1. Comment #333194 by Primate on February 2, 2009 at 11:20 pm

I like this interview a lot. I remember seeing this before though...

Other Comments by Primate

2. Comment #333208 by Styrer- on February 2, 2009 at 11:50 pm

An absolutely marvellous interview. Thank you.

The scientific/literary mindsets here were captivating in the sheer scope of their mutually beneficial coverage. McEwan is, I understand, a friend of Christopher Hitchens, who is on record here on the Horsemen video as saying that he wished he had brought the numinous more into play in his book, and it's not hard after viewing this to see why. McEwan's denunciation of religion's capacity to really get to grips with the transcendent (which I think can only properly be coaxed into its fullest expression when religion and sky-fairies are jettisoned from the picture) is persuasively and delightfully expressed, such that the notion of a deity of any sort after hearing him becomes positively banal.

All of this interview was conducted, of course, under the watchful gaze of Richard, keeping things together in enthusiastic and masterful manner.

I really enjoyed this.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

3. Comment #333214 by Atticus_of_Amber on February 3, 2009 at 12:03 am

Primate, I think a LOT of this interview made it into the final cut of "The Root of All Evil" (horrible title). So I suspect that's why it felt so familiar to you.

Great interview. And it's also great to see my personal favourite "New Atheist", Sam Harris (sorry RD), get a big shout out.

McEwan performance here is tempting me to read his novels - and I never read fiction.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

4. Comment #333236 by gos on February 3, 2009 at 12:40 am

Atticus_of_Amber

McEwan performance here is tempting me to read his novels - and I never read fiction.

I recommend Enduring Love, it features an interesting psychological derangement (one of the really weird ones, we're talking "you can't make that kind of thing up" territory) that may make you feel a bit closer to non-fiction... :) It's also a really good book.

Other Comments by gos

5. Comment #333266 by VolcanicComet on February 3, 2009 at 1:16 am

Although this is an outstanding interview, I prefer someone with an opposite point of view to Richard. Makes for a good fight!

Other Comments by VolcanicComet

6. Comment #333269 by Atticus_of_Amber on February 3, 2009 at 1:22 am

I really think "the movement" needs more literary figures. Hitchens is a treasure - but he's also a curmudgeonly old eccentric and is often dismissed as such. I wish McEwen would be more active - he'd be a great spokesman.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

7. Comment #333298 by petermun on February 3, 2009 at 2:07 am

It's always good to see a favourite author conduct themselves well.

Other Comments by petermun

8. Comment #333314 by beeline on February 3, 2009 at 2:26 am

The solution to the 'what to call atheists' problem is to use the term 'free-thinker'.

The problem that Ian and others raised is that 'atheist' is conceptually centered on belief, and it would be silly (though fun) to call bishops 'a-darwinist' or 'a-rational'. We need a term that is positive in its own right, without just being a negative slant on some other, contrary position.

'Free-thinker' works well in these respects because to be able to have thoughts which are not stewarded or censured by dogmatic authority, you have to be 'free'. Freedom is the only circumstance in which we can ask questions and pursue the kind of research agendas that make rationalism and science possible at all.

Let it be 'free-thinkers', everyone. Not that anyONE can decide, of course...

Other Comments by beeline

9. Comment #333360 by EricTheRed on February 3, 2009 at 3:18 am

8. Comment #333314 by beeline on February 3, 2009 at 2:26 am

The solution to the 'what to call atheists' problem is to use the term 'free-thinker'.

I prefer simply to say ‘I'm not superstitious’ as this immediately puts faith-heads on the defensive trying to deny that their religion is a superstition. Then quite often all that is need is a smile in return. A lovely moment.

Other Comments by EricTheRed

10. Comment #333377 by SilentMike on February 3, 2009 at 3:42 am

I like that it's all in one long video instead of being chopped up into 10 minute slices.

Other Comments by SilentMike

11. Comment #333412 by andersemil on February 3, 2009 at 4:25 am

Wonderful interview. McEwan has some very good points about the negative aspects of major religions and the false view of atheism as a source of amorality. And yes, the fact that the USA has become a theocracy is indeed ironic.

Other Comments by andersemil

12. Comment #333417 by alabasterocean on February 3, 2009 at 4:30 am

Thank you The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. A really good lunch break special. Ian McEwan is quite the author and quite the conversationalist.

Talk to more people Richard, it's a great way to explain the view points and the term "atheism" and terms that should be associated like: Reason and the secular romanticism, passion and love.

Other Comments by alabasterocean

13. Comment #333425 by riemann on February 3, 2009 at 4:44 am

Thank you for this. And Josh, are you going to post the interview with David Buss, or have I missed it'

Other Comments by riemann

14. Comment #333465 by thereisnodog on February 3, 2009 at 6:47 am

Really enjoyable to watch.

Its a wonderful moment when you can begin to second guess what is about to be said. The months i have spent filling my skull with this stuff since reading TGD has paid off. The arguments are coming together in my head to the point where i am finding it very difficult to take anyone who holds even a sense of the supernatural at all seriously.

Thanks RD and Josh

Other Comments by thereisnodog

15. Comment #333471 by Clairebear on February 3, 2009 at 6:57 am

Wow, that was fascinating! My head really snapped up when Ian was talking about how the new century had forced us to confront the sort of beliefs that we thought had been consigned to the history books. So very, very true. It feels like it's been buried, and it's all coming alive again now. Very scary, and interesting.

Other Comments by Clairebear

16. Comment #333480 by KRKBAB on February 3, 2009 at 7:30 am

EricTheRed- I disagree- I never liked the term freethinker because it implies (rightly or not) that someone is free to think utter nonsense if they choose (which could include magical thinking, theism...) and I don't want to be associated with that.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

17. Comment #333483 by KRKBAB on February 3, 2009 at 7:34 am

Sorry EricTheRed- I just noticed you don't like the term also- I reacted too quickly.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

18. Comment #333485 by KRKBAB on February 3, 2009 at 7:41 am

Clairebear- that is frightening. Imagine a fractured moral zeitgeist. Someparts of society using one m.z. and another part (or several) using another. That would be a perfect time for theists to borrow the apartheid phrase "separate but equal" parallel moral zeitgeists! Too much coffee this morning.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

19. Comment #333487 by Mango on February 3, 2009 at 7:43 am

The conversation is a wonderful meeting of scientific and literary minds.

Other Comments by Mango

20. Comment #333491 by KRKBAB on February 3, 2009 at 7:48 am

Mango- I often wondered how the hell you get along with a license plate like that in Louisiana!? You really get my respect (and I actually fear for you) and good wishes. Loud and proud I say.
Kurt

Other Comments by KRKBAB

21. Comment #333503 by Mehran on February 3, 2009 at 8:07 am

What a great interview, and what a shame it wasn't longer. What McEwan says about Islam, the erosion of our civil liberties, and the way the left have compromised their principles to placate the Islamism monster is right on the money.

And Dawkins is God (he says without a trace of irony).

Other Comments by Mehran

22. Comment #333507 by Quetzalcoatl on February 3, 2009 at 8:09 am

Mr dawkins, a free mind from God's fear will do anything

The troll thinks that we need fear of God to keep us in our places. Why am I not surprised. Marked as troll.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

23. Comment #333508 by Caudimordax on February 3, 2009 at 8:11 am

Stalin, Hitler, same old, same old - what a moron.

Troll.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

24. Comment #333549 by Tyler Durden on February 3, 2009 at 8:36 am

RE: Brights

"I can't quite bring myself to call myself bright. But I don't mind calling the religious dim."

:)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

25. Comment #333555 by Tyler Durden on February 3, 2009 at 8:39 am

Josh,

re: isthatclear - This is getting tedious.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

26. Comment #333562 by Neuro on February 3, 2009 at 8:48 am

This interview is great. I really like demeanor & thoughtfulness of Ian McEwan.

Other Comments by Neuro

27. Comment #333564 by Frankus1122 on February 3, 2009 at 8:52 am

Wooter, isthatclear,

Many moons ago you posted a link to a website that had photos of giant bones. You claimed it was evidence of the truth of the Biblical accounts of giants. The website you linked to had the images as examples of fake photograpghy. The purpose of the site was to show what you could do with Photoshop.

From that point I knew you were either a fake person or one of the most incredibly stupid people I have ever encountered. In either case we do not deserve you.

I have been of the opinion that everyone deserves their say. However, if you are not as stupid as you appear to be, your only purpose here is to cause problems. You put forward no arguments and make no attempt to engage in meaningful discussion.
If you are as stupid as you appear to be then you should also go away. There are people here who would like to discuss matters on a semi-intelligent level. As a kind favour to your fellow human beings please stop posting nonsense. Would Jesus be as annoying as you ?

Please reflect seriously on your actions. Do the right thing.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

28. Comment #333572 by black wolf on February 3, 2009 at 9:02 am

Frankus,
unfortunately people who really are so stupid that they border on retardedness don't have the capability to recognize that fact. I mean this in all seriousness and neutrality. It's quite possible to have underdeveloped brain capabilities in one area while it works fine in others (like logging on and typing for example). If the mind itself is not able to disconnect nonsense from plausibility, the person has no control over what to understand and what to reject - the necessary thinking process can not initiate when the basic cognition doesn't sort the input properly.
edit: to clarify, this doesn't apply necessarily to stupidity or retardedness. Similar chronic malfunctions occur with otherwise normally intelligent people too. The sad thing is that religion tells such people that they function normally and that their thinking is just a different form of rationality.

Other Comments by black wolf

29. Comment #333580 by Apathy personified on February 3, 2009 at 9:12 am

I really liked this interview - I also prefer these uncut versions, please keep them coming.

I think Ian McEwan was spot on in most of what he said. On the point of names, I'm not a fan of 'brights' or any of the derivatives from that. If pressed I call myself an 'atheist' but I prefer to say that i'm a 'comprehensive non-believer'.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

30. Comment #333590 by NewEnglandBob on February 3, 2009 at 9:26 am

There he is - isthatclear - the mentally diseased troll who refuses logic and truth.

Laugh as he is put in his place.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

31. Comment #333598 by Lastandfirstmen on February 3, 2009 at 9:40 am

Another fine interview. An interesting comparison near the end with the American secular state steadily eroded by the God squad and most EU states becoming steadily secular during the same period. Haven't read any of McEwan's novels (enjoyed Atonement on DVD), I must try one of the recommendations from the earlier posts.

Other Comments by Lastandfirstmen

32. Comment #333634 by ggab7768 on February 3, 2009 at 11:28 am

I'm still rather fond of the term 'atheist'.
As we outspoken few become more numerous, it's salt in an open wound.
As society moves to a point of non-belief as the norm, the term will be less neccessary and eventually fall by the wayside. Until then, I'll proudly and defiantly refer to myself as an atheist.
I like the strenght of it as it rolls from the tongue.

Other Comments by ggab7768

33. Comment #333784 by cookiemonsterinlove on February 3, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Hi all! This seems to be my first comment, although I've been visiting the site quite regularly for some time. Well, better late than never, eh?

What an inspiring and interesting discussion! I've always liked Ian McEwan, I've read many of his novels and I think he is a great writer. He is also clearly a very intelligent, thoughtful man, and it was interesting to hear him discuss these matters with Richard. All in all, a very enjoyable interview.

I encourage all of you who haven't read McEwan's books to do so, he writes magnificent novels.

Other Comments by cookiemonsterinlove

34. Comment #333812 by Blind Fith on February 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm

When you realise that being an Athiest allows you to marvel at that 'blip of consciousness' that is our life, perhaps we should be called 'Fortunates'

Other Comments by Blind Fith

35. Comment #333920 by mmurray on February 3, 2009 at 7:21 pm

Along the lines of non-scientists defending science this is an interesting interview with Alan Alda. Not much about religion but a strong defence of the scientific way of thinking.

http://www.msri.org/communications/vmath/VMathVideosSpecial/VideoSpecialInfo/3911/show_video

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

36. Comment #333922 by HappyPrimate on February 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Enjoyed the extended interview. Always pleasant to hear two rational people converse. I do not have a problem calling myself an atheist but on occasions where I'm asked what my religion is, I simply reply that I hold no supernatural beliefs. It usually leaves them stuttering. I'm hoping it will make them think about their own beliefs as they have probably not thought about their religion in quite that way.
When I catch up on my current reading list, I will definitely have to pick up a book or two of mr. McEwan.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

37. Comment #333932 by jharps on February 3, 2009 at 10:19 pm

An interesting and compelling interview for sure. But it did illustrate to me how difficult it is to express ourselves, particularly about what might be termed artistic sensibilities, without the use of language which implies a creator. Did anyone else note Ian McEwan's use of the word 'gift' on several occasions when referring to admirable attributes of humans?

I may be accused of splitting hairs but I have a suspicion that language works at a kind of subliminal level where words like 'gift' (as in 'gifted children', for example) reinforce the notion of a 'giver of gifts'. Or maybe I just need a strong cup of coffee.

Other Comments by jharps

38. Comment #333938 by Rodger T on February 3, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Full moon tonight?

Other Comments by Rodger T

39. Comment #334042 by SurfDude on February 4, 2009 at 3:14 am

Great interview.

I really need to comment on wooter/isthatclear though .....



Other Comments by SurfDude

40. Comment #334108 by PERSON on February 4, 2009 at 6:01 am

Another problem with the term atheist is that it includes non-rationalists. How about ahokumist? But more positive: that's hard. Skeptics tend to be negative thinkers. Bright doesn't work IMO because it doesn't have any meaningful initial associations. Maybe something that conveys an idea like "single physical life liver", "world liver", "cherisher of finite life" (these are poor: the first two invoke the internal organ, if nothing else). Perhaps a version of these in pseudo-Greek or Latin would work?

Another possibility would be to convey the inherent nature of morality, though I can't think how to do this without sounding naive, as if saying we are all inherently good. I don't think we are, but I do think we're better than pretty much all other animals on average-- that is, better than one would expect-- that it is something worth celebrating and that it is something one needs to believe to think society can do without religion. That said, I'm not entirely sure it can, but I do think the current memeplexes can be displaced by something with a more refined understanding of morality, just as they have been in the past in the West, and hopefully will be amongst Muslims, those afflicted by Christian fundamentalism and others.

OK, had a go using the list at http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/frivs/latin/latin-dict-full.html
I have very little idea about how Latin works, but the relevant words seem to be
modus : measure, bound, limit / manner, method, mode, way.
alo (alui altum) : nourish, cherish, support, sustain, maintain, keep.
aetas : an age, stage, period of life, time, era.

So something like alomodaetas? Hm. Just sounds like gibberish since none of the parts are regularly used as English loan words. Oh well, I'll have a think about it.

Other Comments by PERSON

41. Comment #334167 by johnnyess on February 4, 2009 at 8:03 am

A most enjoyable interview, although it would have been more interesting if they could have found at least one point of disagreement.

Other Comments by johnnyess

42. Comment #335168 by Diogenes of Sinope on February 5, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Seems like a thoroughly nice, thoughtful, slightly dull man. Pity his literature isn't up to much.

Other Comments by Diogenes of Sinope

43. Comment #335170 by nother person on February 5, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Very interesting, thank you Richard.

I wonder if your thinking on the issue of empathy has advanced since this interview. In particular, I wonder if you have seen VS Ramachandran's talk on mirror neurons in session 10 of Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion & Survival.

[ http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival ]

Do you think it might be the case that certain brain systems, such as the mirror neuron system, were selected because of the advantage they give the organism in rapidly learning by watching, and that empathy is more or less a side effect of that and was not itself selected for?

Other Comments by nother person

44. Comment #335351 by Liam Lord on February 6, 2009 at 1:22 am

A delightful interview, espescially when 2 intelligent people can be more lucid and indulgent without worrying about a time limit or editing.

It was also sweet to see Ian McEwan's copy of 'Love, Poverty and War' in the background!

Other Comments by Liam Lord

45. Comment #337144 by daverussell on February 8, 2009 at 4:31 pm

EricTheRed. 'not superstitious' is exactually the phrase I use. I used it recently here in Korea, when asked by an American missionary what I thought of with the mention of the word 'Satan'. I also mentioned 'Hammer house of Horror films' but she didn't make the connection!! Ha Ha. Her face was funny.

Other Comments by daverussell

46. Comment #340159 by Aquaria on February 13, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Am I the only person here who wants to adopt Foxy and get her (gender check?) out of South Carolina?

Foxy: Even here in San Antonio (home of Horrorcrock--er, Cornerstone church), things aren't as bad as what you've described in your posts. Then again, it's a large city.

Have you considered CalTech for physics? You seem really smart--smart enough to do well there.

Other Comments by Aquaria

47. Comment #340169 by black wolf on February 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm

I keep getting 'Comments 49-48 of 48' displayed, with no visible comments. Reloading the page or the comments doesn't help.
If anyone knows what's wrong here, with my browser settings or something, please PM me.

Other Comments by black wolf

48. Comment #341637 by Aquaria on February 16, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Foxy:

I know what it's like to grow up surrounded by ignorant hicks. I, too, got out as soon as i could, and didn't look back. Not even family can bring me back. If they want to see me, they know where I am.

---

I was going to say something about Ian McEwan here, then I was like--Damn--I forgot that one of the books I'd planned to get at the bookstore yesterday was Atonement. $90 in books (after my rewards club coupons and discount!) and I forgot!

Shit!

Other Comments by Aquaria

49. Comment #347760 by stuhillman on March 1, 2009 at 10:21 am

The solution to the 'what to call atheists' problem is to use the term 'free-thinker'.

Keep it simple - rationalist - says it all. A rational approach to everything leads to atheism as a matter of course.

Other Comments by stuhillman

50. Comment #387253 by DancingLaughter on June 12, 2009 at 11:32 am

Foxy,

Good luck with Berkeley. I, too, grew up in the rural south (KY). I soon forgot why I moved to NYC as soon as possible and moved to Charleston... Even there, ignorance and racism run rampant... I quickly left and moved on to San Francisco!

I'm now in Germany, but I will also miss SF!

Other Comments by DancingLaughter