I'm sort of happy this poor interviewer asked these questions. Of course her questions were petty and a waste of time, but I am always impressed by Dawkins' s replies. I love his ability to maintain composure and respond with complete honesty.
This is not a good interview. He deserved better. As far as twitter is concerned I have read so many of Richard's books and listens to every RU-vid Speech. It feels like I know him. I think he is a lovely generous intelligent man. I didn't find his tweets offensive. If someone pointed out there is a difference between having your car broken into and having a burglar enter your home and destroy every room, would people go mad about it? I have had both things. The house should have been more upsetting but the car was, because it was the last straw! I understand both points. The clinic assessment of the violence someone suffers and the way that individual is personally effected. Richard cares very much about women and how they are treated. Some people what is drag him down because they prefer emotion and fantasy to reality. We can only make good choices if we adhere to reality.
I agree, this journalist is not a very good interviewer, she doesn't face the public and her microphone is so far from her mouth that it becomes very difficult to hear her. I have to put the volume to maximum.
Wonderful! Though journalist Samira Ahmed's initial and not well thought out attempt at cornering Professor Dawkins was brushed aside as something which is demonstrably meaningless, I do love how Samira and Dawkins were able to continue to explore the many topics which were raised without unnecessarily settling upon any one of these topics. Great interview. Thanks for sharing this.
Wow people in the comments need to chill out about the interviewer. She might have been a little awkward once or twice with her questions and misstepped conversationally, but she's doing her job. I went into this expecting THE worst person ever and was pleasantly surprised. She got some very interesting answers out of Richard. Particularly the answer about how comparing the relativeness of bad things isn't a condoning of the comparatively "less bad" thing. It always upsets me that people hold how he chooses to talk about his abuse against him, particularly people on the left, who, frankly, should know better.
Samira Ahmed really is a very poor interviewer. 40 mins with Dawkins and all she managed to do is ask stupid, mostly irrelevant, questions while not allowing him to explain his answers properly and was totally dismissive when he pointed it out. She also has a very poor technique too with just staring and read from a screen. Useless.
+Scur Burg It did appear that she had a hidden objective to try to get a rise out of him. Dawkins saw it coming before I did. I get heated about having my intelligence insulted like that, too. He was shaking with anger, just as I do regularly. I have a burning passion for knowledge and perspective, so it really heats me up when somebody makes light of it by being more interested in my reaction when they prod me with irrational statements and questions.
If you are going to interview a world renowned scientist, it helps to not have a chip on your shoulder.... Very rarely do we see Dawkins get frustrated...
I can agree with Mr. Dawkins on the issue of rape, molestation, etc. I was molested by a group of teenagers when I was quite young, it was a confusing and frightening experience. And yet it pales in comparison to the time I was raped by a group of men when I was 18 and there was violence because I tried to fight them off, but to no avail. I probably could have got over the incident that happened when I was a child and been able to recover to a healthy mental state but the latter really messed me up for a long time. And the combination of the events made it worse. I suffered from PTSD for many years, was suicidal and struggled with substance abuse and I beleive the effects that both of those events had on me contributed to what became a bipolar type 1 diagnosis. Without those events it may never have manifested though I cannot say for sure. So in my own subjective experiences, I'd have to agree that a violent sexual encounter is more traumatizing. But I dont want to minimize anothers experience as each experience is just as unique as the individual experiencing it.
We are here, we exist and are having this discussion among free agents. How do we explain why we are here? Either we are the result of a will guided by purposes, or we are the result of random processes that lack a will and a purpose. Isn't that the basic dilemma?
I now see why Dawkins is so bashed by some members of the secular community. He's a scientist, a researcher. Some things just are not comprehended by people who are not into philosophy and science (like I can't cook to save my life) :D
In small towns in the South people ask "where do you go to church" as soon as they meet you. I grew up around that sort and now it makes me cringe. Because in these towns not only do people go to church but their entire lives are based on the events and activities in the church.
Its's a shame folks can give someone so much of a hard time for their tweets with out really thinking who they're talking to. Like what the fuck did they ever think Dawkins was saying that made them flip the fuck out? Like he's going to come out and defend rape and pedophilia out of no where. Fucking seriously?
Kaziel same in French is "même". The diacritic above the "e" matters. So it's not the same as "meme". And the French translation of Dawkin's meme into French is "mème". Also, there are many words that look the same in different languages, so what! A word is a string of letters AND a meaning! I heard in one interview that he wanted to come up with something that sounded a bit like "gene" (he admitted it didn't fully work out) and was inspired by the greek word for memory (mnemosyne). He came up with this string of letters + new and original meaning and it caught on. He definitely came up with this word.
I don't flinch when I hear "one man, one vote". Not at all. And still, I'm one of those dreaded, hated "feminists". I just don't think language-control helps at all in a fight for women's *rights*. We want to be treated as people, and that's it. I don't like language control of any kind, and who cares? It's one word? A word can't hurt you.
One man one vote in today is no different from one person (exclude the ones below 18) one vote. But of course we should empower those below 18 to have some say.
blingabi aino Feminist = wants women to be treated like human beings, not property. That's it. I'm also for treating people of all skin colors like human beings, not property or inferior beings.
blingabi aino Yeah I agree with that. The word feminist doesn't mean what it was intended to. Of course I believe in equality but I don't feel like carrying that label.
***** At one point he implied she was aiming for the old journalism sin of sensationalism by asking a question regarding his 'controversial' comments about rape. Maybe he was right but I thought his tone was hostile. Afterward he snapped 'let me finish!', which I agree he should be able to without being interrupted, although again I thought his tone was unneccesarily harsh.
TheLordSod He's just reacting allergically to the "feminism" that has crept into virtually _everything_ he's publicly involved in. It's rather similar to religious fundamentalism in that honest debate is not possible and the same stupid questions circulate ad nauseam. "Why do you hate god?", "Why do you support rape culture?". This is a humanist meeting, so to be fair it's less misplaced than usual. I would avoid it like the plaque if I was him, but that's probably difficult when being this visible.
I think a theistic position can be tantamount to 'freaking out' at athieism, because when such an identity is challenged, the logical argument is, you don't believe in my god, and since i don't believe in any other, you are as an atheist ungodly. What this will mean to the atheist is a ounch line to a joke. What this will mean to theist, is evil.
I Care 1. You know that "Islamist" is a neologism for "extremist", right? They're Muslim people who advocate a fundamentalist position - wherein the Qu'ran is taken literally and used as a catalyst to spread orthodox forms of Islam across the world (into law, politics and education and so on). Do you mean the archaic version of the word; a scholar in Islamic studies? 2. Of course a Muslim/Priest/Rabbi/etc. is going to say Richard Dawkins (or anyone who disagrees with their position) "doesn't know anything". You're quoting an incredibly biased source and committing an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. 3. Dawkins admits that he is no theologian, but that he doesn't need to be. Similarly, he doesn't need to become an expert on fairies to contest the existence of fairies and the injunctions provided by fairytales. 4. Very often scholars will play the "No True Scotsman" card in order to dodge criticism of their religion. They essentially rebuke any negative claims about their religion and say "oh, but TRUE Muslims don't believe in this" - the "TRUE" part has no definition and the scholar can change their minds about what a true Muslim depending on how convenient it is to them in an argument. 5. There's a big difference between mocking a person who happens to be a Muslim and mocking Islam as an ideology. Proponents of Conservatism mock Liberalism all the time (and vice versa). If we can't mock ideologies without being branded a "bigot" then back to the stone age we go!!
Who do you think knows more about religious? a biologist or a priest? If when asked to speak on their beliefs in non-judgmental ways many priests will tell you that he is uneducated (even if they are of a different religion). For example, he says that hijabs are oppressive without talking about the perspective of the millions of american women who wear them voluntarily and why they do it. He clearly demonstrates that he doesn't know how they feel about it and if you met a number of Muslim women, you would probably understand as well. I'm not saying he doesn't make a solid case for atheism, but his social politics are the issue, not whether there is or isn't a God. If you mock someone for something different, obviously the emotional response will change. For example, if you mock someone for being gay, you really hurt someone. If you mock someone for liking yogurt more than a sandwich, your just being silly. See how different things are different? See mocking you for making a poor comparison is perceived as an attack because it is, where as yogurt or liberalism is OK.
I Care 1. > Who do you think knows more about religious? a biologist or a priest? That depends on the situation and the parts of a religion you're speaking of. A biologist will probably know far more about the biological factors behind religiosity than a relatively poorly-educated priest, for example. They might be more informed as to the psychological effects of religions, have a better grasp of interpreting statistics gathered by poll data, have the conviction to test whether or not something is objectively true, etc. I think a better question might be - who can make better sense of reality: a scientist or a clergyman? You don't need a degree in Toothfairism to say that there probably isn't a tooth fairy. 2. > If when asked to speak on their beliefs in non-judgmental ways many priests will tell you that he is uneducated Dawkins uneducated? Well, now that's just silly. You do realise we're talking about Professor C.R. Dawkins - one of the top ranking scientists and academics in the world? A fellow of the Royal Society, a former chair of the University of Oxford's Public Understanding of Science? A luminary in evolutionary biology, education, scientific literature and a contributor to literally dozens of break-through scientific discoveries? To say he's uneducated is to say grass is blue. Also, what priest says Dawkins is uneducated? There's plenty of videos of Dawkins talking to priests here on RU-vid - destroying many of them in debates and conversing with many in friendly but stimulating conversations and political campaigns. Seems to me the only reason a priest would call Dawkins uneducated is if he succumbed to some delusional strain of confirmation bias. 3. > he says that hijabs are oppressive without talking about the perspective of the millions of american women who wear them voluntarily and why they do it Nonsense. Can you give me a source for this? From what I know, Dawkins is a staunch liberal and advocate for civil liberties. He is all for people wearing whatever the heck they want and has even praised the wearing of the hijab in at least several different instances. A recent one: twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/520971380050112513 HOWEVER... He has (several times) before stated he is "offended" - a word he uses sparingly - by women being coerced into wearing the full burqa (head-to-toe postbox-style garb). If you like I can provide you blog posts that he has written on the subject? 4. > For example, if you mock someone for being gay, you really hurt someone That's a false analogy. Homosexuality isn't an ideology. People cannot convert to homosexuality or choose such a sexual disposition. Whereas, Islam, Communism, Satanism, Christianity, Marxism, Hinduism, etc. *are* ideologies. These are personal choices - you have a choice in whether you agree/believe with them. Dawkins has made the point that ideologies that are ridiculous (such as an ideology that propounds a flat earth or a Santa Claus existing or Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse and splitting the moon in two) should be mocked in a light-hearted way - not to hurt anyone's feelings but to be able to speak about how silly something is without fear of being branded a bigot. People seem to think it's okay to make fun of Scientology, but not Islam? Anyone who feels that these are silly cults that cause a lot of harm are encouraged to speak their minds without fear of being labeled a "bigot". It's no different than mocking someone for supporting a rubbish football team or supporting a particularly inept political party. If someone can't handle criticism for such things without getting deeply offended, then they need to either admit to themselves that they're struggling with their faith or to seek psychiatric help.
1. While you don't need a dregree to know whether many things in the bible are possible, what you do need one for is to know how what you say affects someone. What good do you do by telling people we should mock them twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/553971224435777536 that doesn't sound light to me. 2. Dawkins is very educated in evolutionary biology and can speak for those things, but he has no degrees in theology, feminism, or psychology. All he can speak to is the claims about no evolution. he does this thoroughly and he does this in an on point fashion that i appreciate, but he has no awareness of what the impact of what he says has and no idea whats going on with Islam in america. 3. I have many friends personally who wear them and to them they are a symbol of their modesty. They tell me that most if not nearly all american Muslims who wear them, do so willingly. They like wearing them. I think of coarse that forcing a woman to wear something they don'e want is wrong, but that's not whats going on for a large majority of Muslims. they are being told "oh honey, your in america, you don't have to wear that anymore" in the most patronizing way. My friend has provided me with links so I can learn about the kinds of annoying things people tell me and I will share them with you if you want. I think this kind of thing is more of an issue than how silly religion is. that's all I'm saying. I don't personally have any statistics for you, but with the people in my life who can give me perspective, its common sense. I would like to see his blogs 4.yeah that may have been a bad analogy since it infers that homosexuality is a choice. it is not. but my point that whether its wrong to mock depends on who and what your mocking is self evident. there is no analogy that you can make that is any better than what is up for debate right now.
