Someone in another thread linked
this video of a Dawkins Q&A session after a presentation. You can watch
the presentation, itself, if you like, which was basically a selected reading from his new book,
The God Delusion. Personally, I think that the Q&A is more interesting...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qR_z85O0P2M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qR_z85O0P2M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
There are a couple of things that made me feel that this is thread-worthy. I can't help but feel that Dawkins misunderstood several of the questions and I'm curious to see how my opinion compares with others'. Also, while some of the questions were very good, others were pretty silly and others, still, just made the questioner look foolish. Again, I'd like to see other opinions...
The audience is also very interesting. After every question comes an applause. There's also an applause after some of Dawkins more striking points. It appears to be a very supportive audience. The natural conclusion is that a presentation by Richard Dawkins will bring about his supporters. However, it does take place in
Lynchburg, an apparently intensely religious area. Also, a disproportionate number of the questioners were theists, which might suggest that they are not his supporters. Now, there are a number of possible explanations for all of these observations but I still find them intriguing...
For your convenience, I will quote each of the questions here. I have removed all of the stammering and some context for brevity. It will still serve as a useful index and will certainly be less confusing than referring to "the sixth question..."
Quote:
|
You accuse people, I suppose Christians, of saying that we get our morality from the scriptures but clearly this cannot be the case because humanity from every civilization throughout time has a sense of morality and clearly most of them have not had access to the bible so I'm curious, then, what you think the origin of this morality if someone comes in here with a gun and begins shooting all of us we would call that bad. Why? Why is that bad?
|
I haven't quoted it, here, but the questioner first delivers a joke that doubles as a backhanded jab to Dawkins. He also claims to be a scientist but doesn't say what field of science he practices. He delivers his question as if he's got a really good point and he doesn't expect Dawkins to have an adequate response. As it turns out, they agree and Dawkins has a good reason for agreeing. Furthermore, it seems to me that Dawkins feels that the questioner's objection serves to prove Dawkins atheistic assertions more than the questioner's religious ones. Indeed, this theme will come up, again, and I don't undrestand how it's supposed to support the theistic view...
Quote:
|
I read this chapter on ethics in your book and I found it interesting. You were dealing with the origin of our moral sense, more so than I think the origin of morality, itself. So, you still wonder, what is it about the world that makes some things right and some things wrong, some things good and some things bad, and you want to retain the language of some things are evil. If we are going to retain these categories, these very strong, moral categories, it seems to me that naturalism is going to be very hard pressed to kind of provide an account for where real good and evil would be. I'm not sure how, entirely, we can simply assert the existence of value without providing a deeper account for it and moral freedom, as well. It seems to me that the naturalist is kind of shackled in a naturalistic world. It would seem as if we're just bound and determined to behave just the way that we do. If morality is all about **** and **** implies ----, how can we ever do anything other than exactly what it is that we do. I'd be real interested in your responses to those things.
|
**** A word I can't discern from context. It sounds like "ought."
---- A word I can't discern from context. It sounds like "can."
If someone knows what these words are supposed to be, I will gladly fix this quote...
The question's intent is still clear, or as clear as this non-question can get, anyway. What's unclear to me is how this "question" is any different than the previous one? It seems to be a rather important question to christians and I've seen it outside of this video.
I also began recognizing that theists draw distinctions that I do not. This questioner distinguishes "moral sense" from "morality." To me, this is like the
Bush administration's distinction between homosexual behaviour and homosexuality...
Quote:
|
Atheists have a PR problem. They are among the most distrusted minorities in the US. Many people equate atheism with immorality and pessimism. They ask "what good has atheism done? Atheism is so cold, I don't find any comfort from those who do not believe in God." Some have attempted to answer these criticisms with new life stances, such as humanism or the church of reality. They assert that there will not be widespread apostasy until there is a replacement for religion. Sam Harris says "we must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the proposterous." Further, he says "we must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity; birth, marriage, death, without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality." My question is "what is your view on that assertion: that there will not be widespread apostasy until there is a replacement for religion?"
|
I think this is the most interesting question posed in the entire session. People cling to religion so fastly that I think that
Ustwo may be right when he says that people need religion.
Personally, I don't understand why atheists are so hated. Before Dawkins, I've never heard of any atheist attacking religion and, after watching some of his videos, I'm beginning to think that he isn't even all that militant. By some accounts, terrorists are more popular than atheists. I mean, I guess it makes some sense in that christians (are supposed to) think that God is more important than their lives but still...
Quote:
|
In the case of mock religions, such as the invisible pink unicorn, do those help the atheist cause or do they actually hurt it by creating a sort of hilarity about religion?
|
A good question and one I don't think Dawkins really answers. He said what the point of all these "mock religions" are but he doesn't address the possibility that they do more harm than good by insulting the religous' beliefs. Furthermore, their point might be too subtle to be understood, especially in the face of the potential insult...
Quote:
|
You imply that there is some kind of social justice issue at stake, here, by saying that it's "wrong" and "there ought to be" and that kind of language implies that there is some kind of moral standard. I'm wondering if, from your perspective, what kind of moral standard could be a basis for that kind of social justice if, indeed, there is no higher power?
|
Again, I've never understood this obviously prevalent opinion of theists; that morality requires a "higher power." To me, this makes about as much sense as saying that morality implies the existence of a cup of tea...
EDIT:
Strangely, it seems to me as if Dawkins misunderstands this question. He responds by clarifying his opinion on the political electability of atheists which, frankly, doesn't appear to be the point of the question. Now, admittedly, the question is basically a repeat of some earlier questions so perhaps he's just trying to say something different with his given time?
Quote:
|
I've spent most of my life being an atheist or non-believer and I've seen the world through that lens and I understand the logic of it. When I became a believer, I also noticed that the same world out there was being viewed through a different, metaphysical, lens. I would suggest to you that there is a burqa, as well, for metaphysical reality. You can shift up and look through faith or you can shift down and look through human intelligence or human understanding. Call it reason or intuition or whatever but I would call to your attention that there is a whole new reality that comes. It's not supernatural, in a sense, but a shift in understanding...
|
Here's another non-question question. I get the sense that the questioner makes far too many associations in life. I think that a lot of misunderstandings in the world come from people making false associations. Things of the nature of always seeing blonde people driving blue cars and then assuming that all blonde drivers drive blue cars and that all blue cars must have blonde drivers.
Dawkins' interpretation of the question is interesting. He responds by talking about the extreme accuracy of very difficult to conceptualize scientific theories and compares that to the Holy Trinity which he claims isn't nearly as accurate.
Quote:
|
Going back to ethics and morality, you essentially said that the darwinian reason we have morality is that, back in the day, you had cousins and people who you'd want to reciprocate. In order to act like that, you'd have to make decisions and decisions would have to be based on critical thinking. I was wondering if you had a darwinian response or explanation for how critical thinking relates to darwinianism.
|
Ethics and morality is a real sticking point for theists! This is my favourite question but only for its humour value. The questioner hasn't a clue how ridiculous his question is and Dawkins casually demonstrates it, with humour, to the entire audience.
Quote:
|
If theories and ideas around things like Intelligent Design and Creationism are, scientifically, all but dead, they just haven't fallen over yet, then I see something else waiting in the wings, scientifically, that could be a problem for science, so I ask your opinion about this. Things like, you use the word "mind" a lot. We think of the mind as some dimensionless thing in the middle of our head which tells us what to do and is separate from the brain, which is similar to the soul, another popular notion, so what does science or philosophy, at this point, have to say about this?
|
Here's another distinction that theists make that I don't; the mind and the brain. I mean, I can make a distinction and use it in a sci-fi story where my mind is transfered into a computer but, obviously, the brain remains in my head. However, it looks like the questioner doubts that the brain can create a mind and that just seems silly to me. Especially when you can see how altering the brain alters the mind...
It also seems to me that the questioner has his religion rooted so deeply into him that he can't even conceive of how anyone can think of his notion "mind" in physiology...
Quote:
|
Do you imply that we may evolve to become God or do we share a common ancestry with God?
|
I think this is just a silly question but Dawkins does his best to answer it...
Quote:
|
What evidence would you need to conclude that God's existence, at least, was as probable as that of extraterrestrials and why did you relegate Antony Flew to a footnote with him being such an eminent philosopher and finding design in the DNA an indication of a deity?
|
Dawkins is obviously quite bitter about
Antony Flew. So much so that, in answering the second part of the question, he had forgotten to answer the first!
Quote:
Do you draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith?
Considering, then, that we must believe what's based on reason and reason, of course, is based on experience, why then is it reasonable, considering our experience concerning the law of cause and effect, how is it that it's more reasonable to believe that the universe created itself because, when confined to the natural laws, because nature is bound by its own limits which are the natural laws and if nature is bound by the laws which say that matter can't create itself, then how do you get around this issue? There must have been something outside the system...
|
This was an awful debacle of a question. He tried to ask two questions but was surprised by Dawkins' answer to his first question and so he asked a third one and even tried to ask, yet, another. As you will see, later, he will give his question to another to ask on his behalf...
The first question degenerated into a semantic argument; something I abhor and find terribly uninteresting.
The second question is, in my estimation, another example of people making false associations. Amazingly, he actually got an applause for his question, as if it were a striking point. I think this notion comes from the idea that everything must begin and end but I don't find this to be a reasonable conclusion...
Dawkins takes this question in a different direction than I would have. He assumes that there is a beginning, just as these theists do, and explains how the explanation of the physicists, as inadequate as they may be, are still more compelling than that of Creation...
Quote:
|
How can you believe in extraterrestrials as a higher being and not believe in God?
|
This is the question where, I think, Dawkins clearly misunderstands the questioner's intention. It's interesting to see him try his best to make sense of it but I suspect she finds his answer unsatisfying...
A silly and pointless question but, amazingly, Dawkins has a good answer for it...
Quote:
|
The problem is that you're applying natural laws to God whereas he claims to exist outside of them and, therefore, he does not necessitate a beginning. Unlike matter, on the other hand, which necessitates a beginning...
|
This is a continuation of an earlier question. My response would have been quite different than Dawkins. He appears to be annoyed by the question, as if he's been asked it too many times, and essentially replies that it's nonsense.
I would have tried to, at least, explain why it's nonsense. Both the notion that matter must "begin" and that God is outside of the "system."
Quote:
|
I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether or not there is a God or gods, what effect has it upon human kind, upon the orders of the world, upon men and women, that we rather consistently refer to God as a male.
|
I don't really understand the question and it appears that Dawkins doesn't, either. As always, he tries his best to answer. I think he said that a female God, if you could introduce the idea, just might help to improve society...
Quote:
As someone coming from a religious family, especially in an area with such a dominant religion and a particular figurehead, how does someone find their own way when leaving is not quite an option.
Is anger a common symptom of a person who is going through the deconditioning process of their parent's religion?
|
I'm surprised anyone would ask Dawkins such a personal question. I mean, it seems to me to be clearly outside his expertise. He's a biologist, not a social worker. What does he know about helping people face their families about their religious convictions or lack, thereof?
Quote:
At Liberty University, they have, on display, some fossils of dinosaurs that they say are 3000 years old, maybe 4000, maybe 5000. What could they do to really prove to a scientists that those fossils are, indeed, that old only.
Would you be willing to illucidate, further, your arguments against creation by design and maybe give us some better sense of cosmological time; how long it really is.
|
I can't believe there's actually a "university" that claims to have dinosaur fossils so young and, apparently, either can Dawkins. He goes farther than I would have in accusing the University of spreading false claims and actually urges people attending it to leave and go to a "proper univesrity."
I expect that this might be look like a long post. In my defense, my monitor is 2560 pixels wide so most of these quotes fit on a single line and, thus, they don't look particularly long to me. Either way, I hope people enjoyed the Q&A and I look forward to other interpretations of the video!