Thanks norm.

I thought it was odd to see the Gerry Rzeppa $64,000 Question ad on OGM!

Having it juxtaposed with the video of Richard Dawkins though, made the ad seem funny.

OK don't you think he comes off as awfully well smug on this tape? Dawkins i mean. He seems to insult folks that don't agree with him. I have problems with this, it doesn't really help, it doesn't end up being persuasive.

Hopefully i won't get banned from the blog, i mean Dawkins is briliant but i cannot see him helping. You know there are smart people that are religious, there are many psychiatrists that think that religion is hardwired into our brains. (not that that makes it true).

OK don't you think he comes off as awfully well smug on this tape? Dawkins i mean. He seems to insult folks that don't agree with him. I have problems with this, it doesn't really help, it doesn't end up being persuasive.

Hopefully i won't get banned from the blog, i mean Dawkins is briliant but i cannot see him helping. You know there are smart people that are religious, there are many psychiatrists that think that religion is hardwired into our brains. (not that that makes it true).

You make a good point k, but then again, Dawkins is the reason I consider myself an atheist so he is doing good.

I don't see what's so "smug" about it personally. He is frank about what he thinks. He doesn't have to be apologetic. That's one of the things he talk about in the book, about how religions are afforded some extra-special level of politeness which is not required when talking about any other topic. He doesn't have to care if people agree with him or not, or how they feel.

I don't see what's so "smug" about it personally. He is frank about what he thinks. He doesn't have to be apologetic. That's one of the things he talk about in the book, about how religions are afforded some extra-special level of politeness which is not required when talking about any other topic. He doesn't have to care if people agree with him or not, or how they feel.

k,

I don't think he's intentionally being smug, it's just that he has been through numerous debates and interviews about his book, atheism, and more and now has "all the answers" so to say. I mean, he knows the kind of questions that people are going to ask him now simply because he's rather experienced at this point.

In fact, every question that Maher asked him in this interview has been asked before by various other people. As such, at this point, rather than pausing and/or stalling to think, he just quickly states the answer (which probably makes him look smug).

For example, the first time that he was asked, "Will you have a deathbed conversion?" he replied along the lines of, "Well, I very well may go out of my mind and say things that I don't actually mean... Perhaps I'll have a tape recorder there to leave a record." A much more modest answer than, "No, and I'll prove it, too!"

Also, religion is only hardwired into our brains because it's forced on us as soon as we're born. It's like how "murder is wrong" is hardwired into our brains when there's really nothing that inherently makes murder wrong. In fact, there's no such thing as " right and wrong." People just tell other people from birth that these things exist, so they're incorporated into the mind in various ways. Religion is like that.

I fail to see any smugness present in the clip, k. Perhaps you'd care to point out. Also, an example of him insulting someone he doesn't agree with would be nice, as that sounds pretty out of character for the professor.

Supposing he were insufferably smug and had the bad manners to insult people who disagree with him -both assertions of which I disagree with- would that change the truth of what he says? Methinks not.

I think he comes across as smug and condescending partly for the reasons mentioned above, but also because he's well spoken and has a cliche English accent (which I think a lot of Americans find condescending in and of itself).

I don't agree that morality is in no way encoded into us. Even a very young baby will respond to negative emotions (yelling/crying/etc), and I think a lot of our morality stems from not wanting to experience, or cause others to experience, these negative emotions. Then again, maybe it's just an awful noise. ^^

He looks smug coz he knows the answer.

I'm tired of hearing that Dawkins is smug or condescending. If he were talking about astrology or crooked carnival games, you wouldn't accuse him of being condescending.

I agree BigDaddy, I think people are being offended a bit too easily here and the point about religion being equally absurd as astrology is useful. It seems people just can't get away from giving it more respect than it deserves.

I agree BigDaddy, I think people are being offended a bit too easily here and the point about religion being equally absurd as astrology is useful. It seems people just can't get away from giving it more respect than it deserves.

I feel k's remark has been misinterpreted. (I basing this on her previous comments--she should feel free to correct me). What was "smug" about Dawkins was not the forthrightness or frankness with which he responded, but his willingness to believe that anyone who believes a religious doctrine is somehow less intelligent. I would say this is pretty obviously empirically false--whether or not one believes a religious doctrine does not seem to be strictly correlated with level of intelligence, although that may have an incidental or constraining effect. This is to say that even if people who reject religious doctrines on average have higher levels of education or intelligence, it wouldn't follow that lack of either intelligence or education is a cause of religious belief. Analogously, those who exercise more may be less likely to get cancer, but that does not mean that 'not exercising' is straightforwardly the cause of cancer.

Also, religion is only hardwired into our brains because it's forced on us as soon as we're born. It's like how "murder is wrong" is hardwired into our brains when there's really nothing that inherently makes murder wrong.

It could not possibly be the case that religion or morality only persist because they are inculcated or indoctrinated from an early age. For that would leave utterly unexplained the fact of their very emergence in the first place and their nearly universal distribution across different cultures. The prima facie evidence for religion being 'hardwired' is that almost every culture ever known has had some version of it. And when a trait is that well-distributed, the chances that it has a biological basis becomes extremely plausible. (Although, admittedly, what it would even mean for it to be 'hardwired', or at what level it's innate, is subject intense to debate--there may be regions of our brain specifically responsible; it may be a by-product of other cognitive capacities we have, such as 'theory of mind'; or it may be largely the result of predispositions of the brain to certain stimuli that help explain its rapid distribution; or in part all of these, or none of them).

For a tremendously thoughtful treatment of the 'hardwiring' issue on morality that avoids the naturalistic fallacy, see Pinker's article in the Times from a couple months ago, here

K, I agree with you. Richard Dawkins is a long-time personal hero to me, and I thought he came off as smug last night too. The idea that the "administrator" of the human genome project is "not a bright man" seems pretty ludicrous to me.

Most of the time the accusation of smugness is hurled at Dawkins, I'm the first to defend him, but in this case, it seems apt.

hey norm, have you seen this debate:

http://unorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/2008/04/hitchens-vs-hitchens.html

smugness or no smugness? Who is he? Britney Spears that you guys need to analyze whether he looks smug or not. Talk about a guy who has a devoted following.

Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are but a poor man's atheists compare to Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Now, those guys were atheist who clearly didn't believe in God but were serious thinkers when it came to religion. It seems to me that this "new" atheism revolves around the idea that people who believe in God are stupid, religion has no place in society and…oh yes…I'm so far smarter than you are. I believe that the popularity of this movement as it exist is simply a repudiation of Bush and his followers. The problem is that the majority of us, religious people, are not like those who have blinded follow this President. But at the end it doesn't matter because in the eyes of the atheists of today we are all alike.

One more thing, why the laugh track. Oh, and Maher is not really as smart as he think he is.

Dawkins and Maher rock!

So whos the 30 percent or so who still support bush? because I can guess most of those are not atheists. I know a lot of christians and they arent the problem, the problem is religious fanatics who take every word of the bible literally and twist it around to justify their hate, and trying to mandate laws from "gods word".

Smug? Oh gimme a goddamn, mutherfucking break -- smug; d'ya even compre fucking hend the meaning of the word?

I'm rarely accused of being smug, since I consider it completely acceptable to tell someone to go fuck themselves, if they say something that is truly ignorant. Thus, I'm accused of being crude, and rude -- which aren't boons in a person's character... But they are a helluva lot better than spreading lies.

The only time you'll be accused of being "smug" is when you respond to someone's ignorant and mindless babble in a polite and constructive manner.

When crucifix-junkies let their children die from easily preventable diseases because they believe prayer will do more good than genuine health-care, I may swear, cuss, and generally be unpleasant. I'll demand their children be placed elsewhere. I'll be angry. And I will be branded a "militant" atheist for voicing such opinions.

If I'd voiced my opinions in a silk-clad glove, diplomatically expressed, leaning the fuck over backwards to accommodate these primitive screwheads who give in to their most base, disgusting, revolting instincts -- then, I would be labeled "smug."

I say, fuck that. And I say, fuck those religious shitheads. And most important of all -- I say fuck you, to all atheists who'd apologize for this religious nonsense. All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

"I say, fuck that. And I say, fuck those religious shitheads. And most important of all -- I say fuck you, to all atheists who'd apologize for this religious nonsense. All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing."

Using terms like "evil" and "good" so loosely sounds awfully religious (that is, connected to an absolute or transcendent entity) to me. And isn't that the sort of militant attitude derived from morality that makes religious followers so hard to manage in the first place? Blind confidence (whether it is based in science, philosophy, or in dogma) in one's morality and attitude is when tragedy seems to strike. I think we'd be better off with a interfaith (including no-faith) leading to a respectful inclusivism or pluralism rather than any of these "faith based" diatribes...

Hey! RD was talking about ME. I'm one of those who thought I was religiously grounded until The God Delusion got me to review what I'd been sold all those years ago as a kid. Now I am amazed how I held out against reality all these years. Even as someone who called himself "christian", I could never get those people who saw the hand of god in everything around them. Now that I recognise the hand of science in everthing around me, I can better understand those who are still God-delusioned.

Graham: I am in the same boat as you, but I don't know if I'm happy about it.

I bought the book intending to read just enough of it to refute it in arguments. I used a hiliter on the portions I felt I could counter with scripture, all the parts where I felt he was rude ( as if that had anything to do with the quality of his arguments) but the more I read, the more I realized how much sense it made....and the more I realized that it wasn't even important how much sense it made, but rather that it logically derives from all the evidence we have.

I didn't stop there. I read a great deal of popular biology books. The more I understood, the more my view of the world changed, but not for the better....not for worse either, it's hard to describe. Suddenly I could look at things in nature that I used to gaze at in awe and see the hand of God in, and I understood exactly how they came to be all by themselves. It was a cold, plain, sensible view that felt rather like pulling my head out of the sand and having a real look around after 24 years of happily suffocating.

It's mostly as though I had been comfortable and warm in a little room, huddled up by the fire that was religion...and then suddenly someone threw open a window and a brisk gust of wind blew in. I complained and shouted at them because it was so uncomfortable, but soon the taste of fresh air in my lungs enticed me and I stood at the window to see what the outside had to offer; it was cold and uncomfortable at first, yet also brisk and invigorating. It invited me to climb out of my comfort zone and explore things are they really are, rather than how I'd like them to be.

Am I happier now? I don't know. That fireplace was awfully warm, and I felt so safe in that little room. The only thing I'm sure of is that now, though my understanding of reality is still incomplete, it's vastly more accurate than it was. There's a clarity of mind and a control over my own mental faculties that I've gained now that I have tamed the wild thrashing of my irrational side. I can see things more or less as they are, and while they are stranger and less friendly than I'd hoped, they are nonetheless beautiful in their own way. Having seen what it's like out here, I could never go back inside.

I think Maher is smug here, not Dawkins. But that isn't news.

And the laughter sounds awfully canned. I mean, I think it's real but at places it sounds like the "1/2 hour news hour".

Which is a little bit odd because Dawkins may be witty (and good for him) but he's no comedian, and this isn't stand-up. So, I have to agree with some of the commenters here: I didn't enjoy this segment very much.

I think Maher is smug here, not Dawkins. But that isn't news.

And the laughter sounds awfully canned. I mean, I think it's real but at places it sounds like the "1/2 hour news hour".

Which is a little bit odd because Dawkins may be witty (and good for him) but he's no comedian, and this isn't stand-up. So, I have to agree with some of the commenters here: I didn't enjoy this segment very much

Norm, what is with all the errors on this post. I have tried to right a comment 4 or 5 times.

They believe in talking snakes!

"Hahahahahaha!"

Tony Blair is stupid!

"Hahahahaha!"

That annoying and unwarrented laughter made this look like the left wing version of that crappy Fox News comedy show. Not that I disagree with what was being said, but the studio audience heard far more intended punchlines then I did. That whole interview couldn't have looked more forced if they tried.

I was really hoping that they would touch on the crap that was pulled in Dawkins' participation in being interviewed for "Expelled". But all I got was a commerical disguised as the Laugh Factory.

The more I watch Bill Maher, the more I realize why a lot of people don't like him.

I had two colleagues approach me, with their irrational beliefs: one believed in astrology, and the other, in Jesus.

They both lent me books on the subjects. The former begged me to not mention her interest to anyone, since she was ashamed of it, while the latter was -- of course -- proud of it.

There's something very, very wrong about that.

(Oh, lookie: I made a post without using a single naughty word -- do I qualify as "smug" yet?)

Dawkins and Maher (are from a) rock!

Francis Collins does not believe in the talking snake. Mr. Dawkins don't you think it should be a prerequisite to read a book before commenting on it? Genesis does not mention a talking snake. In the Hebrew the word "nachash" means a shining one. Not the modern English word serpent as it's used today. The nachash, or serpent, which beguiled Eve, is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse 14. We have, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid great deference.

The willful ignorance of atheism exposed. And typical atheism, knowing nothing about the Bible yet speak as if you do.

Looks like a serpent to me, thing2fear.

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Here's verse 14:

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

Now, if the Hebrew word "nachash" has been grossly misinterpreted all these centuries, as you suggest, then one wonders what other words in the Bible have been dramtically misinterpreted. This, in turn, suggests that the entire Bible is open to reinterpretation, which in turn suggests that the Bible is not the literal word of God, but a misinterpreted human text, which in turn renders the Bible utterly worthless. Is that what you are trying to say, thing2fear? If so, I agree with you.

The willful ignorance of atheism exposed. And typical atheism, knowing nothing about the Bible yet speak as if you do. -- theonlything2fear

I have never met a Christian who knew more about the bible than me. I love saying this, because it sounds so arrogant -- but for the wrong reason... I don't know jack shit about the bible -- but jesusfreaks know even less.

I've never met a crucifix-junkie who knew a goddamned thing about the bible, or about christianity for that matter. As Pen Gilette put it: read the bible, please -- nothing will turn you into an Atheist quicker.