Dawkins Interviewed on Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera interviewed Richard Dawkins in its "One on One" program hosted by Riz Kahn on January 9, 2010.
Dawkins grew up in Kenya where he observed the diversity of South Africa's wildlife. His family was a middle class British family. In the first segment of the interview, he talks about his childhood and the influence of his family. Dawkins' father was a botanist. He continues to share a good relationship with his father, who had a large influence on him.
Dawkins is motivated to share the truth. Like the "cultural Jew" who is actually an atheist, Dawkins joked about being a "cultural Christian" and "atheist for Jesus." He is sympathetic with the sense of wonder attributable to spirituality, so long as it is not confused with supernaturalism. His problem with religion is when it tries to promote untruths.
Dawkins first doubted the existence of God when he was 9, when he observed all the different religions that were each proclaiming to hold the truth. Nonetheless, he was confirmed in the Church of England at the age of 13.
In the second segment of the interview, Kahn and Dawkins discuss Dawkins' best selling books. He talks about cultural inheritance and its role in evolution and natural selection. Religion falls under cultural inheritance because it is passed down from generation to generation.
Dawkins discussed religious intolerance, particularly in America. Although he did not personally experience it, he said the atheists in American and Britain who have lost friends and family members because of their beliefs is a tragedy.
Dawkins is not interested in indoctrinating children. He believes that they should be taught to think critically and for themselves.
Finally in the second half of the interview, he talked about the Richard Dawkins Foundation and its website.
Related posts:
- Dawkins on Extremism, Haiti, Politics and More
- The Correlation Between Intelligence and Faith: Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism
- Religious Group Claims Prayers Shut Down Dawkins Forum
- Dawkins on Religion in the Classroom
- Discussions with Richard Dawkins – Episode One – The Four Horseman
- The Dawkins Delusion – Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine
- Dawkins Explains Why He Refuses to Debate Creationists
- Non-Believers and Discrimination
- Richard Dawkins on Ardi, Mormons and Muslims
- Pastor Responds to Dawkins, Harris and Atheists
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
3 Responses to “Dawkins Interviewed on Al Jazeera”
Leave a Reply
Here in the States, a growing number of people are no longer affiliated with any religion. Yet, there are some Christian groups who continue to insist on blurring the lines of separation between church and state. For the non-churchgoers and freethinkers worldwide, this site features news, reviews and editorials on just about anything regarding religion. Your opinion is always welcome here, either as a columnist or commenter. Hey, this is not church -- you are allowed to speak your mind and think for yourself!
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: While comments are welcomed and get the Do Follow option, they are strictly monitored. That means comments must be on topic and add to the discussion. Submissions from multiple names having the same IP, troll comments, keyphrase users and the like will be deleted. Please see our policies page for more information.
 |
 |
Main Feed | Comments Feed |
|
 |
 |
"Supernaturalism", nice all around term. I'll have to start using it.
True Dawkins style! I thought it was a hoot, too.
Once again, the only arguments worthy of consideration in the atheism/deism discussions are those based on cool logic.
The adding of emotion to metaphysical debate, especially of the kind Dr. Dawkins prefers, does nothing to endear the spirit of atheism to the masses. On the contrary, if the atheist point of view is best represented by a personality such as Richard Dawkins, Dr. Dawkins serves as an effective drag upon the value of the very arguments he purports to advance.
Whereas a speaker like Dinest D'Souza is perfectly willing to concede that he, at bottom, does not know for certain whether there is a Supreme Being or not, a speaker like Dr. Dawkins will not admit such a foundation, instead choosing to use the caustic jibe and negative emotionalism to disguise thin science.
There are three keys to interviewing Dr. Dawkins successfully:
1)Do not pose propositions to Dr. Dawkins to which he holds contrary opinions;
2)Excuse the blurring of analysis;and,
3) Pass over Dr. Dawkins' obtuse references to intellectuals representative of metaphysical understandings the interviewee long ago lost in the traffic of personal emotion.
As we are aware, in November of 2007, and again in 2008, Dr. Dawkins refused to accept debate challenges from Dinesh D'Souza presented to him by neutral third parties within the academic community.
As is routine with Dawkins, he inaccurately posited in his refusals,"Debating Dinesh D'Souza would be a waste of time, considering that he, D'Souza, accepts scripture a priori."
Dinesh D'Souza was and remains perfectly willing to debate Dawkins restricting the issues squarely to areas of science.
"Scripture" is not at all Dr. Dawkins' concern. What is of concern is Dawkins' intellectual status relative to a speaker of Dinesh D'Souza's rank.
There are several D'Souza debates broadcast on You Tube. The Christopher Hutchins debates are good examples. We can only ask that these debates be judged by an objective third party, imagining Dawkins attempting to field a D'Souza challenge. If past performances are any indication, Dawkins would quickly lose himself in emotionalism, attempting to counter sound argument with the snide.
To this site's (God Discussion) credit, considering Dr. Dawkins seems to be a favorite, several excellent examples of Dawkins' brand of emotionalism and disrespect of others have been broadcast. However, the one that stands out in our minds as truly representative of Dawkins' lack of kindness, or perhaps simply lack of understanding regarding what it means to wear the mantle of a gentleman, is the "flying teapot" response to a vulnerable audience questioner. In the teapot response, Dr. Dawkins once again lowers the intellectual tone of an event with a boorish attempt at reducing the status of a questioner to that of moron.
In his published articles (in major magazines for popular consumption rather than publications such as Nature), Dr. Dawkins' science is shown to be so thin so often that all he really has remaining at the end of the day is an attractive accent, a profound atheism based on blinding emotionalism, and a failure of manners in circumstances where cultured individuals have more control.
Let us bring on a debate between Dawkins and D'Souza for a real look at the strength of Dr. Dawkins' positions. Although, gentleman that D'Souza is, we are not certain Dawkins' crudity and free flowing disregard of sound science would allow the debate to conclude in an acceptable manner. However, it is certainly worth the attempt.