i saw this on youtube a couple days ago. excellent interview!!

What a great guy. I am still pro euthanasia but he put the first reasonable reasons for being against it. Great.

That guy's supposed to be a Christian leader?

How come you don't show the South Park where Richard Dawkins is giving it to Prof Garrison in the ass? Oh yeah - Dawkins and chess are your gods. Stone idols are more interesting than them

A perfectly wonderful example of two intelligent, compassionate people, each with a different view of "the big picture," engaging in a thoughtful dialogue. Neither bent on converting or dominating the other and (lo and behold) agreeing on many points. We don't all have to have the same "ultimate" convictions as long as we behave with respect and civility. Thanks for this post.

When I ran across this at Alternet, I watched it twice simply because of what edward posted here: 'Neither bent on converting or dominating the other and (lo and behold) agreeing on many points.

They respect each other and they've connected and it definitely makes for excellent discussion.

PG please read the rules for commenting here. Your comments are off topic. If you'd like answers to your questions feel free to send me an email.

It is nice to watch intelligent conversations or debates that are productive. I just watched the debate between Kerry and Gingrich on global warming and was surprisingly productive. The debate is on c-span in the archives 4/10/07 if anyone is interested.

BTW PG maybe you should pay more attention. Norm posted the South Park clip back in November.

I am blown away with this interview. I am on the side of the bishop and have found Dawkins to be a divisive figure. What I just realized is that I'm so used to seeing so many bad interviews here in America that I forgot sensible people who disagree can actually have a debate without screaming. I have new respect for Dawkins and I actually disagree with the bishop in a couple of points myself.

PBS is as close as we come to something like this here and it is a shame that only very will ever see this. Instead, Bill O'Reilly and his kind will continue to dumb us to death. (For the record, I only see him whenever Norm post one of his clips so I still have a chance).

It reminds that the art of listening has been lost. Parts of the bible belt might contest Darwin, but they sure do employ the survival of the fittest mindset in the marketplace of ideas. As though failure to listen, and understand the other's position will gradually seduce a person away from their own position. The fact is that our beliefs are malleable, and yet we will defend them to the death. Very refreshing to see people disagree about important things, yet remain civil and respectful toward each other.

It would be wonderful to see this as a begining of a series of Dawkins reviewing the "passionate moderates" of religion and maybe expanding on the common ground he shares with religious thinkers. His interviews with the radicals were eye-opening, but distressing as well. I liked the bit where they tried to translate "religion" to some universal rational terms as something that needs to find some expression in early education. And by the time I have children I hope the ecumenic muslim-catholic-jewish schools will be available to all. Well... maybe by the time I have grandchildren.. lol

Not only does the Bishop sound like a fairly decent guy, he's not a pervert either: he doesn't want to make a big deal about the "virgin birth". Nice to see someone with a distinct lack of interest in the intactness of a hymen 2000 years ago.

Too much of religion is focused on other people's genitals, especially the female genitals. It's a fixation both childish and base, and perverted for an adult to obsess over.

This was excellent, for reasons already stated by others. Thank you for posting it.

finally, this site shows a reasonable and intelligent dialogue on religion. the issue for Dawkins is supernaturalism - and it is clear that for the Bishop and a great many religious people, supernatural does not equate to religion. Dawkins seems to constantly equate them - perhaps this is true of the US but is not so much in Canada and the UK. There is a lot of debate currently about what religion is - let me suggest Wilfred Cantwell Smith's The Meaning and End of Religion and J.Z. Smith's Imagining Religion for very good discussions (I am not sure, Norm, if you have read these). Interestingly the Bishop takes the same line on miracles as Locke...

thanks for the post - a nice change from the flames that usually pass for discussion on religion on this site

This interview was distressing in an unusual way: Bishop Harries was smart enough and learned enough that he was able to put all sorts of polite, almost-rational window dressing on the weird things he believes. It's like a chocolate covered cherry filled with mayonnaise: it looks nice on the outside, but it still has mayonnaise on the inside.

He's the best evasive doublethinker I've ever seen, and certainly one of the most harmless and agreeable, but that in itself is disquieting.

With beliefs like this Bishops, one has to wonder why he bothers at all with religion? I mean, I'm glad he is not some fanatic.. but he is so close to being a secularist that it his religion is just silly. Not that all religion isn't silly.