Dawkins on O’Really

Hat Tip Julia

Comments

  1. #1 Rich Wilson
    October 11, 2009

    Just think how much further we’d be towards the ‘how did it start’ if everyone working on the question didn’t have to deal with militant belief in fairy tales.

  2. #2 DuWayne
    October 11, 2009

    Holy shit Billo’s a fucking jackass. I mean seriously – I haven’t met Dawkins in person, but know a few people who have and I have seen him both in person and on a few interviews. I get the very distinct impression that is a just not in his nature to lose his cool – yet there’s Billo, pressing him to do just that.

    Of course I can’t imagine trying to stave off such a concentration of the stupid.

  3. #3 Rich Wilson
    October 11, 2009

    In his talk at Berkley (http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-at-berkeley.html) Dawkins says the Kirk Cameron was originally supposed to be on the show as well.

    I think Dawkins should make ‘no questions from the last book’ a prerequisite to interviews. Surely he’s having no trouble getting word out about the book. And this insistence on debating the last book has to be tiring.

  4. #4 Jordan G
    October 11, 2009

    I wonder what the correct words are to say to people like O’Really, to get them to understand their lack of logic. He is trying to say that because science doesn’t have evidence for everything, science class can then present ideas that don’t have any evidence. How can he not see the illogical jump that he has made.

    I completely agree with him that science must have evidence to be presented in science class, but then how can he say that religion doesn’t need evidence to be presented in science class. A lack of consistency is one of the easiest types of logical errors to notice, so why can’t he see it?

  5. #5 Dan J
    October 11, 2009

    I wonder what the correct words are to say to people like O’Really, to get them to understand their lack of logic.

    I’m of the opinion that O’RLY actually does understand that his argument fails on logical grounds. He simply doesn’t care.

    For the people who honestly do belive zealously in their delusion, twisting logic around in any way they can to support their religious beliefs, I can only say that I think there is no hope. I’ve dealt with a few of them, and I think that no amount of logic or ratinality will ever sway them from their delusion.

    On an individual basis, I don’t think it’s possible to justify the time spent in refuting their delusions for their edification. However, I do see some merit in providing correct analysis and information to others who might witness such an exchange. Some people watching may yet be saved from a life of ignorance.

  6. #6 daen
    October 12, 2009

    I find it remarkable, although not surprising, when this accusation of dogma and/or fascism is levelled at science. It really cuts to the core of the problem, because people like O’Reilly neither know nor care how science is actually practised. The only ideology they know how to deal with is one of centralized authoritarianism, and so they have deep conceptual problems with belief systems which do not operate that way. Therefore, they assume that because science states its case so clearly, it must also be centralized and authoritarian. They never read Nature or Science, so they don’t see that what looks like hard and fast fact is actually only the best explanation so far. Or if they do see it, they don’t care, because arguing, vociferously, from authority has been all they have ever known, and therefore, if there are gaps, all that’s required to fill them is someone who can shout out louder fairytales than the other guy. Sad really.

  7. #7 dalani
    October 12, 2009

    What I find unacceptable from Oreilly is the way he destroys rational discourse by pre-supposing a dichotomy with an Us\them entrenchment: Atheist vs religion.. Who ever said faith and science are mutually exclusive? The only rational thing Oreilly said was that science cannot provide the moral teaching that he assumes only religion can.But even there Oreilly is wrong because it has been scientifically proven that morality can exist and even thrive without religion.

    Like many have said: I must credit Dawkin’s lucid and well reasoned responses to Orelilly’s nonsense.