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

← Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor - Comments

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 1 by helen sotiriadis

methinks the cardinal is feeling the heat.

Fri, 09 May 2008 08:47:00 UTC | #168464

exquisitetruth's Avatar Comment 2 by exquisitetruth

I dearly hope that this new trend of arguing against atheism through such absurd associations, and tenuous lines of reasoning are (as opposed to the older, more reasonable arguments, ;)), a sign of last ditch desperation.

Fri, 09 May 2008 08:49:00 UTC | #168465

animavisual's Avatar Comment 3 by animavisual

Oh man. Boteach and now this.
There's something poignantly oxymoronic about "a dictatorship ruled by reason," no?

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:00:00 UTC | #168467

JackR's Avatar Comment 4 by JackR

Humphreys? Pwned.

Well done there, Richard. You nailed him with that line about the difference in his approach to politicians. He said he wished he had more time at the end but you could tell he was glad he didn't!

I like Humphreys quite a lot but he does have a bit of a double standard where religion is concerned, sadly.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:01:00 UTC | #168468

Matt H.'s Avatar Comment 5 by Matt H.

By the way, to anyone who isn't sure who John Humphrys is... he recently wrote a book called 'Confessions of a Failed Atheist'. He is an agnostic.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:03:00 UTC | #168470

Mark Smith's Avatar Comment 6 by Mark Smith

Just listened to RD's interview and thought he pressed home his points superbly. Why should believers be allowed to get away with 'I just believe it' in the public forum?

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:07:00 UTC | #168471

FreeYourMind's Avatar Comment 7 by FreeYourMind

"I'm astonished that somebody could spend 5,000 words saying absolutely nothing at all."


Well played Richard.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:08:00 UTC | #168472

bitsphere's Avatar Comment 8 by bitsphere

The Cardinal's voice and message seemed as though it is a cry for mercy after an aknowledged defeat. Hmm, I wonder why?
I sense a paradigm shift in the way religion is addressed. Instead of superimposing itself on cultural and individual boundaries, it is trying to blend as an important cultural component to people. A survival mechanism, perhaps an extended phenotype too.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:08:00 UTC | #168473

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 9 by mordacious1

Too brief, but thanks Richard for getting up early to respond to this nonsense.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:09:00 UTC | #168474

Angels On a Pin Head's Avatar Comment 10 by Angels On a Pin Head

BBC Radio 4 listeners out there might like to consider contacting the weekly radio highlight programme "Pick of the Week" suggesting they play the interview with Richard. It would give it a chance of being heard by people who aren't up listening to the news at 7:15 in the morning.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:10:00 UTC | #168476

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 11 by Diacanu

Reason leads to terror and opression?

Well, I'm sure the American revolution was a bitch for the limeys for awhile there, but come on....

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:15:00 UTC | #168478

Matt H.'s Avatar Comment 12 by Matt H.

Diacanu: Let's not bring the American Revolution into this. I tend to think 'reason' as applying to peace treaties and agreements, not wars fought over tea.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:16:00 UTC | #168479

Star Spangled Eagle's Avatar Comment 13 by Star Spangled Eagle

people, whether it's like Hitler or Stalin, bringing up - having a country in which, if you like, a God free zone, a dictatorship ruled by reason, and where does it lead? To terror and oppression


This must be one of the most stupid fucking things anyone could ever say.

Reason leads to oppression and terror?

This man is evil.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:18:00 UTC | #168480

Star Spangled Eagle's Avatar Comment 14 by Star Spangled Eagle

not wars fought over tea.


Uh?

I'm guessing this is a joke or something.

Otherwise, it's time to dust off a history book.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:20:00 UTC | #168481

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 15 by Diacanu

Matt7895-


Diacanu: Let's not bring the American Revolution into this. I tend to think 'reason' as applying to peace treaties and agreements, not wars fought over tea.


Hey, we tried to be reasonable.

We were like "um, limeys, could you um, like, go away?".

And they were like "noe".

And we were like "please?".

And they were like "*bang* noe".

And we were like "okay, we tried *bang, bang, bang, bang*".

EDIT-
But seriously, the reasoned bit was the conclusion that kings/dictators are cocksuckers, and we'd be better off without that system of governemnt.

History has proven our forefathers right.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:23:00 UTC | #168484

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 16 by mordacious1

I suppose god was on OUR side in that one, or was that the French?

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:26:00 UTC | #168485

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 17 by mordacious1

Basicly the cardinal is saying that if we could get rid of reason, then we could return to the good ol' days when faith ruled supreme, ie. the dark ages. What a Nork.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:29:00 UTC | #168486

Star Spangled Eagle's Avatar Comment 18 by Star Spangled Eagle

Founding Fathers: limey's please, stop ruling from afar, we'd like to self govern.

King George: just try, you'll die.

Founding Fathers: It's liberty or death pal.


We chose liberty.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:31:00 UTC | #168487

flibble's Avatar Comment 19 by flibble

I listened to Richards (very short) interview first and thought what a good job he'd done in the time allowed, but after listening to the cardinal's (much longer) interview, I have to say that Richard wasn't nearly as effective in showing religion up to be the vacuous nonsense it is.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:32:00 UTC | #168488

Logicel's Avatar Comment 20 by Logicel

Sanderson's article is fantastic! (under RELATED at the bottom of the above post).

I only have this to add to Sanderson's evisceration of what this idiotic person who wear funny robes stands for: shove your corrupt business model (oh, sorry, meant your church) up your arse.

Stick a fork in it, the Catholic Church is done.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:34:00 UTC | #168490

Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy's Avatar Comment 21 by Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy

Idiocy keeps lowering the bar on rational thought. What the hell?!

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:35:00 UTC | #168491

thewhitepearl's Avatar Comment 22 by thewhitepearl

wtf is a "new atheist"?

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:36:00 UTC | #168492

Logicel's Avatar Comment 23 by Logicel

Now we know why Catholics don't reason, they don't know what the f reason is!

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:38:00 UTC | #168494

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 24 by Diacanu

mordacious1-


Basicly the cardinal is saying that if we could get rid of reason, then we could return to the good ol' days when faith ruled supreme, ie. the dark ages. What a Nork.


I think that's exactly what they want.

I don't think they've really reasoned it out (the clergy reasoning, hah!!) as far as the regressive backwardsness, and it's impact on the world, and thus the resultant dark ages, but they blindly want everyone back into the cult where they can be back in line, and damn the consequences.

And shit, some of 'em would love the loss of modernity, they hate it.

There's been shows on PBS of people living in recreations of colonial and frontier times, and the church-heads fucking love it, and hate coming back to our world.

They're as bad as the Taliban in that regard.

Gotta watch these people.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:39:00 UTC | #168497

kram50's Avatar Comment 25 by kram50

O'Connor said:
Unbelievers construct their own god so that they can knock him down easily.

I don't ever recall constructing a god. I do remember years and years of listening to the story told by an endless number of pastors, ministers, church elders, relatives, school teachers, girl friends, TV crooks...et.al.
Now you tell me who constructed the sky daddy!
Then he goes on to say that nonbelief is dangerous...what a crock!!!

I don't need religion to find truth and meaning...I find no comfort in a fairy tale.

Keep up the good work Richard!!

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:39:00 UTC | #168498

adamwilcox's Avatar Comment 26 by adamwilcox

Good interview, although I don't know if John Humphrys really got the 'you question and require evidence from a politician when they say they believe something to be true, why not a cardinal?' point.

I find it stunning though, that Cardinal Murphy can claim that Christian views are in danger of being silenced... whilst giving a lecture at Westminster Cathedral. Only when you are outside Asda trying to be heard, then you are in trouble Archbishop!

(first comment at richarddawkins.net- go easy on me)

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:41:00 UTC | #168501

MikeV's Avatar Comment 28 by MikeV

Richard totally mopped the floor with this John Humphrys guy. Hymphrys was at a loss when he tried to explain why you don't need to demand evidence when talking to religious people. He was lucky that the "interview" was so short.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:42:00 UTC | #168503

Matt H.'s Avatar Comment 27 by Matt H.

Getting a little off topic but I'm wondering why the admins/moderators are allowing a derogatory slur like 'limey' be thrown about willy-nilly like it has been in this thread?

Back on topic, Humphrey's refusal to hold religious people to account over their views may be frustrating, but it's the worst religion has to offer right now. Well, that and the opposition to embryo research :(

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:42:00 UTC | #168502

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 29 by Diacanu

kram50-


nonbelief is dangerous..


Someone should ask the cardinal if he considers his non-belief in Muhammed and Allah to be dangerous, and given that some muslims indubitably must consider it a bad thing, whether or not they can go piss up a rope, or if he'd be willing to concede to their wishes that he convert or die.

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:46:00 UTC | #168506

Star Spangled Eagle's Avatar Comment 30 by Star Spangled Eagle

Getting a little off topic but I'm wondering why the admins/moderators are allowing a derogatory slur like 'limey' be thrown about willy-nilly like it has been in this thread?


probably the same reason they allow users to write historically inaccurate statements about the past.

I wasn't aware that was a "derogatory slur"

Fri, 09 May 2008 09:53:00 UTC | #168509