Archive for November, 2006

Richard Dawkins

Posted by plurk in Uncategorized on November 24th, 2006

Richard Dawkins is someone I just learned about today. Apparently he is “an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary scientist, and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University … Dawkins’ impassioned defence of Darwinian evolution has earned him the appellation Darwin’s rottweiler” (wikipedia). In any case, he was speaking at a University in Lynchburg last month and this amazing question period came out of it (see video below). Richard Dawkins has some amazingly coherent and ration responses to students (particularly from the students or faculty from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University that tried to stump Dawkins, but their failure to do so was repeatedly applauded by the audience). The whole exchange and his bit about atheists being fearful of revealing themselves in the US … disturbs me. It seems inconceivable that americans are so … fanatical, but then again their president is a strong believer in “your with us or against us” ideology so I could see it being true. I particularly liked this part [Re: Mock Religions]:

“They do one good thing. They answer one question. It is a very important question because it is a very ubiquitous one. It is the following question. You cannot disprove the existance of god. Amazingly there are a lot of people who think that is a powerful arguement. You cannot disprove the existance of god, which somehow seems to suggest to them that “oh well therefore the existance of god must be equally likely to the non … existance and non-existance must be approximately equally likely.” The point about the invisible pink unicorn, the flyiing spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot and all those examples is simply to demostrate that it is not the case that you cannot disprove something therefore it makes it the slightest bit likely. That is the sole purpose of them and that is the only purpose of them. Thank you.”
— Richard Dawkins

and after that bit, a guy from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University stands up and tells Dawkins that the last bit insulted him. Dawkins, without missing a beat, replies:

“I don’t know why you should feel insulted. I insulted god, not you.”
— Richard Dawkins

Basically his strongest arguement is that being an Atheist should not be a stigma … it shouldn’t prevent you from being elected, etc. It is creepy that it would be an issue … but more so, it is creepy that there would be a cohesive group of atheists imposing their beliefs upon others. I strongly believe in live and let live … but Neocons scare the crap out of me … so maybe there is a point to unity of atheist … mind, I consider myself Agnostic. Still, fervor is fervor and whether it is backed by faith or religion, it is still a very scary thing.

Basically the whole bit was good (and long!). The question period is 70 minutes long, all these quotes are between the 16 and 25 minute mark. I still have to watch his actual speach, but I imagine it was amazing as well.

Oh and his zingers … like this one:

Dawson: “The question is about is there a similar darwinian account for critical thinking.”
Liberty University Student: “Which is at the basis of your explanation on morality in my mi…”
Dawson: “And my explanation for everything else presumably as well, not just morality … um, well, critical thinking is something which isn’t universally an attribute of the human mind …”

LOL. I love that response. The thing I find most interesting is that the NeoCons seems to be perfectly happy debating evolution with lay people (calling it a lie), but with Dawkins, who would be the most likely target of evolution bashing, was completely spared any question on the topic. It is kind of creepy. If you are interested, here are some more words about this speech from the horse’s mouth so to speak:

I was beautifully looked after in Montreal, and was sad that I had to leave so soon. After a night stop in Philadelphia I flew on to Lynchburg, Virginia, where I now am. The drive from Charlottesville airport to Lynchburg was beautiful, the autumn colours glowing against the backdrop of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The host institution here is the Randolph Macon Woman’s College — a proper university, unlike the ill-named and ill-favoured “Liberty University”, founded by the infamous Jerry Falwell, which shares the same town. It seems that some official body, somewhere, has seen fit to grant accreditation to “Liberty University” — a “University” which, in all seriousness, teaches its unfortunate students that the world is less than ten thousand years old. I briefly visited “Liberty University” this morning. Knowing how many tax-free dollars had been donated or tithed to this “University” I thought at least that it might have nice buildings. Remarkably, they are spectacularly ugly, an architectural disgrace on the outside to match the educational disgrace of what is taught inside.

Randolph Macon Woman’s College, by contrast, has a strikingly elegant campus, and the evidence suggests that the quality of the education, and of the students, lives up to its promise. A group of about twenty bright young women hosted a lunch for me with no faculty present, which was a great pleasure and an honour for me. These students were humorous, intelligent, enthusiastic . . . and well-mannered enough to let us all finish our lunch before they threw the meeting open for a lively discussion. They will go out into the world and influence it for the better.

[cue next day post]

Last night in Lynchburg, Virginia, home of the infamous Jerry Falwell, was memorable. The large hall at Randolph Macon Woman’s College was packed. I gave a fairly short program of readings from The God Delusion, and then the bulk of the evening was given over to much more than an hour of Q & A. The first questioner announced himself as coming from Liberty (Falwell’s ‘University’), and he began by saying he had never been so insulted, yet simultaneously so amused, by any lecture. Many of the questioners announced themselves as either students or faculty from Liberty, rather than from Randolph Macon which was my host institution. One by one they tried to trip me up, and one by one their failure to do so was applauded by the audience. Finally, I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead. That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people. Only almost and only slightly, however.

The most interesting question was from a young woman not from Liberty but from Randolph Macon itself, and it really startled me. She wanted to know whether people who deconverted from a religious upbringing felt ‘anger’. In my naivety, I went blank. Why should one feel anger? Anger towards what, or whom? I asked the audience whether they understood what she meant, and there was a great chorus of “Yes”. I asked them again, why anger, anger towards whom? Then they started shouting from all around the hall. It was anger towards their parents for bringing them up religious, anger towards teachers and pastors for indoctrinating them as children. One young man came up to me afterwards in the signing queue and reiterated with some passion the intense anger he felt. I gave him the url of this website and encouraged him to write in. Perhaps somebody will start a thread on the theme of anger felt by the recovered victims of childhood indoctrination.

Also in the signing queue, the young woman who asked the original question about anger handed me a letter. I didn’t have time to read it until afterwards, and when I did read it I was moved by it. I shall reply, suggesting that she might like to write a similar letter to our website, so others may read it.

In any case, enjoy.

Part 1: Reading