Amazon.com Widgets

« Gypsy's music for American Thanksgiving | Main | Links With Your Turkey (I don't drink coffee) »

CNN's Connecter of the Day: Richard Dawkins


 

Comments

"If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a serious scientist, not an idiot."

Haha I'm seeing Dawkins getting somewhat more and more annoyed the more he is on TV "interviews".

He has always had a short temper.

He seemed especially annoyed when he was asked about Comfort's opinions, it's the fault of the interviewer. You don't go to a physicist and ask about what he thinks of the opinions of a flat-earther. Or, to channel Dara O'Briain, you don't go to a dentist and ask him about what the tootheologist said.

Dawkins has entered the advocacy realm, so he should be able to respond as an advocate. You are exacltly right, he responds as a scientist, insulted to have to respond to unscientific drivel.

If the views expressed in my introduction of On The Origin Of Species are "idiotic", would would Mr. Dawkins tell students to rip them out of the book...?

Because they're idiotic.

Did you notice how Comfort suggested that Dawkins encourage people to read the intro to strengthen their "faith in evolution"? Key difference of looking at the issue: faith v.evidence

Did y'all notice Dawkins's tie? I wonder if he had it custom made?

Another difference is that Comfort seems to think books are mainly propaganda tools. A worldview where there are no facts, only beliefs... it strikes me as disturbingly Orwellian. And Colbertian.

"why would Mr. Dawkins tell students", I mean. Gorram typos.

If the views expressed in my introduction of On The Origin Of Species are "idiotic", would would Mr. Dawkins tell students to rip them out of the book...?

Hmmm.... Let's see. If I were hand out Bibles on campuses with 54 pages of hardcore pornography as a preface, what do you think Mr. Comfort would advise students to do?

On the other hand, if the porn were inserted in the right places, I could just call it illustrations for some of the stories.

Either way, send me a copy.

user-pic

Any chance either of you have seen a list of universities they're distributing it in? I'm curious whether mine is/was on the list.

If I did get a copy, I certainly wouldn't tear out the preface, free comedy is still free. On second thought, all that facepalming might hurt...

i think r. crumb has already done this (the illustrations, not the insert) and i'm still dying to see it. the bible is so full of sex, drugs and violence it's easy to see why it's so popular.

but seriously, there are many editions of the bible available with the commentary of the "school of biblical criticism" and these editions are, indeed, banned by fundies of all stripes. what comfort is doing is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what's been done to the bible over the last couple hundred years.

i remember reading somewhere that the actual text of the comfort edition of "origin" is corrupt- missing crucial chapters, or paragraphs, or something like that. anyone know anything about this?

also: i really, really didn't like dawkin's glib response to the question about what are thought and reason. was no one else disturbed by this? don't you think there may be more to it than neuron behaviour and electrical impulses?

As far as we know, isn't that what we know? Is there any serious indication (or need) that there is something else?

And why does the fact that something might or not disturb us, anything to do with its reality? I think that's the main problem with religious people.

And why does the fact that something might or not disturb us, anything to do with its reality? I think that's the main problem with religious people.

it may be, but it's not my problem. i think the question "if ray comfort and lassie and glen beck and tadpoles all have neurons that work exactly the same way as far as we can tell (in terms of individual inter-neuron communication, not the size or complexity of the system),wouldn't it be fair to suppose there might be more to thought and reason than that?"

furthermore, doesn't reason itself exist beyond my own ability to perceive or produce it, in spite of the complexity (and independantly of) my central nervous system? even if there were no life in the universe would the concept of reason cease to exist? "that asteroid is being unreasonable, it's going to hit the atmosphere and burn up".

yes, i know about the uncertainty principle and "if a tree falls" etc.

the question is still valid, and wide open as far as i can see. and i can see it both ways. problem is, dawkins doesn't seem to be able to.

No.

It's that simple, really!

ok, thanks for straightening that out for me.

How can one expect anything but "glib" responses in a 6 minute interview that includes questions on the future of the human race and the nature of thought and reason? Seriously, who submits questions like this in a "lightening round" interview? People who are too lazy to read, that's who.

because, you know, even ray comfort has neurons.

so is thought a wave or a particle?

very interesting, and i'm not surprised. nothing on leaving out significant sections of "origins"?

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives