Richard Dawkins on the Late Late

ironingbored

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Why were the live audience implied to be retards?

Possibly because even Jimmy Carr had a hard time getting a laugh out of the krusty arses.

Agricola

Antbert wrote: »

I had previously thought Ryan to be sort of funny. A thoroughly bearable presenter. I never never gone off someone so rapidly. This whole "well, loads of people believe in god. So what do you have to say about THAT then?" Eh... Was there a point somewhere buried deep inside that question? I wasn't surprised at the show of hands though. Depressing, not surprising.

I hope for his sake its just a learning curve that hes going through. Maybe hes just getting to grips with more serious subject matter, after presenting fluff like his own Saturday night show for the last few years. Tubridy needs to realise there are going to be other guests on this show other the esteemed Brian Cowen who deserve to be treated seriously and given as much respect.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

philologos

I've watched most of it there, and I think the priest put across some of the points that have been made in this forum before, about science being one field of knowledge, but that many other fields of knowledge are equally valid. He also brought up the issue of the limitations of science in explanation. It's good to see that some people are willing to engage in decent and intelligent discussion when criticisms are posed to them.

Roro4Brit: If believing in God makes me a retard, I'm most assuredly retarded. It's not a matter for any shame whatsoever.

Silverhog7

I think the greatest waste of that interview was that Dawkins opinion on future human evolution was not teased out. I got the feeling he is stumbling into the field of Eugenics. To imply that future human intellectual evolution may be stumped by reproduction of inferior humans has Hitler, himler and gobels wrote all over it.

philologos

Silverhog7 wrote: »

I think the greatest waste of that interview was that Dawkins opinion on future human evolution was not teased out. I got the feeling he is stumbling into the field of Eugenics. To imply that future human intellectual evolution may be stumped by reproduction of inferior humans has Hitler, himler and gobels wrote all over it.

Isn't that the case though? I would have thought that that was evolution, and what evolution describes.

Favourable changes can only continue to be developed if those changes promote reproduction and become widespread in a given community. If they don't and if they are not passed on they will die out.

Likewise, negative changes can only continue to develop if those who have these negative changes can reproduce effectively so that they are widespread in a given population.

bnt

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't that the case though? I would have thought that that was evolution, and what evolution describes.

It's the difference between Natural and Unnatural (assisted) selection. Eugenics is an example of Unnatural selection, whether you describe it as an attempt to breed in "desirable" traits or breed out "undesirable" traits. Darwin and Dawkins et al specifically cover Natural selection in their books, and have little to say about Eugenics except "it's not a good idea".

Note the quotes abround "desirable", because that assumes we really know what is desirable or not. If our experience in breeding animals is any guide, it's clear that we don't see the whole picture until it's too late e.g. many pedigree dog breeds have serious congenital defects, as a result of the inbreeding it took to "refine" the pedigree. If I get a dog or a cat, it will be an adoption mongrel with plenty of that "hybrid vigour", not some highly-strung thoroughbred. :pac:

Zamboni

Silverhog7 wrote: »

I think the greatest waste of that interview was that Dawkins opinion on future human evolution was not teased out. I got the feeling he is stumbling into the field of Eugenics. To imply that future human intellectual evolution may be stumped by reproduction of inferior humans has Hitler, himler and gobels wrote all over it.

I think you're the one doing all the implying here.

Turtwig

Right, admittingly, I just skimmed over these posts (this day is too nice a weekend day to wase:))

To all those believers out there that are questioning us:

Why don't you believe someone today when they claim to see an apparition of the blessed virgin, Angels or Jesus on toast..because you're skeptical well we just go that little bit further:)
Think about it for a second, are the story of any of the prophets any different?
Christianity, and most religions were nonsense to many for along while before more and more joined what nowadays would be regarded as something like scientology..a cult?

Antbert

Some hardcore non-atheists are discussing it here. I couldn't get past the first page.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055684957

Morgans

There are varying degrees of interview skills, especially in chat shows. Most reside somewhere in the middle and things move along swimmingly. I thought Tub with Cowan was decent but last night...

Tub says "So the Vatican is Toytown" and Tub says "So believing in God is the same of believing in the Easter Bunny". To both Dawkins answered the question well enough, saying what he had to say:

The vatican is an very rich expensive waste of time.

There is as much evidence for the easter bunny as god.

Tub goes to man of the cloth (just to clarify for those who didnt think a priest could walk around in civvies.

"The vatican is toytown, and god is the easter bunny". What do you think of that? As if they were quotes from Dawkins.

Maybe the most ridiculous method of interviewing on chat show that Ive ever seen.

Antbert

Morgans wrote: »

Tub goes to man of the cloth (just to clarify for those who didnt think a priest could walk around in civvies.

"The vatican is toytown, and god is the easter bunny". What do you think of that? As if they were quotes from Dawkins.

The best part about that was that said priest didn't even seem particularly bothered.

token56

tbh I didn't expect much more from Turbidy, just reinforces my view that he cant have a decent interview with someone who has believes other than his.

stevejazzx

Morgans wrote: »

There are varying degrees of interview skills, especially in chat shows. Most reside somewhere in the middle and things move along swimmingly. I thought Tub with Cowan was decent but last night...

Tub says "So the Vatican is Toytown" and Tub says "So believing in God is the same of believing in the Easter Bunny". To both Dawkins answered the question well enough, saying what he had to say:

The vatican is an very rich expensive waste of time.

There is as much evidence for the easter bunny as god.

Tub goes to man of the cloth (just to clarify for those who didnt think a priest could walk around in civvies.

"The vatican is toytown, and god is the easter bunny". What do you think of that? As if they were quotes from Dawkins.

Maybe the most ridiculous method of interviewing on chat show that Ive ever seen.

Nicely spotted.
Turbidy is atrocious, no tact, no nerve, no skill, no empathy..nothing. How on earth he is an interviewer I don't know. RTE's license fee is nothing more than a TV tax. It's time for the elder stooges that run things out at Montrose to go.

DoireNod

Antbert wrote: »

The best part about that was that said priest didn't even seem particularly bothered.

He's at ease with his bullsh1t. :pac:

Morgans wrote: »

There are varying degrees of interview skills, especially in chat shows. Most reside somewhere in the middle and things move along swimmingly. I thought Tub with Cowan was decent but last night...

Tub says "So the Vatican is Toytown" and Tub says "So believing in God is the same of believing in the Easter Bunny". To both Dawkins answered the question well enough, saying what he had to say:

The vatican is an very rich expensive waste of time.

There is as much evidence for the easter bunny as god.

Tub goes to man of the cloth (just to clarify for those who didnt think a priest could walk around in civvies.

"The vatican is toytown, and god is the easter bunny". What do you think of that? As if they were quotes from Dawkins.

Maybe the most ridiculous method of interviewing on chat show that Ive ever seen.

I didn't see this interview and I have lost interest in the Late Late Show in recent years. Gone are the days of Gaybo and his methodical voice. Hypnotic almost.

"There's one-for-every-body-in-the-audience".

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've watched most of it there, and I think the priest put across some of the points that have been made in this forum before, about science being one field of knowledge, but that many other fields of knowledge are equally valid. He also brought up the issue of the limitations of science in explanation. It's good to see that some people are willing to engage in decent and intelligent discussion when criticisms are posed to them.

Roro4Brit: If believing in God makes me a retard, I'm most assuredly retarded. It's not a matter for any shame whatsoever.

I'm not surprised you found the point interesting or that you remember it being made on the forum since you're the one who made it. Science is a field of knowledge, philosophy is a field of unproven hypothesis and religion is a field of unproven hypothesis masquerading as knowledge

philologos

Sam Vimes: I believe Hurín and others have brought this point into discussion on numerous occasions here. I haven't been the only advocate of such a viewpoint. Science to me is useful, but it by no means should be put on a pedestal above all other forms of inquiry. the priest is right to say that Dawkins does believe in science, he has a certain level of faith in it. Not that that's a bad thing, but this faith doesn't warrant it being higher than other fields of academia.

DoireNod: It's on the Late Late Show site, 1 hour 4 minutes through Sept 18th -
http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: I believe Hurín and others have brought this point into discussion on numerous occasions here. I haven't been the only advocate of such a viewpoint. Science to me is useful, but it by no means should be put on a pedestal above all other forms of inquiry. the priest is right to say that Dawkins does believe in science, he has a certain level of faith in it. Not that that's a bad thing, but this faith doesn't warrant it being higher than other fields of academia.

Jakkass how has religion and theology proved itself in society : look how far we have come in the last 300 years?
Religion is here since the beginning, science is still young.
I suggest you read Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything to the scratch the tip of the iceberg at what science has achieved.
Is religion going to cure cancer?
Hell, would religion have fixed an appendix problem?
Small Pox?
Swine Flu?
etc etc And that was only one discipline...hmmmm

DoireNod

Jakkass wrote: »

DoireNod: It's on the Late Late Show site, 1 hour 4 minutes through Sept 18th -
http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/

Danke

Silverhog7

Zamboni wrote: »

I think you're the one doing all the implying here.

When a man comes on to a show for the general public and says that the human species is going to become less intelligent because of the wrong type of people are having children, I think it is important he explains very carefully how he has come to these conclusions.

It is a ridiculous argument anyway. Humans are totally different to animals with regard to evolution. If two donkeys have offspring and Jenny pitman trains that offspring it will still never win the Grand national but if a baby from any part of the world from any race is brought up in a caring stable intellectually stimulating environment it has awesome potential.

Antbert

Silverhog7 wrote: »

When a man comes on to a show for the general public and says that the human species is going to become less intelligent because of the wrong type of people are having children, I think it is important he explains very carefully how he has come to these conclusions.

Then you'll be delighted in the knowledge that he DID explain what you interpreted as that and you clearly have no issue with it at all.

Silverhog7

Antbert wrote: »

Then you'll be delighted in the knowledge that he DID explain what you interpreted as that and you clearly have no issue with it at all.

When did he explain this ?

Morgans

Watching it again. Dawkins should have asked the audience for those who believe in evolution to raise their hands. Rather that Tubridy set him up to look like he is labelling them as fools. A second question would be to ask how many thought there was greater proof to Evolution than Adam and Eve/Creator. (Accepting that, to some or many that they are not mutually incompatible beliefs.)

"Another book, another day, another chat show." Well done Ryan. Set the stall out well there. I thought Ryan was more intelligent than to think he was the first person to ask these questions. "your life must be a lonely one"

Well, Im sure all athiests now believe that they are very lonely people following the interview. Congrats once again Ryan.

I think most people appreciate Dawkwins more when he has to answer questions that are actually taxing. Even Andrew Maxwell asked him about consciousness on The Panel two years ago. Tubridy must have been cursing his researchers from getting the least excitable shill possible in the audience.

"I asked ye to get a proper bible-thumping priest, what were you doing getting a reasonable contributor??"

Worst interview ever.

Antbert

Silverhog7 wrote: »

When did he explain this ?

Seriously?

His point was that if 2 smart people reproduce they're more likely to make a smart child. More smart reproducing people = more smart kids which will eventually mean a smarter overall population. With increased brain size. If stupid people have the most kids, this won't happen.

I fail to see where you could possibly have an issue with this statement.

philologos

Morgans: Your post assumes that Evolution and a Creator God are in opposition to one another. It would have been somewhat of a logical fallacy to pose such a question.

Dawkins even somewhat acknowledged this in respect to the priest, saying of course a theologian like you is going to believe in evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DcySbAt-l4

Here is another instance where he is discussing with Rowan Williams about how he reconciles evolution with Christianity.

Of course there are many more who are unsure about how both relate to eachother. It's certainly not a question that Dawkins could have rightfully put to the audience without being intellectually honest and disingenuous.

Halla Basin

Dawkins: ... But that doesn't mean he's really there
Ryan: So where is he?
Dawkins: He doesn't exist.
Ryan: Not in the slightest?

XD

And even better was when he remarked that they hadn't talked about his new book yet, to which Ryan replied...

Yeah, but we want to talk about something more interesting.

woah

Poor Richie

philologos

Indeed, he really did dismiss his topic now that I think of it. The priest in the audience helped to bring it all together though.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Not as bad as I was expecting reading this thread. Tubridy was annoying for not asking questions about the new book, actually think it was saved by the priest who spoke.

Silverhog7

Antbert wrote: »

Seriously?

His point was that if 2 smart people reproduce they're more likely to make a smart child. More smart reproducing people = more smart kids which will eventually mean a smarter overall population. With increased brain size. If stupid people have the most kids, this won't happen.

I fail to see where you could possibly have an issue with this statement.

My issue is this and I thought I explained it with the donkey analogy, Smart people don't need smart parents to be smart. If this was the case the aristocracy would have produced every great mind in history and the peasant would have produced sfa. However as we know, when the peasant ever got a chance he excelled every bit as much as this so called elite. It is the rich in the west who are producing least children so I
Surmise this is Dawkins modern day elite, lets not rub our ego's and think we are the cream of the pie, the human race will continue on it's path, wherever it's going.... with or without us

stevejazzx

Silverhog7 wrote: »

My issue is this and I thought I explained it with the donkey analogy, Smart people don't need smart parents to be smart. If this was the case the aristocracy would have produced every great mind in history and the peasant would have produced sfa. However as we know, when the peasant ever got a chance he excelled every bit as much as this so called elite. It is the rich in the west who are producing least children so I
Surmise this is Dawkins modern day elite, lets not rub our ego's and think we are the cream of the pie, the human race will continue on it's path, wherever it's going.... with or without us

You see, you completely miss the point of all this. Dawkins speaks purely an from evolutionary point of view saying that 'generally speaking' a larger brained mammal will produce larger brained children who 'generally speaking' will have the capacity for greater knowledge and gernerally speaking larger brained mammals with a greater capacity for knowledge will have an evolutionary advantage for reproduction. However despite this theory seeming to hold water current trends do not seem to follow it; even still this pattern must have dominated mankind at some stage becasue our brains have increased so therefore it is not impalusible that another run of this same pattern might dominate in the future.