This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← a new flea - NRO radio interview with author of 'Atheist Delusions'

a new flea - NRO radio interview with author of 'Atheist Delusions' - Comments

Godfree Gordon's Avatar Comment 1 by Godfree Gordon

dont bother

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:33:00 UTC | #351501

Vanpastel's Avatar Comment 2 by Vanpastel

Comment #368060 by Godfree Gordon
Thanks for saving my time.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:37:00 UTC | #351504

maton100's Avatar Comment 3 by maton100

Values versus facts. "We have Christian values...therefore we can ignore facts."

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:39:00 UTC | #351508

MAJORPAIN's Avatar Comment 4 by MAJORPAIN

If all they can do is insult us then maybe we have them running scared...

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:43:00 UTC | #351512

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 6 by Richard Dawkins

Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off? Surely theology must be the ONLY academic subject in which such a stupefying bore, with such yawning chasms of intelligence-deficit, could rise to the top.

Richard

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:45:00 UTC | #351516

Chris Davis's Avatar Comment 5 by Chris Davis

Isn't there some kind of spray for this? An insecticide sort of thing?

I think we should be told.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:45:00 UTC | #351515

Tezcatlipoca's Avatar Comment 7 by Tezcatlipoca

I say we conscript Paula Kirby to endure this trial...

;)

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:48:00 UTC | #351519

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 9 by Peacebeuponme

Richard

Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off?
I'm trying. He's not actually said anything so far.

Did you notice that when asked what the most glaring error was in your book, he could not name a single one?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:49:00 UTC | #351521

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 8 by Laurie Fraser

Er, sorry, Richard, must have been asleep. What were you saying? :)

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:49:00 UTC | #351520

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 10 by irate_atheist

6. Comment #368075 by Richard Dawkins -

Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off?
I did. But, to be fair, I have no speakers - nor in fact sound output of any kind - on my computer at the office. Having said that, I don't believe this detracted from the overall experience and I doubt that I missed any of the salient points made in the interview.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:53:00 UTC | #351526

TCM's Avatar Comment 12 by TCM

What a fantastically stupid man.

He seems to be making the tired and obsolete argument that our morality comes from Christianity and therefore we need it. He clearly hasn't actually read the books he's criticising.

Also this idea that the 20th century was one of unparalleled violence... I've heard this a couple of times before. It's technology and politics, not secularism, that made the first and second world wars as bloody as they were. Haven't we had the most peaceful time in human history since 1946? Up until then it seems that everyone was looking to make war with everyone else.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:55:00 UTC | #351528

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 11 by Laurie Fraser

Comment #368085 by irate_atheist

Bloody hell! Now MY keyboard's ruined!

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:55:00 UTC | #351527

decius's Avatar Comment 13 by decius

Comment #368085 by irate_atheist

Ranked excellent.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:56:00 UTC | #351529

Anaximander's Avatar Comment 16 by Anaximander

RD: "Surely theology must be the ONLY academic subject in which such a stupefying bore."

What is the opposite of theology? Can there be such a person as a Doctor of Atheology, DOA?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:59:00 UTC | #351533

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 14 by Peacebeuponme

He did make one extremely brilliant, intellectual comment towards the end. Referring to his rambling and nonsensical answer to one of the interviewer's questions, he said: "Somehow I think that answer is not as clear as it might have been."

Oh for Alister McGrath to have such awareness.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:59:00 UTC | #351531

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 15 by Steve Zara

Comment #368085 by irate_atheist

Also ranked excellent.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:59:00 UTC | #351532

Ned Flanders's Avatar Comment 17 by Ned Flanders

Yes, an insecticide indeed. I propose we name it:

SHRILL
Kills Gods. Fast.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:04:00 UTC | #351538

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 18 by Russell Blackford

Richard:


Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off?


I gave up halfway through, partly because the audio format wasn't friendly to use ... but mainly because of David Bentley Hart's painfully slow, monotone delivery.

The interviewer didn't help, either. All the leading questions - "What's the worst thing they say?", "Is what the New Atheists say false?", and suchlike - were really annoying. It was like he thought he was interviewing a slow-learning child. Oh, hang on ...

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:05:00 UTC | #351539

Ruggles's Avatar Comment 19 by Ruggles

Richard Dawkins,

Perhaps if you were to ape the manner of theologians like Rowan Williams you might be able to cultivate a more civilised and thoughtful approach to discussion and commentary. Perhaps you could, too, take note of Williams' preface to "Christian Theology" in which he outlines his belief that part of establishing a successful dialogue is to listen honestly to the other side and allow it a chance to speak. The holistic dismissal of theology as "emperor's new clothes" is transparently duplicitous as a means of masking precisely the intellectual arrogance that precludes such dialogue.

Your comments do more than most to accentuate divides within the academy, polarise and marginalize thoughtful discourse and ridicule the entire notion of metaphorical, interpretive, or poetic meaning. Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.

I implore you to adopt Daniel Dennett's reserve and restraint when dealing with these delicate and complex topics.

Who needs this kind of intellectual thuggery?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:14:00 UTC | #351548

anna09's Avatar Comment 20 by anna09

Wow, if that's how he conducts himself in an interview, I'd pity anyone that would go through the torture of hacking through his book!

(I couldn't even finish the audio.)

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:15:00 UTC | #351551

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 21 by Laurie Fraser

Comment #368108 by Ruggles

Oh, fuck off.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:16:00 UTC | #351553

TCM's Avatar Comment 22 by TCM

Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.


That's a shame, poetic skill is so useful when considering scientific questions.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:16:00 UTC | #351555

zeroangel's Avatar Comment 24 by zeroangel

OK I gave up, made it about a third of the way through.

"Well, well, I uhhh, wouldn't say, that is, uhhh, well, you know, atheists, uhh, their arguements, uhhh"

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:22:00 UTC | #351558

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 23 by Quetzalcoatl

Ruggles-

I would be happy to discuss such matters with you, on the Godless Guru thread. Perhaps you could start the discussion off by detailing in your first post precisely what you believe the value of theology to be, detailing the evidentiary basis for the claims it makes, and stating which of those have been shown to be correct.

I await your first post with extreme interest.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:22:00 UTC | #351557

Jay Cee's Avatar Comment 25 by Jay Cee

The holistic dismissal of theology as "emperor's new clothes" is transparently duplicitous as a means of masking precisely the intellectual arrogance that precludes such dialogue.


Are you a theologian by any chance?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:24:00 UTC | #351559

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 26 by Peacebeuponme

intellectual thuggery?
Is that how you would describe beating somebody over the head with a copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:25:00 UTC | #351562

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 27 by Richard Dawkins

Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.


That's a shame, poetic skill is so useful when considering scientific questions.

Actually, no joke, I think poetry has an important role in science. That's why I wrote Unweaving the Rainbow. Perhaps "Ruggles" might care to read it?

Richard

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:26:00 UTC | #351564

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 28 by Laurie Fraser

Comment #368119 by JAMCAM87

Well spotted, JAMCAM. That sentence means precisely fuck-all.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:27:00 UTC | #351565

TCM's Avatar Comment 29 by TCM

Is that how you would describe beating somebody over the head with a copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?

I wish someone would...

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:27:00 UTC | #351567

epeeist's Avatar Comment 31 by epeeist

Comment #368108 by Ruggles:

Your comments do more than most to accentuate divides within the academy, polarise and marginalize thoughtful discourse and ridicule the entire notion of metaphorical, interpretive, or poetic meaning. Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.


But theology doesn't claim to be metaphorical, interpretive or poetic. It claims to be true.

Who needs this kind of intellectual thuggery?


If I point out that it might be an idea to hold off discussing hoof rot in unicorns until we actually have a unicorn would that be "intellectual thuggery". On other threads we have a poster proclaiming the virtues of "Enlightenment Values", what he doesn't seem to cotton is that one of these values is the rejection of received authority. If this is intellectual thuggery then so be it.

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:28:00 UTC | #351570