Darwin’s Rottweiler

[Contessa_Sharra]

Darwin’s Rottweiler

Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God.

By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK

Published Sep 26, 2009

In his controversial bestseller [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001I1123O/?tag=nwswk-20"]The God Delusion[/ame], evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins attacked religious belief. He spoke with me about his new work, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416594787/?tag=nwswk-20"]The Greatest Show on Earth[/ame], and his inimitable style. Excerpts:

Why were you motivated to write this book?
Well, it's about the evidence for evolution. Evolution is one of the most fascinating ideas in all of science. It explains your existence and mine, and the existence of just about everything we see. How can you possibly ask what motivated me? It's just a wonderful subject to write a book about.

Is this supposed to be the definitive refutation of creationist arguments?
Well, it's amazing that there needs to be a definitive refutation of them, but yes, if you put it like that, it is a propitious time from that point of view. Any time would have been a good time for this book.

Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in evolution?
No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.

I wonder whether you might be more successful in your arguments if you didn't convey irritation and a sense that the people who believe in God are not as smart as you are.
I think there is a certain justified irritation with young-earth creationists who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Those are the people that I'm really talking about. I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult. I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education. And that's what I'm trying to do.

Is there anything else I've missed?
I would be glad if you didn't use the word "strident." I'm getting a little bit tired of it.

I've read your books and I would not disagree with that characterization.
OK. Well, let me plant one idea in your head. When somebody offers an opinion about anything other than religion—say, politics or economics or football—they will use language that is no more or less outspoken than mine, and it isn't called strident. As soon as it's an atheistic opinion, immediately the adjective "strident" is attached to it, almost as though the word atheist can't be used without the preceding adjective "strident." You wouldn't talk about a strident Christian.

Oh, yes, you absolutely would. I wouldn't call all of the new atheists strident. Christopher Hitchens, for example, isn't strident.
Is he not?

I would just say that it's a different approach.
I suppose the most strident passage in The God Delusion is where I talk about how the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. I had this long list of adjectives: homophobic, infanticidal. That's kind of using long words, long Latinate words to describe what everybody actually knows: that the God of the Old Testament is a monster. I put it in this rather, I'd like to think, amusing way.

Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God. To make fun of them is to alienate them.
Well in that particular passage I'm only talking about the God of the Old Testament, so the only people who will be offended are the people who believe in the God of the Old Testament—which by the way is most of the people you're referring to. So that has to be conceded. But I also suspect that if they actually read the Old Testament, they could not fail to agree with what I said. The God of the Old Testament is a monster. It's very, very hard for anybody to deny that. He's like a hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini.

But if some portion of that 90 percent are intelligent people—
But they wouldn't disagree with what I said about the God of the Old Testament. They'd probably say something like, "Oh, that's quite different. We believe in the God of the New Testament." Something like that.

Not if they're Jewish they wouldn't.
Well, sure enough. They'd say, "OK, we've moved on since that time." Thank goodness they have.

 

[froggy]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

 

[Mad Scientist]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

Religion haters can't show how or when the earth was formed. They show effect but never any cause.

They can never get to the Prime Motivator and they never will.

 

[KittenKoder]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

Religion haters can't show how or when the earth was formed. They show effect but never any cause.

They can never get to the Prime Motivator and they never will.

Actually, scientists can show how Terra was formed, they just can't show why it all exists and what put it all in motion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's a good thought, KK. No doubt exists that the earth is old, old, even older than she who must not be mentioned on this forum (not you of course). Where first cause and evolution all fits into it (if they do) is truly unknown. I have always thought the argument of ID vs. evolution an ultimately silly one. Faith is the foundation of belief in God, not science or Genesis, in my opinion.

 

[Kalam]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

Can you prove that that the world wasn't formed from the body of the frost giant Ymir, who fed on the milk of the primeval cow Auðumbla and was slain by Odin, Vili, and Ve, the sons of Bor?

 

[froggy]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

Can you prove that that the world wasn't formed from the body of the frost giant Ymir, who fed on the milk of the primeval cow Auðumbla and was slain by Odin, Vili, and Ve, the sons of Bor?

and what kinda drugs are you doing?

 

[Ralph]

Darwin’s Rottweiler

Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God.

By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK

Published Sep 26, 2009

In his controversial bestseller The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins attacked religious belief. He spoke with me about his new work, The Greatest Show on Earth, and his inimitable style. Excerpts:

Why were you motivated to write this book?
Well, it's about the evidence for evolution. Evolution is one of the most fascinating ideas in all of science. It explains your existence and mine, and the existence of just about everything we see. How can you possibly ask what motivated me? It's just a wonderful subject to write a book about.

Is this supposed to be the definitive refutation of creationist arguments?
Well, it's amazing that there needs to be a definitive refutation of them, but yes, if you put it like that, it is a propitious time from that point of view. Any time would have been a good time for this book.

Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in evolution?
No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.

I wonder whether you might be more successful in your arguments if you didn't convey irritation and a sense that the people who believe in God are not as smart as you are.
I think there is a certain justified irritation with young-earth creationists who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Those are the people that I'm really talking about. I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult. I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education. And that's what I'm trying to do.

Is there anything else I've missed?
I would be glad if you didn't use the word "strident." I'm getting a little bit tired of it.

I've read your books and I would not disagree with that characterization.
OK. Well, let me plant one idea in your head. When somebody offers an opinion about anything other than religion—say, politics or economics or football—they will use language that is no more or less outspoken than mine, and it isn't called strident. As soon as it's an atheistic opinion, immediately the adjective "strident" is attached to it, almost as though the word atheist can't be used without the preceding adjective "strident." You wouldn't talk about a strident Christian.

Oh, yes, you absolutely would. I wouldn't call all of the new atheists strident. Christopher Hitchens, for example, isn't strident.
Is he not?

I would just say that it's a different approach.
I suppose the most strident passage in The God Delusion is where I talk about how the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. I had this long list of adjectives: homophobic, infanticidal. That's kind of using long words, long Latinate words to describe what everybody actually knows: that the God of the Old Testament is a monster. I put it in this rather, I'd like to think, amusing way.

Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God. To make fun of them is to alienate them.
Well in that particular passage I'm only talking about the God of the Old Testament, so the only people who will be offended are the people who believe in the God of the Old Testament—which by the way is most of the people you're referring to. So that has to be conceded. But I also suspect that if they actually read the Old Testament, they could not fail to agree with what I said. The God of the Old Testament is a monster. It's very, very hard for anybody to deny that. He's like a hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini.

But if some portion of that 90 percent are intelligent people—
But they wouldn't disagree with what I said about the God of the Old Testament. They'd probably say something like, "Oh, that's quite different. We believe in the God of the New Testament." Something like that.

Not if they're Jewish they wouldn't.
Well, sure enough. They'd say, "OK, we've moved on since that time." Thank goodness they have.

Mr. Dawkin's rhetoric lost all credibility right after revealing the TRUTH concerning evolution while attempting to move a false premise forward. That truth and false premise is the fact that EVOLUTION is an IDEA.....not a FACT of SCIENCE but merely an Idea..aka, a speculation on the probabilities of Spontaneous Generation and its PLAUSIBLE TRUTH, a theory based upon the unprovable common descent of man deriving from DEAD MATTER via natural random happenstance. A position that has never came close to being established in the scientific method of observation and reproducible experimental findings of facts based upon consistent outcome.

The 1st question that was asked of Mr. Dawkin's debunked the entire remainder of the interview as being based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD....as it is PHILOSOPHY that bases conclusion upon IDEAS...not science, as science confirms those ideas via Observed, Reproducible Experimentation....if that IDEA remains unconfirmed there can be no record of SCIENCE involved. Asking the question is not science, proving the ANSWER to be a FACT is PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

 

[Kalam]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

Can you prove that that the world wasn't formed from the body of the frost giant Ymir, who fed on the milk of the primeval cow Auðumbla and was slain by Odin, Vili, and Ve, the sons of Bor?

and what kinda drugs are you doing?

I'll take that as a no. Clearly, the Viking creation myth is correct.

 

[Setarcos]

Mr. Dawkin's rhetoric lost all credibility right after revealing the TRUTH concerning evolution while attempting to move a false premise forward. That truth and false premise is the fact that EVOLUTION is an IDEA.....not a FACT of SCIENCE but merely an Idea..

right...
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Evolution: Fact and Theory (ActionBioscience)
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
CBC News - Technology & Science - FAQ: How viruses mutate

Ever heard of MRSA?

aka, a speculation on the probabilities of Spontaneous Generation

Why are you so stupid?

and its PLAUSIBLE TRUTH, a theory based upon the unprovable common descent of man deriving from DEAD MATTER via natural random happenstance

You have to be alive before you can be dead


I swear I've seen stupidity in caps somewhere before.

 

[code1211]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

Religion haters can't show how or when the earth was formed. They show effect but never any cause.

They can never get to the Prime Motivator and they never will.

Of course they can and do. In religion, the prime mover is called God or Yawe or whatever Great Spirit entity is held supreme by the society that is holding the debate.

In science, the prime mover is natural law and mass and enegy.

One claims a guided universe that is ultimately moral and just but which operates on a plane that obscures both that morality and justice from our understanding allowing man's inhumanity to man and bad things happening to good people.

The other operates in moral chaos with the actions and causes and effects randomly occurring due only to random events and the reactions and actions and the reactions of everything just doing whatever comes naturally. This one requires observation.

The other one requires blindness and faith. The one with faith gives many comfort. The other is like an empty stage on which all else occurs. In the day to day, no real difference. In a fox hole, the difference is easier to feel.

 

[Setarcos]

How fitting, the image the Internets chose for the facepalm

 

[froggy]

can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?

Religion haters can't show how or when the earth was formed. They show effect but never any cause.

They can never get to the Prime Motivator and they never will.

Of course they can and do. In religion, the prime mover is called God or Yawe or whatever Great Spirit entity is held supreme by the society that is holding the debate.

In science, the prime mover is natural law and mass and enegy.

One claims a guided universe that is ultimately moral and just but which operates on a plane that obscures both that morality and justice from our understanding allowing man's inhumanity to man and bad things happening to good people.

The other operates in moral chaos with the actions and causes and effects randomly occurring due only to random events and the reactions and actions and the reactions of everything just doing whatever comes naturally. This one requires observation.

The other one requires blindness and faith. The one with faith gives many comfort. The other is like an empty stage on which all else occurs. In the day to day, no real difference. In a fox hole, the difference is easier to feel.

you've missed the question entirely.

 

[Setarcos]

Religion haters can't show how or when the earth was formed. They show effect but never any cause.

planet formation - Google Search

 

[Ryan]

Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in evolution?
No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.


The secular humanist, Richard Dawkins, is certainly entitled to his own views but I wonder why he would, according to the above exchange, contradict himself in two books. In the earlier work, "The God Delusion," Dawkins felt there was an incompatibility between the belief in God and evolution then later when he wrote "The Greatest Show on Earth" he "begins by accepting that there is that compatibility." I hope Dawkins is not shattering the minds too many of his faithful followers with this reversal.

 

[Setarcos]

The former refers, I imagine, specifically to Christianity. the latter seems to recognize deism and other religions.

 

[geauxtohell]

Dawkins extends scientific data and methodology to make a commentary on the existence of a supernatural being. In that regard, he's simply the other side of the same coin as the the intelligent design whack a doodles.

Science is silent of the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities. Period.

 

[Setarcos]

Dawkins extends scientific data and methodology to make a commentary on the existence of a supernatural being. In that regard, he's simply the other side of the same coin as the the intelligent design whack a doodles.

Science is silent of the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities. Period.

Only when it comes to deistic concepts of them

 

[geauxtohell]

Dawkins extends scientific data and methodology to make a commentary on the existence of a supernatural being. In that regard, he's simply the other side of the same coin as the the intelligent design whack a doodles.

Science is silent of the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities. Period.

Only when it comes to deistic concepts of them

What non-deistic supernatural entities are you referring too?

 

[Setarcos]

What do you mean? Certain non-deistic concepts can be shown impossible by definition (such as by proving one or more claim{s} about the deity to be false), and thereby proven to not exist.