Friday, April 4, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Dawkins warns of human extinction

by Catriona Ross

Reposted from:
http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/5695/Dawkins_warns_of_human_extinction_.html

GOD does not exist, people who believe the earth is 6000 years old are "loonies and idiots" and teaching children to fear the fires of hell is plain evil.

Just a few of the contentious opinions put forward by outspoken atheist Professor Richard Dawkins to an 850-strong audience in Inverness on Wednesday.

The lecture and discussion, organised by the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) Millennium Institute, has sparked lively debate.

The world-famous evolutionary biologist and Oxford don spoke on "Science and The God Delusion" at the free talk at Eden Court Theatre.

Beforehand, the UHI was slammed by a leading member of the Free Church, David Robertson, who accused it of bias for giving Professor Dawkins a platform.

However, many members of the public, who packed the theatre, seemed to approve of the Professor Dawkins' views.

Extracts read from his bestselling book "The God Delusion" drew loud applause and afterwards long queues snaked from the table where signed copies were being sold.

A staged discussion with fellow atheist Paula Kirby covered topics ranging from atomic structure, Darwinism, geology, creationism and the dangers of religious fervour.

Professor Dawkins accused religion of causing many past and current conflicts in the world. "People can believe what they want, but I wish they would leave the rest of us alone," he said.

"The current threat of jihad is brought about by religious fundamentalism. Do you think there would be suicide bombing without extremism of this kind?"

He also hit out at "Christian bigoted busybodies" who protested against new science such as stem cell research.

During the following debate hosted by BBC Good Morning Scotland's Gary Robertson, a variety of matters were raised.

In response to questions about population growth, the environment and the future of humanity, Professor Dawkins said the threat of extinction was real and very disturbing.

"Humans may be unique in having the consciousness and ability to look into the future. Ninety nine per cent of species have become extinct. I don't think there has been a mechanism by which a species took steps to halt a headlong rush to extinction."

A member of the audience who talked of his salvation by Jesus was dismissed by the Professor as being deluded.

"The human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination," he said. "You are no doubt very sincere but I think you're hallucinating."

A protester who gave his name only as Kenny the Christian stood outside as people filed into the lecture.

The 62-year-old said he had travelled from Dornoch to tell people about God's love. "I am here motivated by the love for the people who are attending this meeting," he said.

"Secular fundamentalism is sweeping this nation and people are being deceived by the devil. The devil works through people.

"Mr Dawkins is the devil's speaker and he has expressed this boldly. He believes in evolution, that nothing produces everything. But God produces everything."

A spokeswoman for UHI said they were delighted at the calibre of the event and high standard of debate.

The lecture was the first in a series of three at Eden Court. The Rev Prof Andrew McGowan, principal of Highland Theological College UHI, will give his inaugural lecture on the role of theology in the university on 10th June.

On 27th October Dr John Lennox of Oxford University, author of "God's undertaker: has science buried God?" will respond to Professor Dawkin's lecture.

Posted: Friday, April 4, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 402 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #155104 by Szymanowski on April 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

"Mr Dawkins is the devil's speaker..."

Not "speaker" - CHAPLAIN!

Other Comments by Szymanowski

2. Comment #155106 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 7:16 am

I can't agree that we could be heading for extinction. It is hard to think of any other species of "higher" animal that is so versatile, living everywhere from the deserts to the arctic. It is also very hard to imagine some man-made disaster that would reduce the entire human population down to below the few hundred level that might mean extinction. A recent TV documentary (I forget which channel) discussed how we would survive even something as terrible as a dinosaur-killer asteroid impact. There was little doubt we could.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

3. Comment #155116 by Philip1978 on April 4, 2008 at 7:22 am

Ah, so I got this wrong then Richard, you are not the messiah or a very naughty boy, but in fact the Devil in disguise! Thats quite a career shift but I suppose you are giving up your Charles Symoni Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford seat later this year so you'll want to keep busy!

It all makes sense now! :)

Well done to yourself and Paula on the talk, I look forward to watching the video when it turns up, I hope your voice gets back to normal!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

4. Comment #155121 by Paula Kirby on April 4, 2008 at 7:28 am

Beth: Well how typical of Lennox to once again ride on the back of Dawkins' success. What a bore.

To be fair, UHI did invite him! They were always planning to hold a high-profile event with a Christian later in the year, to balance the one with Richard.

Actually, it's quite fun that it's the Christians whingeing about a lack of balance in all this, since UHI have a series of three lectures planned in this series: the one by Richard, of course - plus TWO by Christians! Funnily enough, though, I haven't heard any atheists going to the BBC or the local press to whinge about imbalance.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

5. Comment #155125 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 7:30 am

Comment #155121 by Paula Kirby

Funnily enough, though, I haven't heard any atheists going to the BBC or the local press to whinge about imbalance.

Perhaps we should? It seems only fair. To maintain some kind of balance...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #155138 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 7:42 am

Well how typical of Lennox to once again ride on the back of Dawkins' success. What a bore.

Beth, what do you know about Dr Lennox? I'll have you know that he does not need Dawkins' success or anyone else's. He is a very well-established mathemetician with many peer-reviewed papers in group theory. Long before Dawkins crossed his path he had acquired science doctorates from both Cambridge and Oxford, including a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

Please don't show your absolute and total ignorance by making such pathetically ridiculous comments. Why don't you all cut the "Dawkins is God" crap. Try to weigh up his arguments against those of his opponents a bit more objectively. I've never seen such bowing and scraping as before the name of Richard Dawkins on this site. OK, he's a first class evolutionary biologist who as written some ground-breaking scientific books and papers. But when will you face up to the fact that on theology, Biblical criticism and philosophy he is out of his depth. And TGD was just a long rant under a very irregular, patchy scientific veneer.

Will you bother to listen to Lennox's response in October? Will anyone here? Or have you taken Dawkins' statements as unanswerable ex-catedra pronouncements?

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

7. Comment #155143 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 7:45 am

Comment #155138 by Artful_Dodger

And TGD was just a long rant under a very irregular, patchy scietific veneer.

Then you should have no problem refuting its arguments.

Where would you like to start?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #155144 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 7:45 am

Artful_Dodger-

don't rant, it's unbecoming. If Lennox's lecture ends up on this site, I might well listen to it. I don't know, since it's six months away and I'll probably forget otherwise.

There are unanswered questions on the Pastor thread.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

9. Comment #155145 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 7:46 am

Paula

It is interesting that Andrew McGowan of the Highland Theological College is one of the Christian speakers.

McGowan, for those that dont know has already crossed swords with David Robertson. In a letter entitled "Guns to the North" you can see what I mean (iff you can be bothered...)

http://www.freechurch.org/pdf/monthlyrecord/feb07.pdf

Also, and perhaps more interestingly, McGowan has recently started to question the use of the word "inerrant" in connection with the Bible. This has bena major plank of conservative evangelicalism for centuries, and when an academic of considerable standing liek McGowan starts to wobble, it makes me wonder... are the cracks starting to show?

This is the book:

http://www.ivpbooks.com/isbn/9781844742202.htm

Some of David Robertson's own colleagues have expressed grave reservations about this.

Could get interesting!

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

10. Comment #155153 by Dr Benway on April 4, 2008 at 7:48 am

If there is no God, theology is a non-subject Dodger.

Say, any chance you'll enlighten us with your method of sorting metaphor from literal truth in the Bible?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

11. Comment #155161 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 7:59 am

Dr Benway, I have done ... at least twice. But if theology is a non-subject, then the Bible is hardly a serious enough subject for discussion here, in which case there is nothing that I could possibly say about it which you would consider worth hearing. So in what sense do you want me to "enlighten" you?

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

12. Comment #155162 by faouloki on April 4, 2008 at 7:59 am

Artful_Dodger - wow, who'd have thought the official Richard Dawkins website would have comments about Richard Dawkins!?

Other Comments by faouloki

13. Comment #155164 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:01 am

faouloki, comments are one thing, sycophantic adulation is another.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

14. Comment #155166 by faouloki on April 4, 2008 at 8:02 am

sycophantic adulation

Examples please

Other Comments by faouloki

15. Comment #155168 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 8:03 am

Theology, narrowly defined as the study of the properties and nature of god, is a non-subject, because god does not exist.

The bible, on the other hand, very much does exist. I have seen several of them quite recently as it happens. I've even read them in the past. Its existence can be objectively verified. Moreover, as a cultural document it can offer us all manner of insights into peoples of a bygone age.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

16. Comment #155170 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 8:04 am

Artful_Dodger said:

Why don't you all cut the "Dawkins is God" crap

Actually, I think that is what the theists were saying outside Eden Court on Wed night:

http://www.christianstogether.net/Images/content/658/173334.jpg

From:
http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=110603

:-)))))))))))))))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

17. Comment #155171 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #155164 by Artful_Dodger

Don't be silly. You only had to get to the 4th comment before you found someone disagreeing with Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

18. Comment #155175 by Incredulous on April 4, 2008 at 8:09 am

Try to weigh up his arguments against those of his opponents a bit more objectively.

Can someone clear my mind as to whether objective is the same as unbiased?

My understanding is that objective simply means pertaining to facts and observed evidence. Unbiased obviously refers to a lack of personal prejudice and subjectivity in decision making.

I can't for the life of me see how it is possible to have objectivity without facts and evidence.

Of course, I can see both sides of an argument, but that argument can be as content free as theology - oops, I'm letting my jaundiced approach in favour of evidence laden thought colour my thoughts again.

So why is artful dodger asking me to be more objective when I am seeking only to be objective?

I've never seen such bowing and scraping as before the name of Richard Dawkins on this site. OK, he's a first class evolutionary biologist who as written some ground-breaking scientific books and papers. But when will you face up to the fact that on theology, Biblical criticism and philosophy he is out of his depth.

The fact that he is a first rate evolutionary biologist does actually mean something to me. I have seen or can infer no bowing and scraping. In fact, I would imagine many here would jump on any inaccuracy he made pretty damn quick. I've noticed there are some pretty well qualified and very smart people contributing to this site and like tends to listen to like.

The fact that he is also out of his depth on biblical criticism and philosophy is quite reasuring for me. But is it possible to drown in a shallow murky pond? There is no depth to the bible. Just cobbled together tales of yore; works of the imagination.

Why don't you all cut the "Dawkins is God" crap.

I think everyone on here thinks that Richard is simply a good bloke; and we like good blokes who talk about things we can trust. You're right, he isn't god which is precisely why I appreciate what he does and says.

He's a tried and trusted exponent of that thing we should all aspire to - reasoning with evidence.

Mmm.

Other Comments by Incredulous

19. Comment #155176 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

What's your point scottishgeologist? If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

20. Comment #155177 by faouloki on April 4, 2008 at 8:12 am

What's your point scottishgeologist? If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

Um, I think it has more to do with people walking in to watch Richard talk going past a sign saying "Prepare to meet thy God"

Other Comments by faouloki

21. Comment #155178 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:12 am

Steve you are the exception (or one of the few) that proves the rule.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

22. Comment #155180 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 8:13 am

If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

Apart from the truth you mean? Oh, and ten per cent of your income, your ability to make sensible moral decisions and critically assess evidence and the respect of all right-thinking people the world over? Sounds quite a high stake to put on the world's flimsiest tip-off to me...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

23. Comment #155182 by The Reverend Dark on April 4, 2008 at 8:14 am

Artful. Well done; Pascal's Wager.

Twat.

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

24. Comment #155183 by jiujitstheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:16 am

As much as I hate to agree with Artful_Dodger he does make a valid point. I'm an atheist. I think Dawkins is a great man. It's great to have someone of his stature smacking the fundies upside the head. However, there is, at times, too much boot licking going on in the threads. Dawkins more than anyone would want more objectiveness by some on the board.
But dodger is still a tool.
;)

Other Comments by jiujitstheist

25. Comment #155185 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 8:17 am

Artful_Dodger

Faouluki beat me to it - I thought it was very amusing, the way they had that sign placed. Of course, it may have been very tongue in cheek. But knowing what I do about the sense of humour of these people I think, "Nahhhh"

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

26. Comment #155187 by Frankus1122 on April 4, 2008 at 8:18 am

"Dawkins is God"

I thought it was Clapton.

Anyway, something has slowly dawned on me: where are the arguments from the theists?
Is Artful Dodger, Kardashovel, clearthinker, etc. the best there is?
There seems to be a lot of dancing around issues and questions. Have you ever cracked an egg in a bowl and got a bit of the shell in there? You know how you try to pick it out and it sort of slides away? I get that feeling when trying to get an answer from a theist here.
One would think that a clear convincing true statement could be made that would not be easily refuted if you were truly inspired by the Living God.
I am not totally dim. However, I am yet to be convinced by anything the apologists have put forward to convince me God exists.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

27. Comment #155188 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:18 am

Artful-

Pascal's Wager. What an excellent argument. Certainly not one that could be described as terrible. Nor one that raises questions like "which God would that be, exactly?"

So, all finished on the Pastor thread, are you?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

28. Comment #155189 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 8:18 am

Comment #155176 by Artful_Dodger

If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think?

Which God of the Bible? The old-testament one? The New Testament one(s)? Or how about the Gods of the theologists, which seem to bear little relation to either?

Belief leads to people acting on what they consider to be His wishes. I'm not so happy about that, as I am gay and His wishes (according to many) seem to be that I am considered evil, or a least a bit naughty.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

29. Comment #155190 by irate_atheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:19 am

15. Comment #155164 by Artful_Dodger -

comments are one thing, sycophantic adulation is another.

Indeed. Such childish behaviour should be kept where it belongs. Churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc. and not in the real world.[/sarcasm]

4. Comment #155106 by Steve Zara -

I can't agree that we could be heading for extinction.

On what timescale do you not agree that we are heading for extinction. 100 years? 1,000 years? 1 million years? 1 billion years? I would contend that all species are heading towards extinction, it's just that some are heading there sooner than others...Whaddya think?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

30. Comment #155191 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 8:19 am

Is there some objective standard of appropriate praise and sentiments of appreciation for internet forums now then? When did gushing praise for people we respect and admire suddenly become a bad thing?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

31. Comment #155192 by Martin S on April 4, 2008 at 8:19 am

Whereas if Allah exists...

Hey that's an idea - why not cover yourself and believe in them all Art?

Other Comments by Martin S

32. Comment #155194 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:20 am

Incredulous, this is classic Dawkins-speak but it will cut no ice with anyone who actually realises to what extent the Bible has shaped our culture to which science grew out of (bit did not outgrow) a Biblical worldview.

It is typical of Dawkins and certain others her to reduce to a non-subject a discipline which he has no mastery of and no intention to acquire any. "If everything is Biology and Chemistry then you only need to know Biology and Chemistry after all. When we have succeeded in reducing everything to Biology and Chemistry then the fact that we don't know anything else countrs for nothing as there isn't anything else." OK, it's an oversimplfication. But that is the direction we are moving in.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

33. Comment #155195 by irate_atheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:21 am

33. Comment #155191 by Cartomancer -

If they're called Jesus, it's OK. Apparently. Mere mortals should only be admired in hushed tones.

Edit: 35. Comment #155194 by Artful_Dodger -

So, astrology, what's your view on it as a subject?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

34. Comment #155196 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 8:23 am

On what timescale do you not agree that we are heading for extinction.

I would not agree on a timescale of decades (hopefully I will live that long). That is the timescale of my non-agreement :)

100 years? 1,000 years? 1 million years? 1 billion years? I would contend that all species are heading towards extinction, it's just that some are heading there sooner than others...Whaddya think?

I think we are probably going to change a lot over the next few centuries. When we have really figured out biology, biochemistry, and exactly how the brain works, I don't think many would want to keep these fragile and temporary bodies operating the way they are now.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #155197 by al-rawandi on April 4, 2008 at 8:23 am

irate,

The question is if you buy into global warming. I know the flat earthers here in the US don't (read: Republicans), but that is the question. That seems to be a pending threat, aside from the potential nuclear conflict with Iran or North Korea.

Steve,

You think our environment can sustain our destructive presence much longer?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

36. Comment #155198 by al-rawandi on April 4, 2008 at 8:25 am

Quetz,

I must pronounce time of death....

8:10 am.

Cause:

Pascal's Wager.

Someone drag the body down to the furnace.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

37. Comment #155199 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 8:25 am

Understanding the contribution made to our culture and society by religious ideas is not the work of a theologian - it is the work of an historian of ideas, or failing that an anthropologist or a sociologist.

Inasmuch as somebody calling themself a theologian studies this, they are not studying "theology" defined as the study of the nature and properties of god.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

38. Comment #155200 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #155191 by Cartomancer

Is there some objective standard of appropriate praise and sentiments of appreciation for internet forums now then? When did gushing praise for people we respect and admire suddenly become a bad thing?

Speaking of which, is it a bad thing to praise in gushing terms the eloquence and intelligence of the posts of a certain Cartomancer? Do I care?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #155201 by phasmagigas on April 4, 2008 at 8:26 am

Incredulous, this is classic Dawkins-speak but it will cut no ice with anyone who actually realises to what extent the Bible has shaped our culture to which science grew out of (bit did not outgrow) a Biblical worldview.

and so what if it did?? does that mean that god exists and jesus is his son, should we be somehow grateful to christianity, christains, who, what???

'biblical worldview', that one of those 'euphemisms' that makes me need a bucket.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

40. Comment #155202 by IceFreak2000 on April 4, 2008 at 8:27 am

Did anyone else feel that the reporting in this article was horribly biased against Professor Dawkins; far more coverage was given to the loonies who opposed his lecture than to the content of the lecture itself - witness the space given over to "Kenny the Christian".

Other Comments by IceFreak2000

41. Comment #155203 by Roland_F on April 4, 2008 at 8:27 am

21. Comment #155176 by Artful_Dodger

If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

As Gods does not exits you lost and wasted your entire and only life submissing to a depressive misery cult, obsessed with sin and hell.
And that's exactly the point as you only have one life !

Other Comments by Roland_F

42. Comment #155204 by irate_atheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:28 am

38. Comment #155197 by al-rawandi -

If history teaches us anything, it is that we don't learn from history.

That is why I don't hold out much hope over the next few centuries. Just glad I won't be around to see how it ends...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

43. Comment #155205 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #155197 by al-rawandi

You think our environment can sustain our destructive presence much longer?

No, but the consequences will be nasty, but not extinction-level.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #155206 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 8:28 am

Oh stop it Steve, you know how embarassed public praise makes me feel.

Well, ok then, maybe just a little...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

45. Comment #155207 by hungarianelephant on April 4, 2008 at 8:29 am

26. Comment #155183 by jiujitstheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:16 am

As much as I hate to agree with Artful_Dodger he does make a valid point. I'm an atheist. I think Dawkins is a great man. It's great to have someone of his stature smacking the fundies upside the head. However, there is, at times, too much boot licking going on in the threads. Dawkins more than anyone would want more objectiveness by some on the board.

Well, er, not on this thread, at any rate. The first thing nice thing said about RD here is in comment 20 by Incredulous:

I think everyone on here thinks that Richard is simply a good bloke; and we like good blokes who talk about things we can trust. You're right, he isn't god which is precisely why I appreciate what he does and says.

He's a tried and trusted exponent of that thing we should all aspire to - reasoning with evidence.

Doesn't sound a lot like bootlicking to me.

The second compliment is yours.

We've seen this tactic from Artful before. It was nonsensical then, too. And only slightly less boring than Pascal's Wager.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

46. Comment #155208 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:29 am

Artful-

grew out of (but did not outgrow)

Don't they mean the same as each other? By definition if you outGROW something then you grow OUT of it.

This is just wordplay that says nothing.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

47. Comment #155209 by phasmagigas on April 4, 2008 at 8:31 am

allah forgive you.

pascals wager: a fair bet for the feeble minded.

artful, you are wasting your time here, why not try and persuade some people on a muslim or hindu formum somehwere, they have a deity belief system ready in place, you only need have them exchange the words 'koran' and 'allah' for 'bible' and 'god' it must be easier than dealing with people round here ('origin' and 'darwin' dont count, not the same thing)

Other Comments by phasmagigas

48. Comment #155210 by irate_atheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:33 am

Oh, and by the way, 'Kenny the Christian' - whoever and wherever you are - fucktard.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

49. Comment #155211 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

So, astrology, what's your view on it as a subject?

Irate, maybe that' a question you should ask some of your fellow star-gazers on this forum.

I don't think you can attribute Newton's passion for theology only to the fact that Darwin was not around yet to remind him of the fact that it was not actually intellectually respectable any longer to study such a non-subject. The natural world requires the finest possible minds to engage with it. But not all knowledge, like it or not, is in fact contained within the realm that is scientifically observable.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

50. Comment #155212 by al-rawandi on April 4, 2008 at 8:35 am

Steve,

That is really what frustrates me. These people who deny that our environment is changing in a dangerous way.

Denying evolution is stupid and sad, but not necessarily dangerous. Denying the pending environmental disaster is dangerous, dangerous to me personally. The amount of money people are dumping into the anti-science is scary.

Will humans die for profit?

Any way, let's get back on topic.

Phasmagigas,

Pascal's wager, comes with instructions:

"When all arguments fail throw and run."

Other Comments by al-rawandi

Reload Comments | Back to Top