1. Comment #343837 by Lucien on February 20, 2009 at 5:27 am

I get a day off work on a pleasant, breezy, sunny Friday afternoon, only to find a video of Prof Dawkins and Paxman together in the same room.
What a gentle treat.

(Richard is one of the very few controversial figures to hold their own against Paxman on Newsnight)

Other Comments by Lucien

2. Comment #343842 by Matt H. on February 20, 2009 at 5:34 am

If every Christian were like Bishop Harries, we wouldn't have any trouble. I loved the interview Richard had with him in 'Root of all evil?', but I haven't seen this one yet. Thanks for uploading, Oxford and Josh.

Other Comments by Matt H.

3. Comment #343843 by Invisible Talker on February 20, 2009 at 5:37 am

So, any canards or simply evasive manoeuvres?

Other Comments by Invisible Talker

4. Comment #343849 by Disbelief on February 20, 2009 at 5:54 am

Richard is one of the very few controversial figures to hold their own against Paxman on Newsnight

That's because Richard is consistent in what he says and is not a lying bastard like most of Paxmans victims.

Other Comments by Disbelief

5. Comment #343851 by Upgrade01A on February 20, 2009 at 6:01 am

Bishop Harries seems very pleasant.

Other Comments by Upgrade01A

6. Comment #343854 by Layla Nasreddin on February 20, 2009 at 6:15 am

Thank you very much to RD.net and Oxford for posting this, which I am downloading.

Here's an article on the matchup: "Dawkins takes on the ex-bishopBattle of the Oxford heavyweights over evolution turns into a bit of a love-up." The thing is, it's kind of difficult to have a really spirited debate on such matters with a liberal Anglican clergyman (or woman), especially one who is a friend of yours, given that a) you'll probably agree on most matters anyway, and b) I mean, this is the Church of England today (as opposed to 100 years ago), not the Roman Catholic Church or Islam or the Southern Baptists! What is he going to do, frown hard at you? ;-)

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

7. Comment #343856 by paulifa1 on February 20, 2009 at 6:19 am

The good bishop reminds me very much of the Vicar who married me, and the sunday school Vicar I had as a child for that matter, both were/are Church of England of course. If all christians thought and behaved like these people, we'd have little to worry about!

In fact, from the friendly debates I've had over the years with CofE clergy, I'm convinced most of them are really Deists or Agnostic if truth be told, and just want to help out the local community, It seems to be more tradition than anything else. In fact even as an Athiest I find it hard to disagree with anything our local vicar says in Church, his sermons are mostly about bieng nice to each other etc, and never stray into any of that hell fire or sinner crap at all.

Like Richard, I do seem to have a soft spot for kindly CofE types. Just a shame about all the born again nutters that seem to be popping up all around me at the moment! :(

Other Comments by paulifa1

8. Comment #343857 by Lithium_joe on February 20, 2009 at 6:22 am

Been looking forward to this!

Thanks for uploading.

Other Comments by Lithium_joe

9. Comment #343859 by clatz on February 20, 2009 at 6:28 am

Love watching Paxman while Richard and the bish speak. Any second I expect him to pounce, yelling "you may not confer!" a la university challenge.

Here is another video or Richard and Paxman, taken at the time of the release of TGD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpcvJ6oPpWk

Other Comments by clatz

10. Comment #343861 by WillM on February 20, 2009 at 6:37 am

Far too respectful for my liking! As people have noted, the Bishop is much too pleasant and reasonable for any fireworks to occur.

I find myself preferring Hitchens' numerous YouTube debates; although the opposition may be thicker, the sheer theatre of it all is much more satisfying. I'll take an intellectual trouncing over the niceties any day.

Other Comments by WillM

11. Comment #343878 by wiz5 on February 20, 2009 at 7:21 am

I feel sorry that Paxman ended it there and the bishop couldn't respond.

Other Comments by wiz5

12. Comment #343880 by Santi Tafarella on February 20, 2009 at 7:23 am

I am an agnostic, but I'd like to make the case for the Bishop's form of religion.

Here's a free will analogy. (Please rip it to shreds if you think I'm wrong).

If physics is correct that we live in a "block universe" and that time may not be fundamental, then it's hard to imagine free will as being anything other than an illusion.

And if, as psychologists have pointed out, the unconscious frequently makes decisions for us before we are consciously aware of our "choice," it is also difficult to imagine free will as anything but an illusion.

And if it is the case that we are made up of genetic and environmental factors (and what else is there?) then it is hard to imagine our "choices" as less determined than the position of the clouds over our heads at any given moment.

I know that there are arguments for free will, but they are not very strong, and yet I'm willing to bet that every atheist on this site believes that they have free will, and that they engage in behaviors associated with free will (such as fretting over options, talking to friends about choices etc.).

We do this because, for us, it seems difficult to conceive of a human existence apart from free will.

Call our lifestyle "the free will delusion."

Maybe this is the position of liberal clergy. They can read Dawkins's books, and acknowledge the compelling nature of their arguments, and still be a theist, and pray, and engage in other "irrational" behaviors because they find it hard to imagine a human life (for themselves) that does not have an element of HOPE (that the universe is ultimately a cosmos instead of a chaos; that there is some telos and poetic justice somewhere that will make things "right" in the end).

What do you think?

---Santi

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

13. Comment #343885 by NewEnglandBob on February 20, 2009 at 7:28 am

I loved where Bishop Harries used words from Professor Dawkins' books to expand on a point. The bishop is well educated in science.

The bishop was lacking when he spoke about believing certain biblical myths like resurrection with no rationale.

"Theory of Evolution by Jerks" was a hilarious phrase by the professor in response to a question (statement) about gradualism.

This was very enjoyable.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

14. Comment #343890 by WillM on February 20, 2009 at 7:34 am

RE: Comment #343880 by Santi Tafarella

Interesting post. As Christopher Hitchens said when asked if he believed in free will, "I have no choice." ;)

The key difference between the "free will delusion" you are proposing and the God delusion Richard wrote about is that even if we accepted (through evidence and reasoning) that we have no free will, there's nothing we could do about it. We might as well get on with our lives regardless.

If, on the other hand, a liberal theist reads Richard's books and persists in engaging in irrational behaviour - solely because they (misguidedly) think that a deity offers them hope - then this is foolish; they have the "choice" to renounce their superstition and become an atheist, or at least an agnostic like yourself.

EDIT: spelling.

Other Comments by WillM

15. Comment #343892 by decius on February 20, 2009 at 7:36 am

The bishop only pretends to understand evolution. Perhaps he has studied it very superficially or, just like most of the so-called sophisticated clergy, he is a crank.
The "built-in complexity" argument gives away his deep misunderstanding.

Edited - clarity

Other Comments by decius

16. Comment #343893 by NewEnglandBob on February 20, 2009 at 7:38 am

12. Comment #343880 by Santi Tafarella:

I can not accept your position on the lack of free will.

Besides the arguments from Dennett, which are complex, I offer this (not very eloquently):

Part of our environment is learning. We experience things which have an effect on future decisions. People make choices based on this experience and they can counter their choice in spite of a 'background' that can heavily influence their choices. I think that the process of reason reflects free will.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

17. Comment #343914 by JonLynnHarvey on February 20, 2009 at 8:19 am

Tech note: Quiktime live works well unless you try to rewind using the slider button (as opposed to the arrows on the right). So after trying in a few browsers and having to reboot, I'm just downloading the file.
EDIT: After downloading played back best in a third-party software called "Media Player Classic"

Other Comments by JonLynnHarvey

18. Comment #343930 by k o n g on February 20, 2009 at 8:39 am

C an't download the vid from here... i'll see it later.
Who won?

Other Comments by k o n g

19. Comment #343936 by k o n g on February 20, 2009 at 8:47 am

10. Comment #343861 by WillM
"I find myself preferring Hitchens' numerous YouTube debates"



The Hitch debated the catholic father Lorenzo Albacete. It was a soft debate, maybe because albacete liked Hitchens book...
But most of Hitchens opponents are lame...

Other Comments by k o n g

20. Comment #343939 by z8000783 on February 20, 2009 at 8:50 am

I must say I found this embarrassing.

Given a little prodding from RD I'm sure the Bishop would have admitted that the resurrection was allegorical.

At least with Muslims you know what you are going to get.

As Richard said, "if you have come this far then why bother"

John

Other Comments by z8000783

21. Comment #343941 by Tyler Durden on February 20, 2009 at 8:51 am

k o n g -

"Dawkins won. On points."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/feb/13/dawkins-harries-debate

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

22. Comment #343942 by irate_atheist on February 20, 2009 at 8:53 am

22. Comment #343941 by Tyler Durden -

I would say that that Dawkins won on facts...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

23. Comment #343945 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 8:55 am

Hey Big Bang, instead of cut-and-paste of used and worn out lies. How about you argue that there is a god, any god? Let's not bother with the monster called Allah. Let's start simple. What evidence do you have that there are other beings with human whims, but without bodies?

Other Comments by Brian English

24. Comment #343949 by hungarianelephant on February 20, 2009 at 9:13 am

Anyone know why Big Bang is here on a Friday? Shouldn't he be butting the rug?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

25. Comment #343951 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:15 am

Hey Big Bang, can you show, even poorly, that there is any truth in your comments? In fact, I don't think they are your comments, but apologetics made by someone smarter than you. How about you argue, instead of the ol' cut-n-paste?

Other Comments by Brian English

26. Comment #343952 by Big Bang on February 20, 2009 at 9:18 am

hungarianelephant

perhaps you are preparing another night at the pub, where you will waste a good part of what you have earned this week , where you will be making a fool of yourself with your missus drunk too,and on display.

A doughnut lifestyle for a true doughnut

Other Comments by Big Bang

27. Comment #343954 by Bonzai on February 20, 2009 at 9:20 am

Santi

We do this because, for us, it seems difficult to conceive of a human existence apart from free will.

But we certainly can conceive of a human existence without religion and imaginary God. This is the state of existence for many already. Even for the religious, for the most part they live as if there is no God except for the fanatics. So your analogy breaks down.

In general though, I would agree that 'make belief' does not have to be a bad thing and we all engage in it in some ways. Sometimes it may be necessary (e.g free will if it turns out to be an illusion. Or the 'self',--I-ness,-- which also may be an illusion)I wouldn't say it is wrong or bad to believe in something simply because it is not true in a factual sense. It depends on the context.

Other Comments by Bonzai

28. Comment #343956 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:21 am

Hey Big Bang, perhaps you are preparing for another night debasing yourself before an idol. Perhaps you are chaining your women (if there be such an unlucky person there) to your idol. Whatever Hungarian wastes, he's still a free human. He's not a slave to an idea. You have nothing to be happy about.

A coward's lifestyle for a true coward.

Other Comments by Brian English

29. Comment #343957 by Big Bang on February 20, 2009 at 9:24 am

Brian,

He is a slave, actually. He's weak person, who is a slave to his own whims and desires, absolutely heedless and therefore he is, in reality, far from being free.

In a hole, but still insists on digging!

Other Comments by Big Bang

30. Comment #343959 by Bonzai on February 20, 2009 at 9:25 am

New England Bob

I can not accept your position on the lack of free will.

Besides the arguments from Dennett, which are complex

I think you are missing his point. He is not arguing whether freewill is a delusion or not, he is trying to make the point that sometimes illusions may be necessary, and in the case of freewill it is hardwired, --if it turns out to be an illusion.

Another example would be "I-ness", the 'self'. It may very well be an illusion.

EDIT In any case you didn't start acting as if you have freewill after you have listened to Denette and weigh your evidence carefully, you took that as your default mode without thinking.

If Denette or anyone else makes a compelling argument that indeed freewill is a delusion, that still won't change the way you act even if you agree with the argument at an intellectual level.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #343961 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:26 am

Big Bang, what evidence do you have to substantiate that claim? From what I see, Hungarian weighs up evidence, and exercises his freedom. You say this is the law, there is no freedom. Seems pretty clear to anybody who isn't drinking the Islam kool-aid..

Other Comments by Brian English

32. Comment #343963 by Bonzai on February 20, 2009 at 9:28 am

Hungarianelephant

Good point. It is fucking Friday so how come Joe is not wagging his arse at Allah but wagging his dick at us here instead?

Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #343964 by Big Bang on February 20, 2009 at 9:30 am

My comments contain 'mountains' of evidence, just take the time to read them. It will hurt, but it takes a real man to dispel with his vain pride, rebellion and wishfull-thinking and accept the manifest truth.

The only thing you lot weigh here, is your whims and desires which overcomes your objectivity for the truth which results in delusion.

Other Comments by Big Bang

34. Comment #343966 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:31 am

Bonzai, Joe is a liar for Mohammed. It's OK to break the law if you're castigating infidels.....

Other Comments by Brian English

35. Comment #343968 by Gregg Townsend on February 20, 2009 at 9:32 am

27. Comment #343952 by Big Bang

perhaps you are preparing another night at the pub, where you will waste a good part of what you have earned this week ,

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

36. Comment #343969 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:33 am

It will hurt, but it takes a real man to dispel with his vain pride, rebellion and wishfull-thinking and accept the manifest truth.

Joe, please, give one, just one argument for the existence of a god, any god. Then rebut the responses. So far, you post bad philosophy and ignorance, then declare yourself right. You can see how we all think that you're a proud dickhead. How about you actually try to convince us by reason, which is what we value. Your scare tactics show how poor your arguments are....

Other Comments by Brian English

37. Comment #343971 by rsharvey on February 20, 2009 at 9:35 am

Not bad. It kind of fell between two stools though. It was neither enough of a meeting of minds, nor enough of a disagreement, for the conversation to get anywhere really interesting.

Someone like Richard Harris' beliefs about the world are so neatly and safely (and bafflingly) wrapped up in facts that it would take longer than 50 minutes to tease the contradictions and misconceptions out for everyone to see.

Shame though, because Jeremy Paxman is a brilliant choice as moderator.

Other Comments by rsharvey

38. Comment #343973 by Bonzai on February 20, 2009 at 9:41 am

Brian

It's OK to break the law if you're castigating infidels...

For some reason it reads like castrating infidels. Must get a coffee.

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #343974 by Stafford Gordon on February 20, 2009 at 9:41 am

It's time to stop calling evolution a theory; I'm sure it's nothing more than a habit, but it's a bad one and will probably die hard.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

40. Comment #343975 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:43 am

Bonzai, we'll be lucky if Joe and his cadres stop at castration. Or unlucky, depending on how you view it....

Other Comments by Brian English

41. Comment #343976 by Bonzai on February 20, 2009 at 9:43 am

Don't bother bantering with Joe/Big Bang, man. Just push the button whenever and wherever you see a Big Bang post.

I don't troll people usually. Just this guy and wooter (and 'islam'). The button is installed for them and hopefully for them only.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #343977 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:45 am

Stafford Gordon, it's not a habit. It's a part of science. Science is inductive, thus all it's claims are based on past and present evidence. No evidence of the past or present can guarantee the future. But that has nothing to do with the facts that Science describes. Whatever the theory of Gravity, there still is gravity. Whatever the theory of evolution, there still is evolution....

Other Comments by Brian English

43. Comment #343980 by Bonzai on February 20, 2009 at 9:48 am

Brian

Science is inductive, thus all it's claims are based on past and present evidence.

Only partially. It would be inductive if it is just a collection of factual assertions without any explanatory model (theory). Once again it shows that people like Hume are over-rated.

Other Comments by Bonzai

44. Comment #343982 by Tezcatlipoca on February 20, 2009 at 9:49 am

With apologies to gardeners...

Comment #343952 by Big Bang

perhaps you are preparing another night at the pub, where you will waste a good part of what you have earned this week , where you will be making a fool of yourself with your missus drunk too,and on display.

If I and most who post on RDnet were to drink a good part of our weeks earnings we'd probably be dead of alcohol poisoning. I know that the idea of someone making a wage beyond that available to someone engaging in stoop labor is mind boggling to you but it does happen. Take heart however. If you save and hoard the raisins that undoubtably come with your institutional meals you can combine them with water in a ziploc bag. Soak it in the bowl of your commode for a while and inevitable you will end up with raisin-jack. Enjoy!

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

45. Comment #343984 by ina.j on February 20, 2009 at 9:49 am

So this irritating, unpleasant bloke is the famous Paxman? Just a personal opinion, I beg to differ.

Actually, why moderate at all, when prof. Dawkins has numerously expressed his position that moderation only mangles into a discussion?

Other Comments by ina.j

46. Comment #343986 by Coel on February 20, 2009 at 9:52 am

Stafford Gordon

It's time to stop calling evolution a theory

Why? In science "theory" means "explanation" (as opposed to experiment or data). Thus the "theory of evolution" means the "explanatory package called evolution". Why would we stop calling it a theory/explanation, since it is one?

Other Comments by Coel

47. Comment #343987 by Gregg Townsend on February 20, 2009 at 9:52 am

45. Comment #343982 by Tezcatlipoca

Thanks Tez. I thought I was the only one who was shocked at the absurdity of spending a week’s wages drinking in one sitting. It definitely shows that Joe is looking at life from a different vantage point, doesn't it?

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

48. Comment #343988 by Brian English on February 20, 2009 at 9:53 am

Bonzai:

It would be inductive if it is just a collection of factual assertions without any explanatory model (theory). Once again it shows that people like Hume are over-rated.

Perhaps Hume is overrated. But you are wrong if that is all you think he had to say. I point out one important difference between theory and fact, and you take it as a proof that Hume was overrated. Honestly, what person has not offered an explanatory model? Even the guy who beats his wife offers the model that she deserved it because she made him angry. I guess that guy wasn't overrated...

Other Comments by Brian English

49. Comment #343989 by Eventhorizon on February 20, 2009 at 9:53 am

BigBang

You are Hitchens in disguise right' Because nobody else could inflict the kind of damage to Islam that you're doing right now

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

50. Comment #343990 by BillySands on February 20, 2009 at 9:54 am

big bang morrale, your comments are a load of pish and lies. Prove them! Show me that Allah exists - go on! Dont quote the Koran, that's circular reasoning written by your paedophile prophet - give me some real evidece. Any cut and past jobs however will not be read and marked as spam.

Other Comments by BillySands