…and this is a 
Dawkins and Paxman
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: September 28, 2006 10:32 AM, by PZ Myers
Hey, this is a pretty good interview of Richard Dawkins by Jeremy Paxman. I don't know much about this Paxman fellow, but he asks hard, sharp questions, yet still gives Dawkins plenty of time to answer them. That's good interviewing technique, I think.
I'm not too impressed with the spartan set, putting them both in plain uncomfortable-looking chairs set all alone in an empty, echoing room…but it does put the focus on the words. They should have saved a few more pennies and just done audio.
(via Father Dan)
Comments
It's part of a weekly segment where an author is interviewed. And its on national TV.
I hope Charlie Rose interviews Dawkins. He has his moments. Think he'll get interviewed on 60 minutes or during a big 3 network news show here?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 10:47 AM
Dawkins, correctly said that you can't prove that god does not exist.
But, you can state it another way:
No "god" is detectable. (Even if that god does exist)
Since he/she/it/they are not detectable, why bother?
Posted by: G. Tingey | September 28, 2006 10:53 AM
Paxman is a veteran interviewer and author. Not so long ago he skewered Ann Coulter (youtube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aiHbUplz3k). A little disappointing, I was hoping he would tear into her some more, but he started well.
Paxman: Hello Ann Coulter. I read the first chapter of your book which your publisher faxed to me. Does it get any better?
Coulter: *Stunned rabbit-in-the-headlines expression*
Posted by: coracle | September 28, 2006 10:54 AM
oops, here (I hope):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aiHbUplz3k
Posted by: coracle | September 28, 2006 10:57 AM
Paxman has been renowned for years, decades for putting politicians on the hot seat in Britain. He has also written a book I believe.
But I wanted to mention another subject. Here is a video of the 1st episode in Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.
http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/51470/
Posted by: bernarda | September 28, 2006 11:06 AM
Paxo is a big beast on the British political journalism scene. He has a notoriously agressive interviewing technique and is most famous for the following incident (scroll down to newsnight segment):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Howard
Posted by: SteveF | September 28, 2006 11:08 AM
Classic Dawkins. "I don't belive we're put here to be comfortable". BTW, I'm sure he must be gravely concerned with the current ongoing attacks on him over at uncommonly dense. Especially from someone of dave scot's caliber.
Posted by: jeffw | September 28, 2006 11:09 AM
G. Tingey: "Dawkins, correctly said that you can't prove that god does not exist."
No, but you can prove certain kinds of gods don't exist. For example, a god will have the same uncertainty regarding a more fundamental substrate of existence as do we, and can no more certainly state than do we that he wasn't created by an ur-god. This proves that there are no gods who know that they are the ultimate ground of existence. That effectively pulls the rug out from under a lot of late Christian theology.
Posted by: Russell | September 28, 2006 11:18 AM
Woot! Dawkins fesses up to the possibility of the existence of FSM!
Arr, another be Touched by His Noodly Appendage!
Posted by: Warren | September 28, 2006 11:19 AM
Paxman is the sort of attack-dog political interviewer sorely missing from US network television, but I imagine politicians here would simply refuse to be interviewed by him. As he is the leading interviewer for the BBC, any high ranking politician who wants media exposure is forced to cross paths with him.
Posted by: Mark | September 28, 2006 11:21 AM
Paxman is kind of legendary - his particular speciality is not letting interviewees get away with ducking the question. US TV desperately needs somebody like him.
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | September 28, 2006 11:24 AM
"I don't believe we're put here to be comfortable". Is he invoking a higher power, after all ? Does he really feel he's been put here ? For a specific purpose, that excludes being comfortable ? If so, by whom ??
I agree, a great interview. Contrast that with the fare offered up by the likes of Larry King or Bawa Walters. Sigh.
Posted by: Umilik | September 28, 2006 11:30 AM
I loved the interview! Paxman asked some pretty tough questions, but my impression was that Dawkins convinced him thoroughly.
Posted by: HPLC_Sean | September 28, 2006 11:31 AM
That was a pretty nice interview. I'd like to see more interviewers like Paxman here in the US.
But it seemed to me right from the start Dawkins left the real Christian concept of God out of the picture. For God shouldn't be conceived as "in" the universe at all, in the way that Dawkins clearly thinks he would have to be -- that way of thinking about God reduces God to the same status as a creature.
At some fundamental level it seems to me Dawkins doesn't "get" Christianity, and this is why I don't really find his criticisms all that interesting or challenging.
And yet...
I too found Dawkins's last line worth thinking about. Not least because it expresses a sentiment that any Christian should endorse -- any Christian who has understood the gospel.
On the other hand, I find that line interesting as well in that the whole turn of phrase seems to me to carry with it a set of associations which I would have thought Dawkins would want to have shaken off. "Put here" -- by whom? and if not to be comfortable, for what purpose, then? I sense some remnant of religious thinking, of a religious sense, surfacing in that line, I have to say.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | September 28, 2006 11:39 AM
PZ-
Way to NOT plug the book.
Mike Fox
Posted by: Mike Fox![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 28, 2006 11:46 AM
He doesn't believe we were "put" here at all. We're not meant to be comfortable. Our biological purpose to to reproduce. What we do with the rest of our time is up to us to give meaning to.
If "god" is outside our universe how would we know it exists?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 11:49 AM
Paxman used to be credited with saying that the proper relation of interviewer to politician is that of dog to fireplug. I can't find a source for it, though, so it may be apocryphal. Or maybe someone else said it, but it fits nicely with Paxman's technique.
Posted by: slolernr | September 28, 2006 11:55 AM
At some fundamental level it seems to me Dawkins doesn't "get" Christianity, and this is why I don't really find his criticisms all that interesting or challenging.
Also put in the uninteresting category: all those Christians who just don't get the theory of evolution.
Posted by: George | September 28, 2006 11:56 AM
"get" xianity? There is nothing to "get".
"understood the gospel"? There is nothing to understand, except maybe the total ignorance of those who wrote it.
In the link to Carl Sagan that I gave, he has a good statement about the library of Alexandria when he is exploring the last known room left of it. "Once a temple, but later reconsecrated to knowledge.".
Posted by: bernarda | September 28, 2006 12:01 PM
Steve_C: I know that he doesn't believe we were put here at all. But the line "I don't believe we're put here to be comfortable", while of course compatible with "I don't believe we're put here at all" strongly suggests instead -- especially in the context of the interview "we're put here for some other reason (for example, pursuing the truth)".
bernarda: It is not possible to show that a system of beliefs is a "delusion" if one does not understand that system of beliefs, or thinks there is simply nothing there to understand. Dawkins thinks he's showing something to be false. Anything that can be false, can be understood. I am pretty sure Dawkins would not agree with your facile line on this.
George: There are Christians who do "get" evolution, though. And I agree that Christians who criticize what they don't understand are completely uninteresting.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | September 28, 2006 12:20 PM
I'd love to see a debate between Richard Dawkins and Ann Coulter...
Posted by: Greg | September 28, 2006 12:21 PM
Paxman's brilliant if occasionally arrogant. Perhaps his most famous interview dates back to 1997. He was interviewing the former home secretary Michael Howard (who went on to be Tory party leader) and he asked him same question 12 or 14 times when he didn't directly answer it. He hosts a daily show called "Newsnight" on the BBC. Articulate, erudite and tough - just like the crew at Faux News!
Posted by: yank in london | September 28, 2006 12:32 PM
If you mean 'Dawkins is too rational to "get" Christianity', then yes, I agree.
Posted by: gregonomic | September 28, 2006 12:33 PM
No one "gets" Christianity, people. Take it from me--years of Bible study, never "got" it, and know more about the Bible than the people who are trying to convert me at last. Yes, I've finally "got" Christianity, because I get that there's nothing to "get." You're just supposed to surrender your consciousness to something supposedly bigger, more powerful, and perfect, because you're a miserable sinner. No, thank you!
No one "gets" the trinity or God or anything--Christians eventually admit this in an attempt to appeal to your heartstrings. (They call me "hard-hearted.") You're not supposed to "get it," you're just supposed to trust Jesus. That's what Dawkins and I don't "get," and that's why I was the best student in Sunday School without believing any of it at all. Because I'm "in love with my intellect, not with my Savior." There's nothing to get--Christianity is presented in negative terms only, "not of this world," "his ways are not our ways," etc. It's all about hating yourself and escaping from your boring life instead of getting one.
They should have saved a few more pennies and just done audio.
Ah, let us gals have some fun, PZ! His wife gets to look at him every day. (The devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape...) ;-)
Posted by: Kristine | September 28, 2006 12:33 PM
Paxman's brilliant if occasionally arrogant. Perhaps his most famous interview dates back to 1997. He was interviewing the former home secretary Michael Howard (who went on to be Tory party leader) and he asked him same question 12 or 14 times when he didn't directly answer it. He hosts a daily show called "Newsnight" on the BBC. Articulate, erudite and tough - just like the crew at Faux News!
Posted by: yank in london | September 28, 2006 12:39 PM
"Put here" -- by whom? and if not to be comfortable, for what purpose, then? I sense some remnant of religious thinking, of a religious sense, surfacing in that line, I have to say.
Nah, that's nonsense. What he's referring to is the darwinistic struggle for existence. We are children of surviors. Our ancestors didn't survive by being comfortable, and neither should we.
Posted by: jeffw | September 28, 2006 12:48 PM
Greg, scroll up a bit to my comments! There's a youtube of a Paxo-Coulter showdown.
Posted by: coracle | September 28, 2006 12:50 PM
Fair enough, Kristine...so where's Lalla Ward in that video?
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 28, 2006 12:59 PM
A fine interview, and most pleasant not to have people cutting each other off and talking over each other.
I had the same thought I've had before - for me, Dawkins communicates more effectively and in a less arrogant manner with the spoken word as oposed to the written word.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | September 28, 2006 1:03 PM
Posted by: ekzept | September 28, 2006 1:10 PM
I saw Paxman interview Coulter, and it was just painful to watch. I couldn't finish it. You can't watch that and say he's a good interviewer, and it's depressing that so many people who think along the same lines I do on other issues don't see that.
This interview may have been relevant to the book (I'm sure I would agree with it, but haven't read it), but was also kind of uninteresting. Not much depth.
What might be really interesting (and truly scientific of him) is to grill all the religious scientist he can find, until he really does grok them. Who here wouldn't want to read that trainwreck? Of course, packaging it so that it would do some good for an unsaved reader would be the tough part.
The first couple chapters of The Selfish Gene were what turned me to the dark side, though, so I'll always have a soft spot for Dawkins.
Posted by: Mayonaise | September 28, 2006 1:37 PM
so where's Lalla Ward in that video?
Oh, don't get me started on Lalla, she's absolutely my heroine--up there with Catherine Deneuve, Fanny Ardant, Sophia Loren, Katherine Hepburn as my favorites. She's wonderful.
Posted by: Kristine | September 28, 2006 1:52 PM
Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)
What a shame! Watching Dawkins' interview reminded me of the early Christians who tried to indoctrinate the world with their beliefs in Religion--and now, Dawkins tries to indoctrinate the world with his disbelief of Religion, while without his understanding that--as PZ Myers rightly points out in his review of Dawkins' book The God Delusion (2006)--"Religion is a cultural heritage that should be appreciated for its contributions to [our traditions,] history, literature, art, [etc, the world over.]"
As such, Dawkins has had been completely ignorant of the wondrous working of our human Mind, since our prehistory over 50 thousand years ago, at a time when our ancestors first fashioned religions for their primal survivorship, in the then still uncharted physical and spiritual worlds on this unique planet Earth (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods; Chapter 6 The Meaning of Life; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).
Without an understanding of the Meanings of Gods, and yet simply to proclaim the God delusion, is typically and simplemindedly fashionable nonsense of the Dawkinsian kind--gloriously and utterly attributable to his Scientism of the myths: Both the selfish gene and meme that he has had been propagating in The Selfish Gene, since 1976!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter--just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)
Best wishes, Mong 9/28/6usct1:02p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Posted by: Mong H Tan, PhD | September 28, 2006 2:02 PM
Hermit-philosopher-unabomber.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 2:08 PM
Watching Dawkins' interview reminded me of the early Christians who tried to indoctrinate the world with their beliefs in Religion
You mean, being fed to the lions (lions like you, maybe)?
Posted by: Kristine | September 28, 2006 2:18 PM
"so where's Lalla Ward in that video?"
I believe she can be seen (much younger in old back-issues of "Doctor Who".
WAsn't she the Doctor's assistant at one point?
"Exterminate!"
Posted by: G. Tingey | September 28, 2006 2:21 PM
Michael Kremer:
Uh, that may be really deep, but if so it's WAR too deep for this pinhead.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 28, 2006 2:27 PM
WAR ==> WAY. Spelling must be too deep for me today too!
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 28, 2006 2:29 PM
What a shame! Watching Dawkins' interview reminded me of the early Christians who tried to indoctrinate the world with their beliefs in Religion--and now, Dawkins tries to indoctrinate the world with his disbelief of Religion, while without his understanding that--as PZ Myers rightly points out in his review of Dawkins' book The God Delusion (2006)--"Religion is a cultural heritage that should be appreciated for its contributions to [our traditions,] history, literature, art, [etc, the world over.]"
What rubbish (probably like your book). Science is about facts and the real world, not "indoctrination".
I've never heard Dawkins disparage religion as a cultural heritiage. On the contrary, it's a topic he seems quite interested in, and knowledgable about.
Posted by: jeffw | September 28, 2006 2:29 PM
Wasn't she the Doctor's assistant at one point?
Yes, but I was never a Dr. Who fan--she's played Ophelia, and I've watched her co-present Dawkins' works with him. There's a nice video of he and she reading Ancestor's Tale here--scroll down to "The Ancestor's Tale (science lecture)".
Not to gush on and on, but she is a real lady and I do think it says a lot that Lalla believes in what he's doing. Dawkins has, in interviews, quoted a couple atheistic remarks from her that were are drop-dead witty. I'd like to hear more on the subject from her, frankly.
Posted by: Kristine | September 28, 2006 2:47 PM
Actually, I had the same reaction. Paxman let Coulter off easy - he didn't challenge her at all on most of her comments . I started to wonder if he was trying to get her to spew as much vitriolic nonsense as possible in the allotted 7 minutes, so that the audience could get a good idea of who Ann Coulter really is.
And in some ways he achieved that, eg.
Paxman: You believe the world was created in 6 days, do you?
Coulter: Ah, no, that is not the only alternative to ... umm ... us sharing a common earthworm.
Any educated viewer can see from that comment that Coulter must have an exceedingly poor understanding of evolution. And I suspect Paxman's target audience is a little more enlightened than your average Fox viewer.
On a positive note, the second most popular Ann Coulter video at that You Tube link (behind Part 1 of her appearance on Fox) is "Ann Coulter gets a pie".
Posted by: gregonomic | September 28, 2006 2:48 PM
Come on, now, jeffw! Be nice to Mong; after all, he's a "PhD"!
I followed the link to his blog, and then another to a website which sells his book. There I read what I take to be the back-cover "blurb." All I can say is that it looks like Dr. Bronner has a new rival...
And as for Dawkins, I know very little about him or his writings, frankly, but nothing in that interview suggested to me that he is at all flippant in his attempts to "disparage" religion's cultural heritage. On the contrary, he seems to take most of the "cultural" topics religion addresses - the quest for truth and meaning, the proper way for us humans to treat each other and ourselves, etc - quite seriously. Where he differs is in the fact that he fails to see how religion gets us closer to answering such "cultural" questions, and that religion, in fact, is a serious distraction in the attempt. I for one agree wholeheartedly, but that's just me (and Dawkins too, as he himself said a number of times - his numerous qualifications belie Mong's assertions that Dawkins want to brainwash us into irreligiosity).
I found his manner, too, very respectable. The frothing rage he generates among fundies seems all the more pathetic once you've seen him live for the first time, as this time was for me.
Posted by: Bokanovsky Process | September 28, 2006 3:04 PM
Kremer, "if one does not understand that system of beliefs"
Oh, give me a break!
Are you really that clueless?
Posted by: bernarda | September 28, 2006 3:04 PM
I got the impression that Paxman kind of lost interest after the first few exchanges with Coulter, as being an intellectual featherweight and not worth his attention, and he just carried on to the end of the slot on momentum alone. Mind you, I think Paxman's contempt was more than apparent, so whether it was a good interview or not depends on whether you were expecting Anne Coulter's steaming guts splashed over the studio, or were just satisfied with Coulter looking like a twit.
Posted by: NelC | September 28, 2006 3:19 PM
"Paxman let Coulter off easy - he didn't challenge her at all on most of her comments . I started to wonder if he was trying to get her to spew as much vitriolic nonsense as possible in the allotted 7 minutes, so that the audience could get a good idea of who Ann Coulter really is."
Paxman tends to go easy on people who are obviously spewing rubbish. It's his way of laughing at them - "You are talking such patent hogwash that I don't need to dig".
It's when someone is surreptitiously dissembling that he really lets rip.
Posted by: JW Tan | September 28, 2006 3:21 PM
Bokanovsky: I agree with most of what you said. It's the semantics of the word "cultural" - I was using it more in the artistic sense. I believe that Dawkins does value some of the art, literature, and traditions that emerged in the context of religion, while still being highly critical (and rightly so) of most other aspects. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: jeffw | September 28, 2006 3:47 PM
Perhaps the issue with Coulter's interview is that not too many people in the UK know who she is (hard to imagine, I know). I doubt Paxman had little to gain from beating her to a bloody pulp in the interview. Those who don't know her would think he was just being mean.
If Tim Russert had half-the-backbone Paxman has when interviewing top politicians, America would be a better place.
Posted by: tacitus | September 28, 2006 3:54 PM
Paxman would be a godsend for American TV, but is only quite good by British interviewing standards - he's too pleased with himself to be really great. There are plenty of other British journalists who give challenging interviews - John Humphrys, who hosts the most important radio show, is even more combative, too much so at times. His interview technique can basically be summed up as: "Why are you lying to me, you bastard?" Channel 4's Jon Snow would be someone who strikes the right balance of asking challenging, penetrating questions but not just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 28, 2006 3:54 PM
"Perhaps the issue with Coulter's interview is that not too many people in the UK know who she is (hard to imagine, I know). I doubt Paxman had little to gain from beating her to a bloody pulp in the interview. Those who don't know her would think he was just being mean."
Actually, I think a relatively high proportion of Newsnight viewers know who she is. I think it's got more to do with the fact that to British eyes she immediately comes across as the loon she is. For the vast majority of Brits, the response to someone attacking evolution as clumsily as she does isn't: "At last! Someone's standing up for Jesus!" It's: "What a nutter!"
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 28, 2006 4:03 PM
Humphreys is good. I don't agree that he goes over the top. There was also a guy, whose name I forget, who was on Independent Television News, a bit more rightwing, who said that his attitude with politicians was(I saw it in a tv interview with him on of all places Sky News), "why are you lying to me". So it isn't just Humphreys or Paxman.
If I find his name--he has written a book--I'll pass it on.
Posted by: bernarda | September 28, 2006 4:08 PM
I bought The God Delusion a couple of days ago and have been hooked ever since, waking poor Mr Cru up in the middle of the night to quote bits at him, etc. Sadly it's preaching to the converted in my case since I've been an atheist and active secularist for a long time.
Really interesting though I took it with me to read at lunchtime at college today and then some people from my class came to join me and one of them asked what it was so I explained... Phew, I didn't realise a load of middle-class English drama students could be so aggressive! Seriously 50 minutes later they were screaming - you're just to young to understand (I'm 30) when you get older you'll realise there's a God... And their reasons for believing in God were so ridiculous: sightings of angels (including an angel on a BMX bike), ghosts and heavenly beings plus a lot of it-doesn't-matter-if-God-exists-or-not-it's-better-to-believe-in-him-anyway...? It was kindof hilarious and terrifying at the same time.
Posted by: Cruella | September 28, 2006 4:10 PM
Sorry, jeffw - I was probably a little vague. My comments were mostly aimed at "Dr." Mong, not you!
And I agree with you very much "in the artistic sense." There are few things outside the Grand Canyon, southeast Utah, the Alps, and so on, that move me more than great Christian art: cathedrals, paintings, sculptures, and all that. Love 'em, love 'em, love 'em. In the end they are all glorious monuments to Nothing, but yet their power is still undeniable, at least to me (funny how it's always the devout - Puritans, Catholics, Muslims - who desecrate each other's religious artwork. I'd preserve every scrap of it if I could).
Perhaps it's precisely because they are human creations that I like (most) religious artworks. They're really unintentional monuments, not to Gawd, but to the great power of *humans* to create meaning. Of course, there's a whole slew of thorny issues involved there when you look closely (all that cathedral gold in Spain, extracted and stolen from the Indians under the pain of death...). But, standing in the nave of Chartres, or St. Denis, or Santa Croce, or wherever, I admit I tend to forget about those things, at least for awhile...
Posted by: Bokanovsky Process | September 28, 2006 4:12 PM
Iraq terrorist calls scientists to jihad
Sorry, my schedule seems to be overbooked, I just can't fit in a jihad.
Posted by: quork | September 28, 2006 4:15 PM
bernarda,
Hmmm... I post under my real name, and no, I am not clueless.
It is perfectly reasonable to dismiss Ann Coulter's views on evolution, based on the fact that she evidently doesn't understand evolution.
It is equally reasonable to dismiss Dawkins's critique of Christianity given his evident misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God.
Dawkins does not think that the sentence "God exists" is meaningless nonsense, or he wouldn't say in the interview that it might be true (since it can't be definitively proven false), but is overwhelmingly improbable. Meaningless nonsense is not in the prove-true/prove-false/probable/improbable game at all.
You could argue that the concept of God is hopelessly confused and incoherent, but that would be a different kind of argument.
What I object to is Dawkins thinking that the concept of God is the concept of something put forward as an additional bit of the universe, in a kind of scientific hypothesis. I think this radically misrepresents the concept of God. The God of Christianity just isn't the same kind of thing as Thor or Zeus (were supposed to be).
Posted by: Michael Kremer | September 28, 2006 4:21 PM
I wish we could get over this "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" thing. Words are tools. They have no power in the world. Thoughts, too, have no power in the world. These "you can't prove x" arguments are hold overs from rationalism, which attributed to thoughts and words far greater power than we do now. The fact that I can utter "there is a God" or "there could be a God" means nothing. It does not invoke a "problem of the existence of God" in some supranatural realm that will forever hang about, neither proved nor disproved. It's just noise.
I know that God does not exist. I know this because (a) there is no evidence for God's existence and (b) there is evidence contradicting the idea that uttering "does God exist?" conjures into the world something that then needs to be "proved" or "disproved." It's also an offence to science to portray it as lofty statements for which there are verifying evidence. The fact that scientists make statements is no more interesting than the fact that they have arms and legs.
Posted by: poke | September 28, 2006 4:24 PM
Your god is only different than thor and zeus in concept.
The whole God is not of this universe is a tired argument.
If that's so how would we know of it's existence?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 4:35 PM
"It is equally reasonable to dismiss Dawkins's critique of Christianity given his evident misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God."
Once Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, debunks the truth of sacred scriptures, the historicity of Jesus, and the morality of the bible, what can be left of "the Christian notion of God"? There is nothing left to understand, much less misunderstand.
Posted by: Will E. | September 28, 2006 4:45 PM
Posted by: quork | September 28, 2006 4:56 PM
Kremer is a live one, "I think this radically misrepresents the concept of God. The God of Christianity just isn't the same kind of thing as Thor or Zeus (were supposed to be)."
It is a good start to be a stand-up comic.
Kremer, have you ever read anything other than the bible?
The Jesus myths were just taken from other myths in the region. Look up the history of Heracles for example. Jesus was just a typical Heracles hero, engendered by god, dies a painful death, and finally ascends to heaven to be next to his father, Zeus.
There were many jesuses around at the time, some such that actually existed.
Posted by: bernarda | September 28, 2006 4:56 PM
Michael-
It is perfectly reasonable to dismiss Ann Coulter's views on evolution, based on the fact that she evidently doesn't understand evolution.
It is equally reasonable to dismiss Dawkins's critique of Christianity given his evident misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God.
put simply, Dawkin's doesn't care about how you define your god, nor should he for the argument he is making.
He has seen, as well as we all have, an apparent correlation between religious extremeism and effects on people's irrational and violent behavior. The evidence of this is constantly barraging us in multiple media formats, on a daily basis.
He reacts to explain what he sees, as any scientist would and should. Would you explain away the behavior of these folks by expounding on the rationality of your particular brand of religion?
If you disagree with what is at the core of the irrational behavior that is so often associated with the religious meme, your counter to that is not to claim religion's rationality (you'll lose), but to counter with another explanation that at least explains the correlation between religion and extreme irrational behavior as well as or better than the simple assumption that religion is at the root of the behavior to begin with.
It's not Dawkin's job to explain how your particular religious viewpoint is or is not rational, it's yours.
...and it's your job to come up with a counter that better explains the correlative data better than a simple religion=behavior association.
so get to it, as nobody here cares whether Dawkin's "correctly" interprets your version of xianity or not.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 4:58 PM
Exactly how would Dawkins' understanding of christianity be dismissed? Dawkins is an educated man who knows how to read a book. What does it exactly take in order to understand the bible? If common folk are meant to read it and live their lives accordingly, how would you explain that Dawkins somehow cannot grok it?
He wrote books on these subjects. You'd think that whatever you think he doesn't understand must have been pointed out to him a dozen times by now. I bet Dawkins read a lot more bible and related writings than your average Joe as part of his quest and research. To call him uninformed is quite pretentious. You could call him wrong, but you cannot call him uninformed.
Posted by: Koray | September 28, 2006 4:58 PM
code fails me again.
put this line, which is a quote from Michael in my last post, in italics:
It is equally reasonable to dismiss Dawkins's critique of Christianity given his evident misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 4:59 PM
It is equally reasonable to dismiss Dawkins's critique of Christianity given his evident misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God.
Whose critique should I take seriously then, if the Dawkins critique is to be dismissed?
Posted by: George | September 28, 2006 5:33 PM
It is equally reasonable to dismiss Dawkins's critique of Christianity given his evident misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God.
Actually, he understands the Christian god extremely well. But he also knows that most Christians don't seem to understand the true nature of their petty barbaric volcano god, and his book of blood. So, he points it out to them, as any decent educator with any morals would do. Hopefully it will open a few eyes. It's high time for our species to grow the hell up.
Posted by: jeffw | September 28, 2006 5:48 PM
bernarda: You can give me a break now. You have no idea what I have and haven't read. (In fact, among many other things, I have read a couple of books by Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker I remember as quite effective and useful in introducing me to some key ideas of evolution, and I have never doubted the truth of evolution since) and a couple of books by Dennett. And to my own shame, I haven't actually read that much of the Bible, though I hear a bit of it every Sunday, and hence know a lot of what's in it.)
I am not going to go on any further on this thread.
George: I think the views of Anthony Kenny are probably worth study. This is a man who really does understand the Christianity he rejected after spending several years as a Catholic priest. He does not, however, end up in exactly the same place as Dawkins since he is more of an agnostic. He has a new book out called What I Believe, in which he has two chapters against theism and one against atheism. I haven't read this book yet, and really only know his work as a philosopher (my field).
Posted by: Michael Kremer | September 28, 2006 6:05 PM
Oh, that up-from-under stare! I think it looks like someone propped Coulter upright and gave her strong coffee (or some methadone?) just before the interview. Yikes!
Put here" -- by whom? and if not to be comfortable, for what purpose, then? I sense some remnant of religious thinking, of a religious sense, surfacing in that line, I have to say.
Come on. "Put here" is just semantic shorthand, like "it evolved to," or "it was designed to." No, Dawkins doesn't believe we were literally put here by anyone. It's not his fault that the structure of our language itself assumes a Subject. He also doesn't believe that hydrogen atoms literally "want to get together" with oxygen atoms, either.
"It is equally reasonable to dismiss Dawkins's critique of Christianity given his evident misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God."
What nonsense. Dawkins does undestand it, that's his "problem." He was raised in the Christian church as I was, and was a little choirboy just as I was a little choirgirl. I reiterate, you're not supposed to understand Christianity. Faith is [deliberately] not understanding.
This is emotional blackmail, not an argument. Ironically, it mimics the accusation leveled at Albert Einstein that Dawkins quotes extensively in his book: "Mr. Einstein, you may know a great many things, but you obviously know nothing about God!" And who sounds arrogant? It's really just another ad hominem attack after all.
Posted by: Kristine | September 28, 2006 6:08 PM
Heh. From another site (markshea.blogspot.com):
I take him (Dawkins) for an honest fool. Seems to be interested in the truth, whether it's comfortable or not (which is a plus), but doesn't seem too interested in trying to know much that doesn't fit into his little system of order. I'd love to see him in a conversation with N.T. Wright on the New Testament, because his notions of the origins of Christianity and of the New Testament are the sort of thing that would get you flunked out of a sophomore class in any high school.
Posted by: hoody | September 28, 2006 6:19 PM
I am not going to go on any further on this thread.
good job at running away from your argument there.
you do your own notion of religion a great service.
phht.
It's funny, but whenever it becomes apparent that religious moderates need to step up and explain why their extremeist compatriots are the way they are, they bunt instead.
Is it too difficult a question to answer beyond saying essentially "the obvious is not the obvious - you just DON'T UNDERSTAND MY RELIGION!"?
sad.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 6:40 PM
Dawkins "Not put here to be comfortable" Using Occam, he meant the program producer put him in a plain room, not in a comfy armchair, with a known hardass Paxman, thats all folks.
Posted by: paranerd | September 28, 2006 7:14 PM
Dawkins "Not put here to be comfortable" Using Occam, he meant the program producer put him in a plain room, not in a comfy armchair, with a known hardass Paxman, thats all folks.
Yes, there is that double meaning. That's why he smiled a bit when he said it.
Posted by: jeffw | September 28, 2006 7:29 PM
"Yes, there is that double meaning. That's why he smiled a bit when he said it."
Pah. That's reading too much into it. It's just that to ardent atheists and science-lovers like Dawkins, PZ Myers and myself, the idea that we should believe something because it makes us comfortable is laughable. If something is true and makes us comfortable (Bach is great, for instance) then all well and good. But the comfort-factor of a proposition has no bearing on its truth value.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 28, 2006 7:35 PM
The Paxman quote slolernr was looking for is:
'Having read H.L. Mencken's opinion that the correct relationship of a journalist to a politician was that of a dog to a lamppost', he once said, 'there was really only one career open to me'.
He lives it, too.
Posted by: ergle | September 28, 2006 8:31 PM
Once again, the arguement that you can't disprove god is trotted out, like it has relevance. Only things for which there is some evidence even need to be considered. Driving down the street, I might hypothesize an invisable brick wall across the road. Should I slam on the breaks, jump out of my car, and walk slowly forward down the street waving my arms in front of me? Of course not. There are enough real things in this world about which we need to think and/or worry. Demanding that we all spend some time trying to refute a claim that cannot be proven is absurd. If not, then I demand that all Christians first refute all the claims of all the other religious traditions individually and specifically with careful research before bothering the rest of us with this 'you can't disprove god' nonsense again.
Posted by: Kevin | September 28, 2006 8:39 PM
What I object to is Dawkins thinking that the concept of God is the concept of something put forward as an additional bit of the universe, in a kind of scientific hypothesis. I think this radically misrepresents the concept of God. The God of Christianity just isn't the same kind of thing as Thor or Zeus (were supposed to be).
"Were supposed to be"? This almost sounds like Thor and Zeus have been falsified. But wait- I thought a god can't be falsified.
Posted by: windy | September 28, 2006 9:22 PM
...and someday the god of the xians will be relegated to "was supposed to be", just like the xians relegate the greek/roman pantheon now.
I wonder what will replace it?
maybe FSMism will take off like scientology did?
now THAT would be funky.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 9:31 PM
I realize that question was probably facetious, but I'll answer it anyway. Specific gods can always be falsified. Only a god whose power and influence are continually readjusted backwards into the remaining gaps in understanding cannot be falsified -- and such a being never has any influence we can detect or identify by definition. As far as we're concerned, there is no difference between that entity's existence and nonexistence - and in such cases 'nonexistence' is simpler.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 28, 2006 9:41 PM
Look, the point is, I don't care about a deity's existence or nonexistence, because I'm sick of people talking about Jesus "and how wonderful he is" like he's Dr. Phil or something (and we all know how wonderful he is, that slimey former Exxon employee). It's all just celebrity-worship, saying Goddidit--that's supposed to make people feel special for some reason. Why is religion "uplifting?" Because believers have a depressing view of reality in the first place. It takes a good dose of Bad News before they inject the Good News hit, and it's all about Somebody Else. Never a thought of human beings, what we can accomplish, how wonderful we are. Forget it. Even if God exists, so what? I am the one who lives my life.
Posted by: Kristine | September 28, 2006 10:05 PM
Michael Kremer -
Steve_C asked a good question:
If "god" is outside our universe how would we know it exists?
I would really like to hear your reply.
Thanks!
Posted by: Belathor | September 28, 2006 10:10 PM
Ichthyic: You know what? I have a job, and a family, and other responsibilities, and I don't see that I have to put up with continuing a discussion where the "rational" response to me is to call me a clueless stand-up comic and question whether I've ever read anything other than the Bible. As far as I can tell, the portion of this thread involving me was going nowhere fast, and I have other things to do. I went round and round for days on another thread and don't intend to repeat the experiment here.
But since you insist, I'll answer your question. And then I will stop with this thread. And if you want to insist that I'm somehow giving in and embarassing my religion, so be it.
I don't think there is a particular association between the religious "meme" and violence. There are violent religious people, and violent non-religious people, and non-violent religious people, and non-violent non-religious people. Violence is a part of human life, unfortunately. In our country most people profess to be religious and so most violent acts are committed by people professing to be religious. In the former East Germany, where the vast majority of the population is atheist (88% self-describe as atheist), I would venture to guess that most violent acts are committed by atheists.
I know that there are people who claim that atheists are way underrepresented in the prison population, but when I checked out the statistics as best I could I found that this was wildly exagerrated. For example the site
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
claims that "atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)."
But here a trick is played: when asking whether one is an atheist in the general population, generic "non-religious" responses are counted, whereas when asking whether one is an atheist in the prison population only the strict answer "atheist" is counted. When things are done fairly, it turns out that the representation of atheists in the prison population is not nearly so different than that of everyone else.
Thus according to
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist4.htm
while 14.1% of the population identifies with no religion, only 0.4% self-identify as atheist. (Further, only 0.5% self-identify as agnostic, with less than 0.1% identifying as "secular" or "humanist.") Also, in this survey, 5.4% refused to answer.
Now 0.2% prison population versus 0.4% of the general population (people who self-identify as "atheist") is still disproportionately low, I admit, but nowhere near the level of underrepresentation touted by the first site. Also, note that in the survey of the prison population fully 20% of those surveyed gave no answer or had religion unknown. This is not broken down into those who answered "no religion" and those who did not answer, but this 20% corresponds