1. Comment #28524 by docwhat on March 29, 2007 at 3:07 pm

You can download the podcast directly via the URL:
http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/13/9195593/npr_9195593.mp3

Other Comments by docwhat

2. Comment #28525 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 3:09 pm

More than one person called me up last night to say, "Turn on NPR! That God Delusion guy is on!" I must be gaining a reputation as a zealot.

This is a nice program for a writer to appear on as a guest -- the host actually lets them speak in complete sentences. But I must admit that even I am getting tired of RD being asked the same old questions; I don't know how he can stand it.

Keep on spreading the good news, RD!

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

3. Comment #28528 by mmurray on March 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm

But I must admit that even I am getting tired of RD being asked the same old questions; I don't know how he can stand it.

I think this web site needs a short FAQ with all the usual questions and all the usual answers.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

4. Comment #28529 by pdiff on March 29, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Stay tuned for Francis Collins tonight on Fresh Air (NPR). That should get the blood boiling :-) I'd like to see the two of them together sometime.

Pdiff

Other Comments by pdiff

5. Comment #28531 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 4:02 pm

2. Comment #28525 by Fishpeddler
"I must admit that even I am getting tired of RD being asked the same old questions"

Couldn't agree more. In this age where people can get podcasts from any interview anywhere in the world, journalists need to do their research and ask something different.

Perhaps if RD can hand prospective interviewers the top ten questions he's already been asked >100 times...

1. Aren't you just being a fundamentalist atheist?

2. Didn't Hitler, Stalin, Mao kill in the name of atheism?

3. Doesn't religion do a lot of good?

4. You can't disprove God can you?

5. Most religious people are moderate, not fundamentalist, what's wrong with this?

6. Religion seems to be built into our genes - how can you hope to get rid of it?

7. If religion is false, how come almost everyone believes in God?

8. Without God, how can people be good?

9. Can't people believe both in evolution and in God?

10. Science can't explain everything, can it?

Other Comments by Rtambree

6. Comment #28533 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:18 pm

I gotta admit it, seems I too have heard the same questions and same answers from RD over and over again. Nonetheless, I still tune in to listen to him every time I can. It all is still so great to hear these views publicly aired. And, there is always a different twist or thought that comes through as a pearl of wisdom.

Other Comments by sane1

7. Comment #28535 by davec on March 29, 2007 at 4:30 pm

As much as I am an atheist and enjoy Richard Dawkins, I have to laugh when he tries to pump up science. Yes, we're nothing more than survival machines, life is absolutely meaningless and that's just tough. But isn't science wonderful for telling us that! We live in such exciting times!

Other Comments by davec

8. Comment #28538 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm

rtambree - you say "...Perhaps if RD can hand prospective interviewers the top ten questions he's already been asked >100 times..."

Problem is, of course, many folks listening to the random interviews are presumably hearing him for the first time, unlike those of us who spend time here, and check out the new postings in the archives here regularly. How about a question and answer session designed for those of us who are well familiar with his interviews?

I'm sure there is a questioner well qualified to present new and interesting questions. Or we could submit questions in advance...just a thought...

Other Comments by sane1

9. Comment #28539 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:41 pm

davec - what is it you find amusing? I don't get your point...

Other Comments by sane1

10. Comment #28540 by Jenin on March 29, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Pdiff: Dawkins and Collins did have a debate, published in Time Magazine late last year.

Other Comments by Jenin

11. Comment #28543 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I suppose this is what Jenin was referring to:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

Other Comments by sane1

12. Comment #28544 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 5:00 pm

What a naive question she asked, paraphrasing: "Why haven't we evolved more morally? I mean there is still violence and rape and wars and decapitation."

This would be, what, "evolution by UNnatural selection?" "by moral selection?"

Other Comments by sane1

13. Comment #28545 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 5:02 pm

6. Comment #28533 by sane1

I feel the same way. I've said elsewhere on this site that I could do a fair job as a Dawkins stand-in, I often find myself saying the exact same words as him in reply to one of the "standard" questions. I don't think I would have the patience he does though, I'd get bored by it all.

Like you, I don't understand what davec is getting at either.

Other Comments by Yorker

14. Comment #28546 by Civilized Worm on March 29, 2007 at 5:03 pm

What I'm sick of is when people try to attack TGD on issues that he's already addressed in the book. I'm convinced that the majority of people haven't even bothered reading it first.

Other Comments by Civilized Worm

15. Comment #28547 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Comment #28538 by sane1 on March 29

>How about a question and answer session designed for those of us who are well familiar with his interviews?


Ok, here are ten questions I think Richard Dawkins has never been asked in public interviews...

1. If religion is ingrained in human nature (directly or via a spandrel), then what accounts for the enormous difference in religiousity between countries? e.g. Norway & England versus Iran & United States?

2. Would you change your confrontational "bad cop" (e.g. Hitchens) approach if it was demonstrated that the "good cop" (e.g. Carl Sagan or Lawrence Krauss) approach was more effective in persuading people?

3. You've indicated you're sympathetic to the political left. In England, the left has been accused of condoning the excess of Islamic fundamentalism by criticising American intervention in the Middle East. Is this fair? How would you disentangle the legitimate political grievances of Palestinians and Iraqis from the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam?

4. If there is a bell curve of religious belief with atheists on one end, moderates in the middle and fundamentalists on the other end, do you think there's an underlying biological or social explanation explaining the distribution?

5. Are some people just hard-wired for conservatism or belief regardless of how much evidence or argument they are confronted with?

6. How can some scientists and other educated intellectuals such as Francis Collins and Robert Winston compartmentalise their scientific literacy and belief?

7. In a democracy, if the majority of people want funding of faith schools, how do you argue against that?

8. Your next TV program is about other irrational superstitions - what aspects are you dealing with? New Age? Tarot? Astrology? Acupuncture?

9. Would you agree that atheists and fundamentalists have one thing in common - you both recognise that evolution is a threat to religious belief. Are moderates more intellectually lazy in not reconciling the two?

10. Why do you still call evolution "Darwinism"? Doesn't this allow critics to highlight problems in the 1859 view of evolution? Why not simply call the modern synthesis "evolution"?

Any more?

Other Comments by Rtambree

16. Comment #28550 by BaronOchs on March 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm

In answer to 10 "Evolution" is quite broad, it could include Lamarckism for instance. The mechanism by which it proceeds is the one Darwin proposed and Darwinism is worth keeping despite what people might throw.

Any how good questions, particularly 1,3,7 and 9.

It might be a bit presumptuous for him to give a clear answer to 6, also strong biological determinist ideas lurking beneath 4 and 5 though it would be interesting to see how he'd respond.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

17. Comment #28553 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 5:22 pm

rtambree, interesting questions all!

I hope this idea will catch on, and more questions will be submitted, and edited into an interesting interview that can be recorded and posted. Maybe a forum topic on this site on this idea would be worthwhile. I wonder if RD would be interested…? I haven't spent much time in the forums, but may do so later…

I must be an RD junkie, though, because I have heard him address some of these, and might even be able tell you where on at least one of them, if memory serves. I have heard him respond to Question 2 several times, or at least to the charge that his approach is politically or strategically unwise. One of the most interesting was at the Beyond Belief conference (mentioned on the home page), where he was engaged by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, among others. I'm sure that some of the other debates or discussions available in the archives also get at this topic.

Other Comments by sane1

18. Comment #28554 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm

15. Comment #28547 by Rtambree

It could be fun this game! We could take turns in playing "Dawkins-baiter", see who could pose the most difficult questions.

For now, I'll take a stab at being Dawkins with your 10 questions.

1. I think Dawkins might answer like E.O. Wilson here, i.e. upbringing, frontier country etc.

2. Dawkins already said during the Beyond Belief conference that his "bad cop" approach may have been a mistake.

3. Difficult one, but I'm sure he'd say that religion was hopelessly compounding political issues no matter what countries were involved.

4. Difficult to be Dawkins here, but he would broadly say no.

5. He'd say no, largely a matter of upbringing.

6. He'd be hard pressed to give an exact answer, as I am! In some cases I think there's more going on than we can see, it's not only compartmentalisation.

7. Try to make the people more aware of the folly of divisive sectarian schools; give examples; encourage them to change their minds.

8. All forms of non-religious charlatanry.

9. Moderates prevent reconciliation, they legitimise fundamentalism.

10. Mainly to honour Darwin, critics highlighting problems, is not a problem for me!

That was just a quick stab off the top of my head, most of the questions need longer answers than I gave. :)

Other Comments by Yorker

19. Comment #28555 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 5:34 pm

17. Comment #28553 by sane1

OK, change Question #2 to "Are you planning to write a second edition of the God Delusion that takes onboard and expands upon all the criticisms in response to the first edition?"

Other Comments by Rtambree

20. Comment #28556 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Well...I did just post a question in the forum "post your questions" asking if we could arrange such an interview with questions from users of this site...

Other Comments by sane1

21. Comment #28557 by MelM on March 29, 2007 at 5:43 pm

In some ways, a disappointing interview!

"...Christain culture..."?
What about Greek science and philosophy? I suppose this is an unfortunate incompete answer by Dawkins but it's exactly the position taken by the wingnuts--they use it to push a Christion version of history.

"...should be taught the Bible..."?
Right! The National Council On Bible Curriculum" and the "Bible Literacy Project" Trojan Horses will love to hear this from Richard Dawkins. Fits right in with the April 2 Times article. He surely doesn't advocate these wingnut curriculum ideas but the quote can be picked up anyway. Damn.

Jesus On Love: (The Brick Testament)
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_love/lk06_17p20p27.html


The interviewer did her homework though. She asked a lot of questions that listeners might ask. Man, we (Americans) are really all screwed up about religion. It makes me sad to see so many take it all so seriously.

BTW, the same questions over and over again is what will happen; get used to it. When Dawkins can't stand it anymore, then worry.

Other Comments by MelM

22. Comment #28561 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Thanks for the tip about the Francis Collins interview, pdiff -- I just listened to it. It did, however, make me feel like I'm becoming bipolar. Terry would ask Collins a dna/genomeproject/evolution question and I'd think, "This guy is sensible and interesting. I could listen to him all day." Then he'd field a religion question and I'd think, "This guy is out to lunch. I can hardly stand to listen." Logical errors a 10 year old would be ashamed of.

Oops. Pizza is done. Gotta go.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

23. Comment #28567 by davyB on March 29, 2007 at 8:06 pm

I listened to the Francis Collins interview. He is a master of doublethink. I would like to hear him and Dr. Dawkins on the same bill.

Collins may serve as a useful "intermediate form" though. He tells the other evangelicals that Darwin was dead-on right, and there's no doubt about it. Learning that one has been wrong about one thing might cause a person to wonder what else they've been wrong about.

Other Comments by davyB

24. Comment #28568 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 8:29 pm

From The Collins Interview on that same NPR page:

"Do you think it was inappropriate to bring god into the public announcement of the completion of the genome project?" ... Great question, he gave the wrong answer.

He understands that we and yeast have a common ancestor, yet seems to think its about god's handiwork. What god is he talking about?

He thinks God exists ...because we have a sense of "right and wrong"... Wow!

...Because we exist in this universe....? Compelling!

And - Because god exists "outside of nature," science can't find god - you have to use your "spiritual sense." Oh.

Such annoying logic and self delusion makes me want to cry. But now I see how this bizarre compartmentalization sounds from a serious scientist.

Other Comments by sane1

25. Comment #28570 by Quine on March 29, 2007 at 8:55 pm

I have posted a long reply to Dr. Collins on the Forum:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11638

Other Comments by Quine

26. Comment #28583 by relevo on March 30, 2007 at 1:21 am

To the Collins' of the world, I think you then have to present the Earl Doherty, and Bob Prices of the world to show there is no evidential reason to resort to religious mythical explanations over materialistic existence. What scientists like Dawkins need to do if they wish to carry their point further, is not only keep spreading the psychological explanations for why there have been god concepts, but then move forth to present the scientifically accurate explanation (in other words, the correct Anthropology) over religious ideas in the world today. Realize that Dr. Collins doesn't just believe a generic God concept; he professes to believe the religious mythology as well which follows in accordance with his fabled tale of a Jesus Christ genetic programmer in the sky looking over every little coded molecular segment. As a scientist, this is just plain dishonest.

Other Comments by relevo

27. Comment #28585 by amesolaire on March 30, 2007 at 1:38 am

@15. Comment #28547 by Rtambree

Very good questions, although #6 is one that he's been asked on numerous occasions. His answer is as #18 Yorker suggested. For instance here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7693473384477811817
(start at around 7:40)

Other Comments by amesolaire

28. Comment #28591 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 3:21 am

This was a quite "Dawkins-friendly" interview. Indeed, I shall stick my neck out a little here and say that one or two questions were loaded; perhaps I'm too cynical, but I've noticed this before.

For example, at the start of the interview Richard was asked to compare the real age of the Earth with the 6K year creationist version. This was a perfect opportunity for him to use his oft-quoted "distance between two cities reply" most of you will be familiar with. Doesn't it seem odd that an interviewer would word the question in such a way if she didn't already know the answer?

I've seen other examples in videos where similar things have happened, mind you, I don't see a whole lot wrong with it except that if I see it, so will others and that cheapens Dawkins a bit and leaves him open to attack. So far he's got away with it because hostile interviewers probably haven't done their homework in depth, like people here have.

But as I said, perhaps I'm just too cynical or my BDK detector is at too high a sensitivity setting.

Other Comments by Yorker

29. Comment #28593 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 3:29 am

27. Comment #28585 by amesolaire

I like Paxman and enjoy watching him grill politicians, but even he was fairly easy on Dawkins in that clip. It was clear also that Richard had respect for Paxman because of the way he mollified him slightly. If all interviewers were tigers like Paxman and Dawkins fared well against them, it would strengthen our case even more.

Edited.

I think that the people here know Dawkins better than most and therefore could become his severest ctitics if they so desired. Casual visitors would see the glaring difference between us and catholics for example, who wouldn't dare question their "hero".

Other Comments by Yorker

30. Comment #28595 by Rtambree on March 30, 2007 at 3:56 am

27. Comment #28585 by amesolaire

>#6 is one that he's been asked on numerous occasions.

In the Paxman interview, he doesn't actually answer #6 - i.e. *how* the compartmentalisation takes place. In Beyond Belief, Neil deGrasse Tyson was commenting on the statistics that 92% of members the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. For him, the mystery was the 8% that weren't. How can someone who is highly educated, highly scientifically literate STILL continue believing??

Until we understand this, it undermines the idea of promoting atheism and science education (TGD) if there's still a residual of people that will believe no matter what.

I'd like to invite Dawkins to speculate (of course no one knows) as to *how* compartmentalisation takes place, because it suggests a biological determinism to religion, and not upbringing or the environment. Some of my other questions in that top 10 list allude to that.

If there is a hard-wiring, then religion will never be eliminated, especially if religious people outbreed the non-religious. We can only hope to reduce the virility and fervour of it.

Of course, there may be other effects. If, say, 60% of the population became atheists, including all celebrities, politicians, and role models, then the Herd Instinct may do the rest and tip it to 95%+

However, most irreligious countries didn't become that way because of a top-down advocacy or banning, but by raising living standards, social welfare, and science literacy.

The less you need God, the less you believe in him.

If you plot religiousity and standard of living on a graph for all 190 countries, there's a clear inverse relationship. The USA is an exception, but almost all other countries follow this rule.

Other Comments by Rtambree

31. Comment #28603 by Philip1978 on March 30, 2007 at 4:56 am

There is something I don't understand and I would like someone's help with this.
Mr Collins argues that he does not see that the "...basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it."
Which god is this? I will bet an awful lot on it being the god of the bible.
Right, we have a book, one magic book, written in the 1st century copying the works of other mythological stories, eg the Egyptian story of Osiris being fantastically similar to the story of Jesus etc ad infinatum
So by rights a group of men (women obviously excluded because of their treatment in the book!) wrote this story, not a god. I am with Sam Harris on this one, the way the bible is written it most definitely sounds like the thinking of a 1st century human than that of a god inspired text.

How can a 21st century man, whose research into a subject I look at in bewildered and staggered awe considering its complexity, who understands this subject better than the majority of people on this planet, can say, "yes, its all done by magic!"?

Mr Collins, if you happen to read this, can you help me? I really cannot grasp the logic of the situation, why does it have to be the christian god and not the flying spaghetti monster? Both are as illogical as each other, both created by human minds, not a deity's. Dont give me that "god's laws are above all of physics, biology, chemistry and nature's and that we are not supposed to be able to understand them, only to believe them" statement, that simply does not explain where your god came from. As far as I understand man created god, not the other way around, so if you could please give it some thought and provide me with a proper answer I would be most grateful, many thanks, Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

32. Comment #28604 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 4:59 am

30. Comment #28595 by Rtambree

"I'd like to invite Dawkins to speculate (of course no one knows) as to *how* compartmentalisation takes place, because it suggests a biological determinism to religion, and not upbringing or the environment. Some of my other questions in that top 10 list allude to that."

I've considered this "god gene" myself but rejected it because I can't see how such a mechanism could come about. If such a gene exists, it doesn't exist in me because I've never had a god and for as long as I can remember, I've considered the idea ridiculous. In addition, how is it that a person can reject god and become atheistic if there's a biological reason for belief? I'm not a biologist so I don't know, but I can't see how one can "think" a gene away, therefore I'm convinced that religion is purely learned. If you study the difference between an intelligent believer and a less intelligent one, the differences are often huge. The simpleton buys the entire tale, the smarty cherry picks; this again, would imply control over genes by thought. I don't see how that's possible.

I said earlier that it may not be compartmentalisation, e.g. for some unscrupulous scientists, professing a belief in God can be very lucrative, just ask some Templeton prizewinners!

Other Comments by Yorker

33. Comment #28606 by Rtambree on March 30, 2007 at 5:02 am

7. Comment #28535 by davec

>Yes, we're nothing more than survival machines, life is absolutely meaningless and that's just tough.

Well, it works both ways. It's a "glass is half full or empty" scenario. While science undermines our anthropocentric biases, it also liberates us from kneeling before God(s), from having priests tell us what we should do, from the fear of having a psychopath in the sky judge us for failings He gave us and then sending us to eternal torture.

Other Comments by Rtambree

34. Comment #28608 by ridelo on March 30, 2007 at 5:10 am

Yorker:

I think that the people here know Dawkins better than most and therefore could become his severest ctitics if they so desired. Casual visitors would see the glaring difference between us and catholics for example, who wouldn't dare question their "hero".

I don't know the catholics you're frequenting but, here in Belgium, most of my catholic friends (mostly teachers, even science teachers) are strongly criticising the pope. I only don't understand why they don't take the next step namely giving up religion. I've had many discussions with them but it's difficult to get the message trough without offending them. Pity!

Other Comments by ridelo

35. Comment #28609 by Rtambree on March 30, 2007 at 5:12 am

32. Comment #28604 by Yorker

Agreed. All countries have roughly the same genetic variation, and yet some are highly religious and some have low religiousity, so it can't be genes.

Winston, Collins, McGrath, Polkinghorne, & Turner, etc are abnormal cases that buck the trend of scientific literacy and atheism, but it'd still be fascinating to find out how the mechanism of compartmentalism works neurologically.

Unfortunately media interviews and debates are far too superficial to get to the bottom of this. You'd need an extended discussion where you relentlessly thrashed out each specific issue (e.g. miracles, creation, unID, scriptural inconsistency, etc) until you got to the root cause.

Other Comments by Rtambree

36. Comment #28611 by ridelo on March 30, 2007 at 5:25 am

I would like to ask a question to a believer.
You could choose between two systems:
1) you live your life and after death there's total oblivion just as before you were conceived.
2) you have a 50/50 chance to go to heaven with eternal bliss (whatever that may signify) or to hell with eternal burning (that's long, especially towards the end - Woody Allen) after making some stupid mistake.
What system would you prefer?
But I suppose that a true believer (or beleiver?) doesn't have the choice...

Other Comments by ridelo

37. Comment #28617 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 6:11 am

34. Comment #28608 by ridelo

Well ridelo, you evidently know more intelligent catholics than I do. If I were you I'd ask your catholic science teacher friend how it's possible that someone who believes in magic can become a science teacher? Also I would have thought that doubting their pope would be sinful, but probably they're just hypocrites, I've never met a catholic who isn't.

Other Comments by Yorker

38. Comment #28618 by Helian on March 30, 2007 at 6:24 am

I'm an atheist, and have been an admirer of Richard Dawkins. I can no longer admire him after reading "The God Delusion," for reasons I summarize at:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/from_one_atheis.html

Dawkins is really a very religious man. It just happens his religion doesn't include a God. It is a more or less vanilla version of European "progressive" ideology, with all the anti-American trappings. I have lived in the US, and have been an atheist since the age of 12. As an atheist, I have been very sensitive to manifestations of religious zealotry in America, both now and in the past. I find Dawkins' observations on religion in America uniformly slanted, biased, ill-informed and, occasionally, outright lies. For example, we read in his book about "the famous environmental policy of Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior: 'We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.'" This "quote" seemed bogus to me when I read it. In fact, it is bogus, as anyone can check for themselves, either at the link below:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5244&R=EDF54E1

or simply by Googling the story. It is truly unfortunate, not to mention shameful to me as an atheist, that Dawkins, who claims to be an earnest searcher after and vindicator of the truth, would uncritically publish such a lie. If he has not already done so, I hope he will publicly apologize for doing so in the near future.

Other Comments by Helian

39. Comment #28619 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 6:28 am

Ridelo,

Your comment fired off my memories of a long dead friend of mine, he was a catholic priest. In private conversation he never mentioned religion and his manner of speech was entirely normal, the word "fuck" frequently issued forth from him. One day over a drink, I took the risk and asked him why he was able to behave the way he did considering his profession. He replied that he trusted me as a friend and felt able to tell me that he became a priest because it was simply a good job! Free house with a free housekeeper, free groceries, meat and fish from his faithful flock etc. He ended by saying if I told anyone it would be no problem, who's word would be believed, mine or that of a priest?

Other Comments by Yorker

40. Comment #28620 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

38. Comment #28618 by Helian

Oooh Helian! You're either a fool or have a lot of balls to say something like that here! You'd better brace yourself for a broadside! I have to go shopping but I expect this thread will have grown larger by the time I return.

Other Comments by Yorker

41. Comment #28621 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 6:47 am

Dawkins is really a very religious man.

BURN THE BLASPHEMER .... DISEMBOWEL THE HERETIC!!! Inchoherent yowlings ......

You DARE to impugn the glorious name of DAWKINS. Why yie oughta .....

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

42. Comment #28622 by Philip1978 on March 30, 2007 at 6:50 am

Helian,
Good arguements, but I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick somewhat concerning what Professor Dawkins refers to as the "American Taliban", he is not referring to every single American Christian. http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
Go to this site for more of an idea as to what he was referring to, these people are no better than the real Taliban in the way they treat people.
Remember the United States is an extremely powerful and influential country, the fact that religion governs policy making should worry you a little, possibly I have been reading too much Sam Harris but the point is a good one. Plus atheists are not treated well in America and from what I understand from the God Delusion, that is what Professor Dawkins was referring to.
The professor is no fanatic as I see it, I dont know the man personally so will not pretend this is his complete view, but I understand that if he was presented with conclusive proof and evidence contrary to his own he would be willing to accept those ideas. A religious fanatic would never do such a thing, he would shout scream and possibly threaten your health at some point, do you honestly see him doing that?
I would be interested to hear your views on this, I dont know enough about the Ronald Reagan thing but will look into it to see what I can learn about it, cheers, Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

43. Comment #28624 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:03 am

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5244&R=EDF54E1

Huh, looks like Richard did let one through here. Why don't you take it up with him, see if you can get a retraction?

It must be clear to you that Richard would have delegated the bulk of this kind of research to lackeys? Such a loss of "faith" in the first pope of atheisim is hardly warranted for such a pecadillo.

If the theists can maintain their faith in the face of thousands of years of disappointment, slaughter and hypocrisy, surely you brave brother can forgive his Richardness a modest error of research?

Can you find it in your heart brother, can you? I'm sure Richard will be suitably pleased if you point it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt
Besides. James Watt is a religious nut, who couldn't give a toss about the environment, that part was certainly correct. In fact, I can't imagine why you found the quote so "bogus" given his many other bizarre utterings.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

44. Comment #28627 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:11 am

As an atheist, I have been very sensitive to manifestations of religious zealotry in America, both now and in the past. I find Dawkins' observations on religion in America uniformly slanted, biased, ill-informed and, occasionally, outright lies.

Well you must have something of a tin ear. I spend a fair bit of time talking to these people, and a casual glance at Bush and his record must surely disabuse of your illusions?

These people are a minority sure, but they are a virulent cancer in the global body that is wreaking some serious damage. Just ask half a million iraqis ... oh wait, you can't, THEY'RE DEAD.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

45. Comment #28628 by ClemIsMe on March 30, 2007 at 7:13 am

As to the repeated questions...and assuming no addressed it yet... I go to a lot of forums and answer the same questions over and over again ofr the same reason: new readers/listeners. Not everyone has heard the responses. WE have, but we already knew there was no God. It's always about the new students, the new friends and the lurkers. At least that's how I feel.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

46. Comment #28630 by ridelo on March 30, 2007 at 7:28 am

Helian, it seems that atheists come in many flavors. You say you're an atheist since the age of 12. Maybe you should for some time convert to a religion (try catholicism), read some Dawkins and maybe reconvert. I have the impression that you've not fully understood him.
And when you say you know a lot of educated fundamentalists are they people who revel in videos like this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1t5gGQkKs
But maybe you're only trolling around a bit and also those who made this video. Who knows with all that bogus information streaming trough the Web thes days?

Other Comments by ridelo

47. Comment #28636 by Helian on March 30, 2007 at 7:50 am

@Philip1978

"Remember the United States is an extremely powerful and influential country, the fact that religion governs policy making should worry you a little, possibly I have been reading too much Sam Harris but the point is a good one."

The United States is also a universally hated nation, as documented, among other places, on Medienkritik, the site where I posted my original article. See, for example, the selection of "Spiegel" magazine covers currently posted at the top. This hatred, is irrational, ideologically motivated, and a classic expression of the type of out-group association Dawkins occasionally refers to in his books. The reasons for its existence should not be difficult for anyone to imagine who is familiar with such similar expressions of irrational hate as anti-Semitism, racism, and religious bigotry. One would think this fact would be abundantly clear to a student of Tinbergen. Under the circumstances, it seems one should be extremely circumspect about promoting or condoning that hate with reckless exaggerations.

I am by no means suggesting that criticism of the United States should not be allowed. Far from it. I am suggesting that, when criticism of the US is palpably biased, slanted, exaggerated, and takes into account only the facts that seem to support a given ideological point of view, it amounts, not to legimate criticism, but to thinly disquised hate-mongering. In the case of the German media propagandists, this hate-mongering is quite deliberate, and done with a view to the bottom line. One would hope that, in the case of Prof. Dawkins, it is not deliberate, but, rather, that he has been unduly influenced by the propagandists.

I am far from being unaware of the activities of the religious right in the US, nor do I consider them harmless. Being an atheist myself, I am also aware that there are serious levels of discrimination against atheists. I will be glad to stand up with anyone here to counter this discrimination and the meddling in politics of the religious right. However, by uncritically buying into anti-American propaganda, one does not counter them. One simply enhances their power.

"The professor is no fanatic as I see it, I dont know the man personally so will not pretend this is his complete view, but I understand that if he was presented with conclusive proof and evidence contrary to his own he would be willing to accept those ideas."

This is certainly more likely to be true of an atheist than a religious believer. I hope it is true in the case of Prof. Dawkins.

"I would be interested to hear your views on this,..."

It seems to me that, especially in his chapter on the new "moral Zeitgeist," Prof. Dawkins has gone from simply documenting the phenomenon, to perceiving it as "the good" himself. In his own mind, it seems the "moral Zeitgeist" has achieved a real existence of its own, has become an objective thing rather than a subjective expression of the wiring of an evolved brain, and, in the process, he has begun to perceive it as an absolute good in itself. He has an emotional attachment to this version of "the good."

That's not surprising in itself. We all have the same innate tendencies. I certainly am no exception. My constant tendency is to perceive my personal version of morality as an absolute, just like everyone else. However, a scientist must be wary of this tendency, and cannot prefer a particular version of morality, especially when it is associated with a more or less coherent ideology, without abandoning the search for truth in the process.

Note, by the way, Steven Pinker's article in the March 17 (or thereabouts) issue of "The New Republic," where he also discusses the "moral Zeitgeist." I can only hope Pinker, another thinker I have greatly admired, is merely documenting the development of a social phenomenon, and is not becoming one of the "virtuous" himself. If he is becoming wobbly, too, than I will be forced to conclude that I am becoming an endangered species as a "virgin atheist."

Other Comments by Helian

48. Comment #28637 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 7:51 am

Since I'm largely responsible for this theme of "how can RD stand to keep answering the same questions?", I should note that I in no way resent the questioners. There are over 2 billion adherents to Abrahamic religions alone. I acknowledge that they are not all going to get the message from a single interview. I mostly wanted to express my admiration for RD's willingness to do this. He is widely criticized for being curmudgeonly (undeservedly, I feel. I would call him 'impolitic'), but it's amazing that he doesn't just go postal (hope that isn't too much of an Americanism).

I really like the idea people are tossing around of a format for serious and engaged atheists to ask RD some questions. I have found a lot of excellent books about atheism, but most of them start from the basics, assuming this is the reader's first introduction to the topic. I feel like I'm ready to take on the masters-level course. Can anyone suggest a place to start? Or is TGD essentially the top of the heap?

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

49. Comment #28639 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 8:00 am

However, by uncritically buying into anti-American propaganda, one does not counter them. One simply enhances their power.

I've heard this line before, and been frequently accused of anti-americanism. I'd be interested to hear you define what you consider to be "anti-American propaganda", citing some examples.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

50. Comment #28640 by Helian on March 30, 2007 at 8:03 am

I like Jean Meslier's book the best. Voltaire said it was "written in the style of a carriage horse," but I find it very clear, and a devastating refutation of belief in a deity. When you take into account the fact that it was written over a hundred years before "Origin of Species" by a man who spent his life as a country priest, it renews your faith in human intelligence.

Other Comments by Helian