1. Comment #33251 by roach on April 19, 2007 at 5:48 pm

This is an amazing discussion. It's a pleasure to watch.

Other Comments by roach

2. Comment #33357 by ajpb on April 20, 2007 at 12:08 am

This is without doubt the best video I have seen on this site yet.

Other Comments by ajpb

3. Comment #33388 by cetACEan on April 20, 2007 at 2:03 am

Bishop Harries confirmed me when I was 13 years old. Richard Dawkins helped me discover atheism in the Christmas lectures in 1991. I am very glad to see such a frank and polite debate on some of the issues around theology and religion. I think these two men set a good example for the rest of the debate. Recommended watching.

Other Comments by cetACEan

4. Comment #33400 by ImagineAZ on April 20, 2007 at 2:56 am

If Bishop Harries spoke for Christians, there would be no major issues between Christianity and naturalists.

Imagine how awful it must be for him to look out over a world full of people who, in a sense, share his faith, but who inevitably come across as thundering morons.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

5. Comment #33410 by Hylo on April 20, 2007 at 3:34 am

I totally agree that this is a wonderful video. It's a pleasure to see a religious individual with the intelligence and humility to match Prof. Dawkins' engaging in such a debate.

If all Christian's and all religious types were equal to Bishop Harries the world would be a wonderful place and despite the fact that I would disagree with the regarding the true nature of the universe, I would have no problem whatsoever with religious people.

What shocked me as I was watching this video was the thought that if I lived in the parish of Bishop Harries I would probably attend his masses on a regular basis to hear his cermons. He seems like a truly wonderful, intelligent person.

Other Comments by Hylo

6. Comment #33420 by Greywizard on April 20, 2007 at 4:03 am

ImagineAZ said: 'If Bishop Harries spoke for Christians, there would be no major issues between Christianity and naturalists.'

I intensely disagree. The conversation may be very civil, indeed, but the gulf between Harries and Dawkins is huge. Dawkins is, in fact, being terrifically polite, when there are clearly many places where he wants to be much more forceful, especially on the subject of euthanasia or assisted death (and other places too, but let's concentrate on that). Harries' claim that he is concerned about this issue on purely philosophical grounds is misleading.

Harries claims to disapprove of the valuing of human autonomy over all other values. But why is this a concern? The fact that, when a person is in extremis, that person's assessment of his or her priorities is, in fact, to be preferred to absolute claims made by others of the value of his or her life, is not a valuing of autonomy over all other values. It is, in fact, claiming that autonomy does trump other values when pain and misery and imminent death and extreme disability are such as to make life a burden too great too bear (for the individual, whose judgement here is what counts). You can't get to the place where Bishop Harries is without the idea of the sacredness of life lurking in the background.

However, if we jump outside the video, one thing that really convinces me that Harries' speaking for Christians would not mean no major issue between Christianity and naturalism is this quote from his book "After the Evil: Christianity and Judaism in the Shadow of the Holocaust": 'I would argue that it is dangerous to think of history being a continuing source of revelation, if new revelation is meant. However, there can be no objection to thinking of history as drawing out the implications which lie latent in the New Testament.' (100) This is just plain obsucrantism, and a way of trumping every other source of knowledge. If it's true, it's in the New Testament. This is nonsense.

Also ridiculous is the discussion of miracles, and the strict ration of miracles to which God is limited in his dealings with us. Of course, the founding miracles of Christianity, particularly resurrection (and ascension, I assume, with so-called virgin birth rated rather lower in importance), are allowed, but others are restricted, perhaps, to a few specially holy people who – what shall we say? – "channel" divine powers of healing. This is not rational or reasonable. It is merely patching the holes in a leaking ship, trying to retain as much as his "reason" will allow, but leaving it open to others a tolerate a greater density of the miraculous. Who determines when the ration of miracles is rationally tolerable?

Harries is a religious "moderate" who, it needs to be said, makes religion plausible to reasonable people, and incidentally permits all the evils that are perpetrated in the name of religion.

Other Comments by Greywizard

7. Comment #33429 by Yorker on April 20, 2007 at 4:53 am

Close your eyes or turn your head and just listen to this conversation, I think you'd never guess that Dawkins was talking to a religite, especially in the early part of the interview. I'ts only after Dawkins pins him down - in a pleasant but insistent way - that the bishop is forced to confess his belief.

Ah, I've just noticed Greywizard's post and he's said much of what I was going to, so I won't repeat. Harries reminded me of my old catholic priest friend I've mentioned elswhere on this site, who became a man of the cloth because it was a good job. Perhaps this pertains to the bishop, he was forced to start talking nonsense because of his inability to answer Dawkins question of why he doesn't just discard religion, in view of his more sensible secular beliefs.

So, like Greywizard, I don't think this video comes close to being good or in any way helpful other than to gain an insight into the mind of a moderate. In addition, the interjections by the producer toward the end, came across badly, they should have cut that. It made the whole thing look like a setup, which to some degree, it evidently was, the bishop was clearly giving "canned" responses to questions it seemed he had a priori knowledge of.

Other Comments by Yorker

8. Comment #33431 by Yorker on April 20, 2007 at 5:09 am

4. Comment #33400 by ImagineAZ

If Bishop Harries spoke for Christians, there would be no major issues between Christianity and naturalists.

If Bishop Harries spoke for Christians, the yawning chasm would still remain. The major issues are insurmountable unless religites renounce their faith, only then might the chasm be filled in.

Other Comments by Yorker

9. Comment #33440 by Logicel on April 20, 2007 at 5:38 am

I have listened to this uncut version several weeks ago, and the bishop does a decent and humanitarian job--especially relating to his emphasis on the importance of palliative care--of discussing issues important to all of us. However, I was chilled to the bone, when patiently and relentlessly pressed by Dawkins, the bishop with great feeling and animation revealed the absolute bollocks of his belief in Jesus and what he views as the beautiful importance and meaning of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I still can't shake the feeling of horror, that such intelligence is imprisoned within a superstitious sphere. Unlike others, it made me almost cry from disappointment and dismay, instead of feeling positive about atheists and Christians getting along. I perceive this very religious bishop to be dangerous as he appears so accommodating and thoughtful, which he certainly is in part, but absolute bollocks is lurking under all that good sense.

Perhaps this bishop is fortunate enough to be one of the rare people who can compartmentalize the natural from the supernatural well enough to function with integrity and good sense, but his example does not mean that the majority of people can pull of what he has, and yet his success may encourage others not to remain steadfast in focusing on the dangers of supernatural beliefs based on no evidential proof. This religiously moderate bishop therefore gives false hope to atheists.

Other Comments by Logicel

10. Comment #33452 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 20, 2007 at 6:20 am

Comment #33440 by Logicel on April 20, 2007 at 5:38 am



You were "chilled to the bone"…….? You still can't "shake the feeling of horror"……..?

What is truly scary is the thought of people like this poster; these are people that are completely and totally frightened of someone / anyone who professes a belief in God, or presumably anything else they may believe – but cannot prove.

As evident from the post above….. they are so paralyzed with fear they use words like "feeling of horror".

Now I ask….. who is to be feared…….?

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

11. Comment #33461 by fonex_86 on April 20, 2007 at 8:31 am

What is truly scary is the thought of people like this poster; these are people that are completely and totally frightened of someone / anyone who professes a belief in God, or presumably anything else they may believe – but cannot prove.
...
Now I ask….. who is to be feared…….?

People like YOU, The Spaghetti Monster, who make spurious claims regarding people who you know absolutely nothing about.

Seriously, how the f*ck do you judge someone as "completely and totally frightened of someone / anyone who professes a belief in God" from, what, a single goddamn post alone?!?

Other Comments by fonex_86

12. Comment #33465 by RascoHeldall on April 20, 2007 at 8:45 am

The Bishop of Oxford is a lovely man and the model of a thoughtful, civilised religious person. While his core beliefs are still ultimately nonsensical, he is sufficiently intellectually honest to not try and pretend that the Bible is consistent with the evidence from nature, or modern day human morality. Why does such intellectual honesty have to be such a rarity with theists?

Of course, he is ultimately wrong and his desire to attach unwarranted significance to human existence does suggest he is still motivated by the same sort of intellectual cowardice that appears to inform most religious delusion. But I feel no anger towards this man for expressing his beliefs, only a weary sadness that he is incapable of letting go of them.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

13. Comment #33483 by Laurence Boyce on April 20, 2007 at 10:20 am

Very nice interview. I thought Richard held the Bishop to account pretty well, but he let this one get away:

"I think I have to face the fact, as a believer, that the Church, because it is an institution and therefore seeks to exist through space and time, will on a number of issues, whether I like it or not, be slow moving. Because the point about an institution is that it seeks to gather the insights of past ages and transmit them, and it is inevitably therefore slow moving."

No. The reason the Church is slow moving is because it claims that its insights derive straight from God. It follows that any reform in its teachings simply amounts to a fatal admission that the original divine revelation was perhaps not so perfect in all its parts after all. That is why the Church has never reformed from within, and why it remains to this day fundamentally antithetical to human progress.

Other Comments by Laurence Boyce

14. Comment #33484 by pissinintothewind on April 20, 2007 at 10:25 am

fonex-86, Hi, re Spaghetti Monster, you have to remember she/he has access to intelligence we are not privy to.From what I have seen of her/his posts, they seem to consists of either inane comments or pseudo intellectual arguments. She/he has been asked to explain him/herself on several occassions with no reply, I can only conclude that she/he does not have the moral fortitude nor the intellectual acumen to answer,a TROLL and not a very bright one at that.

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

15. Comment #33496 by phil rimmer on April 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I have some religious friends like the Bishop of Oxford. They truly understand my point of view and on most occasions believe it themselves. They believe that the world operates rationally. It must do if we are not to descend into an "Alice-in-Wonderland type" existence…..

Good so far, but then it all falls to pieces.

.....Therefore, miracles must be strictly rationed. How many 3?…4?… Poor Bishop....which miracles to choose. Well certainly not the virgin birth (he's not a Roman Catholic for God's Sake!) Nothing trivial like loaves and fishes, but healing is good and symbolic, oh and of course the biggie… the Resurrection, symbolic of life after death…the big reward….Not that the good Bishop would mention anything so vulgar as a reward. Goodness is its own reward, after all.

I found him admirable in many ways. I would trust him with my life. I would trust him to "pull the trigger" if I was in the burning cab.

It was the stuff on schools that worried me. Even he can't keep his hands off the kids' minds. Having said that, I have a sneaking suspicion that this man would have the honesty to present his beliefs to any children in his care as just that …beliefs.

I also think also that one day he might learn to be happy with a single miracle, that being, to have the firm belief that the Universe is a Good place to be.

Mervyn Peake said it best on his own gravestone.

"To have been born at all is Miracle enough."

Other Comments by phil rimmer

16. Comment #33648 by AndyD on April 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Hmm, rather than think he's further allowing people to hold absurd beliefs and increasing the chasm, I think he's doing more to bridge it.

Holding such a plastic view on religion's impact in life helps lessen it's power, and hopefully one day once people see that the inner beauty, spiritual fulfillment, wonder, mystery, or whatever the heck people want to call the emotion produced that is generally attached to religion, can be had without it, there will be no more need for it.

If all people could argue like Dawkins and the Bishop, I think not only religious debate but debate in general would hugely benefited.

Other Comments by AndyD

17. Comment #33669 by Logicel on April 21, 2007 at 2:45 am

AndyD, Some think as you do regarding moderates being an useful bridge, and perhaps you are right as there are no psychological studies that I am aware of that will enable humanists to identify the perfect approach to encourage the embracing of rationality.

As my earlier comment showed, at this stage, I agree with the camp in which Dawkins is one, that moderates shelter the fanatics by not focusing on the danger of holding beliefs that are not based on evidential proof. This bishop has pulled off a balance that I consider to be mostly impossible for most of us. As other posters have asked, why is this bishop so rare? He is rare because to do what he does is that difficult.

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #33679 by Hip_Priest on April 21, 2007 at 4:54 am

I wonder how he chooses which dogma to drop for allegory, and which to keep? I quite liked the god's 'miracle quota' explanation, where god is a cosmic Gordon Brown writing his budget in the sky. It would simply not be prudent to answer all prayers or make an earthly appearence outside of a grilled cheese sandwich. I guess the god of the old testiment must have left quite a deficit.

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

19. Comment #33694 by Logicel on April 21, 2007 at 6:56 am

fonex_86, It seems that the neutered SpagMon certainly failed to get up on the 'brighty bright' side of the neutered self's bed this glorious spring day--not surprising as the neutered self has confessed to quite an aversion to all things 'brighty bright'. If you are wondering why I am referring to the SpagMon as neutered it is because that is the way the neutered self thusly describes the neutered self in an earlier post on another thread.

To clarify my comment so deliciously mangled by the SpagMon, let me use a food related metaphor, one that fishpeddler would appreciate, the master that he is regarding the use of such metaphors. Imagine someone concocting a meal for me. This chef takes the very best and freshest romaine lettuce, massing it together to make a nice appetizing green bed and surrounds the crispy leaves with the ripest, most succulent, red cherry tomatoes. The chef then decides to dump on top of this inviting culinary preamble, a ton of chicken shit, spicing it up with some bracing paint remover and ending his masterpiece by sprinkling some horse urine for extra punch. This meal would horrify me, not frighten me. I would only become frightened if the chef had the means and power to cram this repast down my reluctant throat.

The unsavory elements in the meal are the bollocks represented by religious supernatural beliefs, and the savory elements--the nourishing, vitamin/mineral rich foods like lettuce and tomatoes--are represented by rationality. The bishop is the chef, and as he has no power or even intent to cram his weird concoction into my brain, I am not frightened by him.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #33716 by Duff on April 21, 2007 at 10:39 am

Once again, a sad spectacle of an intelligent, thoughtful human trying to justify the unjustifiable and rationalize the irrational. What a relief it is not to be weighed down by the truly heavy burden of dogma.

Other Comments by Duff

21. Comment #33731 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Virginia Tech being used and abused by the faithheads. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9uNtvFSxYM

No comments, no video responses!!!

A few of us co-operated online to make the following response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_z9WgV5jkQ

If you think it is a good one,
please help to promote it in whatever other fora you frequent.
We should not have to sit idly by, while this juvenile drivel is spouted as truth.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

22. Comment #33743 by 5537P06 on April 21, 2007 at 1:25 pm

This is a wonderful interview, a great conversation between two intelligent, rational and clearly compassionate people. The bishop would make an excellent moral philosopher, if only he could shed the burden of historical precedent supplied by his chosen affiliation. It is regrettable that in this day and age a moral philosopher must profess certain incongruous beliefs in order to speak authoritatively on the subject of morality.

Other Comments by 5537P06

23. Comment #33771 by StephenH on April 21, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Glad to have to chance to see this interview in full

It's reassuring that a religious believer and a strong agnostic, leaning towards Atheist can have a calm and pleasant debate.

Both people being very polite towards each other, and i can clearly see, respect one another

It's a pleasant alternative to the sort of vicious verbal exchange that often seems to happen between believers and non-believers

Other Comments by StephenH

24. Comment #33849 by photopedia on April 22, 2007 at 7:25 am

Dawkins repeats his strongly held views about education and the labelling of children in this interview. As a resident of Northern Ireland, it frustrates me that the Labour Government has been so cowardly in its attempts to reform the sectarian education system here.
Quite rightly, they have been very determined in their efforts to reform the police but when it comes to schools...nothing. Indeed, it seems to me that Tony Blair's support for the expansion of Faith Schools in England and Wales will sew the seeds of division and sectarianism throughout the UK.

Other Comments by photopedia

25. Comment #34167 by 4th3157 on April 23, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Is there any chance of releasing the uncut footage of the Ted Haggard interview?

Other Comments by 4th3157

26. Comment #68032 by Ewan D on September 5, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Re Comment #34167 by 4th3157

Apparently not, alas. Legal resons...

Other Comments by Ewan D

27. Comment #87849 by Silent.Bomber on November 13, 2007 at 11:14 am

A strong agnostic?

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber