Richard Dawkins at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg
1 January 2007 by StardustMy husband and I rang in the New Year watching Richard Dawkins on CSPAN-2 (Book TV). Some of you have already posted the link to Part 2 in the comment thread, and I decided to bring it to the main page and make it GifS’ first post of 2007.
PART 1: Richard Dawkins reads excerpts from The God Delusion and answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 23, 2006. This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty “University” students.
PART 2 - Q & As:
1 January 2007, on 3:22 pm
The Liberty U questioners seem a bit baffled. On one hand they are looking for a way to refute what Dawins has to say. On the other hand they are unable to form a question that does just that. They are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they are unable to grasp the idea of “No God”. I especially liked when he says “go to a proper University”
1 January 2007, on 4:41 pm
I liked his comment, “critical thinking isn’t a universal attribute of the human mind” as well.
Frankly, I am amazed that any so-called ‘university’ can pass off dinosaur bones as only a few thousand years old without the educational authorities removing its accreditation and closing it down.
1 January 2007, on 6:59 pm
I loved the “go to a proper university” part, too.
1 January 2007, on 7:34 pm
You know, Dawkins would make a great narrator, if he ever gets tired of being a scientist/writer. Would love to hear him read The Hobbit.
1 January 2007, on 8:07 pm
His wife, the actress Lala Ward, must be even better at it, for he admits that she read the whole book to him twice at various stages of it’s production.
1 January 2007, on 10:05 pm
For me, the best part was the liberty ’student’ asking him a question which (as she put it) would “probably be the most simplest one for you to answer”
1 January 2007, on 11:06 pm
Thanks for posting that, Stardust.
It was awesome.
I like what he has to say about sacrifice- whether it happened or not is irrelevant… What is the moral value of it and why is God such an asshole?
He’s brilliant.
2 January 2007, on 3:07 am
I’ve heard some people accuse Richard Dawkins of arrogance, but it certainly is not evident in this question period. He shows extreme patience and charity to those who are obviously far less intelligent than the professor.
The first questioner Dr Howell’s comment that Dawkins “convinces” him more of God’s existence and the “need” for god is very revealing. His lack of comprehension of the implications of the litany of the Biblical god’s crimes against humanity is mind boggling. Where did he get his doctorate? I know people with barely a high school diploma with better critical thinking skills. Very sad!
3,000-year-old dinosaur fossils! Honestly? How does Liberty University get away with that title of university anyway? Are there no government standards they must meet before hanging out a shingle professing such?
Thanks for posting these. Enjoyed every minute!
2 January 2007, on 3:15 am
When that one student asked, “What if you’re wrong?” I thought if Dawkins, and scientists like him, are wrong then we’re really fucked because that god he says doesn’t exist is one hell of an asshole. Of course, Dawkins answered much more appropriately with the logical reply, “What if you’re wrong?” At least scientists are open to falsifying claims. Religion isn’t.
2 January 2007, on 6:16 am
Speaking about falsifying claims, a young acquaintance of mine by name of Alan Mackenzie, publishes a very erudite blog, and back in October he published an article containing a 48 minute video of the 1987 BBC Horizon programme on Dawkins speaking about ‘The Blind Watchmaker’. As Alan says, “Professor Richard Dawkins dispenses with creationist garbage, as he explains how natural election operates to break the improbability of life into gradual stages.”
Rather amusingly, the video has a section on fundies claiming that they have found human footprints amongst dinosaur tracks!
The programme is really worth watching, and Alan’s link to it can be found here.
Most readers here will enjoy it.
Any fundies who watch it probably wont, but they will learn some important lessons.
2 January 2007, on 9:01 am
Probably referring to the Paluxy Man-Tracks.
2 January 2007, on 4:00 pm
Yes, Rev, those were the ones, but Dawkins’ video says a great deal more than that link - and Dawkins simply states facts; the claims that these were human footprints were completely disproved.
2 January 2007, on 4:17 pm
Old Git:
Right. I don’t think anyone but religious nutters ever thought they were anything except dinosaur tracks.
2 January 2007, on 5:05 pm
I sometimes wonder how Dawkins can tour the U.S. without being shot by some nutcase who believes he’s “doing God’s work”.
For instance, in “The God Delusion”, he mentions a case where a guy called the police because he was going to protest against some “stop taking medication and pray” minister, and everyone he talked to in the police said they’d arrest him if the religious nuts caused any violence.
In such a country, how can a known atheist ever feel reasonably safe? I wonder…
2 January 2007, on 5:20 pm
Revenant said:
Don’t forget the people who think that ‘The Flintstones’ are real believe them too! (guffaw)
2 January 2007, on 6:31 pm
Although I enjoyed Dawkins’ presentation, I was appalled to see him misrepresented in various blogs and on the you tube comments page. I fail to see how Dawkins can be described as ‘arrogant’, ‘close-minded’, or ‘fundamentalist’. He listens, he speaks well, and provides constructive criticism that has some merit. It is just that his opponents cannot handle scepticism, because the evidential grounds for theism are so weak, danger, danger, people might actually agree with Dawkins.
So I wrote a response to those criticisms on my blog:
http://rankatheism.blogspot.com/2006/12/incorrigible-faith.html
I did mention the word ‘merit’ - not a concept favoured by religionists. They prefer ‘authority’ over ‘merit’, yet they ask people to ‘respect’ their beliefs for no substantive reason, other than to suggest that ‘respect’ in fact means quite a lot more than honest disagreement. To religious believers, ‘respect’ means: please don’t ask questions about faith, leave that to political discussions, when of course, I shall be the first to criticise your Democratic/Republican views. However, religious claims are out of bounds for sceptical inquiry, because it’s rude to ask!
I sympathise with Dawkins, because I too have to bear the brunt of the misuse of argument, when it comes to debating unproven [or unprovable] claims:
I received a lot of criticism from colleagues this Christmas, for not celebrating, being ‘mean-spirited’, and posing a threat to children’s nice fantasies about Santa, for merely saying that I’ve never believed in him. Some outbursts were even quite aggressive, as if I had pricked some egos. One colleague even said that I “abuse scepticism” for not believing in Witch Doctor Medicine - her reason, was that, since certain plants were used by ancient civilisations to alleviate ailments, and stronger doses of chemicals from those same plants are used in current medicine, I was, therefore being too “close-minded” for being sceptical about Witch Doctors. I would be happy to believe in Witch Doctor medicine - if you produced evidence, and other people, especially in mainstream medicine agreed with me. Until then, there is no reason to believe it. Now of course, if you don’t then, you get ridiculed for being ‘arrogant’ and ‘highbrow’.
Perhaps this tells us a lot about the state of critical thinking among British people [who I think are unskilled and unaware of it - my colleagues are certain they are right, simply on the grounds that they can forge little self-contained, made up narratives about how "close-minded" people are].
Alan.
2 January 2007, on 8:26 pm
Anytime I’ve seen or heard Dawkins he has been very polite and respectful. I wonder where they get arrogant etc? Also pertaining to the Flintstones. That Barney Rubble was a brilliant actor.
2 January 2007, on 9:39 pm
The call him arrogant because he totally dismisses their firmly-held beliefs. I can appreciate that. But arrogance cuts both ways, as as been pointed out here time and time again.
3 January 2007, on 10:56 pm
Thank you for posting this–I’d not heard him speak before and he was brilliant. Lynchburg isn’t too far from where I live and it’s a scary place. The women of Randolph Macon college are to be commended for inviting him to speak. If I’d known he was going to be there I’d have attended. Wow.
5 January 2007, on 12:32 am
[...] From God is for Suckers, a talk Richard Dawkins gave at Randolf-Macon Women’s College in Lychburg Virginia. [...]
7 January 2007, on 1:13 am
Just saw much of the Q&A…
Good form, Mr. Dawkins…
Incredibly polite, very on-point, very thorough…