

Other Comments by mejdrich

28. Comment #175151 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Actually, I am a little disheartened at the way the interviewer dealt with the homosexuality issue. I get the feeling she is not homophobic herself, but she did present the position of religious homophobes without the antipathy it deserves from a public figure in the media spotlight. I almost got the impression she respected it as a viable moral position to take - even that's going too far for someone in her position.

Richard, as ever, made no such compromises. He sure is an unlikely public champion of gay rights, but a welcome one nevertheless. In fact I think he brings something very special and important to the cause - the link with rationality, sensible ethics and scientific understanding. I warmly approve.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

29. Comment #175154 by BryanEvans on May 4, 2008 at 4:30 pm

TearsInTheRain

Evidence is all about getting at the truth. It really isn't overated. I suggest you read The God Delusion.

Other Comments by BryanEvans

30. Comment #175158 by pulsar1z on May 4, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I Like the retort that people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old are not very intellectual at all.

Other Comments by pulsar1z

31. Comment #175162 by lucascantor on May 4, 2008 at 5:15 pm

On Google Video Here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7981048174078164389&hl=en

Other Comments by lucascantor

32. Comment #175163 by ~manic-depressive on May 4, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Anyone have any suggestions as to how someone as clever as Pascal could have come up with something as stupid as Pascal's wager?

I imagine that, as Sam Harris has pointed out, if you already accept certain premises (e.g. in this case, God = God of Christianity), it might follow logically.

Other Comments by ~manic-depressive

33. Comment #175165 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm

In regards to intelligent people believing stupid stuff. I understand Richards feelings of why anyone intelligent would believe something to obviously stupid. He is sceptical that they are in fact intelligent. I think it is about rational, critical thinking. Logic and thinking in a scientific manner. Someone can be intelligent but just not in a discipline that trains them to be sceptical and think critically. Even scientists aren't always great critical thinkers. This is stuff you have to learn. Humans aren't really born to be sceptical or particularly rational. The sceptical and scientific mind set have to be learned. Teaching people how to think critically, making them aware of cognitive foibles and human psychology. Teaching them logic and how to examine arguments, claims and evidence. Most people just aren't taught these things.

Other Comments by Zaphod

34. Comment #175166 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I imagine that, as Sam Harris has pointed out, if you already accept certain premises (e.g. in this case, God = God of Christianity), it might follow logically.

An argument can be logical but based on a false premise. I mean you can have internally consistent arguments regarding any type of palpable nonsense.

Other Comments by Zaphod

35. Comment #175181 by ~manic-depressive on May 4, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I very much agree with you, Zaphod, on this point:

Humans aren't really born to be sceptical or particularly rational. The sceptical and scientific mind set have to be learned...

It wasn't that I didn't understand that an argument can be logical but based on a false premise. I was simply wondering if this was what brought Pascal to put forward his infamous wager (i.e. a false premise).

Other Comments by ~manic-depressive

36. Comment #175182 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 6:43 pm

It wasn't that I didn't understand that an argument can be logical but based on a false premise. I was simply wondering if this was what brought Pascal to put forward his infamous wager (i.e. a false premise).

His famous wager is part of a larger work and supposedly it isn't as stupid (I'm told) when in its larger context. Also it was written in a different time.

I am guessing he did have a false premise, after all he was a believer but when he sculpted his argument I don't know if he was using his own biased false premise when regarding an atheist. The wager sounds like the argument of a huckster to me. As if an omnipotent being couldn't tell if you just pretended to believe.

Other Comments by Zaphod

37. Comment #175190 by ~manic-depressive on May 4, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Christopher Hitchens seems to have a measure of respect for Pascal's apologetic work.

The wager does sound hucksterish when used today but if Pascal's other false premise was that one could simply choose to believe in something regardless of evidence, then it remains logical. (Please note I'm not trying to defend the wager!)

Interestingly Nietzsche mourned the corruption of Pascal's intellect by Christianity. A corruption that Pascal falsely attributed to "sin", according to Nietzsche in "The Antichrist".

Other Comments by ~manic-depressive

38. Comment #175197 by Inferno on May 4, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Up to part 2. Agree the interviewer isn't very good. Words and sentences come out of her mouth, but I sometimes struggle to see where her question is!

Though at least she does give Dawkins sufficent time to respond. (Unlike alot of American interewiers who seem to think questions should be longer than the answers)

Other Comments by Inferno

39. Comment #175198 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2008 at 8:40 pm

TearsInTheRain: ...why evidence? Why facts? Are not somethings just outside an evidence based approach? Is the belief in the scientific approach, rather than the scientific answers, not just as fundamental as a faith based approach?

Any right you claim for yourself you extend to everyone else.

If you are entitled to advocate for positions that affect other people without any evidence to support your views, others can do the same. And by "others" I mean the police officer who arrests you for a crime you did not commit.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

40. Comment #175202 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Well I've talked to people who were in the camps, ASMarques, so I believe those camps did exist and the conditions were awful.

I don't know how many people died, but I'm pretty sure it was a whole fucking lotta people. That's as precise as I need to be, for my purposes.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

41. Comment #175203 by Layla Nasreddin on May 4, 2008 at 9:02 pm

"No, no, I've never had a letter from a Muslim...I don't think they read my books. I mean...I've never really had one."

Hey! Don't I count? ;)

Seriously, though, from the context he doubtless means hate mail from Muslim fundamentalists. And all I have to say about that is alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah)--meant ironically, of course! You definitely don't want those guys after you, as the examples of outspoken ex-Muslims or Muslim reformers forced into hiding with 24-hour police protection show. (I wonder how many letters/emails he gets from Muslims, anyway?)

Good interview...I have to say I sort of identified with the "cult indoctrination" bit!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

42. Comment #175207 by ASMarques on May 4, 2008 at 9:17 pm

****** TO THE ATTENTION OF PROF. DAWKINS ******

Assuming Prof. Dawkins is reading these comments, I would like to bring the following to his attention.

Dawkins speaking at (04:14) of part 1:

"The evidence for evolution, for example, is absolutely overwhelming. And so you may hear tones of exasperation in a scientist's voice when meeting flat denial. It's a bit like Holocaust denial... hem... when meeting flat denial. But that really isn't absolutism. That's always backed up by evidence."

If that's what you believe, can you then indicate some of that evidence backing the well-defined allegedly historical event known as the "Holocaust" (i.e. an attempted extermination of the Jews by the Germans, largely through mass murder in gas chambers, that allegedly caused approximately 6 million deaths) to me?

I certainly would find it easy to show anyone the evidence for the historical process known as "Evolution" (i.e. the process of genetic random change in living organisms followed by non-random factors that cause some of those changes to be successfully transmitted within a given genetic pool while others are not), and I believe I would find it easy as well to counter the possible objections to the evidence I would be presenting.

Please note that I'm not saying I would convince everybody. Of course, I wouldn't. No one would expect the whole of mankind to suddenly convert to rationality, but I would feel the (rather small) effort would be worthwhile if it had any chance of helping even but a handful of misguided people.

The evidence itself, or at least some part of it that would sound reasonably convincing to any intelligent person with some information on the subject, would be rather easy to present in a relatively short way, other than by saying "oh no concrete evidence may be mentioned at all to you, not even a small piece of it, for you're in mortal sin and nothing can any longer be done for the salvation of your lying soul."

So how about a couple of sentences on this subject, on this same comment column, to let me know your further thoughts -- if any -- on the subject of the "Holocaust" that you feel cannot be denied (i.e. on the extermination, gas chambers, and approximately 6 million dead, just to remind you that it's not simply "oh, everybody knows the Jews were discriminated against and packed off to camps under violent conditions").

I know, of course, you're not considered an official "Holocaust scholar" yourself -- and neither am I -- but I noticed that, in another clip on this site, when you said you felt inclined to accept the historicity of Jesus the man (not his divine nature, obviously) you were careful enough to inform your audience you had no deep knowledge of that particular subject, and therefore you didn't reject in an absolute way the possibility that Jesus might have been just a mythological character. You didn't condemn out of hand those who deny the historicity of Jesus, nor did you call them liars, as you did those who deny the "Holocaust." You seemed to have kept an open mind, even though you told us of your preference for one of the two conflicting views.

Now, I notice your tone concerning the reality of the "Holocaust" is entirely different, and therefore you must have rather more information and deeper understanding of it than you claimed you had of the historicity of Jesus [1].

Therefore I renew my request. Please tell me what your evidence -- so categorically convincing, so impossible to doubt -- consists of. Let me know a favourite witness, or a favourite confession, or a favourite document of yours, and I will gladly try to explain to you why your choice may not seem convincing to me, or alternatively why you have just convinced me that the extermination attempt, largely in homicidal gas chambers, provoking approximately 6 million Jewish victims, i.e. the allegedly historical event called the "Holocaust," has in fact happened.

Let me put it in a different way, if I've not yet managed to convince you: I think all who love to see Richard Dawkins, the champion of science and rationality, crush the silly arguments of the true believers in the old religions (I agree they don't stand a chance!) would equally love to see him perform in the same way towards those "Holocaust" deniers he feels the need to publicly call "liars" [2]. So why not give it a try and crush the lying provocation, if you really don't feel any compassion at all for a possibly misguided but sincere co-believer in science and rationality?

Don't let your admirers down. Enlighten this denier even if you consider him a liar, if your schedule is not absolutely crammed with the poor bastards you routinely trash in your fearless defense of truth.

Thanks in any case for the fair hospitality of this site. I must confess this has come as a refreshing surprise to me. Deniers, like Nazis and Palestinians, are hardly used to be treated as humans.
__________________________

[1] In case you may be interested, my lengthy comment on your inclination to accept the historicity of Jesus the man, is #159348 of "Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions":
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC,page8#159348

[2] The reason for my first comment on this site, to which I was and am a regular visitor. See #157227 of "Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions":
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC,page2#157227

Other Comments by ASMarques

43. Comment #175208 by robotaholic on May 4, 2008 at 9:18 pm

I just want to see him one time and clap really loud.

Other Comments by robotaholic

44. Comment #175209 by Goldy on May 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Tears

Is the belief in the scientific approach, rather than the scientific answers, not just as fundamental as a faith based approach?

Depends how you define belief. I'd rather trust an empirical, scientific based reason for something over having it on faith. I guess yes, I'd believe in science more - butI would never call it a belief as in belief in gods.
Recently a young man killed himself in Auckland. He was one of these larrikin types, by all accounts, who liked doing wild "whacky" stuff, a bit of a daredevil. He honestly thought he could jump from an 8th floor apartment window, miss the wharf and land into the water. Belief in himself, or maybe even God, didn't help him any. If he had listened to his more scientific friends who could, with slight reference to physics and the theory of gravity, have told him of the errors in his belief.
Mankind has gotten this far on actually following the scientific approach (eat something, makes you ill, stop eating it, that sort of science). Faith hasn't really done much - which would you rather for head pain - aspirin or prayer? Trepanning to ease pressure due to trauma or to release the devils in your head?

Other Comments by Goldy

45. Comment #175210 by Goldy on May 4, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Layla

You definitely don't want those guys after you, as the examples of outspoken ex-Muslims or Muslim reformers forced into hiding with 24-hour police protection

Don't worry, the Turks are on the case :-)
showhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/asia/04islam.html?em&ex=1210132800&en=d2ee30fabe27b448&ei=5087

Should soon be seeing Islamic hippies in the streets ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

46. Comment #175211 by Goldy on May 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm

ASM, if you do get the proof you're asking for, would you believe the Holocaust happened?
As a denier, you don't believe all the documentation available that show the Holocaust did occur. You also do not bellieve survivors of said event.
What would change your mind?

Other Comments by Goldy

47. Comment #175213 by adk on May 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm

I think she liked him.

Other Comments by adk

48. Comment #175214 by nolabels on May 4, 2008 at 10:21 pm

zzz...

This interviewer doesn't seem to care either way or really listen.

Other Comments by nolabels

49. Comment #175215 by 3519273540 on May 4, 2008 at 10:21 pm

For any holocaust deniers, I know of no better source than Raul Hilberg's 3 volume, unemotional study The Destruction of the European Jews.

http://www.amazon.com/Destruction-European-Jews-Set-Third/dp/0300095570/ref=ed_oe_h

It relies mostly on German documents, and in case you are wondering, the book concludes, among other things, that the holocaust occurred.

It is very dry, I have surely not read it all, but the "facts" are there.

Other Comments by 3519273540

50. Comment #175219 by dlitt on May 4, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Comment #175207 by ASMarques on May 4, 2008 at 9:17 pm

****** TO THE ATTENTION OF PROF. DAWKINS ******

[followed by paragraphs of rubbish]

This crackpot takes the cake!

Other Comments by dlitt