Dawkins in Kansas
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 19, 2006 10:16 AM, by PZ Myers
You can get the audio for Dawkins' talk at the University of Kansas now.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search this blog
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)All thinking men are atheists.
Ernest Hemingway
Recent Posts
- Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- How McCain will win the youth vote
- Everything you need to know about ID
- I'm on Skeptics' Guide to the Universe!
- So…where are the octopus language lessons?
- This poll cannot stand
- Short takes from the mailbag
- On my way to Missouri
- Friday Cephalopod: Beautiful body plan
- Another review of the Origins conference
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)I think I despise anti-environmentalists as much as I do anti-evolutionists
No genes were lost in the making of this whale
Evolution of alcohol synthesis
Development, medicine, and evolution of the neck and shoulder
Recent Comments
- ggab on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Owlmirror on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Kevin on So…where are the octopus language lessons?
- Patricia on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Ichthyic on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Afro Spaulding on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Nibien on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Ichthyic on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Krubozumo Nyankoye on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Eric Atkinson on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)Other Information
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Gogonasus andrewsae | Main | Pirates and academics »
TrackBacks
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
The video should be up on this page soon:
http://www.hallcenter.ku.edu/video/index.shtml
Posted by: James Allen | October 19, 2006 10:53 AM
Josh Rosenau of Thoughts from Kansas has a couple threads on Dawkins and his appearance there. I am not impressed with Mr. Rosenau' ability to follow a line of reasoning.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 19, 2006 2:18 PM
I love the comments on the second TfK thread to the effect that Dawkins is somehow required to spout off on moral philosophy every time he talks, just because he rejects religion. Religious apologists come up with the cutest non-sequiturs. Must be the training in illogic they get from... religion.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 19, 2006 3:07 PM
First off, I'm not a religious apologist, nor do I have a religious background. Second, my point about moral philosophy came from the disappointingly inadequate answer that Dawkins gave when he decided to take up the topic. No one is obliged to talk about anything, but if you are going to do it, do it right.
Posted by: Josh | October 19, 2006 3:24 PM
Dawkins is not a moral philosopher, and no doubt feels the need to address the topic at all only because the delusion that morality depends on religion (a delusion that certainly isn't his fault) is so widespread. If you require more enlightenment than Dawkins is able to provide, there's two millenia of philosphical literature that should keep you busy for a while.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 19, 2006 3:48 PM
As I said in the comments at TfK, I wasn't interested for my own sake. I've written my own blog posts on the topic, and feel quite comfortable deriving morality from non-theistic sources.
My issue is that whether arguing for greater political liberties for atheists (de facto excluded from public office) or just arguing about teaching evolution in science classes, you get the same beef from people: without this or that supernatural widget, how could you be moral.
If Dawkins wants to convince people that atheists are good guys and wants to equip atheists with the debating tools they'll need in order to advance their/his cause, it would have been useful for him to give a better presentation of nontheistic morality than he did in his speech or his latest book. Others have pointed out that he addressed the topic of evolutionary game theory (a powerful tool for demonstrating the origins of moral systems) in earlier books, so he is clearly capable.
I don't know why he chose a negative approach in his book and speech.
Posted by: Josh | October 19, 2006 4:17 PM
People have been trying to convince stupid people that "atheists are good guys" for aeons. And we've made how much progress on that? Dawkins is perfectly within his rights, and in my opinion also wise, to shift the discussion 180 degrees by pointing out that there are very good reasons to regard religion as a dangerous form of lunacy, thereby putting the other side on the defensive for a change. I think it's about damned time, myself.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 19, 2006 4:25 PM
Perhaps, but people have been making arguments against the validity of the Bible to no great effect for a long time also.
Posted by: Josh | October 19, 2006 4:33 PM
Dawkins goes beyond that. Few apologists for atheism have been as forceful in pointing out just how dangerous religion is. In any case, why is there not room for both approaches, why must everybody be pressed into a "positive" mold that somehow does not seem to produce the results its advocates anticipate?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 19, 2006 4:36 PM
apologist:
I'd have to say that you are indeed a religious apologist.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 19, 2006 4:38 PM
Or maybe you would prefer "apologist for religion" rather than "religious apologist" if it clears up any ambiguity.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 19, 2006 4:52 PM
How about an apologist for agnosticism?
Posted by: Josh | October 19, 2006 5:07 PM
I think Dawkins makes the necessary point by stating that no one truly bases their ethics on the bible. Almost all the "laws" of the bible are ignored by modern society because it's barbaric.
The religious pick and choose what they claim they follow in the bible. I don't see the fundamentalists stoning their daughters when they break their "promise".
How we come to what we follow as our own personal code of ethics is complex and
influenced by a wide range of things including the law.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 19, 2006 5:11 PM
I saw Dawkins speak at the NYAS yesterday-it was great. I had no idea he is so eloquent: unlike many other agnostics, he never dismisses an argument simply because it is silly, or "because it contradicts science." He uses reasoned-out step-wise logic to rip apart beliefs that are ultimately irrational.
Posted by: DD | October 20, 2006 2:04 AM
Over at his site there's his interview on Alan Colmes' radio show on Fox Radio.
It's funny to hear the call ins. One amount to "no way... NO WAY!"
Another basically said without the bible he would do whatever he wanted and
Colmes called him on it and relentlessly asked him if he would kill and rob his
neighbor... you have to listen to it.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 20, 2006 10:53 AM