Login |
New User
Books
COMING SEPT 09!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special
by The Independent, Richard Dawkins
Reposted from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article2037496.ece
The scientist, author and campaigning atheist answers your questions, such as 'What would you say at the gates of heaven?'
In the beginning was ...? ALAN BROADHURST, Nottingham
Simplicity.
--
What is there to distinguish your intolerance from that of a religious fanatic? TONY REYNOLDS, By e-mail
It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as 'intolerance' because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What's the difference?
I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private 'revelation'. There is a huge difference.
--
You fail to make any distinction between organised religion (which can be dangerous) and an individual's 'belief in God' (which harms no one). Why do you seem incapable of separating the two? GARY HOWE, By e-mail
Of course I am capable of separating the two. But whether beliefs are dangerous or harmless is not the only interesting basis for separating them. There is also the little matter of whether they are true. Scientists care about such things.
--
Terrible things have been done in the name of Christ, but all he ever taught was peace and love. What's wrong with that? CHRISTOPH ALEXANDER, London SW19
Nothing is wrong with peace and love. It is all the more regrettable that so many of Christ's followers seem to disagree. I once wrote an article called " Atheists for Jesus", (see http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins) and was delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the slogan.
--
Do you consider parents forcing children to accept their religion a form of child abuse? JAMES MACDONALD, Bronte, New South Wales
Yes. What would you think of parents who forced their children to accept their politics, or their taste in architecture? Have you ever heard anyone speak of a "Leninist child" or a "Postmodernist child"? Of course not. Why, then, do we all go along with "Christian child" and "Muslim child"? Such labelling of children with their parents' religion is child abuse.
--
Do you get a real kick out of arguing with believers? PAM KELLY, By e-mail
No.
--
Does your wife ever say "Bless you" after you sneeze, just to annoy you? DOUG MACKENZIE DODDS, Reading
Bless you, I'd have to be dreadfully literal-minded to be annoyed by that. What do you take me for, one of those people who sends Christmas cards to The Archers?
--
Like you, I am an atheist but could there be a place for the metaphor provided by religion - and particularly mythology - in human life? STEPHEN PALMER, Shrewsbury Sixth Form College
Metaphors are fine if they aid understanding, but sometimes they get in the way. It can be better to cut straight to the real thing and bypass the metaphor altogether.
--
Einstein, Newton, Bacon, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle and Faraday all believed in God. Does it bother you that such eminent scientists might not have been " deluded"? BEN TAYLOR, by e-mail
It was hard to be an atheist before The Origin of Species. Einstein is the only member of your list who was born into the post-Darwinian world, and it is no accident that he was also the only one who didn't believe in God. He declared: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
--
Do you not worry that ultimately most of humanity simply can't cope with the idea of there being no God? JAMES SPIERS, New York City
I hope you are wrong, because it seems a rather patronising insult to humanity. (See http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,Im-an-atheist-BUT---,Richard-Dawkins) Anyway, I think there is a higher nobility - and greater solace - in coping with what is true, even if it is frightening or painful.
--
Your campaign to expose the irrationality of religious belief seems to have given y ou a higher profile than your work in evolutionary biology. Would you rather be known as Richard Dawkins the scientist or Richard Dawkins the militant atheist? CLIVE ROBERTS, Rhyl
Bertrand Russell called himself the Passionate Sceptic. It's aiming high, but I'll shoot for that.
--
How should an atheist compassionately respond to someone who says that without a belief in a spiritual afterlife he would not have been able to endure the death of a much-loved child? GORDON PETER DUFF, Sheffield
Compassionate doctors sometimes lie to patients about the severity of their condition, and it is not always wrong to do so. I prefer not to follow the precedent, however. Instead, I would point out how lucky we are to have lived at all, however briefly. I developed the thought in the opening words of Unweaving the Rainbow, (see http://richarddawkins.net/article,350,To-be-Read-at-my-Funeral,Richard-Dawkins) which I hope will be read at my own funeral.
--
What do you think happened to the body of Jesus, and how does that tally with the accounts of the resurrection? GRANVILLE SYKES, By e-mail
Presumably what happened to Jesus was what happens to all of us when we die. We decompose. Accounts of Jesus's resurrection and ascension are about as well-documented as Jack and the Beanstalk.
--
Our pub quiz team is named The Church of Richard Dawkins. At a recent Oxford quiz night, we were told to change our name in case it was deemed offensive to any churchgoers present. Have you any suggestions for a " less offensive" name? RICHARD O SMITH, Oxford
And they call me intolerant! I am shocked that this happened in Oxford, of all places. I hope you win the tournament so resoundingly that you can dictate terms and call yourselves whatever you like. "Offensive" my foot.
--
Are people who advocate intelligent design stupid, and do you think natural selection will operate to remove them from future generations? ADAM KHAN, The Hague, Netherlands
The majority are ignorant, which is not the same thing as stupid. Natural selection will not remove ignorance from future generations. Education may, and that is the hope to which we must cling.
--
Mary Midgley, the philosopher, has taken you to task for using words such as "selfish" to describe the unconscious entity of the gene. Has she a point and is there still personal bitterness between the two of you? DECLAN ELLIS, Cambridge
Oh yes, what a good point. And how about physicists talking about quarks as having "charm"? Isn't that terrible? Or doctors talking about an " aggressive" cancer? Or economists talking about the European monetary " snake"? I dealt with Mary Midgley in an article called "In Defence of Selfish Genes" in the same journal that published her unprovoked attack. For the text, see www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/
--
Why have you not engaged in public debate with Alister McGrath, Mary Midgley, Michael Ruse, Keith Ward, or indeed anyone else who would present you with a serious challenge? JAMES RADFORD, By e-mail
The producers of my Channel 4 documentary [Root of All Evil?] invited the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi to be interviewed by me. All declined, doubtless for good reasons. I don't enjoy the debate format, but I once had a public debate with the then Archbishop of York, and The Observer quoted the verdict of one disconsolate clergyman as he left the hall: "That was easy to sum up - Lions 10, Christians nil."
--
Should men submit to their selfish genes, dump their wives and go for younger, blonder models? CAROLYN SANCHEZ, Manchester
No. We gave up submitting to our selfish genes long ago, when we took up clothes, contraceptives, sonnets, cubism, astronomy, snooker, bungee-jumping and other things that our selfish genes would at best consider a waste of time. Scientific facts about the world do not translate into moral " shoulds".
--
I have huge respect for you as an evolutionary biologist and free thinker but my admiration was greatly enhanced when I discovered you were married to the fabulous Lalla Ward. Forgive me, but has she still got that fetching sailor suit she wore on Doctor Who? STEVE DODDING, Peterborough
Alas, no, it has gone to the great wardrobe mistress in the sky. But Lalla doesn't need a costume to fetch me.
--
You have been an incredible force in popularising Darwinism. What original research would you like to be remembered for? IRENE TAL, Cambridge
The Extended Phenotype, although you could say it's philosophical rather than scientific research.
--
How did a science geek like you get such an attractive wife? GARY HAMMOND, London
I suggest you go to salon.com, type "The Sexiest Man Living" in the search box and eat your words (See http://richarddawkins.net/article,317,The-sexiest-man-living,Saloncom). But seriously (of course you knew there had to be a "but seriously"), science has an image problem with young people, and phrases like "science geek" don't help. Isn't it a bit like "kraut" or "dago"?
--
You backed an anti-war candidate in the last election. Would you be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power? ANTHONY SHEEN, Macclesfield
Oh, how silly of me. You see, I had this foolish memory that Saddam Hussein was given an ultimatum on the eve of war that if he surrendered his weapons of mass destruction war would be averted. Silly me, I thought that meant the purpose of the war was to remove his WMD. Oh, so now I understand. All along, the purpose of the war to to remove Saddam Hussein. Oh, I see (copyright: J Cleese). Now the Taliban are coming back to power, because Bush and Blair took their eye off Afghanistan and charged into Iraq instead. You know, horrible as Saddam Hussein was, I believe I'd rather have him than the Taliban. Last week in Afghanistan, a teacher was disembowelled and torn to pieces by four motorbikes pulling in opposite directions, for the religious crime of teaching girls algebra. I don't think even Saddam Hussein executed people for teaching girls algebra.
--
Is global warming a threat to the human species? ROBIN THOMPSON, Oxford
Yes. You could say that the human species is a threat to the human species. I recommend Al Gore's film on global warming. See it and weep. Not just for the human species. Weep for what we could have had in 2000, but for the vote-rigging in Jeb Bush's Florida.
--
I salute your courage in questioning Christianity, but what do you do on Christmas Day when everyone is celebrating? I presume you do not send or receive cards or give/receive presents. BRENDA EVANS, Dorset
Why do you presume that? Do you seriously imagine that all - or even a majority of - the people who send cards and presents are followers of Jesus? Why, even the music we have to endure in shops is usually "White Christmas", "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", and the nauseating "Jingle Bells". What's religious about that?
--
If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism? VALERIE JACKSON, Richmond
I'd quote Bertrand Russell: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe.
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article2037496.ece
The scientist, author and campaigning atheist answers your questions, such as 'What would you say at the gates of heaven?'
In the beginning was ...? ALAN BROADHURST, Nottingham
Simplicity.
--
What is there to distinguish your intolerance from that of a religious fanatic? TONY REYNOLDS, By e-mail
It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as 'intolerance' because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What's the difference?
I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private 'revelation'. There is a huge difference.
--
You fail to make any distinction between organised religion (which can be dangerous) and an individual's 'belief in God' (which harms no one). Why do you seem incapable of separating the two? GARY HOWE, By e-mail
Of course I am capable of separating the two. But whether beliefs are dangerous or harmless is not the only interesting basis for separating them. There is also the little matter of whether they are true. Scientists care about such things.
--
Terrible things have been done in the name of Christ, but all he ever taught was peace and love. What's wrong with that? CHRISTOPH ALEXANDER, London SW19
Nothing is wrong with peace and love. It is all the more regrettable that so many of Christ's followers seem to disagree. I once wrote an article called " Atheists for Jesus", (see http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins) and was delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the slogan.
--
Do you consider parents forcing children to accept their religion a form of child abuse? JAMES MACDONALD, Bronte, New South Wales
Yes. What would you think of parents who forced their children to accept their politics, or their taste in architecture? Have you ever heard anyone speak of a "Leninist child" or a "Postmodernist child"? Of course not. Why, then, do we all go along with "Christian child" and "Muslim child"? Such labelling of children with their parents' religion is child abuse.
--
Do you get a real kick out of arguing with believers? PAM KELLY, By e-mail
No.
--
Does your wife ever say "Bless you" after you sneeze, just to annoy you? DOUG MACKENZIE DODDS, Reading
Bless you, I'd have to be dreadfully literal-minded to be annoyed by that. What do you take me for, one of those people who sends Christmas cards to The Archers?
--
Like you, I am an atheist but could there be a place for the metaphor provided by religion - and particularly mythology - in human life? STEPHEN PALMER, Shrewsbury Sixth Form College
Metaphors are fine if they aid understanding, but sometimes they get in the way. It can be better to cut straight to the real thing and bypass the metaphor altogether.
--
Einstein, Newton, Bacon, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle and Faraday all believed in God. Does it bother you that such eminent scientists might not have been " deluded"? BEN TAYLOR, by e-mail
It was hard to be an atheist before The Origin of Species. Einstein is the only member of your list who was born into the post-Darwinian world, and it is no accident that he was also the only one who didn't believe in God. He declared: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
--
Do you not worry that ultimately most of humanity simply can't cope with the idea of there being no God? JAMES SPIERS, New York City
I hope you are wrong, because it seems a rather patronising insult to humanity. (See http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,Im-an-atheist-BUT---,Richard-Dawkins) Anyway, I think there is a higher nobility - and greater solace - in coping with what is true, even if it is frightening or painful.
--
Your campaign to expose the irrationality of religious belief seems to have given y ou a higher profile than your work in evolutionary biology. Would you rather be known as Richard Dawkins the scientist or Richard Dawkins the militant atheist? CLIVE ROBERTS, Rhyl
Bertrand Russell called himself the Passionate Sceptic. It's aiming high, but I'll shoot for that.
--
How should an atheist compassionately respond to someone who says that without a belief in a spiritual afterlife he would not have been able to endure the death of a much-loved child? GORDON PETER DUFF, Sheffield
Compassionate doctors sometimes lie to patients about the severity of their condition, and it is not always wrong to do so. I prefer not to follow the precedent, however. Instead, I would point out how lucky we are to have lived at all, however briefly. I developed the thought in the opening words of Unweaving the Rainbow, (see http://richarddawkins.net/article,350,To-be-Read-at-my-Funeral,Richard-Dawkins) which I hope will be read at my own funeral.
--
What do you think happened to the body of Jesus, and how does that tally with the accounts of the resurrection? GRANVILLE SYKES, By e-mail
Presumably what happened to Jesus was what happens to all of us when we die. We decompose. Accounts of Jesus's resurrection and ascension are about as well-documented as Jack and the Beanstalk.
--
Our pub quiz team is named The Church of Richard Dawkins. At a recent Oxford quiz night, we were told to change our name in case it was deemed offensive to any churchgoers present. Have you any suggestions for a " less offensive" name? RICHARD O SMITH, Oxford
And they call me intolerant! I am shocked that this happened in Oxford, of all places. I hope you win the tournament so resoundingly that you can dictate terms and call yourselves whatever you like. "Offensive" my foot.
--
Are people who advocate intelligent design stupid, and do you think natural selection will operate to remove them from future generations? ADAM KHAN, The Hague, Netherlands
The majority are ignorant, which is not the same thing as stupid. Natural selection will not remove ignorance from future generations. Education may, and that is the hope to which we must cling.
--
Mary Midgley, the philosopher, has taken you to task for using words such as "selfish" to describe the unconscious entity of the gene. Has she a point and is there still personal bitterness between the two of you? DECLAN ELLIS, Cambridge
Oh yes, what a good point. And how about physicists talking about quarks as having "charm"? Isn't that terrible? Or doctors talking about an " aggressive" cancer? Or economists talking about the European monetary " snake"? I dealt with Mary Midgley in an article called "In Defence of Selfish Genes" in the same journal that published her unprovoked attack. For the text, see www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/
--
Why have you not engaged in public debate with Alister McGrath, Mary Midgley, Michael Ruse, Keith Ward, or indeed anyone else who would present you with a serious challenge? JAMES RADFORD, By e-mail
The producers of my Channel 4 documentary [Root of All Evil?] invited the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi to be interviewed by me. All declined, doubtless for good reasons. I don't enjoy the debate format, but I once had a public debate with the then Archbishop of York, and The Observer quoted the verdict of one disconsolate clergyman as he left the hall: "That was easy to sum up - Lions 10, Christians nil."
--
Should men submit to their selfish genes, dump their wives and go for younger, blonder models? CAROLYN SANCHEZ, Manchester
No. We gave up submitting to our selfish genes long ago, when we took up clothes, contraceptives, sonnets, cubism, astronomy, snooker, bungee-jumping and other things that our selfish genes would at best consider a waste of time. Scientific facts about the world do not translate into moral " shoulds".
--
I have huge respect for you as an evolutionary biologist and free thinker but my admiration was greatly enhanced when I discovered you were married to the fabulous Lalla Ward. Forgive me, but has she still got that fetching sailor suit she wore on Doctor Who? STEVE DODDING, Peterborough
Alas, no, it has gone to the great wardrobe mistress in the sky. But Lalla doesn't need a costume to fetch me.
--
You have been an incredible force in popularising Darwinism. What original research would you like to be remembered for? IRENE TAL, Cambridge
The Extended Phenotype, although you could say it's philosophical rather than scientific research.
--
How did a science geek like you get such an attractive wife? GARY HAMMOND, London
I suggest you go to salon.com, type "The Sexiest Man Living" in the search box and eat your words (See http://richarddawkins.net/article,317,The-sexiest-man-living,Saloncom). But seriously (of course you knew there had to be a "but seriously"), science has an image problem with young people, and phrases like "science geek" don't help. Isn't it a bit like "kraut" or "dago"?
--
You backed an anti-war candidate in the last election. Would you be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power? ANTHONY SHEEN, Macclesfield
Oh, how silly of me. You see, I had this foolish memory that Saddam Hussein was given an ultimatum on the eve of war that if he surrendered his weapons of mass destruction war would be averted. Silly me, I thought that meant the purpose of the war was to remove his WMD. Oh, so now I understand. All along, the purpose of the war to to remove Saddam Hussein. Oh, I see (copyright: J Cleese). Now the Taliban are coming back to power, because Bush and Blair took their eye off Afghanistan and charged into Iraq instead. You know, horrible as Saddam Hussein was, I believe I'd rather have him than the Taliban. Last week in Afghanistan, a teacher was disembowelled and torn to pieces by four motorbikes pulling in opposite directions, for the religious crime of teaching girls algebra. I don't think even Saddam Hussein executed people for teaching girls algebra.
--
Is global warming a threat to the human species? ROBIN THOMPSON, Oxford
Yes. You could say that the human species is a threat to the human species. I recommend Al Gore's film on global warming. See it and weep. Not just for the human species. Weep for what we could have had in 2000, but for the vote-rigging in Jeb Bush's Florida.
--
I salute your courage in questioning Christianity, but what do you do on Christmas Day when everyone is celebrating? I presume you do not send or receive cards or give/receive presents. BRENDA EVANS, Dorset
Why do you presume that? Do you seriously imagine that all - or even a majority of - the people who send cards and presents are followers of Jesus? Why, even the music we have to endure in shops is usually "White Christmas", "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", and the nauseating "Jingle Bells". What's religious about that?
--
If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism? VALERIE JACKSON, Richmond
I'd quote Bertrand Russell: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe.
Comments 1 - 24 of 24 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #11281 by valleyshrew on December 4, 2006 at 4:04 am
Is dawkins really ignorant enough to agree with the statement that "all christ ever taught was peace and love"? Assuming christ existed (and that's a big assumption to make), all we can say about him must be from the gospels, here are some passages:"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37)
"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49)
"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:16-17)
"If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. " (John 18:36)
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31) - You may wonder why this is bad. Would you treat your child as you'd want it to treat you? What about a pupil? A suicidal murderer would love this commandment. Treat people as they want to be treated is much more agreeable.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:33)
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)
Atheists for Jesus is an atrocious idea, he was an awful role model. If you were to follow Jesus you would have to hate your family and give up all your money. What about "love thy neighbour", isn't it good? Jesus may have meant neighbour to refer just to Jews, after all, why should neighbour refer to everyone on earth? He often quoted the old testament, and this from leviticus:
"Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."
Oh, but what about the parable of the good samaritan? Wasn't Jesus showing you that neighbours mean everyone? Samaritans could be considered Jews, as they consider themselves the true religion of the ancient israelites. So love thy neighbour is never extended beyond the Jews, in accordance with the old testament. It was Paul who wanted to spread Christianity to everyone, Jesus was a Jew and said:
"I assure you, while heaven and earth endure not one iota or one projection of a letter will be dropped from the Law until all is accomplished."
It's easy to imagine then that he would have been horrified that Christianity spread to the gentiles.
3. Comment #11284 by goddogit on December 4, 2006 at 4:09 am
Grandmasters do this same sort of casual game, but at least the challengers have to pay a bit for the privilege. These folks should really have to fork over a donation to Dawkins' foundation if he has to bother tossing off these silly, dull, endlessly repeated questions, just due to the ignorance of the questioners.4. Comment #11287 by Kevin Ronayne on December 4, 2006 at 4:23 am
Re Comment #11281 by valleyshrew"Is dawkins really ignorant enough to agree with the statement that "all christ ever taught was peace and love"? Assuming christ existed (and that's a big assumption to make), all we can say about him must be from the gospels, here are some passages:"
valleyshrew,
it sounds as if you haven't read TGD, or watched 'The Root of All Evil?', yet I doubt very much that this is the case.
Just because the statement wasn't contradicted doesn't mean that Prof. Dawkins completely agrees with it. There's a practical limit to how much qualification and explanation one can give when engaging in this type of Q & A format. A properly qualified answer that could stand on it's own two feet would really have required an article in itself. A certain amount of background knowledge is required here to interpret the answer properly.
And to think that *I* get accused of being pedantic.
5. Comment #11297 by Kevin Ronayne on December 4, 2006 at 4:47 am
Re: Comment #11291 by Melisande"OK I think I'm getting better with this whole fake vs real RD thing that keeps happening."
Melisande,
whoever is doing this spoof posting (there may be several people) is getting better as well. I looked at that post and said to myself "Well, it *might* be the Prof., but I doubt it".
This is getting to be like a version of the Turing Test. In this case, the question is: "Is that really Richard Dawkins writing that comment?"
I know Josh has promised a login/verification system for comments, but I presume the server changeover has delayed this for the time being.
6. Comment #11310 by Nobody on December 4, 2006 at 6:19 am
Brilliant article, if only half of Dawkins' critics could read this, maybe we wouldn't have to put up with so much of the 'militant atheist' crap that keeps turning up in reviews of The God Delusion...It might be useful to have an FAQ or summary of these types of questions on the website or something, it's amazing how many people have bought into the idea that atheists are the new Nazis.
7. Comment #11315 by mdowe on December 4, 2006 at 6:23 am
I quite like how Prof. Dawkins actually outlines his perspective on the Iraq and Afghanistan issues. You certainly could never call the man a coward when it comes to expressing a point of view!Regarding abuse of this forum, it is going to be particularly difficult to come up with a system to control those intent on causing mayhem as this site gets broader exposure. You can use a 'captcha' to control automated spammers, but separating genuine posters (who happen to be taking a perspective that reflects their religious beliefs) from those that just want to be disruptive is going to be a rough job. And then there is the inevitable development of 'hackers for God' and DDoS attacks. Josh, you have your work cut out for you bud!
P.S. It looks like the new comment system will certainly raise the bar.
You know, at first when I started listening and watching Richard's speeches I would imagine him spontaneously coming up with his witty answers, but the more I listened, the more I watched and read, I came to the rather humorous conclusion that he's so good at what he does and has done it so many times and heard such similar and circular arguments and questions in so great a number that he need not do more than quote extracts -sometimes literally by heart- from his books, and it will suffice not only in context but also in content as answers to people's questions.
11. Comment #11337 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 8:02 am
Yorker,Actually I was mostly joking. But since you mention it, asking a basic science question would exclude nobody. At worst it would force them to educate themselves just a tiny bit each time they wished to post. It isn't like basic science is a secret kept by a small circle of elite academics -- Wikipedia provides more than adequate coverage of the basics of evolutionary biology.
12. Comment #11339 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 8:06 am
19. Comment #11310 by NobodyThe idea of an atheism FAQ is something I mentioned on another thread a short while ago. Perhaps a title like "New Visitors Read This" prominently displayed would beneficial.
Of course, it should be RD who makes this decision and determines the document's content, so, what do you say Richard, worthwhile?
13. Comment #11340 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 8:15 am
25. Comment #11337 by AnonymousI guess you're really mdowe.
Yes, I suspected you were joking but since you mention it still, I would amiably disagree again. Such a device would probably set an internet precedent and would certainly appear elitist, adding fuel to the arguments of those against us.
14. Comment #11343 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 8:38 am
At #18My dear Katie,
Number of questions are still not answered. It would be foolish to claim knowledge of everything.
We know what we know - and this is sufficient to draw certain conclusions (in probabilistic sense).
I am sorry that your ego had to suffer, but we all believe you are very clever person. :)
16. Comment #11434 by Gregory on December 4, 2006 at 2:59 pm
I find it entertaining that those who indulge in their cult, euphemized as religion, are so in fear of it's demise that they attempt to regularly lash out at those that disagree with them; attempt to impose laws of which the implicit intention is to indoctrinate; and continually hide behind their "religion" all the while enacting a socially adept facade of bigotry wrapped in the pages of their bible.If those that practice (when does one stop practicing and actually start "doing") their religion find their foundations on such shaky ground as to not be able to withstand the eye of scrutiny, perhaps that is observation enough with which to further examine their reasons for blindly following such ridiculous traditions and rituals.
17. Comment #11435 by mdowe on December 4, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Goff,You state: "The 'God' debate is irrelevant to our planets survival". Unfortunately, that isn't really true. I will state one example to illustrate why the statement is flawed. Many Christians believe that the rapture and the end of the world is not far off. Thus Christianity does not promote a long term world-view. What is the point of being a good sheppard of the planet if Jesus is coming back soon to take all the worthy people to heaven? This kind of attitude will inevitably lead to environmental disaster, but it is a tough task to persuade people of the need to change their choices and behaviour if you don't address their underlying assumptions.
18. Comment #11455 by hopeful on December 4, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Goff,Please read this and then tell us again how the question of religion is too trivial to bother with...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2023831.ece
Other Comments by hopeful
19. Comment #11469 by Zaphod on December 4, 2006 at 9:25 pm
"Last week in Afghanistan, a teacher was disembowelled and torn to pieces by four motorbikes pulling in opposite directions, for the religious crime of teaching girls algebra. I don't think even Saddam Hussein executed people for teaching girls algebra."That is disgusting. This is the sort of thing we should be fighting against. Not just countries we want to get oil from.
Other Comments by Zaphod
20. Comment #11523 by Jomei on December 5, 2006 at 9:20 am
"Jingle Bells" isn't such a bad tune, Richard. :( Otherwise, spendid as always.Other Comments by Jomei
21. Comment #11585 by Fouad Boussetta on December 5, 2006 at 5:16 pm
I just want to say that apart from being sovery smart, Richard Dawkins is also so very funny.
Always a pleasure to read him. :)
Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta
22. Comment #15415 by ICONIC FREEDOM on December 31, 2006 at 5:43 am
While I'm sure this opinion is not popular and I'm a huge fan of Dawkins, Harris and others, I do believe we did the right thing to remove Saddam in Iraq. As responsible human beings we should not have tolerated such behavior for so long. How many times does the woman fall into the street beaten by the husband before the neighbors say, enough, then do something about it.
To turn a blind eye to such behavior is irresponsible. Although I also agree that taking the eye off of the Taliban(sp) wasn't smart either, there's no reason our world should be tolerating dictators and their torture ways.
Start removing dictators and letting people govern themselves and you'll soon enough see governments change. It takes time but just because something takes time doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
We should never turn away from our responsibility as humans towards other humans.
Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM
23. Comment #20292 by daveadams on February 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Oh, the arrogance of so much said on here, the arrogance of so many of Dawkins' comments. Good for you Professor, that you once had a debate in which someone declared you to have won 10-0 (what about letting the strength of your ideas do the talking?). Debate with Alister McGrath in public and you might be slightly humbled.Incidentally, has anyone on here read McGrath's response to The God Delusion? He understands evolution. And he understands theology. And there is no reason why knowledge of evolution should lead to atheism. Read it, just as you expect all religious people to read Dawkins.
mdowe, your example of how Christianity is somehow a short-term world view is worryingly similar to Dawkins' treatment of religious ideas in TGD. You take what some Christians believe (a very small minority in terms of worldwide numbers) - that Christ's second coming is likely to happen very soon, and therefore we don't need to look after our environment (which, after all, most Christians believe is a gift from God that needs to be protected), and you apply it to Christianity as a WHOLE. And, if Christianity believes in an after-life, it is surely no shorter-term a belief system than atheism.
And valleyshrew, your treatment of perhaps history's most influential man is disgraceful. Not only is your selection of his teachings completely out of context and not fully explained, but you fail to realise that so much of your morality is based on a Christian cultural system which itself stems largely from the teachings of Christ. Not once did Christ engage in violent behaviour that hurt anybody. Ignore his teachings on truth and love for a few that appear to justify violence at your peril (any research into the context of those quotes, though?). I'd love to know who your moral example is, and on what basis you possibly judge them. It's not that self-proclaimed crusader against bigotry, Richard Dawkins, is it?
Other Comments by daveadams
24. Comment #23009 by Miri on February 25, 2007 at 9:30 pm
The more I read and hear from Richard the more I love the man. It's like the two of us have the same brain, except he's really, really smart! Other Comments by Miri
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #11256 by Roy on December 4, 2006 at 2:19 am
"What do you take me for, one of those people who sends Christmas cards to The Archers?"Maybe a belief in God could be equated with people who think "Coronation Street" is real ( and they do! ) I fell about laughing when I heard that when the popular sitcom's "One Foot in the Grave" Character Victor Meldrew was 'killed off', some people actually sent wreaths, cards and letters of condolence to the B.B.C.
'I don't believe it'... they obviously did!