Richard Dawkins on the Late Late

Tyler MacDurden

On the evidence of tonight's interview, I'll not be bothering to watch Tubridy again. It appeared that he hadn't prepared at all for this beyond formulating a few amorphous, juvenile lines of questioning.

He had one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists sitting opposite him, who clearly assumed that he was on to discuss his new book. There must be hundreds of little anecdotes within its pages that could have formed the basis of an enlightening interview. Instead we got a stilted, cringeworthy mess that would put a primary school debate to shame.

Zamboni, what was the vibe like in the audience? When RD came out I thought he got a fairly warm round of applause. Perhaps it was the disjointed nature of the interview, but I got the impression people were ill at ease thereafter.

drkpower

Zamboni wrote: »

Fair enough but look at the ignorance Tubridy shows as an interviewer.
He had absolutely no idea what to talk to the CEO from Quantas during the earlier interview and essentially blanked him.
All he knew about Robinson was the 'NHS hospital' thing.

I suppose my point is, I can bet that he didn't even flick open the front cover of TGSOE. Which would be like Jonathon Ross interviewing Tom Cruise without watching the film that Cruise is publicising.

I agree 100% about the Qantas guy. We have heard from the other two (esp McWilliams) a million times. The story of the Tallaght guy now CEO of Qantas was something that he should have jumped on.

Listen, I am not a fan of Tubs particularly. And a proper interviewer would have been able to balance what Dawins was on to promote and what he is more famous for in one interview without it appearing stilted and ill-willed. But Dawkins shouldnt have seemed so peeved that he was being asked about atheism.

Handsome Bob

ironingbored wrote: »

Religious fundamentalists just take their beliefs one step further.

I think you need to elaborate on what you mean when you say fundamnetalist. Are we talking terrorists here or just nut jobs ala fred Phelps? If it's the former then I think it's ridiculous to describe the gap between religious moderate and terrorist as "one step further." To be simplistic, it's a lot of steps from one to the other.

I agree entirely with Harris that it is the same doctrine that sanctions the Shia ritual of self-flagellation drives the faithful to strap explosives to their bodies and enter shopping centres and fly planes into skyscrapers.

That's in one religion though. You cannot take the above and apply it to religion across the board. I agree with Harris in the sense that some beliefs could warrant severe punishment and I think he was specifically referrring to Islamic terrorists there.

How would the foot soldiers of the pro-life movement here react if abortion were to be introduced into Ireland. Would the Catholic notion of a soul compel individuals to cross the line and physically prevent doctors from performing abortions?

It is though an ultimately futile action though isn't it? Attempting to stop a doctor from entering his practice (which will most likely end in failure) is not quite the same as strapping explosives to ones self and going on a kamikaze mission.

If so-called moderates can believe in flying horses, walking on water, eating flesh and drinking blood why not in 72 virgins for martyrdom?

Different religions in different environments that incite different reactions.

Apparently there exists a group in the US called Christians for Israel and supported by some well known member of Congress, whose goal is to support holy war in the Middle East because of their belief that this is what will precipitate the rapture and the second coming of Christ. No most "moderate" Christians also believe that Jesus will "come again" so the leap is not that great.

Leap is great in the sense that moderates haven't a breeze when Jesus will come again, whereas evangelists are randomly plucking a conflict from obscurity and labelling it the end of times.

Zamboni

Tyler MacDurden wrote: »

Zamboni, what was the vibe like in the audience? When RD came out I thought he got a fairly warm round of applause. Perhaps it was the disjointed nature of the interview, but I got the impression people were ill at ease thereafter.

The audience were fine in fairness but you essentially had a wonderfully intelligent man and as you said the worlds most foremost evolutionary biologist effectively being written off as a mildly daft eccentric Englishman. It would be like Stephen Hawkings lecturing people who read Heat.

RKDus

I feel embarrassed to be Irish after that.

ironingbored

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I think you need to elaborate on what you mean when you say fundamnetalist. Are we talking terrorists here or just nut jobs ala fred Phelps? If it's the former then I think it's ridiculous to describe the gap between religious moderate and terrorist as "one step further." To be simplistic, it's a lot of steps from one to the other.



That's in one religion though. You cannot take the above and apply it to religion across the board. I agree with Harris in the sense that some beliefs could warrant severe punishment and I think he was specifically referrring to Islamic terrorists there.



It is though an ultimately futile action though isn't it? Attempting to stop a doctor from entering his practice (which will most likely end in failure) is not quite the same as strapping explosives to ones self and going on a kamikaze mission.



Different religions in different environments that incite different reactions.



Leap is great in the sense that moderates haven't a breeze when Jesus will come again, whereas evangelists are randomly plucking a conflict from obscurity and labelling it the end of times.

Our side discussion is veering/has veered off topic.

Maybe Harris' opinions could form the basis of a new thread.

I'll come back tomorrow on your points above.

YFlyer

drkpower wrote: »

But Dawkins shouldnt have seemed so peeved that he was being asked about atheism.

Yes if you are popular for something interviewers will ask you questions on it. Not meant to lower the tone, but look how Rodge and Podge interviewed Ami Titmuss and asked her questions all the time about her video

Kernel

hullaballoo wrote: »

His attitude was utterly condescending and I don't blame Tubridy for being 'smart' with him.

Yes, I'm in agreement here. Dawkins has always been condescending and over zealous in his beliefs. Thought Tubridy did well enough tonight, and thought that Dawkins was actually quite rude to the priest - who was obviously well read. I would have liked Dawkins to be pressed more on the fact that science cannot explain the why - just the how. And the work of Dr. Bernard Haisch among other scientists advocating an intelligent design to the universe and the philosophy of reality.

Rb

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, I'm in agreement here. Dawkins has always been condescending and over zealous in his beliefs. Thought Tubridy did well enough tonight, and thought that Dawkins was actually quite rude to the priest - who was obviously well read. I would have liked Dawkins to be pressed more on the fact that science cannot explain the why - just the how. And the work of Dr. Bernard Haisch among other scientists advocating an intelligent design to the universe and the philosophy of reality.

Dawkins would have smashed questions such as "why" and has addressed theist scientists in his books quite well, backed up with a plethora of statistics so I can't imagine him being "pressed" on either issue.

It would have made for a more interesting interview, I'll agree with that.

Tyler MacDurden

Zamboni wrote: »

The audience were fine in fairness but you essentially had a wonderfully intelligent man and as you said the worlds most foremost evolutionary biologist effectively being written off as a mildly daft eccentric Englishman. It would be like Stephen Hawkings lecturing people who read Heat.

Nice analogy.

What a wasted opportunity. And what a poor interviewer Tubs is.

Some things one expects to see from the host of a purportedly serious discussion show - some evidence of research or preparation; a semblance of impartiality; good old-fashioned manners. Lacking on all counts tonight.

Ugh, can't believe it's come to this but... time to bring back The Plank?

MmmmmCheese

I hate it when people look down on others for believing in god. Atheists often complain about how religious types try to force religion down their thoats. I think it works both ways: I have found in everyday life that people who believe in god are often scorned and looked down upon for having said beliefs. No, just because someone believes in god does not make them stupid, weak or naive.

Don't get me wrong I'm not some religious freak, it just really annoys me when atheists see themselves as superior or more intelligent. Thats the impression i get from a lot of atheists i know. As for the people saying that they were disappointed that most of the audience were believers, why? So what if they believe in god, what effect does it have on your life? Let the people believe.

Anyhow from what I've experienced most of my friends and indeed most people my age, are atheists. Almost seems to be the cool/fashionable thing these days.

Not saying thats why so many people are atheists, thats just the impression i've gotten from a lot of people.

Turtwig

When the RTE announcer said after the news 'The Evolution Revolution' I had high hopes....

Wish I could still have that frame of mind. It is as Calibos once said:
"Our posts may end up being more suited to the Losing Faith in Humanity thread."
This sadly, turned out to be true. No, scratch that, it was worse!!

All I can say is this, well, I can't really say anything. Turbridy had one of the greatest mind of evolution and all he could ask was the future for humans!?
The rest of the interview was about the TGD which I, and I sure many others wanted to hear nothing about, in fact, I'd imagine Dawkins will be uttely pissed because he definitely aimed his book at both theists and atheists (I haven't got around to buying it yet, but I will:)). Turbridy, however, ensured that the idiocy that is the creationist movement will be able to reach out to the minds of Irish people.

The response of my parents was that they would never buy his [Dawkins] book, because he didn't believe in God. They are exactly the kind of people that need to buy to the book, because of some of the half wits they come in contact with (not to mention that my aunt is a staunch nutter AkA the world is 10,000 years old,evolution is nonsense.) they need to know that the stuff the creation side, sorry, 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' side propose,while soft on the ear and soothing the mind, is complete and utter nonsense. Mr Turbridy,shame on you for making this a personal agenda about your religious beliefs.

Arghhhh MY HEAD's gonna explode!!:mad::mad:

*exhales slowly*

On a slightly positive note Ryan never asked the audience did they believe in evolution. That can only be a good sign, because if it were America......

Also, Jimmy Carr was brilliant, not going to stop me eating baby carrots though:)

On another positive, but worthy note, that priest was excellent and it seemed he even wanted to discuss evolution.

Now, If you'll excuse I need to get my fix of cool animal facts/analogies.

Turtwig

Kernel wrote: »

And the work of Dr. Bernard Haisch among other scientists advocating an intelligent design to the universe and the philosophy of reality.

*Feeds*

Dude, seriously this is not the forum to advocate that nonsense, how is the design intelligent if we have to swallow with the same tube we breathe, do you know how many people choke to death each year??

Rb

MmmmmCheese wrote: »

I hate it when people look down on others for believing in god. Atheists often complain about how religious types try to force religion down their thoats. I think it works both ways: I have found in everyday life that people who believe in god are often scorned and looked down upon for having said beliefs. No, just because someone believes in god does not make them stupid, weak or naive.

Don't get me wrong I'm not some religious freak, it just really annoys me when atheists see themselves as superior or more intelligent. Thats the impression i get from a lot of atheists i know. As for the people saying that they were disappointed that most of the audience were believers, why? So what if they believe in god, what effect does it have on your life? Let the people believe.

Anyhow from what I've experienced most of my friends and indeed most people my age, are atheists. Almost seems to be the cool/fashionable thing these days.

Not saying thats why so many people are atheists, thats just the impression i've gotten from a lot of people.

You should probably not read or post in an Atheist forum so...?

Turtwig

...The repercussions are here all ready...:eek::(
...Creation Science...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62173582&postcount=17724

Me thinks, Mr Turbridy got bribed or blackmailed into not allowing Richard discuss the evolution:(

hullaballoo

Anyone uploaded the Jimmy Carr bit to youtube yet? I missed it because I had to get back to my thesis.

Turtwig

Emm RTE.ie;)

Kernel

Rb wrote: »

Dawkins would have smashed questions such as "why" and has addressed theist scientists in his books quite well, backed up with a plethora of statistics so I can't imagine him being "pressed" on either issue.

It would have made for a more interesting interview, I'll agree with that.

You're wrong, Dawkins cannot answer the why, as science itself cannot answer the why. Why should the properties of the universe be as they are, why should matter win out over anti-matter, why should amino acids form cells and life and go on to form complex life rather than remain as simple organisms, why should the big bang have happened etc. etc. He could have explained how this happened, not why it did or should.

Kernel

Malty_T wrote: »

*Feeds*

Dude, seriously this is not the forum to advocate that nonsense, how is the design intelligent if we have to swallow with the same tube we breathe, do you know how many people choke to death each year??

Nonsense? Have you read up on Dr Bernard Haisch man?

Turtwig

Kernel wrote: »

You're wrong, Dawkins cannot answer the why, as science itself cannot answer the why. Why should the properties of the universe be as they are, why should matter win out over anti-matter, why should amino acids form cells and life and go on to form complex life rather than remain as simple organisms, why should the big bang have happened etc. etc. He could have explained how this happened, not why it did or should.

Tell us,
Why should there be a why?

Turtwig

hullaballoo wrote: »

They have that piece of siht working now?

Actuallly, after writing my post, I tried it ....and nope it doesn't work:o

corinacorina

he was VERY against people believing in god. sorta freaked me out a bit

Rb

Kernel wrote: »

You're wrong, Dawkins cannot answer the why, as science itself cannot answer the why. Why should the properties of the universe be as they are, why should matter win out over anti-matter, why should amino acids form cells and life and go on to form complex life rather than remain as simple organisms, why should the big bang have happened etc. etc. He could have explained how this happened, not why it did or should.

Aren't you assuming then that everything has to have a reason?

I mean, evolution is relatively easy to explain as to why it happens, but I think most would stress that nothing *has* to have a reason for being.

Rb

corinacorina wrote: »

he was VERY against people believing in god. sorta freaked me out a bit

A lot have good reasons for being against people believing in God.

Turtwig

Kernel wrote: »

Nonsense? Have you read up on Dr Bernard Haisch man?

Not really anyone who disagree with a scientific view because it gives no purpose to life in their opinion loses my vote.

Kernel

Malty_T wrote: »

Tell us,
Why should there be a why?

Well, having read up on it in depth, I believe there is an intelligent design behind the universe and this concept of reality which we have. Is that intelligent design the universe, God, a simulation etc, I don't know, but I don't presume to know, because nobody does for sure. I'm happy with the concept of a God consciousness consciousness or creator being responsible, and that's my own belief. Much like your own belief or faith is nihilism. If we are looking to science to prove or disprove this belief we may be waiting a long time, since it appears to me that the tool of science and logic is incompatible with such philosophies. Haisch seems to think that science can prove intelligent design, and makes some good arguments to that effect.

I think you may be confusing intelligent design with the idea that the theory of evolution isn't true, which is not what intelligent design is all about. Think universe rather than individual.

MmmmmCheese

Rb wrote: »

You should probably not read or post in an Atheist forum so...?

No, I'm quite free to post my opinions wherever i want.

And I've just took a gawk at the Christianity forum and i see a lot of people from here posting their opinions on there.

I have nothing against atheists, 99.9% of my friends are atheists, I'm just challenging some of the views expressed here.

Kernel

Malty_T wrote: »

Not really anyone who disagree with a scientific view because it gives no purpose to life in their opinion loses my vote.

You've revealed your ignorance on the subject there, so I'd respectfully suggest reading up on Haisch and other intelligent design advocates - know your enemy and all that.

rb wrote:

Aren't you assuming then that everything has to have a reason?

I mean, evolution is relatively easy to explain as to why it happens, but I think most would stress that nothing *has* to have a reason for being.

Looking at the theories of quantum mechanics, and the structure of the universe in general, it is more logical to assume that there is a reason/purpose to everything, than not. The only counter argument to this theory is the theory of multiverses existing and that we are fortunate enough to live in the goldilocks universe where everything is just right. That's a possibility I'm open to, but again, where's the evidence for that?

Turtwig

Kernel wrote: »

Well, having read up on it in depth, I believe there is an intelligent design behind the universe and this concept of reality which we have. Is that intelligent design the universe, God, a simulation etc, I don't know, but I don't presume to know, because nobody does for sure. I'm happy with the concept of a God consciousness consciousness or creator being responsible, and that's my own belief. Much like your own belief or faith is nihilism. If we are looking to science to prove or disprove this belief we may be waiting a long time, since it appears to me that the tool of science and logic is incompatible with such philosophies. Haisch seems to think that science can prove intelligent design, and makes some good arguments to that effect.

I think you may be confusing intelligent design with the idea that the theory of evolution isn't true, which is not what intelligent design is all about. Think universe rather than individual.

Actually I have no faith in anything other that the only thing I know is that I don't know. Why do you believe in this cause?
Haisch argues that the universe is fine tuned, this is very much disputed.
As you said though it is too early to tell for sure, which is why I'm simply saying 'I don't know' is there any harm in that? Go on mate say it too:)

Rb

MmmmmCheese wrote: »

No, I'm quite free to post my opinions wherever i want.

And I've just took a gawk at the Christianity forum and i see a lot of people from here posting their opinions on there.

I have nothing against atheists, 99.9% of my friends are atheists, I'm just challenging some of the views expressed here.

Iirc, there has been some studies done on the correlation between the religiosity of a country and the average IQ in that country and again, if I remember correctly, the higher the level of religiousness, dependency on religion etc a country had, the lower the average IQ tended to be.

You can look it up if you're so inclined.