Richard Dawkins on BBC1 tonight

8kvscdpglqnyr4

23:05 - William Crawley Meets Richard Dawkins
"The journalist travels to Oxford to meet the world's most famous atheist, who claims that religion is just a dangerous virus that is infecting humanity."

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

hrm... I think south park is also on at 11.05 on paramount... not sure I'll be able to catch this.

Dades

I'm a bit Dawkin'ed out at the moment...

If he implodes let us know and I'll catch it on youtube.

lostexpectation

The Atheist wrote:

I'm a bit Dawkin'ed out at the moment...

If he implodes let us know and I'll catch it on youtube.

yeah me too lol

Dave!

I'll set my alarm for this

5uspect

I doubt there'll be anything new to say here.
I'll record it anyway if anyone wants it.

Dave!

Another concise and well done interview... Nothing exceptional or unusual though. Started off asking what's wrong with religion, Dawkins went into the child abuse thing and talked about N. Ireland. The interviewer didn't take kindly to the apparant simplicity Dawkins was applying to the problems in the North, but he explained himself well. Then went onto childhood, how he became an atheist, etc. Then the usual arguments put to him in every interview. Then the interviewer pushed a bit on the whole religious scientists thing, and then went onto say that the basic foundations of science are based on a kind of faith, which Dawkins reluctantly accepted in the same vein as we assume that we can't walk through doors. Finished up asking what he'd say to god if he died and was confronted by him.
I thought it was good to end on the note, "I am a good man, I do good things, I'm kind... What's so special about belief, anyway?"



Again nothing unusual, same questions posed to Dawkins, if a little more pushily than usual.

5uspect

Fudge I don't have BBC Northern Ireland. Oh well.

Dave!

it'll probs appear on richard dawkins.net

MoominPapa

DaveMcG wrote:

Again nothing unusual, same questions posed to Dawkins, if a little more pushily than usual.

In fairness to Crawley I though he asked the same old questions but in a forcefull and intelligent manner and he wasn't letting Dawkins have it all his own way, in particular about the philosophic assumptions underpinning science. Dawkins batted away anything thrown at him as usual but had to keep his eye on the ball a bit more than usual.
I'm pretty jaded with all this as well and was going to give this a miss but glad I didn't now

I liked the bit at the end when asked if after death he comes face to face with god and said something like "Which god? Why assume its Yaweh. Why not Mithras or Baal or Zeus? And Baal asks you why did you believe in that terrible Yaweh?":)

stevejazzx

MoominPapa wrote:

...... and he wasn't letting Dawkins have it all his own way, in particular about the philosophic assumptions underpinning science.

But the answer was easier than Dawkins made out. The reason we were wathcing it on televison is down to the fact that science in application works, so practical science is only philosophical in a very existentialist way, whereas religon has never been able to achieve any form of exactness so reamins entirely philosophical, theorethical.

moominpapa wrote:

I liked the bit at the end when asked if after death he comes face to face with god and said something like "Which god? Why assume its Yaweh. Why not Mithras or Baal or Zeus? And Baal asks you why did you believe in that terrible Yaweh?":)

TBH I thought the question was pants. Dawkins answer made it somewhat entertaining and he hit on something really special, he said at the very end

'Why should belief be so important anyway? What about just being a good person? If God did exist wouldn't that please him just as much, that I was a good person? I think morality is a great argument against fundamentalism, that is if you could demonstrate that most people are generally or even genetically 'good'.

MoominPapa

Like I said Dawkins batted away as usual but this guy was better informed and better prepared than the usual slack jawed gobs that we see Dawkins dealing with without difficulty.

stevejazzx wrote:

TBH I thought the question was pants.

I think Crawley asked it to end on a light note

stevejazzx

MoominPapa wrote:

Like I said Dawkins batted away as usual but this guy was better informed and better prepared than the usual slack jawed gobs that we see Dawkins dealing with without difficulty.


I think Crawley asked it to end on a light note

Yeah it was better than a lot of interviews I've seen with Dawkins. I thought the highlight was when Crawley identified the (slight) weakness in the infinite regress defense of Dawkins i.e using God to explain creation creates a bigger problem becasue then you have to expain where God came from and where his maker came from ad infinitum to which Crawley notes: by this criteria Dawkins puts himself in a position where he is never able to entertain any theoretical evidence for God. Clever.

MoominPapa

Heres Crawley blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/
he seems to have enjoyed himself anyway

Zillah

DaveMcG wrote:

Finished up asking what he'd say to god if he died and was confronted by him.

Not enough evidence God, just not enough evidence.

radiospan

Anyone got a video of this?

Might be hard to find online, it was NI only.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

to which Crawley notes: by this criteria Dawkins puts himself in a position where he is never able to entertain any theoretical evidence for God. Clever.

I haven't seen the show so I might not be quite understanding you, so forgive me if I'm in error. That said:

Dawkins' position is an argument against A Priori arguments for God. If someone wants to make a case for the existence of God based on evidence then I'm sure he'll tackle them in that arena.

Then again, what exactly do you mean by "theoretical evidence"?

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

I haven't seen the show so I might not be quite understanding you, so forgive me if I'm in error. That said:

Dawkins' position is an argument against A Priori arguments for God. If someone wants to make a case for the existence of God based on evidence then I'm sure he'll tackle them in that arena.

Then again, what exactly do you mean by "theoretical evidence"?

Essentially Crawleys point is a criticism of the argument of 'infinite regress' where using God to explain creation creates a bigger problem than it solves because then you have to explain where God came from ad infinitum. Crawleys suggest that using such an argument makes it impossible then for that person to entertain any 'evidence' for God.I think it is suppose to point to the closemindedness of such an approach, given that we cannot be sure or at the very least are still learning, cutting off one avenue entirely may be unwise. I not saying I agree with Crawleys counter argument but just that it was a little more thoughtful than a lot of other interviewers have managed. I used the word theoretical above because I cannot for the life of me imagine any other knid evidence when trying to explain 'God'.:)

Zillah

Not really. Dawkins uses his infinite regress point to counter people who maintain that God explains life and the universe. Its not a argument against the existence of God, its a counter argument to first cause arguments. For example: "Life is so irreducibly complex that a God must have designed it, therefore God exists." His counter is that in that case God himself must be so complex as to require another designer.

Both Dawkins and I would maintain that the infinite regress point makes God less likely, but it doesn't conclude that God doesn't exist, just less likely, and hence doesn't preclude contemplation of evidence for God. I'm a little suprised Dawkins didn't make that point himself. I assume he would have had he not been on the spot.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

Not really. Dawkins uses his infinite regress point to counter people who maintain that God explains life and the universe. Its not a argument against the existence of God, its a counter argument to first cause arguments. For example: "Life is so irreducibly complex that a God must have designed it, therefore God exists." His counter is that in that case God himself must be so complex as to require another designer.

Both Dawkins and I would maintain that the infinite regress point makes God less likely, but it doesn't conclude that God doesn't exist, just less likely, and hence doesn't preclude contemplation of evidence for God. I'm a little suprised Dawkins didn't make that point himself. I assume he would have had he not been on the spot.

I know what Dawkins uses this argument for, I just explained it above twice. Crawley was suggenting it closes off Dawkins for considering other evidence, I said above that I didn't necessarily agree, just that is was an interesting speculation. Best thing is for you to do is have a look at the interview when you can, you'll doubtlessly get a clearer idea of what I'm attempting to say, my powers of verbatim a little underwhelmed this evening....

SonOfPerdition

stevejazzx wrote:

I know what Dawkins uses this argument for, I just explained it above twice. Crawley was suggenting it closes off Dawkins for considering other evidence, I said above that I didn't necessarily agree, just that is was an interesting speculation. Best thing is for you to do is have a look at the interview when you can, you'll doubtlessly get a clearer idea of what I'm attempting to say, my powers of verbatim a little underwhelmed this evening....

I think you give that consideration too much credit, i don't find it interesting, it's completely misleading.

Zillah

I understand the point you're explaining, its just wrong. Having the position of "God is quite unlikely" does not preclude one from considering evidence for his existence. Thats the bones of it.

radiospan

Full show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr-9N9fEgNA

magicbastarder

review of dawkins on the dublin review of books; ostensibly, it's a review of the god delusion, but really it's an essay about dawkins' general stance on atheism and religion:

http://www.drb.ie/fa_god.html

i believe mr. brooke is a clergyman of some description.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

review of dawkins on the dublin review of books; ostensibly, it's a review of the god delusion, but really it's an essay about dawkins' general stance on atheism and religion:

http://www.drb.ie/fa_god.html

i believe mr. brooke is a clergyman of some description.

He started off well but I get the impression that Mr. Brooke understood very little of "The God Delusion."