1 of 2
1
Anyone for Dawkins?
Posted: 10 August 2007 06:36 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2007-01-13

A new two-part series on Channel 4 starts on Monday.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/newricharddawkinsseriesstartsnex.html

No doubt he’ll be incredibly rude about anyone he considers his intellectual inferior (just over 6.6 billion of us!).

No doubt he’ll upset the religious, the superstitious and just about anyone else unwilling to see his point of view.

Should be great!

 Signature 

There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary numbers and those who do not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2007 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Since the article was in the U.K. Telegraph, it’s probably not being shown in the U.S.  Unfortunate.  I happen to reach most of the same conclusions he does, but I certainly agree that he has an abrasive, supercilious attitude.  I was thoroughly unimpressed by his pompous personality when I saw a CNN program of him speaking at a college.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2007 08:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Say what you like about him.  I rather enjoy the vicarious little bugger.  Now, there’s a guy who really missed the point of no longer having to go to church.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 01:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2007-06-01

Vicarious?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 02:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2007-07-24

I really don’t. He seems to be trying to achieve political goals but to think himself above politics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Dan, you are quite right- I just looked up vicarious and saw that I have used that word wrongly (I thought it meant in the tone of a Vicar) so I suppose I should have said sermonising instead.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  148
Joined  2007-03-07

From what I know/read/seen/heard of him, I like him. When he explains evolution he uses the most elegant metaphors, and when I’m in a debate with Christians I tend to act like the cheeky little bugger.

But one more thing, let us accept a few facts. Evolution runs on two mechanisms. Natural selection, and sexual selection. Evolutionists would have to support sex to support their theory. Therefore, evolutionists are sexy. Therefore, because Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist he is sexy. Therefore, because sexy people are cool, Richard Dawkins is cool.

QED

 Signature 

1. God is omnipotent.
Source: Several incidents where I’ve annoyed fundamentalist Christians by challenging God’s power.
2. If God is omnipotent then he can travel faster than the speed of light.
Modus Ponens
3. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Source: Einstein
Therefore, God is nothing.
QED

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 02:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

oh get a room, why don’t you.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 10:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2007-06-03

Dawkins has a very unique talent for explaining some fairly complicated aspects of evolution with crystal clarity and in a most interesting way.  Perhaps the best illustration of this is in the penultimate chapter of his book “Climbing Mount Improbable” where he explains the complicated interplays between Figs & Fig Wasps, quite a fascinating read.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

Here’s a recent Dawkins interview on BBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm4HbqUKmY0&mode=related&search;=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSatukeQzFM&mode=related&search;=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQghm5QSsx0&mode=related&search;=

I don’t think I could respond as politely as Dawkins did.

Is this Stephen Sackur guy an interviewer or a prosecutor?  Non-stop fallacies and complex questions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2007-01-13
rsonin - 12 August 2007 02:26 PM

Is this Stephen Sackur guy an interviewer or a prosecutor?

The point of HARDtalk (the BBC’s emphasis, not mine) is that the person being questioned is put through the mill.

A friendly interviewer doesn’t always get the most out of a subject, sometimes a little ‘prodding’ goes a long way!

 Signature 

There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary numbers and those who do not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 03:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I would agree that this is hardtalk and is designed to really get to the nub of the matter and test the interviewees ideas to the max.  The interviewer did this well and didn’t let Dawkins interrupt or evade.  I would have gone a bit further and have asked why he didn’t clarify his ideas in this way in the actual book, but on the whole, Simon was polite, unflustered and determined, british television news and current affairs interviewers tend to interview in this way.  You ought to watch Paxman interviewing people - he doesn’t let them wriggle out of anything. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfYJwOuxbpA

And here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faVIpVg_FLc

[ Edited: 12 August 2007 03:53 PM by narwhol ]
 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 03:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2007-01-13
narwhol - 12 August 2007 03:48 PM

You ought to watch Paxman interviewing people - he doesn’t let them wriggle out of anything.

I sometimes feel a little sorry for Paxman’s ‘victims’.

 Signature 

There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary numbers and those who do not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Less so than I feel for this muppet’s victims:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE&NR=1#

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2007-07-24
thisdoghunts - 12 August 2007 10:02 AM

Dawkins has a very unique talent for explaining some fairly complicated aspects of evolution with crystal clarity and in a most interesting way.  Perhaps the best illustration of this is in the penultimate chapter of his book “Climbing Mount Improbable” where he explains the complicated interplays between Figs & Fig Wasps, quite a fascinating read.

I’ve only read The Blind Watchmaker, but there I found his explaining evolution somewhat lacking. Gould does it a lot better in The Panda’s Thumb; the difference between them is that Dawkins explains how every organism is designed for its environmental niche, which makes evolution look teleological, while Gould focuses on the few lingering redundancies and inconsistencies, such as the panda’s thumb, which show how this sort of design is natural rather than intentional.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2007 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

the god delusion was good for its subject, as well as unweaving the rainbow.

as for evolution, of all the folks ive read i think ernst mayr has been the best for me. I just bought This Is Biology (I already have What Evolution Is) and from all that ive flipped through, its really good.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1