Atheists, Christians, whoever... come one and all and tell me what you think of this interview

[UnquietDad]

Because, even as a supporter of his, I don't think Dawkins is firing on all cylinders here. He misses about half a dozen open goals. Although to be fair, it's a tight item and the guy hardly gives him a chance to get a word in.

Is he tired? Jet-lagged? Just fed up with having to justify himself yet again to yet another sceptical interviewer with nothing to offer? Or is he just dumbing down for the interviewer (who comes across as a complete numbskull jerk)?

Disappointing, when he has been on such coruscating form elsewhere in the US: e.g. here, for example.

UQD, as a Christian who believes in evolution, I'll watch this later (when kids are in bed).

Wondered if you had seen This
I think they are nutters (the makers of the film) and hope that it wont be released in the UK.

Actually UQD I wasn't that impressed with his answer to the presumably high school girl. His answer boiled down to "What if you're wrong?" Hmmm, deep. . He entertained the students though, and of course nowadays that is rather more important than reasoned debate.

The interview was tricky - he didn't fight very hard, but maybe that was out of a lack of respect for the interviewer (who came across initially as genial but limited, but who gathered in momentum and conviction as the interview went on, even as Dawkins was losing his will to argue.)

I think it was perhaps lack of respect for the interviewer, who after all didn't seem very bright. He used "physiology" as if it were some conflation of "physics" and "geology", stumbled over the word "agnostic" as if it were something in a foreign language and presemted atheism like something from another planet.

Why was Dawkins not given his full job description and/or title (Evolutionary Biologist/Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University) in the caption? Just putting RICHARD DAWKINS: ATHEIST is misinformation and manipulation - makes him look like some unqualified crank to viewers in Shitkickersville, Nebraska who won't have encountered him before.

The interviewer was rubbish of course.

But really, what is there to be said?

I believe because I believe. I just do. It is irrational. I understand the rational arguments against the necessity of a God in the Universe. I agree with most of them. Yet I still believe.

A 'you prove there is' - 'you prove there isn't' argument - what's the point?

I suppose the point is that it's not a 'you prove there is' vs. 'you prove there isn't' argument, or shouldn't be - as proving the non-existence of something is a philosophical impossibility. It's an 'examine the evidence' argument, as he makes clear in his book. The interviewer clearly hadn't read it...

As for the answer to the high-school girl, well, I'm sure he has considered many times the possibility that he is wrong. Being as sure as you can be of your answers is not an indication that you've never considered that you might be wrong - it's just an indication that you have examined all the evidence and come to the most logical conclusion.

To an extent I agree that his answer boiled down to "what if you're wrong?", but that's less glib than it might seem. He was pointing out that she'd gone through a process involving accidents of birth, history and geography to make her the believer she is. Religion is socio-cultural. And, given an alignment of those things different by only a few centuries/couple of millennia and a few hundred miles, she might have been a Zeus-worshipper, or a Thor-worshipper. The fact that she's not - the fact that any Christian is not - indicates that some process of exclusion has already been undertaken.

Or, in a nutshell:
Q: Why don't you believe in Thor?
A: [fill in your own answer here]
Well, that's why I don't believe in God.

I get it UQD. Really.

But I can examine the evidence. And still believe. I am not interested in evidence for this. That is what is meant by belief, as opposed to for example hypothesis, IMO.

lol at 'Richard Dawkins: Atheist'

I do love American TV. Speaking as a Wacko Christian who believes in creation, I think Dawkins is an interesting character. But that was just pantomime villain time.

I thought the answer to "what if you're wrong" was rather good actually...

I like him.

And I agree with him on a lot of stuff.

Except the biggie...

that Fox interview was excruciating
Is that what passes for intelligent debate in the US??
I don't know, I thought Dawkins just looked a little bored and just like it really wasn't worth having to argue with such fatuous points as "I am throwing in my hand with Jesus, I could see him"......

I think that although the interview was very poor indeed, the key issue is truth vs belief. Richard Dawkins seems entirely comfortable that individuals have a belief system, provided that it is not credited as evidence-based truth. I agree with him!!

Can I just ask out of interest what people have chosen to tell their children of their personal beliefs (atheist or otherwise). I am firmly of the pov that I would like my children to draw their own conclusions, so I generally dodge the really difficult questions, but make sure they can access (or at least have some limited understanding of) major faiths.

Thoughts?

yes I agree UQD I suspect it was just lack of respect.
I mean what's the point?
I mean not exactly Richard Harries, was he

Oh, we've done this discussion before somewhere. I tell my children that our Christian belief is the truth.

yes Suebaroo that made me smile too
Richard Dawkins: ATHEIST AND AGENT OF SATAN AND ALL HIS HORNED HORDES

It's FoxNews, as well, which is always good for a laugh. It's like the news channel equivalent of the Daily Mail.

I do think RD seemed stumbling and slightly below par in the interview but my expectations are high for him and I don't think he saw much point in getting his point across more strongly in such a biased cretinous interview. That Bill O'Reilly is a pompous arse! The way he introduced the topic was hilarious and scary in equal measure. Making Atheism out to be a canker spreading through Europe. Bizarre..

the toothfairy - my children are a little too young for the really difficult questions but I have so far told dd1 (4yo) the truth as I believe it.
I also say that other people believe different things. and she will go to a cofe school. I also read her bible stories and stories from other faiths.
e.g. when she has asked about death I have told her what I believe, that there is no life after death, that life on earth is all there is and that people live on our memories but that I don't believe a spirit, heaven etc.

Well, my children go to church - so they can't be said to have a completely unbiased upbringing . But as has been demonstrated on another thread today, this is no indication that they will continue to believe. I don't shelter them from alternative viewpoints, and see no reason why they shouldn't be as capable as anyone else of making up their own mind in the fullness of time. And possibly changing it once or twice along the way as well.

no, it is no guarantee tellusmater but if your child goes to church then in all likelihood they will remain in that faith for the rest of their lives, to a greater or lesser extent.
It really isn't an answer to say "well I was brought up as a Christian and I made my own mind up and my children can do the same" because I think that is not really the point. the things we are taught as impressionable children are hugely influential and formative and affect us for the rest of our lives.
moving towards atheism from a religious upbringing is - frankly - often painful and difficult. I don't think it is surprising that many atheists are well versed in religion and religious matters - to define oneself as an atheist rather than - say - a deist or an agnostic takes a deal of soul searching.
what I mean to say is, though I know that god doesn't exist, nevertheless the five year old in me knows I am going to hell and full of sin, just like she knows the sky is blue and the earth is round. it is deeply embedded in what we call ourselves.

sorry that was long and dull

oh yes, Harpsi, I agree that it's very formative, and not a light matter. Which I suppose is precisely why we do it the way we do it.

I think moving from religious belief to unbelief is no more difficult than moving from unbelief to belief, though. By which i mean they're both quite difficult transitions.

Sue, you believe in creation?

I think your children will be just as influenced by you telling them that you don't believe as mine will be by me telling them that I do.

Hunker, yep. Told you, I'm a wacko.

I guess the next logical question for me to ask is one word then - dinosaurs?

Co-existed with humans I think - according to that Creationist museum in the States