1. Comment #34302 by amazeen on April 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm

As usual Professor Dawkins presents himself very well, and answers questions and comments rationally and well.

Other Comments by amazeen

2. Comment #34304 by plexer on April 23, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Prof. Dawkins was mistaken when he said that he believed that there were no laws against atheists holding public office.

The initial research was done by imrational from youtube.

I checked around and there are more than he quotes in his film. Just a couple laws here stating that atheists cannot hold public office.

Arkansas constitution: article 19 section 1
Maryland bill or rights: declaration of rights article 37
Pennsylvania declaration of rights: article 1 section 4
Tennessee bill of rights: article 9 section 2
North Carolina constitution: article 6 section 8
South Carolina constitution: article 4 section 2
Texas bill of rights: section 4

I don't know if they are enforced, but they exist.

Other Comments by plexer

3. Comment #34307 by Rtambree on April 23, 2007 at 7:06 pm

This was a better interview, although regulars on this site will have heard it all before:

1. Why do so many people believe?
2. Don't people need to believe?
3. What's the survival advantage of religion?
4. Why do you think religion does more harm than good?
5. Different terms for atheism e.g. Humanism & Brights
6. Is Dawkins spiritual?
7. Isn't the Big Bang also a Creation?
8. How can you be so certain there's no God?
9. Are atheists discriminated against?

All autopilot stuff - press #3 for the Zeus argument, press #9 for the teapot, press #7 for the consolation versus truth retort.

If someone here could do a good Dawkins accent, perhaps he could give Dawkins a hand with the PR.

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #34311 by MIND_REBEL on April 23, 2007 at 7:16 pm

Prof Dawkins is amazing. The movement is so strong, and it's a great feeling knowing that we're changing the world for the better.

Atheism will truimph where religion has failed.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

5. Comment #34316 by k1mgy on April 23, 2007 at 7:22 pm

This is worth a listen, particularly for the (clearly religious) caller who made a pathetic attempt at trapping Dr. Dawkins by equating the "big bang" with a creator.

The caller's painful logic went thusly: the big bang was a creation, therefore it must have had a creator.

A suitable trouncing followed.

Other Comments by k1mgy

6. Comment #34353 by vavictus on April 23, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Good Stuff,

Dawkins is getting better and better at communicating his views.
He was already excellent, but he's improved nonetheless.

Other Comments by vavictus

7. Comment #34394 by MartinSGill on April 24, 2007 at 12:29 am

I looked into those laws about not being able to hold office when I first heard about them; I consider them a travesty and a legacy of the dark ages.

They are not enforced because any state that tried to enforce them would lose when it came to the supreme court (costing them loads of money and a lot of embarrassment) and they know it.

As an example, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that having to swear an oath to a supreme being was illegal and a breach of the 1st amendment.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/silverman.htm

Other Comments by MartinSGill

8. Comment #34412 by Robert Maynard on April 24, 2007 at 2:15 am

Faaantastic.
Ditto vavictus's comment.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

9. Comment #34416 by Logicel on April 24, 2007 at 2:20 am

Interesting interview. Though little what is new or not been discussed before was on the table, I take these interviews to be like refresher courses in a topic in which I am very interested.

The show host is a typical NYC inhabitant--plain spoken, direct, and blunt. And of course as a native New Yorker myself, I always get a kick out of the accents and place names like Greenpoint--that densely populated northern tip of the borough of Brooklyn, nestled under what I would imagine is still a fairly smelly Newton creek.

Other Comments by Logicel

10. Comment #34421 by Dog Boots on April 24, 2007 at 2:34 am

"I take it you weren't listening to the first part of the show"

...priceless!!

Other Comments by Dog Boots

11. Comment #34436 by leigh on April 24, 2007 at 4:03 am

Just a little note on an argument that has proven powerful for me in rebutting people who suggest that a personal God might be hiding behind the process of evolution, or set it all in motion.
Professor Dawkins referred to the inelegance and lack of need for such a hypothesis which only requires further explanation in which he is of course correct.
On top of this, the evolution of concious beings on earth has been a contingent process where extra terrestrially induced mass extinctions and other stochastic events are likely to have played a role in forming the composistion of organisms we see today.

Furthermore the common misconception of evolution as a linear process marching inevitably towards complex, concious beings with Homo sapiens as the target and pinacle pervades these types of arguments.
There is nothing inherent in the process of evolution by natural selection that inevitably leads to complexity and subsequently consciousness. Only that organisms will be adapted to their environment. Life did perfectly well for 3 billion years before we came along.
Thus if some creator did start the process of evolution, whether by providing the spark that generated the first self replicating molecules, or creating DNA which superseded those molecules, or some alien who stopped to visit the loo; they couldn't have had humans (or intelligent life) in mind.

Other Comments by leigh

12. Comment #34445 by mjwemdee on April 24, 2007 at 5:14 am

A lovely interview. I hope the US has many similar opportunities to hear a civilised, unrushed interview with Dawkins.
I was fascinated to hear Brian Lehrer, in passing, note that second children are typically less likely to be obedient and accepting of their parents' wisdom than first children [and hence, presumably, less likely to pass on the religious meme]. Has there been any research on this?
(I only ask as my atheism has - if I think about it - always been part of my make-up, whereas my older sister is fully paid-up born-again Christian.)

Other Comments by mjwemdee

13. Comment #34447 by Hugo on April 24, 2007 at 5:28 am

Good interview, I agree with comment #34353 by vavictus, Dr. Dawkins is getting better and better ;-)

PS. So dutch is the only translation available for now, I got the translation because my family is not as fluent in english as I am.

Other Comments by Hugo

14. Comment #34476 by upsidedawn on April 24, 2007 at 7:18 am

Mjwemdee, I also was interested in Brian Lehrer's mention of second children being less obedient, so I looked up the name Dr. Dawkins mentioned, Frank Sulloway, who studied and wrote a book, Born to Rebel, about personality as it relates to birth order: http://www.sulloway.org/borntorebel.html

Other Comments by upsidedawn

15. Comment #34478 by mmurray on April 24, 2007 at 7:26 am

Thus if some creator did start the process of evolution, whether by providing the spark that generated the first self replicating molecules, or creating DNA which superseded those molecules, or some alien who stopped to visit the loo; they couldn't have had humans (or intelligent life) in mind.

Yes they could have us in mind. They just decided to do get to us by a really complicated method: -- poke a bit of pond slime, lob in a meteorite .... Why did they do it that way ? The answer is of course that no-one did anything but if you are religious you will just say that it is all god Moving In Mysterious Ways

:-)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

16. Comment #34481 by whirledviews on April 24, 2007 at 7:30 am

Very nice interview. Unfortunately, here in the US I think most folks will be exposed to Dr. Dawkins on either the Colbert Report or The O'Reilly Factor.

Other Comments by whirledviews

17. Comment #34484 by John Hyperion on April 24, 2007 at 7:50 am

Leigh, that's a brilliant point that I hadn't come across before.

Other Comments by John Hyperion

18. Comment #34507 by flyingscot on April 24, 2007 at 9:25 am

Yet another good interview. I really enjoyed this one. RD was brilliant.

Other Comments by flyingscot

19. Comment #34519 by mjwemdee on April 24, 2007 at 10:32 am

Comment #34476

Thanks upsidedawn for ferreting out that website. I'll certainly be researching that further...

Other Comments by mjwemdee

20. Comment #34531 by Conrad on April 24, 2007 at 11:47 am

I find it infuriating to repeatedly hear the accusation of "arrogance" coming from the lips of christians. But to then have the host support the accusation without leaving time for an answer is mindboggeling. That the very idea of evidence should be so unthinkable and strange to such people is continually disheartening.

How can one say that an atheist is arrogant for sticking to what the evidence does or does not say? Moreover how can one say that, while at the same time holding a belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, which has no evidence whatsoever in support of it and the whole of biology arguing against it!?

Who then is arrogant?

Other Comments by Conrad

21. Comment #34540 by Conrad on April 24, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Another topic that needs to be addressed is this idea that not being able to prove something true or false to an absolute degree of certainty should then leave us at a "4" as it were, in the scale of belief. This idea of being totally noncommittal would seem to leave open the possibility of the truth of a claim. And when people talk about Fairies or Wotan (who I'm sure most people have no knowledge of whatsoever) they have no fear of the consequences that are said to happen whenever these god's are disobeyed. So in these cases it seems easy to claim that we should remain at "4" in our level of disbelief.

But what if we were to add a consequence to these unprovable ideas, much like those we have with the Judeo-Christian god?
What if we say that the unprovable fairies dictate that you may not leave your house before nightfall or they will electrocute you? Are we to suppose that the host of the radio program would treat this as a possibility, not being able to prove or disprove the claim, and therefore play it safe by staying inside? Or would we expect that he, like everyone else, would put no belief in this claim and not act as though the possibility of it existence were even probable? In short, because of a lack of evidence for the claim, they'd be atheistic towards it?

Doesn't acting against the electocuting faries wishes generally mean you don't think they exist? (Baring the silly idea that you follow the "anti-fairy" and your disobediance is based on belief and also antagonism) And is that anywhere near a "4" on the scale? I don't think so.

Other Comments by Conrad

22. Comment #34544 by Thrall on April 24, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Spot on. A few thoughts:

1) Many Ancient civilizations believed in dragon like creatures, so does that make dragons real?

2) I've recently read an article that shows that some apes' genes have evolved beyond ours to help them survive. Which is an interesting point to think about.

Other Comments by Thrall

23. Comment #34548 by Jiten on April 24, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Did anyone else notice Brian Lehrer mention that RD won the Lewis Thomas prize?

Let me be the first to say Congragulations!!

Other Comments by Jiten

24. Comment #34554 by Richard H on April 24, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Richard often uses the example of fairies to show how one cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist, but no one seriously believes fairies exist.

Apparantly some woman named Doreen Virtue, PhD does:

http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Fairies-Messages-Manifestations-World/dp/1561708070/ref=sr_1_37/102-3719839-2861739?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177445390&sr=1-37

Other Comments by Richard H

25. Comment #34586 by philos on April 24, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Lewis Thomas prize info:

http://www.rockefeller.edu/events/lewis_thomas/2006/

Other Comments by philos

26. Comment #34590 by mark1958 on April 24, 2007 at 3:27 pm

No matter what one believes, this should be required listening for all.

Other Comments by mark1958

27. Comment #34618 by mjwemdee on April 24, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Yes, it's true, apparently. Doreen Virtue is away with the fairies!

Other Comments by mjwemdee

28. Comment #34621 by roach on April 24, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Thrall said: " I've recently read an article that shows that some apes' genes have evolved beyond ours to help them survive. Which is an interesting point to think about."

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Got any links?

Other Comments by roach

29. Comment #34635 by the_blur on April 24, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Splendid, brilliant interview.

Other Comments by the_blur

30. Comment #34656 by Veronique on April 24, 2007 at 7:59 pm

12. Comment #34445 by mjwemdee

I am a second child. I am certainly more rebellious than my older brother and my younger sister. My brother and I are atheists (so was our pater), my sister took up Vipassana Buddhism in her twenties. We are all now in our sixties.

There are studies to do with second and/or middle children and some evidence exists for more outspokenness and rebellion. The parents are not 'new' parents anymore and seem less anxious about 'doing the right thing' whatever that may mean to any particular set of parents. There appears to be more freedom allowed to second children that accounts for part of what Brian was talking about. And yes, both my sons are atheists as well.

You could google psychology reviews and search for the studies. I can't remember looking at them since I did psych myself, years ago.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

31. Comment #34661 by un_ko on April 24, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Dear fellow readers, here is a FULL TRANSCRIPT of the interview:

http://evolutionspace.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/transcript-of-brian-lehrer-interviewing-richard-dawkins/

Since this is quite a good and educational radio interview (so much better than the highly anticipated O'Reilly interview!), and I could not find any transcript of it, I have taken some time and written down the whole interview transcript.

Please note that as it currently stands, there are certain words that I could not understand, which I marked with "[???]". Any help and correction on the transcript is much appreciated.

Cheers.


Other Comments by un_ko

32. Comment #34765 by _J_ on April 25, 2007 at 7:03 am

31. Comment #34661 by un_ko

Well done! That's a bit of an effort you've gone to, there!

Other Comments by _J_

33. Comment #35035 by CJ on April 26, 2007 at 3:49 am

31. Comment #34661 by un_ko

Excellent job

Please would somebody explain the Christmas = Holidays issue in the US.

I take it by "holidays" you mean Christmas. I've always been amused by the American euphemism for Christmas in insisting calling it "holidays". This is nothing to do with, [snip] respecting the feelings for atheist, this is to do with respecting the feelings of Jews.

Thanks

Other Comments by CJ

34. Comment #35109 by sane1 on April 26, 2007 at 8:32 am

I still think there should be a way to arrange some sort of interview based on questions submitted by those who frequent this site and feel like we have heard all the answers to the typical questions. Or he should do an interview with Robert Wright, perhaps.

Other Comments by sane1

35. Comment #35127 by sane1 on April 26, 2007 at 9:43 am

CJ: In the US, we call the period starting with Thanksgiving (late November) and ending with New Years Day "the Holidays." The end of the year used to be called generically "the Christmas Season" or just "Christmas." The period obviously covers Hanukah, and the more recent creation "Kwanza."

So as not to offend non-christians, the end of the year is often referred to as teh more secular "Holidays" though there are stories each year about how there is a so called "war on christmas." Thank Bill O'Rielly for making an absurd amount of noise on that issue.

Other Comments by sane1

36. Comment #35149 by veryrarelystable on April 26, 2007 at 10:53 am

My apologies if I've missed something (I'm new here), but Prof Dawkin's comment in this interview, repeated by Hugo above - So dutch is the only translation available for now - is not correct. I was in Barcelona at the weekend, and picked up at the airport bookshop "El Espejismo de Dios" a Spanish translation, which I'm currently working through. Perhaps it's only just released, or perhaps it was intended for a latin-american audience, but it's certainly going to be useful for an iberian readership.

Other Comments by veryrarelystable