Richard Dawkins - Revelations…
27 December 2006 by StardustHere’s a great YouTube pointed to by Chuck A and also blogger Mikayla at bits of starstuff:
“Quotes from the esteemed evolutionary biologist, atheist, and author of the current best seller ‘The God Delusion’. Visit his website at: http://richarddawkins.net”
27 December 2006, on 10:23 am
AD After Dawkins!
27 December 2006, on 11:26 am
Dawkins has been moved to the top of my “To read” list.
For anyone who’s interested, the song is “Fantasia on a theme by Thomas Tallis” composed by Ralph Vaughan Williams.
And my first post to the site is the second comment! Huzzah!
27 December 2006, on 1:05 pm
That was wonderful, thank you.
27 December 2006, on 2:34 pm
Beautiful, indeed. I’ve recently began reading “The God Delusion”, and I’m loving it so far.
It’s a pity that most theists are beyond help, as they automatically turn their minds off when they spot some threat to their faith, or this book would be a perfect gift for some of them…
27 December 2006, on 4:22 pm
I just want to add that, late last night, I revisited Dawkins’ Official Site, and found another link to a YouTube version of one of his talks. Arriving at YouTube, I was surprised at finding a lot of other new Dawkins video posts. Some have several parts. I’m collecting a notepad file of the better links. Aside from a good deal of garbage on YouTube… “there’s a lotta gold in them there lists!”.
I think I might just be developing a YouTube addiction, however…
“OH NO!…not YouTube Unanimous!…I wont, I wont!”
[NO Revenant...not won't! (KIDDING!)]
I may, after more editing, share the best of what I’m finding…if that’s OK with you guys.
Of course, I always appreciate YOUR tasteful gold mining results.
27 December 2006, on 5:08 pm
As is your wont.
27 December 2006, on 7:12 pm
That was lovely, thank you. Reminds me of a screensaver I once had that had random Bertrand Russell quotes, which was pretty awesome in its own right.
27 December 2006, on 7:21 pm
JJR - this would make a great screensaver, now that you mention it. If you ever see that Bertrand Russell one again, let me know.
I am thinking of sending this Dawkins YouTube to the next xian fundie relative who sends me gawdly forwards.
28 December 2006, on 12:55 am
Excellent idea, Stardust! If it doesn’t turn them into atheists, at least it may turn off the spigot of toxic bathos…
As a silent screensaver, ho-hum. But with that awesome music? Divine! (Sorry for using their language–I’m pissed that they already own the best words!)
And I see that this would have been a better place to post the URL for another book, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief by Lewis Wolper. You can read the review (awarded 5 out of 5 stars) at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&myOperation=CustomerReviews&ItemId=0393064492#review_1
Or you can read it at the previous post, “God’s little good versus evil games”. Sorry for posting it there–here would be much better…
Naomi
29 December 2006, on 2:44 am
Richard Dawkins is indeed an intelligible man, but, after listening to him for a while, you realize that he’s kind of an asshole.
The non-theist movement needs another hero from the likes of John Lennon or Noam Chomsky.
29 December 2006, on 12:34 pm
I think Dawkins is charming, not an asshole at all. I’d have him over for tea any day of the week.
29 December 2006, on 3:01 pm
Jeremy said: “Richard Dawkins is indeed an intelligible man, but, after listening to him for a while, you realize that he’s kind of an asshole.”
Of course, Jeremy, everyone has a perfect right to hold onto their opinions…BUT…
Hmmm…intelligible?…not, I think, the correct choice of adjectives…particularly in connection with one of the world’s most knowledgeable and…yes…VERY INTELLIGENT…Biological scientists and authors.
Of course, ‘facts’ are boring to a lot of delusional people.
May I digress?…
In the search for REAL assholes; and keeping with the subject as related to Dawkins…
In my purview of practically every Fundie Preacher type that I’ve ever ‘listened to, for a while’…in addition to not being intelligible…or intelligent…they exhibit total ‘asshole’ attributes!
Example:
If you check out the portion of Dawkins’ “Roots of All Evil” on YouTube when Dawkins encounters the Fundie preacher, Haggard…”Before the Fall”…warning Dawkins not to be arrogant…I think any intelligent, perceptive, thinking person would find the preacher neither intelligible, nor intelligent…but extremely arrogant!
As to ‘Heroes’…
John Lennon was a very talented and intelligent pop music figure; much beloved, particularly by the Boomer generation [I'm Pre-Boomer, and a longtime musician]; but totally not in the same league regarding scientific and literary scholarship.
“Like, hey man…Apples and Oranges?”
[I'll skip Chomsky.]
As to the subject of potential ‘Champion’ assholes…
The one character that emerges as the all time, unquestionable winner…albeit, of a very unofficial contest…judged by descriptions highlighted by Dawkins and others…is the so-called “Infinitely Divine Asshole” of the Bible and Koran! No real contest possible.
Proof?
To borrow a famous line from the supposed biblical savior [for recognizing the enemy]:
“By their fruits ye shall know them!”
The ‘Fruits’…or results …of the religious scriptures on the brainwashed followers are apparent in all the past and current wars, jhads, inquisitions, Holocaust…’Yea’, even the “Jesus Camps”, current Mecca celebration madness…ad infinitum.
Only a raving [asshole?] Fundie would characterize Dawkins as an asshole!
My “A” list comprises people like Falwell, Robertson, Haggard, Dawson, yada-yada, and…perhaps the current popular poll winners…
‘King George’ and his minions!
Finally…are the Bible and Koran…really, literally, intelligible? That’s an old perennial question.
They’re certainly insidious…but…in this atheist’s opinion… definitely…
NOT intelligent!
29 December 2006, on 6:11 pm
ChuckA,
You just said: Finally…are the Bible and Koran…really, literally, intelligible? That’s an old perennial question.
They’re certainly insidious…but…in this atheist’s opinion… definitely…
NOT intelligent!
And I’m sorry that I’m forced to correct your misconceptions, Chuck.
As we are told that both these literary masterpieces of obfuscation and spurious nonsense to which you refer are the inerrant words of the one and the same Gord (chorus of ‘Halleweedja, Halleweedja!’), they have, by definition, been ‘Intelligently Designed’. In that sense, and that sense alone, therefore, they are ‘intelligent’.
However, the real problem is that Gord, or ‘God’ as the idiots like to call it,is not in itself ‘intelligent’, as any theologian will confirm, therefore any linguistic construction produced by it is guaranteed to be unintelligent and irrational nonsense at best, or meaningless gibberish otherwise.
And, indeed, a simple examination of the texts referred to prove this to be the case.
Besides which, if the Bible and Qur’an were filled with intelligent comments, the fundies wouldn’t be able to understand them! (Not that they can anyway, but they the exploiters of the credulous - AKA priests, pastors, ministers, imams, etc - tell them what they should believe, and they are dumb enough to believe them.
Even Gautama Buddha said that people should not believe religious texts, nor the words of those who expound them!
29 December 2006, on 6:15 pm
Jeremy said:
Richard Dawkins is indeed an intelligible man, but, after listening to him for a while, you realize that he’s kind of an asshole.
I don’t realise any such thing, so perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to why YOU think RD is an ‘asshole’. Until and unless you do, I shall be forced to conclude that it is YOU who is the ‘asshole’!
I await your reply with interest.
29 December 2006, on 6:23 pm
Old Git, I suspect that Jeremy is the same xian Jeremy troll that comes and goes around here who says shit then disappears.
29 December 2006, on 6:48 pm
OPne can only hope that his disappearance is up his own fundiment, LOL!
29 December 2006, on 6:55 pm
Here is an excerpt of the talk Dawkins gave in Lynchburg at Macon College. He conducts himself as anything but an asshole. The Liberty University students do take that honor though. Just listen to their questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
We do not need any heroes, we have ourselves. However the children of god may need a hero or two. They are afterall still children.
29 December 2006, on 7:09 pm
jimmer - That’s what their bible says they should be…like little children.
I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Luke 18:17
30 December 2006, on 1:02 am
Before i post my response, I’d like to say this: I’m definitely not a “troll” or one who would come to your site to bash your views. I’ve never commented your site in the past.
Though this is an atheist community and I myself am purely neutral to the idea of a god, I do relate in that I reject the ideals of religion.
ANYWAY, I’m going to point out some of my personal observations here and leave them for discussion, rebuttal, whatever.
Richard Dawkins: “(on changing people’s beliefs with his book, The God Delusion) But I think there’s a large middle ground of people who sort of think of themselves as vaguely religious and they’ve never given it much thought, I want it to give them much thought and I think that when they do, they will conclude that their religion of their upbringing is probably nonsense.”
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC9fB_oX4Y0
Though this seems to be a perfect method of relaying the message to the masses, it indeed isn’t. The purpose, to me, of relaying a message is not to influence their belief system directly. The purpose is to present information they had not previously known and let them draw their own conclusions.
Dawkins, however, educates with the purpose of changing peoples’ minds. And this is fine by me, because I support science far more than religion (Modern knowledge > 2000 years ago. ‘Tis time for change) but when your primary goal is to sway beliefs, you have become something of a missionary.
Now, read on, through this next paragraph.
I’ve been doing some research, syphoning through various websites searching for criteria, when i happened upon this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o
I had not seen this video before and I’m certainly glad I stumbled upon it. It would seem that Neil DeGrasse Tyson would be the figurehead of persuasion in this video and Dawkins as opposite (though it’s kinda hard to tell where he stands on Tyson’s comment, as he sorta jokes about it)
In conclusion, upon closer investigation Richard Dawkins doesn’t appear to be one to support persuasion, though the video interview I posted several paragraphs ago may disagree.
I’m not sure why my views on persuasion through science are negative, but it goes in accordance with my personal philosophy of neutrality. Even if you possess what may be the fact, there is no proper and just way to relay said information to the public with absolute neutrality and respect for the decision of the people.
I believe that the only true way to place the information pertaining to evolution onto the minds of the people is to state your research and end there. If your views are challenged, do not respond in kind, as purposely attempting to influence someone else’s opinion is completely unjust and wrong.
Oh, when I mentioned Lennon before, I didn’t mean in the way of science. You don’t need science to promote peace. Lennon was noticeably skeptic and anti-materialism (as far as I could tell) which is, I believe, an interesting philosophy that promotes peace.
30 December 2006, on 3:56 am
Jeremy says:
“I believe that the only true way to place the information pertaining to evolution onto the minds of the people is to state your research and end there. If your views are challenged, do not respond in kind, as purposely attempting to influence someone else’s opinion is completely unjust and wrong.”
“Onto minds…or into minds?”…Hmmm…
I have to challenge your notion, Jeremy, of what I would call…”complete intellectual passivism”… regarding scientific facts, World Religious influence, etc.; which, historically, have been suppressed and trampled on by, what I consider, NON-passive, tyrannical religions…for millennia; relying totally on irrational ‘Faith’ alone…having absolutely no demonstrable, verifiable, scientific evidence to back up their rather aggressive ‘missionary’ agendas.
Even in Science itself, there is the perfect right, even ‘duty’, of any scientist to challenge the principles of an existing theory. Falsifiability, is what distinguishes Science from Religious Dogma…and is in no way “unjust and wrong”. I studied Ethics in college and the notion of influencing opinion was certainly not considered “unjust and wrong”. Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics were certainly, and unashamedly presented, in order to ‘influence’ the opinions of the reader, as a Philosophical example.
I’m somewhat reluctant to ask why, and on what basis, you arrived at that peculiar conclusion regarding the presentation of any facts.
The use of those two words, ‘unjust and wrong’, ’sounds like’ your own personal dogma, which has no evident basis in the practical reality of the world’s situation.
In regards to your “belief” regarding the notion of “attempting to influence someone else’s opinion”…look at what Religion’s response has been through most of history to Science and ‘Evolution’…complete Tyranny…certainly NOT passive or unresponsive.
I think Dawkins has plainly stated that the time for sitting back passively…being in the closet, so to speak…for fear of oppression, is over. We see the results, daily, of what the oppressive religions have done to the world.
Complete Insanity!
I obviously don’t know where your motivations derive from…Do you tend toward some Buddhist persuasion.? That’s fine for your own personal philosophy of life, I guess; but to practically extend that to the real World at large, and at this particular time in history, seems to be just another unproven, perhaps even quaint…
Delusion!
John Lennon…probably the smartest of the Beatles…had very Eastern views on life and humanity…a peaceful man, indeed…but he’s dead…perhaps, sad to say, in part because of his passive non-Xtian views. I don’t remember the details concerning his killer’s motivation…but it certainly wasn’t a passive one.
[May we leave John Lennon R.I.P. now?]
Hey…get real…this is the “God is for Suckers” Site…not a ‘namby-pamby’, passive title.
We subscribe, in my opinion, to a “No Holds Barred” approach to holding our views; which we realize are not only hated by a vast majority of people, but are often aggressively attacked in the world by those who think that our views are…
“completely unjust and wrong”!
Now, Jeremy…as a Catlick priest might say: “Go in Peace!…
the ‘match’ is ended!”
[At least for my part!]
30 December 2006, on 4:08 am
I have one thing left to say:
Though you may say that influence over one’s opinion is acceptable, and you justify using science to render another human’s opinions, you also compare religion doing its hefty share of persuasion (which it has).
However, can you justify responding in kind to religion? Shouldn’t human moral, the golden rule (which applies to more than physical violence) mean that the only proper way to respond to aggression is without aggression?
I guess I am sorta Buddhist in my views, though I don’t like the idea of joining together with a group of people with the same opinion as mine (atheists included)
30 December 2006, on 5:53 am
Jeremy said:
“awkins, however, educates with the purpose of changing peoples’ minds.”/b>
And later:
“I guess I am sorta Buddhist in my views…”
Obviously you haven’t found out enough about Buddhism to know that Gautama spent over 40 years lecturing and teaching with the aim of changing people’s minds, otherwise all he had to do was sit under the banyan tree and keep his knowledge to himself.
But apart from the fact that Dawkins’ motives do not accord with your own, you have still failed to offer any evidence to substantiate why you stated:
“…but, after listening to him for a while, you realize that he’s kind of an asshole.”
In conclusion, may I reiterate that I do not share your opinion about Dawkins, but I remain unconvinced that you are not the asshole here!
30 December 2006, on 12:43 pm
This morning I saw a list of the 10 top best-selling books in Canada. Richard Dawkins“The God Delusion” was number 4. Not bad at all, eh?
30 December 2006, on 1:20 pm
Jeremy wrote: I’m not sure why my views on persuasion through science are negative, but it goes in accordance with my personal philosophy of neutrality. Even if you possess what may be the fact, there is no proper and just way to relay said information to the public with absolute neutrality and respect for the decision of the people.
What has convinced you that neutrality is beneficial to yourself or the world at large? Remaining neutral could lead to more suffering and death. For example, there is an over-abundance of scientific evidence to support the notion that AIDS is a deadly disease and transmitted between humans by unprotected sexual intercourse and the sharing of infected syringes. To consider “purposely attempting to influence someone else’s opinion” towards the use of condoms as “unjust and wrong” is simply ludicrous thinking. Parents have a duty to sway the minds of their children to behave in ways that do not bring harm to themselves or others.
Neutrality is a cop out. You can’t be accused of making a mistake if you don’t commit to any argument. Richard Dawkins has the fortitude to put his statements where they can be examined, criticized and ridiculed. If being brave and concerned for the welfare of your fellow humans means you’re an asshole, then we need more assholes in the world.
30 December 2006, on 1:29 pm
Thanks Old Git, for your support. I wrote my comment about the time of the morning when my brain was in revolt…yawning and making snoring noises!
or ;(
You probably know the feeling.
Yeah, Lynda…I think that Canadian book news deserves a very ancient Egyptian cheer:
“Ra, Ra, Ra!”
I might be pulling some stuff out of my ass [Ouch!]…but that might not be too far from the truth. (?)
Even the short Cheerleader skirts might have started with the Egyptian priesthood.
“lunge 2, 3, kick, 2, 3!”
However…”Sis-boom-bah!” might be another story!
In any event…Three cheers for Dawkins!
30 December 2006, on 1:36 pm
Thanks, Lynda [#24]
Excellent points!
You’re certainly in top form!
[Yet another example of how comments pop up while one is busy 'conjuring'!]
30 December 2006, on 7:29 pm
Jeremy said:
The first think I’d like to say is that I found the title given to that clip interesting, “Richard Dawkins Defends His Supercilious Attitude w[ith] a Joke.”(my emphasis). Now my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century) defines ’supercilious as ‘disdainfully superior in manner; overbearing’, yet Dawkins was anything but that in that clip. I suggest, therefore, that the choice of the word ’supercilious’ was made deliberately by the poster because it encapsulated his dislike for the message that Dawkins gives out, viz that religious beliefs cannot be substantiated by evidence or reason. Furthermore, whether Dawkins is ’supercilious’ is irrelevant to his argument per se, but I suggest that the You-Tube poster chose that pejorative adjective simply in order to attack the man rather than deal with his argument that religious belief is insupportable.
Second, I do not agree with DeGrasse Tyson’s definition of what a pedagogue should be or do. I suggest neither does Dawkins, which was why he responded so urbanely with the polished phrase, “I gratefully accept the rebuke” (which occasioned much laughter), before pointing out that there were educators worse than he, with the anecdote about the Editor of the New Scientist, which the whole panel and audience seemed to enjoy.
Third, DeGrasse Tyson’s claim that an educator should have regard for the sensitivities of his audience fails to recognise that religious believers and institutions have had absolutely NO regard for anyone who does not subscribe to their irrational beliefs - and I use the word ‘irrational’ purposely, since their theistic beliefs cannot be substantiated empirically or by rationcination.
Fourth, I agree with the Editor of New Scientist: why the fuck should we pussy-foot around the irrational and delusional beliefs of theists. Ignorance, stupidity, credulity, delusional beliefs, and the manipulative exploitation of others are not things that are worthy of respect, and it is about time that more of us were willing to say so, out loud, and without fear or favour!
And yet, mealy-mouthed people like you want us to show come ’sensitivity’ and ‘respect’ for the delusional beliefs of theists, and charge us to use ‘persuasion’ in trying to convince them that the duplicitous and mendacious messages that have been indoctrinated into them by their religious establishments by force and fear are false. Fuck You!
31 December 2006, on 1:01 am
I do not think that Dawkins and Tyson are at odds with each other. Their styles are vastly different but not in opposition to each other. Tysons argument comes from an understanding that education is not to be forced. His sensitivity to his audience is more akin to a superb educator being sufficiently intuitive to grasp the level of understanding that his audience brings with them. I do not think he is talking about their religious beliefs or their prejudices. In any case though I think that both Tyson and Dawkins operate from a perspective where god is irrelevant. And their discussion is centered on how they are bringing that aspect of their teachings into the main stream teaching.
So far as neutrality of these issues goes. I’m with Editor of New scientist. To me neutrality is a cop out. It is the very reason that religions have grown to be bigger than their proverbial britches.
For those of you who may have missed it. The youtube clip is taken from “Beyond Belief 2006″ A three day symposium that you can download at the website. It was held at The Salk Institute in San Diego Nov. 2006 Download one part and you’ll be hooked.
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
31 December 2006, on 7:25 am
Thanks for that link, Jimmer; lot’s of good stuff there.