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

← Richard Dawkins Interview

Richard Dawkins Interview - Comments

proveit's Avatar Comment 1 by proveit

How did I manage to miss the fact that Richard was in my home city last weekend?
I thought he was skipping New Zealand :(

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:38:00 UTC | #450136

mbannonb's Avatar Comment 2 by mbannonb

"The man who puts fear into the hearts of those who believe in God"

Richard "Darth Maul" Dawkins.

hehe

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:41:00 UTC | #450137

DeepFritz's Avatar Comment 3 by DeepFritz

There is sure an absolute bonanaza of radio interviews, TV snippets, Book Readings from this Australia and New Zealand tour. This is another one of those fantastic pieces. In every one of them, have been may nuggets of good information to be gleened. It has made my days at work pass very quickly.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:02:00 UTC | #450138

stanleygarden's Avatar Comment 4 by stanleygarden

Very neat interview. Dawkins certainly showed much more temperance and elition here. Is he watching his words now after indiscriminate rebukes against him or does he truly believe that delusions on a massive scale deserve some respect...or did I mishear it??? Or maybe it's just that the interviewer wasn't provocative enough. Perhaps I'm just so used to wathcing Mr Dawkins in the battlefield of ideas against bellicose religious nuts that witnessing a relaxed chat with a nice bolding guy just seems weird..

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:31:00 UTC | #450140

lswanson's Avatar Comment 5 by lswanson

"The man who puts fear into the hearts of those who believe in God."

An invalidated claim, to be sure.

As one who believes in God, I can assure you, Prof Dawkins does not put fear into my heart. Rather, God puts compassion in my heart for those who do not know Him.

I'm looking forward to reading the children's book, however. What I'm very interested in is to see whether Prof Dawkins will satisfy the criteria of "not indoctrinating" children with his viewpoint. If it is truly an exercise in teaching children to think critically (which all parents should be interested in), fair enough. But I would suggest that Prof Dawkins would be happier if all children eventually "come out the other end" with no belief in God, in which case, he will have successfully indoctrinated them.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:52:00 UTC | #450142

JuJu's Avatar Comment 6 by JuJu

Iswanson, Congratulations, you just opened a can of worms. See comments below.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:10:00 UTC | #450143

Quine's Avatar Comment 7 by Quine

Comment #470208 by lswanson:

... God puts compassion in my heart for those who do not know Him.
I commend you for taking that position and showing compassion. Hopefully, through that compassion you will see that many non-believers are ordinary good people.

Professor Dawkins is not going to try to indoctrinate children. If his books result in de-indoctrination, that would be hard to separate from those children who normally grow out of fairy tales, anyway. Many young people realize that all religions can't be right, but all can be wrong. Children are naturally curious and will look at evidence in the world, unless they are taught to close their eyes to it all around them and blindly follow a book of bronze age myths. No indoctrination is required to show them that world, and the wonder it holds out to them.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:12:00 UTC | #450145

Alovrin's Avatar Comment 8 by Alovrin

he will have successfully indoctrinated them.


You are just wrong in so many ways.....
Stay in Swanson.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:19:00 UTC | #450146

lswanson's Avatar Comment 9 by lswanson

De-indoctrination? How do you distinguish between de-indoctrination and indoctrination with a different doctrine? My point is that I would guess that if it could be shown that children reared on his material grow up into adults who do not believe in God, Professor Dawkins would see this as success. Which makes it seem that he does have an agenda, and that is to indoctrinate. I would like to think that it is merely (and admirably) to encourage and promote critical thinking. But if that is the case, it is irrelevant what the outcome of belief is. In this case, the only thing that matters is the research/thinking process that led the individual to adhering to his/her set of beliefs.

Incidentally, I have no interest in my children following anything blindly. I want to encourage and nurture their curiosity.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:24:00 UTC | #450147

Fouad Boussetta's Avatar Comment 10 by Fouad Boussetta

So you have "compassion" in your heart for non-believers, Iswanson?

Well, I myself have pity in my heart for believers who feel they need their "God". They need it as a big fat thumb to suck on to calm down when distressed. Not true?

Cheers.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:26:00 UTC | #450148

Aoteroa's Avatar Comment 11 by Aoteroa

Iswanson,

Given you have been thoroughly indoctrinated into your belief in a mystical entity, and given your volunerability to such things I can understand how you would come to this conclusion regarding what RD presents.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:34:00 UTC | #450149

Quine's Avatar Comment 12 by Quine

Comment #470213 by lswanson:

Incidentally, I have no interest in my children following anything blindly. I want to encourage and nurture their curiosity.
What do you tell them when they ask how old the Earth is?

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:37:00 UTC | #450150

RDfan's Avatar Comment 13 by RDfan

Comment #470208 by lswanson:

What I'm very interested in is to see whether Prof Dawkins will satisfy the criteria of "not indoctrinating" children with his viewpoint.


The trouble is, it`s not just RD`s viewpoint. In deed, the doctors you visit, the pilots you fly with, the programmers whose computer you use, the cars, electricity, phones, you name it, they are all indoctrinated with the same virus; we call it science.

Next time you take a flight, perhaps you should seek out a plane `flown` by pilots who haven`t been indoctrinated in Aeronautics. Let us know how it goes.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:57:00 UTC | #450152

cas3636's Avatar Comment 14 by cas3636

Iswanson most childeren look to their parents for guidance especially below the age of eight. And as your more than likely aware they accept the idea of Santa without question until around six or so.

It is this type of indoctrination that RD is referring to as being wrong because as a general rule parents tell their young child mind that there is a god of their faith and the rest are usually wrong, while labeling child as their indoc faith.

What Richard is trying to say is to educate the child to look at everything in a objective manner an as parents it is our duty to so. and not subject them to one doctrine, and help the child develop a rational objective mind set for their future.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:11:00 UTC | #450154

Barry Pearson's Avatar Comment 15 by Barry Pearson

#470218 by RDfan:
Next time you take a flight, perhaps you should seek out a plane `flown` by pilots who haven`t been indoctrinated in Aeronautics. Let us know how it goes.
More to the point, the plane should be designed and built according to principles from holy books and religious doctrine, and not use science-based engineering.

I suspect the plane will actually be safer than more conventional ones. It won't move!

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:05:00 UTC | #450161

mmurray's Avatar Comment 16 by mmurray

De-indoctrination? How do you distinguish between de-indoctrination and indoctrination with a different doctrine?


What about doing neither of the above. Just do what we did which was to raise our children without any mention of gods at all. There is not mention of gods in our house because we have no use for them or interest in them.

Michael

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:06:00 UTC | #450162

Roland_F's Avatar Comment 17 by Roland_F

Comment #470208 by lswanson : As one who believes in God, I can assure you, ….

Which god ££
Apollo, Baal …. Odin, Thor, Zeus, … I have seen list of 2850 and more gods introduced from humans over time.

Or is it more some a still actual god like Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and the son of one god (Shiva) the elephant headed Ganesha who control your luck and well being beside prosperity goddess Lakshmi of course (> 800 million Hindu believers) ££

Or is it god Allah with his prophet Mohammed (cheese be upon him) who had another low level prophet called Jesus to prepare the ground for the final prophet , and Jesus a mortal who was not even crucified, as poor Judas was nailed to the cross for Jesus sins (1.5 billion Muslim believers).

Or is it the desert god Yahweh (Jehovah, ‘the Lord’ ….) from the Old Testament, who is a jealous god, likes the smell of burnt offerings and gambling with the devil using Job as betting pawn, the god who is very much insisting in collecting the foreskins of his followers. Yahweh who is one of the 70 sons of the most high god Elyon who appointed Yahweh as regional god for Judea the land of Jacob (see Deut 32:8) and was responsible for the functional area of fertility. Who was later (after the northern tribes of Israel fall in 722BC and refuges flooded to the Yahweh territory of Judea) merged into a chimera with the god of Israel Elohim. The god Elohim who created the world in 6 days (Genesis-1 ) with humans like us gods (plural) whereas Yahweh created Adam, then animals, then Eve (Genesis-2). God Yahweh who was married with fertility goddess Ashera but divorced after his merger with Elohim.
Elohim who ordered to load 2 animals each on the ark whereas Yahweh ordered 5 animal pairs for domesticated beasts when the ark was loaded the second time after merger of 2 separate scripts.
And this merged chimera god, now divorced was declared to be the most important god (thou shall not have any gods before me !) who likes to fertilize female virgin girls to produce son of gods like the good old habit of the Greek Pantheon gods residing on the Olympus. And son of god Jesus who died for sins of all humans and was resurrected after 3 days (actually only 36 hours) in the good old tradition of the time and region : Osiris, Horus, Attis, Dionosys, Mithra, and a dozen or so other resurrected gods.

And if this is your ‘god’ about which you teach your children then which of the approximately 33,000 Christian denominations/sects/cults with a quite different interpretation are you following £

Or is it more the god of Karen Armstrong : the immaterial, unknowable, non-understandable out of space and time existing and acting creator deity about which mortal humans can and will never understand and know a single thing £

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:13:00 UTC | #450165

lswanson's Avatar Comment 18 by lswanson

It's world view, people. World view. That's why a pilot (or engineer or plane builder) can be a Bible-believing Christian or an atheist or a Muslim or a believer in Zeus or whatever and it has no bearing on his/her ability to fly (or build, as the case may be) the plane.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:30:00 UTC | #450169

epeeist's Avatar Comment 19 by epeeist

Comment #470235 by lswanson:

It's world view, people. World view.
So is methodological naturalism.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:39:00 UTC | #450173

Aloosh's Avatar Comment 20 by Aloosh

@ Iswanson:

"That's why a pilot (or engineer or plane builder) can be a Bible-believing Christian or an atheist or a Muslim or a believer in Zeus or whatever and it has no bearing on his/her ability to fly (or build, as the case may be) the plane."

But their beliefs do have a bearing if they plan to fly that plane into a building because of it.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:40:00 UTC | #450174

RichardC's Avatar Comment 21 by RichardC

Of his forthcoming book Dawkins has said: "I plan to look at mythical accounts of various things and also the scientific account of the same thing. And the mythical account that I look at will be several different myths, of which the Judeo-Christian one will just be one of many.

"And the scientific one will be substantiated, but appeal to children to think for themselves; to look at the evidence. Always look at the evidence."

So Iswanason, I'm sure you will be reassured by this. Your favourite God myths will also be represented in Dawkins book. And surely you will not feel threatened by Dawkins's intention of encouraging children to look at the evidence and to 'think for themselves'.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:04:00 UTC | #450178

AllanW's Avatar Comment 22 by AllanW

Comment #470235 by lswanson on March 18, 2010 at 9:30 am

It's world view, people. World view.


But one that can lead to disaster;

http://www.euro-islam.info/2009/03/25/muslim-pilot-who-paused-to-pray-during-crash-convicted-in-italian-court/

My point being that your 'It's a world view' comment becomes a very real-world problem in certain circumstances. There are many examples of this 'world view' causing people to act abhorrently. How do you justify this state of affairs, please?

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:43:00 UTC | #450182

Steve_the_Instro's Avatar Comment 23 by Steve_the_Instro

Not all world views are valid.
I would not fly with a flat-earther pilot.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:57:00 UTC | #450185

Pete.K's Avatar Comment 24 by Pete.K

What Richard Dawkin's espouses is not indoctrination, he is all for providing all pertinent information and allowing a developing child to form his or her own opinion.

With doctrine only one view is made available to a child, a child born into a Catholic family will have it's pre-school years dominated by the religious choice of it's parents. If the unfortunate child is sent (Against it's will.) to a faith school, it will receive further indoctrination in the faith of it's parents.

Where is the choice, the free will to follow their own destiny?

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:34:00 UTC | #450188

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 25 by Mark Jones

Comment #470213 by lswanson


My point is that I would guess that if it could be shown that children reared on his material grow up into adults who do not believe in God, Professor Dawkins would see this as success.

I'm not sure, you'd have to ask him. No doubt more than otherwise would not believe in God, which points to *something*, does it not?

My feeling is that some folk not indoctrinated would still choose a religion in adulthood, but I (and, I suspect, Dawkins) wouldn't object to this (other than in the usual way of arguing against their world view). The Anabaptist approach of credobaptism is surely more honourable and *defensible* than the unholy rush of much religion to herd as many children as possible through its educational establishments.

EDIT

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:25:00 UTC | #450195

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 26 by Mark Jones

Incidentally, a great article in The Huffington Post (who'd have thought?) by Eric Michael Johnson, on how critical thinking can overcome early indoctrination for some:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-michael-johnson/the-unseen-and-unknowable_b_500299.html

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:31:00 UTC | #450206

RDfan's Avatar Comment 27 by RDfan

Comment #470235 by lswanson:

It's world view, people. World view. That's why a pilot (or engineer or plane builder) can be a Bible-believing Christian or an atheist or a Muslim or a believer in Zeus or whatever and it has no bearing on his/her ability to fly (or build, as the case may be) the plane.


Only, it has every bearing on his abilities to fly. Your pilots may profess a belief in god, but when they sit behind that joystick, it's science that's most pilots' world view of choice.There is no Buddhist, or Christian, or Muslim way to fly a plane. There is the rational/scientific way, or, well, I guess there is the other way...that leads into buildings.I prefer my pilots to check-in their beliefs at check-in.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:49:00 UTC | #450209

gumby gumby's Avatar Comment 28 by gumby gumby

"The man who puts fear into the hearts of those who believe in God"

LOL

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:25:00 UTC | #450215

Dave H's Avatar Comment 29 by Dave H

Iswanson,
"... in which case, he will have successfully indoctrinated them."

I would think that "...successfully inoculated them." would be more accurate. There are a lot of mind viruses out there.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:48:00 UTC | #450216

lswanson's Avatar Comment 30 by lswanson

"Only, it has every bearing on his abilities to fly. Your pilots may profess a belief in god, but when they sit behind that joystick, it's science that's most pilots' world view of choice.There is no Buddhist, or Christian, or Muslim way to fly a plane. There is the rational/scientific way, or, well, I guess there is the other way...that leads into buildings.I prefer my pilots to check-in their beliefs at check-in. "

My point is that my belief in God has no negative bearing on my ability to carry out scientific investigation - which is why you will find Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, pagan and atheist scientists all working successfully together on research projects. It is also why their are many scientists/doctors/professors who are also creationists.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:07:00 UTC | #450218