1. Comment #392211 by mmurray on June 29, 2009 at 3:09 pm

For those who don't know Compass is primarily a religious programme although it has run a number of Dawkins things like `The Root of all Evil'. This interview this appeared as an on-line extra for the programme

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3864,The-Atheists,Compass-ABC-Television

Not sure why they couldn't get it onto the actual programme. Probably too sensible.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

2. Comment #392216 by thereisnodog on June 29, 2009 at 3:18 pm

good interview...his arguments just don't grow old. can listen again and again.

Other Comments by thereisnodog

3. Comment #392226 by Ewald on June 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm

First, somewhat off-topic, Josh: still appreciate the Mosso.com cloudfiles, as it downloads at a steady multiple MB/s. A pleasure to deal with.

More on-topic: great quality interview, as always. Nicely edited. Still worthwhile, even though, yeah, I heard quite a few of these questions and answers before... but hey, Richard Dawkins was solid and steady as usual.

Other Comments by Ewald

4. Comment #392227 by RightWingAtheist on June 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm

According to the above video, Dawkins watched the TV show before doing the interview, so it would be a miracle if they got it into the TV show.

So yeah... I'd like to hear them explain why they couldn't do it. :)

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

5. Comment #392228 by NormanDoering on June 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm

This is well done, but Dawkins is really making the same points he has been making since his book came out. Even a few of the same phrases are used. And it's all so general, he was more specific and acidic in earlier articles, like "Religion's Misguided Missiles."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawk911.htm

I wish he would get some new material. Find some new and specific issues that religion touches on.

It touches on human rights as one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oijBG1S2Uc4

Other Comments by NormanDoering

6. Comment #392231 by selfexisting on June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm

I really enjoyed this interview. Very well articulated.

Other Comments by selfexisting

7. Comment #392233 by AfraidToDie on June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Asked if religion must be beneficial because it has lasted for millennia... RD replies that so has influenza and cancer... love it!!!

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

8. Comment #392234 by RightWingAtheist on June 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Wow, "John Gray" is an idiot. He seems to think everything in Russia was OK until religion was trampled upon. I guess Gray thinks that was Stalin's only crime.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

9. Comment #392235 by MUNRO1 on June 29, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Such a shame the world at large cant think along similar lines.

Other Comments by MUNRO1

10. Comment #392250 by COD on June 29, 2009 at 5:08 pm

It really irritates me when I hear the "If religion wasn't beneficial, why has it lasted?" question. Many theists seem to forget that for the most part of religious history, anyone who didn't believe was ostracized, imprisoned and executed << that's their answer right there. Since religion lost its tight grip on society (especially in the UK), the churches have emptied and most people don't give a damn about religion. Religion only seems to flourish in societies when non-believers are vilified and threatened.

Other Comments by COD

11. Comment #392259 by Mango on June 29, 2009 at 5:21 pm

I'm glad these videos can be downloaded. I'm accumulating quite a substantial digital library of interviews, debates, images and so on that documents this current surge in rationality.

Other Comments by Mango

12. Comment #392265 by Dhamma on June 29, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Is it really irrational to say you're absolutely positive there are no fairies? I would think it's utterly insane to suggest there's even a tiny chance they exist.

Not sure I entirely agree with Richard on that point.

Other Comments by Dhamma

13. Comment #392270 by Styrer- on June 29, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Comment #392211 by mmurray on June 29, 2009 at 3:09 pm

Thank you, mmuray, for the link. Intriguing enough to take me away for a while to watch your link, when I'd really wanted to comment on Richard's performance here.

Thanks and bugger. Back later, I suppose.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

14. Comment #392278 by HappyPrimate on June 29, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Delightful interview. Wish either RD, Hitchens or Sam Harris would write a definitive book that explains the Stalin/communist and Hitler/fascist thing so this could be put to rest. It has been discussed in recent books but it still pops up in every interview.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

15. Comment #392281 by KRKBAB on June 29, 2009 at 6:34 pm

Comment #392265 by Dhamma - I think he's right to suggest that the existence of a god is just as likely or unlikely as fairies. You cannot definitively say neither actually exists, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or.... But part of that point is- just because something can't be disproved is no reason to give it any reasonable consideration. But let us not forget that it is now recorded that IF he had to choose a religion, it would be that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I do believe that is the single most important thing he has said so far in 2009.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

16. Comment #392286 by Styrer- on June 29, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Mmuray - very good. That John Gray is a bit of a twonk, though.

In any case, in this intensely sympathetic interview, Richard holds forth on precisely those issues re. religion which bother me most, and answers naysaying propositions, such as they are offered, in true and direct manner.

I like the way Richard self-corrects in some interviews, here exemplified nicely by his change of his uttered 'plenty' to 'enough'. There goes a real scientist, and an intellectually honest fellow.

All in all, simply excellent.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

17. Comment #392294 by Wosret on June 29, 2009 at 7:30 pm

I'm way faster than that at typing, RD. My headphones also don't make me look silly.

That is a way better computer than mine though, how about we have a typing contest, and the winner gets the other person's computer?

I'm not very fast at typing, contrary to what you may have read in this or other comments by me.

Other Comments by Wosret

18. Comment #392295 by ricklend on June 29, 2009 at 7:30 pm

Richard, You come across as completely human, i.e., empathetic, passionate, and compassionate in your interviews. At least that is my feeling and that is why you have rock star status in many parts of America. You have folks clamoring to hear your message wherever you go. I am happy to say I believe this is also true for Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Bart Erhman is another courageous agnostic who expresses himself extremely well! Daniel Dennet is only slightly less admired. Less, I believe, because it is sometimes harder to follow his erudite reasoning.

Other Comments by ricklend

19. Comment #392312 by Mango on June 29, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Richard,

I applaud your office's "upside down" world map. (I'm not in the Southern Hemisphere, just a geography prof.)

Other Comments by Mango

20. Comment #392317 by SmartLX on June 29, 2009 at 9:39 pm

I was listening without watching, and when Gray first spoke I actually thought, "Wow, Alister McGrath's being more forthright than usual."

Given that Gray's was the only contrary argument expressed, I'm annoyed that they didn't give RD a chance to reply directly. Of course we all know what he would have said, but the uninitiated audience he was speaking to needs to hear it.

Sad to hear RD may have to scrap plans to come down this year. Perhaps 2010?

Other Comments by SmartLX

21. Comment #392318 by Styrer- on June 29, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Comment #392317 by SmartLX on June 29, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Sad to hear RD may have to scrap plans to come down this year. Perhaps 2010?

I lament your loss, as you should lament my own non-existent hope that Richard would seek to show up and speak on RTE telly, now that we have a Dept of Justice Cunt called Dermot Ahern proposing to re-establish blasphemy as a criminal offence in Ireland.

We both may say - where the hell is he when we need his voice locally?

Roll on cloning.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

22. Comment #392319 by Mbee on June 29, 2009 at 10:15 pm

A couple of points here.
First glad to see this on ABC TV. Most people don't give a second thought to the questions of religious belief. We do at this site but most people do not. The bus campaign and others will hopefully make people think.

We need to get rid of the stereo types of atheists as 'bad people', ' nothing good has ever come from non belief' etc. Those are simply wrong. The tie in to hitler et al is surely aimed at trying to derail all atheist comments and by definition the religious feel attacked. What atheists are saying is that they (the religious) are wrong. Nobody wants to accept that what they have believed all their lives is wrong so it is hardly surprising that all religious groups feel 'attacked' by atheists.

It would be natural to think that 'as science advanced that religion would die out'. I think it is moving in that direction but it is really only in the last few hundred years that science has come to the forefront of general knowledge to the point that is really opposing the religious hard line acceptance of the bible and other dogmas.
What science will find out in the next 100 years I think will probably show without any doubt how the universe works based on the level that new knowledge is currently being discovered. Religion is being squeezed into ever smaller gaps in our knowledge. For those who wish to ignore the facts to believe in superstition they will have fit into those gaps and continue to become more of a minority.

As Richard said the question is quite simple. Is there a god or not? Nobody is trying to put anyone down for believing the stories of the past. If the stories are wrong wouldn't you want to know before your life runs its course!

Edited for clarity.

Other Comments by Mbee

23. Comment #392322 by Fuzzy Duck on June 29, 2009 at 10:28 pm

This was a delightful interview. No rapid MTV-style editing, pleasant lighting, Dawkins got a chance to talk thoroughly and eloquently, and no ominous music. Very good. And I like how it worked on its own but also worked as a sort of epilogue of the original ABC program (I was curious of Dawkins thoughts on it since he was briefly included in that show).

-Kevin Schreck

Other Comments by Fuzzy Duck

24. Comment #392326 by AfraidToDie on June 29, 2009 at 10:54 pm

13. Comment #392265 by Dhamma: Is it really irrational to say you're absolutely positive there are no fairies? I would think it's utterly insane to suggest there's even a tiny chance they exist. Not sure I entirely agree with Richard on that point.

Excellent point. I’ve always felt RD has been just a little too forgiving on this point system. Perhaps it is part of his benevolent approach. If you are going to have a 7 point scale, and you feel like you have to refrain from the absolute, then use 6.99 to show there is no real doubt worth discussing. 6.5 is only 92.8 percent sure there is no god or fairies. Of course, this is just splitting hairs.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

25. Comment #392334 by ridelo on June 29, 2009 at 11:42 pm

"Kindly inform us how science benefits humanity."
ROTFLOL and PIMB!

Other Comments by ridelo

26. Comment #392339 by Jos Gibbons on June 30, 2009 at 12:37 am

That photo at 12 minutes features me on the right. It was taken in Conway Hall at the launch of a UK-wide federation of atheist, humanist and secularist student societies. Two friends and I were there representing Oxford atheists. I didn't expect to end up in an ABC production for it, I can tell you that! It's a pretty cool surprise.

Bit more on topic: that John Gray thing is what's wrong with so much of the media. Every time someone is allowed to contradict RD, they're left unchallenged. I'm not even asking for RD to challenge Gray - a historian who understood the "evidence" regarding communism would do fine! Or, just a six-year-old child pointing out there's a difference between making arguments and legislating ... and this is the pro-religion argument at its best, right? No wonder our numbers are growing!

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

27. Comment #392343 by Uhtred on June 30, 2009 at 1:22 am

Does anyone know if there is an mp3 version of this available anywhere?

Other Comments by Uhtred

28. Comment #392379 by Fuller on June 30, 2009 at 4:11 am

I hope he does come to Australia, that would be awesome.

Other Comments by Fuller

29. Comment #392401 by Daniella on June 30, 2009 at 6:13 am

Yes, please, please, please, please, please come down-under!

Other Comments by Daniella

30. Comment #392416 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2009 at 7:24 am

Fascinating interview, even if it covers a lot of already well-trodden ground.

(Just to be shallow and materialistic, I do like the enormous flat-screen TV set and the huge flat-screen monitor!)

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

31. Comment #392417 by ahmunnaeetchoo on June 30, 2009 at 7:27 am

Very decent interview there. Covers the main points well. Might use this as the example interview for friends who think Richard is intolerant, OTT etc.

Other Comments by ahmunnaeetchoo

32. Comment #392420 by Tyler Durden on June 30, 2009 at 7:38 am

13. Comment #392265 by Dhamma
25. Comment #392326 by AfraidToDie

I always thought Richard was being very consistent with this rationale on the possible existence of faires. No scientist can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that faires do not exist (even though he believes they don't). Otherwise we'd be as culpable as the religious for being dogmatic or fundamentalist.

This is simply the scientist in Richard talking, not the child that wishes fairies do exist.

Just my $0.02

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

33. Comment #392462 by locutus7 on June 30, 2009 at 11:37 am

To echo Layla, I do love his flat and his flat screen. That looks like the same room where the Four Horsemen was filmed.

By contrast, in America you rarely find a room of a residence filled with books. People have called my decor "european" - referring to the stacks of books - in a vaguely disdainful fashion.

Most americans aspire to the home theatre aesthetic with rows of plush theatre seats. The better to watch Mel Gibson religious epics.

Other Comments by locutus7

34. Comment #392474 by Dark Matter on June 30, 2009 at 12:57 pm

John Gray is a philosopher who is famous for changing his position. First, he was a Marxist and then he was a Thatcherite who extolled the virtues of the free market only to change his mind again and slam those who believe in free market economics.

Although he is an atheist (at the moment) he does have very weak and rather dodgy arguments that criticise those that have faith in "progress" which he says is merely replacing the religious faith that was junked after the enlightenment.

This is only a rough summary and I think that Straw Dogs is a very interesting book but it does need to be read with extreme caution as it makes a number of highly contentious claims - very much like the rather fatuous claims he makes here about the Soviet Union, etc.

Even better, read the very fine book "How mumbo-jumbo conquered the world" by Francis Wheen that hilariously critiques John Gray (as well as voodoo economics, self-help books, post-modernism, religion, etc.)




Dark Matter

Other Comments by Dark Matter

35. Comment #392481 by Jos Gibbons on June 30, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Comment #392474 by Dark Matter

It's good of Gray to change his mind, at least when he was wrong. Going from Marxism to Thatcherism ... well, it's an improvement of sorts, I guess. But "faith in" arguments really annoy me. Notice how silly his argument would sound if he had instead said "faith in Sweden". We've done it... sort of. Your book recommendations sound very interesting.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

36. Comment #392502 by F_A_F on June 30, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Richard, another clear and concise description of your thoughts in this interview, as always it's a joy to listen to :)

Also it's immensely annoying to see someone like John Gray in this film equating Atheist ideals with the communist system in the former USSR. He talks as if we wish to force people out of their religious beliefs as that dogma did....I can't think of anything WORSE to do. As soon as people realise that the Atheist agenda's only catchphrase would be "Think!" then maybe they'll stop making such idiotic statements.

Other Comments by F_A_F

37. Comment #392512 by somersetsimon on June 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Wow, "John Gray" is an idiot. He seems to think everything in Russia was OK until religion was trampled upon. I guess Gray thinks that was Stalin's only crime.

If he was arguing that any society that bans religion is in for trouble, then I'd agree. The difference is that most of us would like to see religion die a natural death once people start thinking clearly. With the reducing influence of religion amongst young people, we are hopefully on the right track

Other Comments by somersetsimon

38. Comment #392516 by silent mike on June 30, 2009 at 3:02 pm

I've ear it before.
Nice vid.

Other Comments by silent mike

39. Comment #392529 by prolibertas on June 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Nice to finally see some recognition of New Zealand and Australia lately, in all this. It's easy to feel like the rest of the Western world has forgotten us down here!

Other Comments by prolibertas

40. Comment #392585 by stanleygarden on June 30, 2009 at 10:15 pm

Some people argue that religion has been beneficial for humanity. Well ok..

Sam Harris has assiduously highlighted precisely this point. The fact that an idea is useful says nothing about its veracity. To argue that a certain religion has contibuted significantly to human welfare is a complete non sequitor to the the question of weather this religion is true or not. Since when is science in the business of nurturing useful delusions?

Now, has religion really been all that beneficial along the arc of human history? That, I think, is very debatable.

Other Comments by stanleygarden

41. Comment #392711 by Dark Matter on July 1, 2009 at 9:25 am

Jos Gibbons


"It's good of Gray to change his mind, at least when he was wrong. Going from Marxism to Thatcherism ... well, it's an improvement of sorts, I guess."


Personally, I never had any "faith" in either system and generally believe that people muddle through as best they can in well-intentioned but admittedly flawed society.

The main problem with John Gray's arguments in relation to "faith" in progress replacing "faith" in religion is that he is extremely selective with his examples as to what he defines as "progress".

For example, what decent self-respecting liberal would regard the old soviet union and their repression of freedom of speech & religion as "progress".

Most liberals that I am aware of, including Francis Wheen, would look to the US and in particularly its forward-thinking constitution as a product of the enlightenment that does allow for freedom of religion because that also means freedom from religion.


"But "faith in" arguments really annoy me. Notice how silly his argument would sound if he had instead said "faith in Sweden"."


I completely agree and the very fine philosopher A C Graylin has taken John Gray to task on his rather loose definitions of "progress".




Dark Matter

Other Comments by Dark Matter

42. Comment #392727 by anetchi on July 1, 2009 at 12:15 pm

What an absolutely gorgeous person, inside and out. I'd love to cuddle that Richard Dawkins so hard! haha ;)

Other Comments by anetchi

43. Comment #392746 by Follow Peter Egan on July 1, 2009 at 1:25 pm

I really enjoyed watching this, aside from Gray. Richard was very relaxed here, and typically eloquent. I have house evny though.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

44. Comment #392943 by wouldbesakota on July 2, 2009 at 11:02 am

I think that's an important question:
religious "charities" should be asked the parallel question of "How does religion benefit humanity?"

Excellent interview, however I thought some of the questions were a little assumptuous, such as the one about "Have Atheists simply ignored religion in the past century because they thought the advancement of science would leave nowhere for god to hide?" (or something like that)

I mean, atheism isn't really a unified effort is it? Richard is right, the best thing atheists can do is emerge from the closet and begin congregating at the fence, yowling like the cats we are.

Other Comments by wouldbesakota

45. Comment #392969 by ricky173 on July 2, 2009 at 1:12 pm

33. Comment #392420 by Tyler Durden on June 30, 2009 at 7:38 am

13. Comment #392265 by Dhamma
25. Comment #392326 by AfraidToDie

I always thought Richard was being very consistent with this rationale on the possible existence of fairies. No scientist can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fairies do not exist (even though he believes they don't). Otherwise we'd be as culpable as the religious for being dogmatic or fundamentalist.

This is simply the scientist in Richard talking, not the child that wishes fairies do exist.

Just my $0.02

Agree with Dhamma and AfraidToDie on this point. What Richard is actually assigning a probability to is the Deist case NOT the Theist one.

We can’t prove there is no deity or other arbitrary supernatural entities – where no specific case is made for them. However we can look at the more specific case of the Theist god(s) and rip up for arse paper the vast majority of the claims of their holy books that make the case for their existence.

By equating the Deist and Theist views in this way does, I think, give a shred of credence to their case – which they don’t deserve!

I am perfectly content to say that based on the huge weight of evidence against, I am positive that the theist god(s?) of the Bible and Quran does not exist. As sure as I am that the earth is not flat!

Other Comments by ricky173

46. Comment #393169 by nihilodei on July 3, 2009 at 11:19 am

Why does the flat earth keep coming up... If Jesus was truly a son of god he would have told them the earth was round just like god showed erastothenes said so yonks before he was born

Other Comments by nihilodei

47. Comment #393195 by Dr. Hameer on July 3, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Comment #392420 by Tyler Durden

I always thought Richard was being very consistent with this rationale on the possible existence of faires. No scientist can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that faires do not exist (even though he believes they don't). Otherwise we'd be as culpable as the religious for being dogmatic or fundamentalist.

I don't believe in the likelihood of the existence of the Abrahamic God and other folklore gods for various philosophical reasons (much of which are congruent with Dawkins' arguments). So lets throw that God into the trash can. In fact many profound eastern religious philosophies don't hold that notion of a personal "God".

However I am open to the possibilities of other notions of God (either a deistic God or an idealistic God).

I agree there is no evidence for "God" but I disagree equating the likelihood of "God" to "Fairies". We have consciousness and intelligence and we are part of the universe. So its not entirely unreasonable to consider the possibility of a Consciousness and Intelligence behind (or as the essence of) the fabric of "reality" (despite the current lack of evidence).

There is no evidence (as yet), but comparing the likelihood of any notion of "God" with "fairies" and "unicorns" is like comparing oranges with rocks - a deeply flawed analogy.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

48. Comment #393196 by Corylus on July 3, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Comment #393195 by Dr. Hameer:

We have consciousness hiccups and intelligence bottom burps and we are part of the universe. So its not entirely unreasonable to consider the possibility of a Consciousness Hiccup and Intelligence Bottom Burp behind (or as the essence of) the fabric of "reality" (despite the current lack of evidence).

See my point? Emotionally driven words and capitalisation do not an argument make.

Other Comments by Corylus

49. Comment #393197 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Comment #393195 by Dr. Hameer

We have consciousness and intelligence and we are part of the universe.

I do agree with you here. The atoms and sub-atomic particles of our neurons do exist within spacetime.

So its not entirely unreasonable to consider the possibility of a Consciousness and Intelligence behind (or as the essence of) the fabric of "reality" (despite the current lack of evidence).

Bother. I knew I would disagree with you pretty quickly.

The problem, you see, is that our consciousness and intelligence seems pretty conclusively to be a result of the shifting around of particles in a sort of wobbly soggy mass called our 'brain'.

However, the universe as a whole - the fabric of reality - isn't generally that massive, or that soggy. It isn't even particularly wobbly.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #393198 by Dr. Hameer on July 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm

The problem, you see, is that our consciousness and intelligence seems pretty conclusively to be a result of the shifting around of particles in a sort of wobbly soggy mass called our 'brain'.

However, the universe as a whole - the fabric of reality - isn't generally that massive, or that soggy. It isn't even particularly wobbly.

Steve, I disagree. We know about how the brain works thanks to the field of Neurology but we have pretty much zero idea of how a "material" object such as the brain gives rise to an "immaterial" subject such as a "thought" and the sense of the "self".

To conclude that we know for certain that consciousness can only exist in an object like the brain and is entirely an epiphenomenon of the brain is, well, premature at best.

You might want to check out the book 'Anatomy of the Soul' by a very famous neurologist Stephen Goldberg who might make you think otherwise.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer