The Meaning of Life next week

branie2

Gaybo will be interviewing Richard Dawkins

robindch

branie2 wrote: »

Gaybo will be interviewing Richard Dawkins

Hope he has less trouble with Dawkins than he had with young Stephen Fry!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

Peregrinus

I didn't think he had any trouble with Stephen Fry. It seemed to me an interview that went pretty well, on the whole.

Sm0ke

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't think he had any trouble with Stephen Fry. It seemed to me an interview that went pretty well, on the whole.

maybe by "trouble"he meant the whole gaybo questioning his faith after the interview thing


this should be interesting, the only issue is Dawkins can come across as a bit aggresive in his own rethoric. some people may be put off by him if he adopts a super aggresive stance early on.

kneemos

The Messiah will speak.

Peregrinus

Sm0ke wrote: »

maybe by "trouble"he meant the whole gaybo questioning his faith after the interview thing

You do know that was joke, don't you?

Absolam

I have a feeling Stephen Fry was the highlight of the show; I can't see Richard Dawkins mustering even a shadow of the charisma he possesses, and that's what really made the interview so good.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

kneemos wrote: »

The Messiah will speak.

Yeah, but what about Dawkins?

Cherry Blossom

What date and time is this on does anyone know? Would be very interested in watching it.

branie2

Sunday at 10.35

realdanbreen

branie2 wrote: »

Gaybo will be interviewing Richard Dawkins

What's the betting Richard will start talking in circles and going off topic when asked his opinion of how the world began. He usually mentions the 'Big Bang' and then more or less says that there is no point in trying to explain the big bang as we wouldn't understand.

seamus

Sm0ke wrote: »

this should be interesting, the only issue is Dawkins can come across as a bit aggresive in his own rethoric. some people may be put off by him if he adopts a super aggresive stance early on.

I don't think he does. He comes across as blunt, with no attempt to choose his words to be more sensitive.

Even atheists often see this as being "aggressive" because we're all so used to paying deference to peoples' feelings about religion.

Which is not a bad thing, it's the difference between a robust Xmas dinner conversation and Granny crying into her sherry while your mother tells you that you've ruined the day.

But in an interview context, showing sensitivity to feelings or beliefs is unnecessary.

Peregrinus

It may be "unnecessary", but it's probably desirable if you hope to win people over to your view, rather than alienate them from it.

And I don't think Dawkins affect is only problematic because religion is supposed to enjoy some kind of immune-from-criticism status. His comments on a few issues that have nothing to do with religion have made similar waves, and as he graduates to "angry old man who shouts at clouds" status this seems to be happening more frequently.

None of this affects the inherent validity or soundness of his views, but it does mean that his expression of his views is likely to appeal to those who already share his views, but to alienate those who don't. This goes equally for his views on creationism, on religion, on equality, on sexual harrassment.

Duggy747

I wonder if we'll get another one of these :pac:

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

What's the betting Richard will start talking in circles and going off topic when asked his opinion of how the world began. He usually mentions the 'Big Bang' and then more or less says that there is no point in trying to explain the big bang as we wouldn't understand.

I find your tenacity at seeing 'how the world began' as a 'checkmate, atheist!' argument strangely endearing.

Sonics2k

I'll watch it, if only because I get such a kick out of Dawkins arrogance.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the man on so much, but he really is an arrogant bellend.

PopePalpatine

realdanbreen wrote: »

What's the betting Richard will start talking in circles and going off topic when asked his opinion of how the world began. He usually mentions the 'Big Bang' and then more or less says that there is no point in trying to explain the big bang as we wouldn't understand.

The Big Bang and the formation of Earth are two completely different things, separated by c.9 billion years.

mahoganygas

Peregrinus wrote: »

His comments on a few issues that have nothing to do with religion have made similar waves, and as he graduates to "angry old man who shouts at clouds" status this seems to be happening more frequently.

None of this affects the inherent validity or soundness of his views, but it does mean that his expression of his views is likely to appeal to those who already share his views, but to alienate those who don't. This goes equally for his views on creationism, on religion, on equality, on sexual harrassment.

The problem with being in the public eye is that all of your views are under scrutiny. Which is just daft.

I am an atheist and I often challenge my friends to question their beliefs. I have my own views on religion.

I also have my own views on ice cream and believe that anybody who puts chocolate sauce on their ice cream is clearly a raving lunatic.

Does my hatred of chocolate sauce mean that my views on religion should be instantly disregarded? Of course not.

But that's exactly what's happening to 'celebrities' (for want of a better word) like Dawkins.

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

I find your tenacity at seeing 'how the world began' as a 'checkmate, atheist!' argument strangely endearing.

In terms of "proofs of god", it's about the only one left these days.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't think he had any trouble with Stephen Fry. It seemed to me an interview that went pretty well, on the whole.

yep, gaybo knew fry was giving good telly and was probably delighted with the response.

Peregrinus

mahoganygas wrote: »

The problem with being in the public eye is that all of your views are under scrutiny. Which is just daft.

I am an atheist and I often challenge my friends to question their beliefs. I have my own views on religion.

I also have my own views on ice cream and believe that anybody who puts chocolate sauce on their ice cream is clearly a raving lunatic.

Does my hatred of chocolate sauce mean that my views on religion should be instantly disregarded? Of course not.

But that's exactly what's happening to 'celebrities' (for want of a better word) like Dawkins.

Well, that's celebrity culture for you.

But, let's face it, Dawkins' areas of expertise are (a) evolutionary biology, and (b) the communication of science. Having achieved a (legitimate) fame in these areas, he becomes a "celebrity" and by the rules of 21st century celebrity culture we are now expected to pay attention to, and take seriously, his views on matters in which he has no particular expertise and no necessary insight, and may in fact know little or nothing.

And Dawkins (like many other celebrities) trades on this by sharing with the world his views on matters large and small like theism, theology, philosophy, sociology, sexual ethics, the cultural signficance of the King James Bible, etc. His view on these things may be sound or unsound, and you can make up your own mind about that, but they have no particular authority in the way that his views on, say, evolution do. But they attract notice because of his celebrity status, and he takes advantage of this.

He does run the risk that if his views on these things are judged by some to be half-baked, that could (given the rules of celebrity culture) tend detract from the perceived status of his views on things he is well-qualified to talk about. He's a bright enough man; presumably when he plays the celebrity game he knows that this is the risk he runs.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

yep, gaybo knew fry was giving good telly and was probably delighted with the response.

Undoubtedly he was. Whatever you might think about his other qualities, Gaybo has never been one to interview only those who he expected to say things he was comfortable with.

kneemos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, that's celebrity culture for you.

But, let's face it, Dawkins' areas of expertise are (a) evolutionary biology, and (b) the communication of science. Having achieved a (legitimate) fame in these areas, he becomes a "celebrity" and by the rules of 21st century celebrity culture we are now expected to pay attention to, and take seriously, his views on matters in which he has no particular expertise and no necessary insight, and may in fact know little or nothing.

And Dawkins (like many other celebrities) trades on this by sharing with the world his views on matters large and small like theism, theology, philosophy, sociology, sexual ethics, the cultural signficance of the King James Bible, etc. His view on these things may be sound or unsound, and you can make up your own mind about that, but they have no particular authority in the way that his views on, say, evolution do. But they attract notice because of his celebrity status, and he takes advantage of this.

He does run the risk that if his views on these things are judged by some to be half-baked, that could (given the rules of celebrity culture) tend detract from the perceived status of his views on things he is well-qualified to talk about. He's a bright enough man; presumably when he plays the celebrity game he knows that this is the risk he runs.

His views on religion are one mans opinion and bear no more weight than mine or yours.Atheists however seem to fawn over him and his every word.
If it's his celebrity status or scientific backround that somehow makes his opinions gospel I don't know.

Absolam

kneemos wrote: »

His views on religion are one mans opinion and bear no more weight than mine or yours.Atheists however seem to fawn over him and his every word.
If it's his celebrity status or scientific backround that somehow makes his opinions gospel I don't know.

I don't think anyone is saying his opinions are gospel.... only that his views gain more public visibility and cause more discussion than yours or any of ours. They may be no more valid, but they're probably more influential.

Peregrinus

kneemos wrote: »

His views on religion are one mans opinion and bear no more weight than mine or yours.Atheists however seem to fawn over him and his every word.
If it's his celebrity status or scientific backround that somehow makes his opinions gospel I don't know.

I don't think think that's entirely fair. There are plenty of atheists who think his views on theism are puerile and that he's an embarrassment and/or a pain in the arse.

But, as Ab says, he gets notice because he's famous for more than just being an atheist, and that's how celebrity culture works. He's regularly described as "the world's best-known atheist" (a Google search has just returned me a page of 10 hits, 9 of which refer to Richard Dawkins). That will cheer you if you're an atheist who agrees with him and piss you off if you're an an atheist who disagrees with him.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be "unnecessary", but it's probably desirable if you hope to win people over to your view, rather than alienate them from it.

And I don't think Dawkins affect is only problematic because religion is supposed to enjoy some kind of immune-from-criticism status. His comments on a few issues that have nothing to do with religion have made similar waves, and as he graduates to "angry old man who shouts at clouds" status this seems to be happening more frequently.

None of this affects the inherent validity or soundness of his views, but it does mean that his expression of his views is likely to appeal to those who already share his views, but to alienate those who don't. This goes equally for his views on creationism, on religion, on equality, on sexual harrassment.

For every 'believer' who is offended by Richard dawkins' plain speaking, there are others, who are on the cusp of leaving their religion and already think that the whole thing Is dangerous and silly, who just need someone to give them the nudge and the confidence to accept the conclusions that they have already come to

Shrap

Oh I find the both of them cringe-making, so I'll probably watch it just to see which one squirms first. I'd put good money on Gaybo actually managing to pin Dawkins superiority complex to the wall once or twice. Should be entertaining anyway!

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

For every 'believer' who is offended by Richard dawkins' plain speaking, there are others, who are on the cusp of leaving their religion and already think that the whole thing Is dangerous and silly, who just need someone to give them the nudge and the confidence to accept the conclusions that they have already come to

And for every "unbeliever" who finds Dawkins' views well-reasoned and well-argued there are others who think he's an embarrassment, as already pointed out.

The division here is not between believers and unbeleivers. The division is between those who already agree with his analysis of belief, and those who don't.

Hotblack Desiato

Shrap wrote: »

Oh I find the both of them cringe-making, so I'll probably watch it just to see which one squirms first. I'd put good money on Gaybo actually managing to pin Dawkins superiority complex to the wall once or twice. Should be entertaining anyway!

Byrne is not to be beaten by anyone in the superiority complex stakes.

Pathetic to see the usual god defenders deliver the usual tired old cliches about Dawkins. They could at least wait and then pretended to have watched the show first.

If Dawkins was a defender of religion but otherwise unchanged, they'd be singing his praises endlessly.

I think the vast majority of criticism of Dawkins is greatly overdone. A handy bandwagon for the religionists and the 'I don't believe in god, but..' crowd to both jump on. It bears little relation to any books, interviews or talks of his as far as I can see.

He should probably stay off twitter though, it's not a medium suited to him. (What or who it's actually suited for is another topic in itself)

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He should probably stay off twitter though, it's not a medium suited to him. (What or who it's actually suited for is another topic in itself)

This.

A disproportionate chunk of the criticism/ire he attracts arises from his tweets. And in so far as he has an affect which can seem brusque and insensitive, the limitations of twitter will work to magnify that perception by about a thousand per cent.

His books - those that I've read - strike me as models of rationality and moderation. He's less appealing in person. His tweets can make him look like a bastard.

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think the vast majority of criticism of Dawkins is greatly overdone.

I agree, but I just can't take to the man at all. Like Peregrinus, I think his books are really readable and approachable, but I can't listen to him without wanting to argue with him (even though I agree in the main with his take on things).