1. Comment #23301 by Jack Rawlinson on February 27, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Okay, that was pretty good. Crawley is pretty good. Because he asks the questions believers typically want to ask, but gives Richard a full chance to answer.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

2. Comment #23302 by The Science Pundit on February 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Crawley really tried to go after him with tough questions. I just love the way RD had an answer for everything. I know I couldn't do that.

Other Comments by The Science Pundit

3. Comment #23303 by MIND_REBEL on February 27, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Amazing as always. The world is a meme infested mess. Prof Dawkins is one of only handful of real scientists, that are brave enough to stand up to the evil grip that religion holds over our collective minds.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

4. Comment #23306 by HappyPrimate on February 27, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Dr. Dawkins did a great job as usual in this interview which was very grueling. Under fire Dr. Dawkins is so calm and articulate. I really admire him for the way he handles himself in these interviews.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

5. Comment #23307 by philos on February 27, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Excellent interview - good ending!

Other Comments by philos

6. Comment #23310 by Pastafarian on February 27, 2007 at 6:43 pm

If only television in America had the testicular fortitude to devote so much time to Professor Dawkins, or Sam Harris, in such a civilized forum. We Americans are so afraid of having our happy fantasies challenged in even the slightest way that a show like this would be impossible to air today. It is that aversion to honest debate that leads so many believers to think of Professor Dawkins as an arrogant, malicious attacker of their faith. They are very unlikely to ever read any of his books, or listen to him speak, and so will likely never develop a true sense of the message he is trying to convey. Yes, the message is a tough pill to swallow, but critics who attack the messenger both ignore and confirm Dawkins' point simultaneously.

Other Comments by Pastafarian

7. Comment #23311 by topherclay on February 27, 2007 at 6:47 pm

I really liked the ending also. It was as if Crawley heard what RD said about belief and responded, "Awww alright, I guess you're correct we're done here."

Other Comments by topherclay

8. Comment #23312 by Janus on February 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I couldn't watch past the first minute. I'm sorry, but to say that labelling children is child abuse is such complete nonsense. What harm does mere _labelling_ do?

It can be said that teaching certain religious beliefs to children is child abuse (Hell, for instance), and there are beliefs that will foster divisiveness when these children grow up (the doctrine that your scripture, or your interpretation of scripture is the only true one, for example). But it's the actual beliefs that do harm, not the labelling. Why does Professor Dawkins keep insisting on the labelling? It's one of his weakest arguments.

Other Comments by Janus

9. Comment #23313 by davyB on February 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I think Dawkins misses a point about the reasons people Believe with a capital B. Before the advent of monotheism and the Big Three, religion was just bad science. After, it was a way for the powers that be to control and manipulate the masses.

Other Comments by davyB

10. Comment #23314 by bornabaptist on February 27, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Dr. Dawkins was calm and articulate as usual. Great job! I just finished reading; On Truth, by Harry G. Frankfurt. It is a little book (1 hour read) that discusses the value and importance of truth. Dr. Dawkins usually has the chance to mention he cares about what is true during his interviews. This book may help us all explain the importance of truth, when called upon to do so. On Bullshit, by the same author is worthwhile, and thankfully, short.

Other Comments by bornabaptist

11. Comment #23315 by Yorker on February 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm

I listened to, rather that watched that show while I was doing a little coding, suddenly I became aware that I was putting words in Dawkins mouth, or so it seemed. I was answering each question slightly before or at the same time as Richard did, as if by magic, we were saying almost exactly the same words!

Of course it wasn't magic, simply that I'd heard Richard answer what are often the same questions again and again, so I knew what he was going to say. The questions get re-phrased, but basically most interviewers ask the same stuff, I think the Prof. must have it all down pat by now but still I admire him for not yawning or showing other signs of boredom. This interviewer was above average though.

I guess I'm not alone and others have had similar experience so if Richard ever needs a stand-in, there will be plenty to choose from!

Other Comments by Yorker

12. Comment #23316 by Janus on February 27, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Okay, I watched it all, and I have to say that that last line, "What's so special about belief?" was bloody brilliant. I still love you, Professor! :D

Other Comments by Janus

13. Comment #23317 by charlesj on February 27, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Loved the ending as well. However, one part made me really uncomfortable, and that was talking about the basis for science itself.

I completely agree that it works. What bothers me is at the most fundamental level, the interviewer had a point. It's a sort of circular logical reasoning to say, 'well, because science works we don't question the most fundamental basis of it.'

That's a perfectly good enough answer for me. The thing I'm finding is that when presented such a front in a debate, it's never accepted, and in one sense puts science on the same level of religion.

It's about that time I try to move the debate back towards the details of religion, and how demonstrably absurd they are.

Other Comments by charlesj

14. Comment #23318 by Yorker on February 27, 2007 at 7:32 pm

8. Comment #23312 by Janus

You're not the first to ask that question.

The problem lies not with the label, but with the effect the labelling has. Dawkins has often used the Northern Ireland conflict as an example of how calling some kids Catholic and others Protestant, serves to perpetuate the sectarian divisiveness. I used to live in a part of Scotland where divisions like this held sway, I came across a few kids who had been told by parents not to play with such and such because he/she was a Catholic/Protestant.

Young children are natural atheists, they don't give a shit about religion and play with each other for fun. But the label serves its evil purpose, the child accepts that anyone not of his/her label is bad and should be at least avoided and if necessary, attacked. No labels would mean one less excuse for religious violence.

Other Comments by Yorker

15. Comment #23320 by DistrictSelectman on February 27, 2007 at 7:40 pm

I, too, was put off by the claim that labeling children is child abuse, not the teaching. As I recall, Dawkins has stated it the other way around in the past, i.e., teaching children to fear hell is child abuse, while labeling them is merely nonsensical. After all, it is hardly abuse to call a child a capitalist or an existentialist if the kid doesn't know what those terms mean.

I think this line of argument has to proceed on a case-by-case basis. Some kids probably are fairly disturbed by threats of hell, but most are more curious if their doggy will meet them in heaven. It detracts from the force of Dawkins's argument to lump the latter in with the former.

Other Comments by DistrictSelectman

16. Comment #23321 by Yorker on February 27, 2007 at 7:47 pm

13. Comment #23317 by charlesj

I understand your worry here Charles, but it's not really a problem once you accept the fact that at its root, everything is indeterminate, we can't be absolutely sure of anything. So it's OK and not circular to say that in the real world as we experience it, science works and religion doesn't. Science for example, can make predictions that with almost complete certainty, will come true; religion can not, has not and will not, ever predict anything with any better success than pure chance.

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #23322 by Conrad on February 27, 2007 at 7:51 pm

The idea that science lies on the same philosphical assumption quicksand as claims to religion, while true in the most technical philosophpical sense, rings hollow when we remember that that very claim itself is also based on logic. And logic itself victim to it's own logic. If we can't make assumptions at some level and recogonize that there are simply some brute facts, then nothing makes any sense at all.

What Dawkins was getting at in his answer that everyday life too, is open to the same counter arguments, is that we don't accept such silly philosophy in real life. The reason why happens to be because we EXPERIENCE the fruits of "common sense" and science. It's where logic connects to what actually is going on. I may be assuming such and such is true in order to make sense out of the real world, but the test of that assumption is going to be how my beliefs hold against expereincing the real world. It's experience that matters. And it's where claiming that science and religion are on par fails. The simple answer is that while they may both begin with an assumption, this one pans out, the other does not.

Arguments like that are what happens when philosophers don't get out enough. Simply because something makes sense logically outside of experience does not mean it is true. Otherwise Aristotle would have been right about objects twice as heavy, falling twice as fast.

Other Comments by Conrad

18. Comment #23323 by k1mgy on February 27, 2007 at 7:57 pm

"I was a good man.. I was honest.. I was kind. Isn't that more important than belief?"

Professor Dawkins was coupled with a great interviewer who brought out the very best.

I'm glad I was able to see this. Dawkins' final words brought some mist to my eyes.

Other Comments by k1mgy

19. Comment #23324 by LDmiller on February 27, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I agree with what was said about Crawley posing some of the better questions to RD that I have heard, and giving the professor decent chance to respond within the time constraints of a half hour program.

One of the things that I find baffling about those who say "I live by Science" is that many (particularly non-scientists) do not seem to realize how much of the rock-bottom tenets of science are axioms, which are pretty equivalent to "dogma". I thought RD ducked on that, as he and the others (Harris, Dennett) always do. Science as a method offers a correction mechanism if applied honestly, but our present understanding isn't nearly complete enough to justify some of these gentlemen's statements without further discussion.

For example, the "multiverse" view hasn't a shred of evidence to support it, but if it is true, it might even give a place for a "designer god" to live outside of our universe, a frequent argument used by RD. A parallel universe could be much older and much more complex than ours. This kind of blows away much of RD's arguments.

RD has often said that if the universe were designed by a god "it would look much different", but he never elaborates on that. Sam Harris does the same thing on many occasions for many statements. "Because I say so" seems to be an adequate reason to both of these gentlemen.

One could understand that under pressure of time we have to accept such statements without much examination, but at some point it is time to start getting into finer detail on what seem to be unsubstantiated claims. Maybe another book opportunity, but I wish some of the interviewers would follow up more.

Other Comments by LDmiller

20. Comment #23325 by DistrictSelectman on February 27, 2007 at 8:26 pm

That had to be the most challenging and fair interview of Dawkins to date. And I think Dawkins got a little off message because Crawley didn't give him the same prompts that the other hacks consistently lob at him. In particular, I think Dawkins did an inadequate job of explaining why he is on this particular crusade. It appeared to me that Crawley cowed him into backing off, e.g., the use of the word "delusion."

A good number of religious people are delusional. Many more may be merely superstitious or metaphysically romantic, but their reliance on faith insulates the delusional and corrupts pragmatic policy. One way of straightening this mess out is to delegitimize dogmatic faith. That's the argument, but Dawkins got off that message early and he never, to my mind, got back on the rails. Still, that last line was pretty sharp!

Other Comments by DistrictSelectman

21. Comment #23326 by VoxMoose on February 27, 2007 at 9:03 pm

While I think Crawley's point about questioning the underlying assumptions associated with the scientific process is philosophically interesting, it is ironic that the very process of inquiring about them in that piercing manner is, in fact, an implementation of the very process he is questioning.

Other Comments by VoxMoose

22. Comment #23328 by CDG on February 27, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Richard says: "Well tough, your life is worthless, so what?"

I love that. The arrogance of people to think they are so special as to deserve an eternity of bliss is comical. You are only a homo sapien, get over it.

Other Comments by CDG

23. Comment #23329 by chauvinj on February 27, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Labelling propels belief in some cases. For instance, a child being told he or she is fat over and over again, may later develop the belief that it must be true. From this belief, the child may grow to foster psychological disorders (e.g., Anorexia Nervosa). Although I admit this is a very crude example, it does serve a purpose. While it may be harsh to say that calling a child "Catholic" or "Muslim" is child abuse, there is certainly cases where labelling does profound psychological damage.

Other Comments by chauvinj

24. Comment #23330 by mmurray on February 27, 2007 at 10:48 pm

While I agree with the line

"The reason why happens to be because we EXPERIENCE the fruits of "common sense" and science. I"

Won't some religious people say they experience the love of god on a daily basis.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

25. Comment #23331 by Kimpatsu on February 27, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Michael, they may say it, but it won't be true. I can share my car (a fruit of science) with you, but you cannot possibly share your internal thought processes with me.

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

26. Comment #23333 by Quine on February 28, 2007 at 12:49 am

There are some basics of human nature that make religion easier to spread than to remove. Richard should remind the interviewer that atheists do not get points in heaven for converts.

Other Comments by Quine

27. Comment #23334 by Russell Blackford on February 28, 2007 at 1:13 am

Good interview. I just responded at some length on Crawley's blog.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/02/richard_dawkins_tonight_on_bbc_13.html

Hopefully, it will make sense. Some of it got a little complicated, which is the problem with these arguments.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #23335 by Kristian Z on February 28, 2007 at 1:22 am

Comment to nr. 9: Seeing religion as a tool for the powers that be to control the masses does not in any way explain why the masses in such large numbers do believe (only why someone would want them to), just as seeing telephones as a tool for communication does not explain how they actually work. So Dawkins does not miss a point, as you say, when he's confronted with the question of why people believe.

Comment to nr. 13: This is the point I felt Dawkins failed to answer properly. It is a common argument from religious people that atheists also make leaps of faith. And while that is true, both in science and in everyday life, one should argue that the leaps of faith in science and everyday life are much, much smaller than the giant leaps of faith in religion, and demonstrate with a couple of examples, such that believing the earth is round or that I had bread for breakfast today are both much smaller leaps of faith than believing in resurrection, transubstantiation or virgin birth.

Other Comments by Kristian Z

29. Comment #23338 by Ole on February 28, 2007 at 1:35 am

As many of you already said: This was very good!

Imagine if the TV people would learn from this.
How to conduct an interview, how to put forward good questions, how to use that much time, etc. etc.

Hopefully some media people will see this.

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

30. Comment #23339 by Kevin Ronayne on February 28, 2007 at 1:52 am

Just to clarify something here: at one point, RD refers to an Irish radio discussion, but what he was actually referring to was his TV appearance on "The Panel" program in early December last year.

I don't know much about William Crawley, so I wasn't sure if he was genuinely trying to trip RD up, or just acting as a "devil's advocate". Whatever his motive, it seems to have brought out the best in the Prof., who was able to answer calmly and at length. What a contrast to some other interviews! (Are you listening, CNN?)

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

31. Comment #23342 by BillySands on February 28, 2007 at 2:20 am

I like the opening comment about religion being a mental illness. It is so true

Other Comments by BillySands

32. Comment #23358 by Luthien on February 28, 2007 at 5:44 am

8. Comment #23312 by Janus on February 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm

"I couldn't watch past the first minute. I'm sorry, but to say that labelling children is child abuse is such complete nonsense. What harm does mere _labelling_ do? "

Labelling children is child abuse.

I know, I'm from Northern Ireland!

Also, check out the Muslim Council's "advice" on how to "treat" so called Muslim children in state schools (both primary and secondary)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6391271.stm?ls

"It calls for special considerations for Muslims in almost every aspect of school life: collective worship, PE, dance, swimming, exams, school meals, sex education and parents' evenings...

...Muslim children "should not be expected to participate in communal showering".

The compromise of allowing Muslim pupils to shower in bathing costumes is not acceptable either, says the guidance, because Islam also forbids being in the presence of nakedness.

Sports involving physical contact (basketball, for example) should happen only in single-gender groups.

Swimming is fraught with difficulties. Again schools are urged "to make every effort" to provide single-sex swimming lessons, as well as allowing Muslim girls to wear full leotards or leggings in the water.

During Ramadan, some pupils might wish to be excused swimming if they fear that swallowing water would break their fast.

There are many other areas in which Muslim pupils need special consideration:

they cannot take part in dance
school meals must include halal options
Islamic Studies should be offered to all Muslim pupils in RE at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level)
schools "should consider" offering Arabic to Muslim pupils.
The list is long: there are stipulations covering music, drama, art, school libraries, provision for prayers, school visits, and raffles."

Once a child is labeled, it seems they are practically the "property" of that religion, and is open to the above abuse. Once you are labeled they can say they are doing anything on your behalf. What sort of sick people put out "guidelines" to reinforce the SUPPRESSION of little girls, to the point that they can't dance, swim, or play football? How do you think the boys labeled "Muslim" will treat little girls in their class who do not cover themselves? How will they react to girls that insist on playing foorball with them???

Other Comments by Luthien

33. Comment #23368 by MouthAlmighty on February 28, 2007 at 7:01 am

At the risk of opening up some old wounds... whilst being a great way to grab attention, can we not at least agree that Dawkins' conflation of "religious labelling/teaching of children" and "child abuse" as an argumentative tool is, to say the least, problematic?

There are important valid points that absolutely need to be made about the role of religion in the education of children... Lumbering kids with an exclusive religious identity and dogma is divisive and intellectually stultifying. Allowing it to persist unquestioned has real observable consequences for society.

If the debate is even to get off the ground, parents need to start to pay attention. Calling them child abusers is one sure way to get attention but not the best way to start a debate.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

34. Comment #23370 by John Pritzlaff on February 28, 2007 at 8:00 am

About the assumption part:

In both science and faith you do have to assume, but in science you have to assume less, because the assumptions work in real life.

Other Comments by John Pritzlaff

35. Comment #23372 by LDmiller on February 28, 2007 at 8:21 am

Excellent example, luthien (#32)

Other Comments by LDmiller

36. Comment #23374 by sindiosxfa on February 28, 2007 at 8:34 am

This was a far better interview than CNN´s with Paula. I wish at least that this kind of topics were discussed on Mexican TV. I am tired of watching politicians and TV personalities talk about converting to Christianity and how they have been saved but again this is a country where religion holds the upper hand and we have plenty of gullible people.

Cheers from Mexico
No dioses por favor.

Other Comments by sindiosxfa

37. Comment #23375 by Science Goddess on February 28, 2007 at 8:34 am

Two points:
If you don't think religion is child abuse, go look at "Jesus Camp" on Youtube.

Science isn't a fact, it's a process. The only "assumptions" are those that can be shown empirically

SG

Other Comments by Science Goddess

38. Comment #23377 by AtheistAcolyte on February 28, 2007 at 8:39 am

#23317

I think we can take a page from the creationists here and comment that, under a particular model of worldviews, the basis for any given worldview is preferred to be circular for it's internal consistency. I believe Bahnsen puts this idea forward, and I happen to like it. He argues there are two criteria for any valid (read: acceptable as possibly true) bases for worldviews: (1) Internal Cohesion, and (2) Non-Arbitrariness.

If you could imagine it, then, it's possible to see a worldview as a circle (or polygon, if that helps you imagine it, as long as it's closed) consisting of segments (tenets, axioms, what-have-you) surrounding a space which contains the faith required to support the circle surrounding it (for a theist, the faith is belief in a God, belief in the various mysteries of the particular faith, etc). Then outside the circle, emerging from the axioms, is the worldview itself, all logically based off of the axioms.

I think there has probably been considerable philosophical work in this area, but I am not aware of it. I think this can ultimately resolve our problem at the worldview-level. Anyone know of any giants in the field we can stand on the shoulders of?

Other Comments by AtheistAcolyte

39. Comment #23380 by MouthAlmighty on February 28, 2007 at 8:56 am

If you don't think religion is child abuse, go look at "Jesus Camp" on Youtube.

Yes, but if, like Dawkins, you want to make a point about religious education and children per se then it would be wise to pick a more representative example, which you'll find not so easy to accomplish.

If Jesus Camp is what Dawkins is talking about then 99.9% of all religious educational institutions have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

40. Comment #23385 by Mr. Mark on February 28, 2007 at 9:42 am

Richard is correct in saying that the problem comes in labeling children as this or that, not in teaching them about things.

That said, most parents who instruct their children in things religious do NOT take the position that, "this is what I believe, I hope you find it interesting, tomorrow we shall give you another choice when we discuss Islam...atheism will be covered over the weekend...eventually, you will make your own decision." In practice, the labeling is in the teaching as the teaching is exclusive to the label being applied.

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

41. Comment #23386 by Johan on February 28, 2007 at 10:15 am

"What's so special about belief?"
It's quite ironic that Dawkins poses that question after having spent I don't know how many hours on writing The God Delusion, a book about belief.

Of course I know what he means. There is nothing so special about belief to warrant it a special, elevated position free from criticism. On the other hand, what's special about belief is that it makes people kill in the name of it.

Other Comments by Johan

42. Comment #23391 by Mark R on February 28, 2007 at 11:02 am

Quoted from k1mgy on February 27, 2007 at 7:57 pm

"I was a good man.. I was honest.. I was kind. Isn't that more important than belief?"


Professor Dawkins was coupled with a great interviewer who brought out the very best.

I'm glad I was able to see this. Dawkins' final words brought some mist to my eyes.

You are so right this was a perfect way to end a great 30 mins of discussion. North America is so lacking this type of interview though the CBC comes close at times. No commericals either or was that just great editing. It is good to watch and listen and get that feeling of full content with what i know and believe. It was deserving to see Richard have such a rewarding interview since so many panels, debates and interviews are so poorly done by the media presenting them. I can't wait for the next book so we can start watching new discussions all over again.

Other Comments by Mark R

43. Comment #23392 by Kevin Ronayne on February 28, 2007 at 11:08 am

Quote from Mark R, comment 42:

"No commericals either or was that just great editing."

The former ... my editing skills aren't *that* good, not by a long shot!! Yes, the BBC has no commercial advertisements at all. BTW, I don't know when the interview was actually recorded - it may have been the tail-end of last year.

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

44. Comment #23393 by Mark R on February 28, 2007 at 11:26 am

Well Kevin it was great you sent it in i throughly enjoyed it. I'm in Canada but a Brit but wasn't sure if commercials are being used or not. I know in North America we have to have commercials because most folks attention spans are not very long. I think thats why soccer has taken such along time to take in the USA since 45 mins of sport without a beer commercial it way to long for some.

Other Comments by Mark R

45. Comment #23396 by Steven Mading on February 28, 2007 at 11:44 am

Janus, the reason for Dawkins' attidue about categorizing children into religions being abuse (which I agree with) is this: It's dishonest to claim these children have decided to be in the religion, or have decided to believe its tenets. They're children - they don't understand yet. Leave them open to decide later. By telling them at an early age that they already believe something ("we" believe this, and "we" believe that) before they even know what it is yet, the parents are circumventing the normal process of learning and insteaed are merely brainwashing. Tell your kid about your religion, sure, teach him what its tenets are, sure, but don't lie to him and claim he was born into this world already believing it out the the womb. Religious belief is not geneticly inherited. It's learned. The child is not a member of a religion until HE says so.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

46. Comment #23397 by Steven Mading on February 28, 2007 at 11:56 am

LDmiller says in a post above: "RD has often said that if the universe were designed by a god "it would look much different", but he never elaborates on that. Sam Harris does the same thing on many occasions for many statements. "Because I say so" seems to be an adequate reason to both of these gentlemen."

The problem is that to give that specific answer, a more specific definition of god is needed first. If THIS god designed the universe, the universe would be different in THIS way, but if THAT god designed the universe, the universe would be different in THAT way, etc.

In general, the argument goes like this: In order for your god to exist in any relevant fashion, it must affect the world in some way. Otherwise the universe where it exists and the one where it doesn't are identical universes, and thus it doesn't exist. So, the claim that god could exist but not in a fashion that has any evidence (the "you just gotta have faith" line of "reasoning"), one has to be positing an irrelevant god.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

47. Comment #23398 by Mark R on February 28, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Its' hard for people or lets say parents to not influence this onto a child. It is also done in sports for an example: A child is born and they have a full Man United strip ready to wear or NFL jersey depending on dads favorite sport or team. Parents are proud of their kids following their foot steps specially in something they deeply believe. Its only natural a parent that believes his religion is "THE" religion then of course they are naturally going to force it upon their kids. If the parent had doubt's about god then letting the child make his mind up comes into it because once again its what the parents believes. I agree its wrong and is abusive but the abuse started along time before the child was born more like generations before. Religious believers are all victims of passed on myths. Only way the children will be freed from this is having parents that are already non believers or are believers but do not practice a religion in the home.

Other Comments by Mark R

48. Comment #23401 by epeeist on February 28, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Comment #23397 by Steven Mading

LDmiller says in a post above: "RD has often said that if the universe were designed by a god "it would look much different", but he never elaborates on that. Sam Harris does the same thing on many occasions for many statements.

Let us assume that an omnipotent, omniscient being does exist and created the universe. At our current stage of evolution our capacity to imagine the attributes, motives and actions of such a being are miniscule.

To imagine otherwise, and to additionally anthromorphise such a being, would be an act of hubris.

Other Comments by epeeist

49. Comment #23406 by Miri on February 28, 2007 at 1:23 pm

"Well, tough. Your life's worthless. So what?"

I was startled by this illuminating statement; in my opinion the greatest statement of the entire interview. It never occured to me, in all the many, many times I have heard the objection "but if there's no God, life is meaningless!!!" to simply respond, "TOUGH!" I would always argue life is what you make it (as Dawkins did here as well), but it never occured to me to rip that petty little cloak of comfort away from the believer by bluntly stating the actual truth.

I love Dawkins for saying that. You da MAN, Professor.

Other Comments by Miri

50. Comment #23419 by Russell Blackford on February 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Do check out the discussion on William Crawley's blog, folks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/

So far, to my surprise, I am the only person who has posted there since this thread started, but some of the earlier discussion on the equivalent thread to this is interesting.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford