h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Astro-logica / alfster, thanks for the link and the urge to listen to it.
I don't usually bother with these as I have to install Real Player to listen to it (why can't the beeb use a decent media player?) but I did this time.
It does indeed make clear how come he ends up talking to extremists, and the respect he has for those who do have a religious belief and use their intelligence. I also would like to hear more on these views of his.

Well worth listening to.

Just in case you missed what I wrote two inches above your post:

"Mayo did ask him why he 'only' interviewed 'radicals'/ Dawkins said that the American preacher was not seen as a radical in America and the Muslim who had turned from Judaism was interviewed because they thought he could give a perspective from both sides. So, they were not just showing extremists it just happened that they turned out to be.

THey did try to get various moderate bishops to be interviewed but they turned the programme down. Only the Bishop of Oxford agreed. Dawkins does respect him as someone with an intellectual view point on religion. Of course, Dawkins does not agree with him and has a different 'argument' about religious intellectuals which would be interesting to hear as he did not expand on this."

Dawkins WANTED to interview moderates. The moderates they chose turned out to be radicals. Dawkins WOULD prefer to have a proper debate with the other side of the argument unfortunately there does not seem to be too much of a willingness from the other side to debate.

A handy fix for your Real Player woes:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

This has RealMedia codecs, and includes Media Player Classic (my favourite media player). There are links at the bottom of the page for extra downloads that will let you use the codecs with Winamp or Windows Media Player if you prefer to use those.

<>

I am unconvinced, sorry, Alfster. I know there are moderates out there whom he didn't bother to approach - so I don't buy his excuse.

Are the Bush's freemasons too?

The second programme, broadcast tonight, was quite interesting. Dawkins was at his best sticking with being a scientist examining the evidence for the lack of coherence in scriptural authority and so on. Where he really loses it, as in the first programme, is when he steps outside science and takes part in the political debate of science versus religion. When he does that he leaves behind his scientific Doubt and becomes what someone earlier in this thread described half-jokingly as a scientific fundamentalist. In fact, I would put that forward as the definition of "Fundamentalist": someone who leaves their own world to take part in a political debate without recognising the fact that in politics your own world is simply another point of view.

Fundamentalism really has very little to do with religion. It's politics played out in terms of religion. What Dawkins fails to get to grips with is that people invented religion for very good reasons, that it has lasted a very long time and will need to be replaced by something much more convincing than the cult of Reason of the French Revolution, or the cult of personality of any number of totalitarian dictatorships.

Hi Thorn

"Are the Bush's freemasons too?"

Don't start going all Da Vinci Code on me Thorn?

What I am trying to say, in a very few words - because I can get very, very wordy on this - is practically every 'religious' war of the last 2,000 years could just as easily be ascribed to economic causes as well.

Freemasonry is another subject altogether, on which I can get very, very wordy (read 'boring').

Blessings,
Matholwch the Discordian /|\

Hi Chris

The Cults of Reason and Religion have been replaced by Uneducated Self Interest, better known as consumerism.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

last nights was good and showed Dawkins in a better light as well. Interesting that when he is interviewing people who aren't fundamentalist evangelicals he doesn't get as worked up, yet still has exactly the same discussion. Witness his interview with the guy from the faith school where Noah's ark was included in science subjects. Indeed, the guy said that religion wasn;t so much 'included' in them as pervaded the entire curriculum. They even discussed evolution with Dawkins making his point and then agreeing to disagree with the bloke once they had made their point. Amazing how two such disparate viewpoints can get on when there is mutual respect.
Equally his discussion with the Bishop of oxford. Although his point of argument with him wasn;t as good as I had hoped it would be.

Also neatly put the lie to the concept of him only wanting to interview fundamentalists.

Just found this, "Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest" @ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html

alji

I'll comment if I can stop laughing-that's priceless!

So that's a yes, then?



But so was George Washington <- No, I do not think that all masons are named George... just most of them. I'm kidding btw (in case any of you thought I was about to turn out to be some sort of religionous zealot nutball,- or something.


I don't even think that that's a real word up there either.
_- -_- -_

I never read that anyway. It sounded too stupid the way people were going on about it so much. Like some sort of luminatinari cult or something... when I heard a guy at the store giving his little talk on it.
(*Yes, and then I proceeded off to the comic ("Oh excuse me }er-hem{ "Graphique nov-vells...")... while the head honcho-pretender to bes getting confused by too much multi-tasking,- trying to drink their shellular phones and talk o/with their ?) <- One does tend to be led to wonder about these sort of things. <- well, at least one such as myself.

Da Vinci wrote backwards so that people had to look in a mirror to see what his sketch notes were. Big deal. This is nothing new. End of story on nutty Italian inventor guy... I don't think any of it is supposed to forsee certain doom or other sucvh nonsense (s maybe? ). N o, let's leave aliens and stuff like that for another day's conversation, shall we?

Changing the subject, what happens to all the money donated to the Missionaries of Charity. See Mother Teresa: Where are her millions? @ http://sathyavaadi.tripod.com/truthisgod/papers/020507.htm

It wouldn't be surprising to me if the donations were used up by all the charity work they do.

If you haven't been able to locate them so far, try their house at 177 Bravington Road, Queens Park (London), or see one of their soup kitchens - the one I used to help with occasionally took place in a church hall in Quex Road, Kilburn. Or visit the hostel for homeless people at 112-116 St George's Road, Southwark. There's no need to put one's trust in a report from distant Calcutta.

I think it would be very interesting to see the results of an audit on all of these 'non-profit' and 'charity' organizations [including religious entities], especially the percentage of donations actually delivered and the salaries paid to the workers.

Hi, Dr Jeffreyo. I agree entirely!

It's also possible to do that here in the UK, where charities have to file detailed accounts. Those of religious entities are no different. The Charities Bill, when it becomes law later this year, will ask for more disclosure.

I think that there are certainly some organisations, like Medecins San Frontiers, who do use every penny they get for their cause. MSF in particular, as they don't get any grants from governments.

On the other hand, some organisations could probably do with a bit of investigation...

Kudos to those involved in getting that bill pushed through! There was an investigation done here [in the Colonies] a few years ago when workers at some Christian children's organization were caught pilfering food and clothes meant for kids in other countries, and you can still see their 'infomercials' begging for dollars on TV today. Once in a while I call their 800 number and remind them of their history and ask if there are any financial reports showing that they've corrected the problem but they never do.

}Sigh{
That's depressing.

But basically still a part of human nature.
*Rolls his eyes*