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

The Root Of All Evil, by Richard Dawkins, 8pm 09/01/2006, C4 (UK)

http://www.secularism.org.uk/dawkinstoattackreligiononchannel.html

I thought you might like to know about (though you probably already do!)

Rock on, Richard

I'll have to check my local listings. I don't watch much TV. I don't even _own_ a TV, but I'm sure I can find someone who'll let me watch theirs..



I hope..

Good luck!

I foresee some ruffled feathers...

I Can't wait for this. It should be an interesting (and biased no doubt) programme.

There is a site maintained by John Catalano all about the man - http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml which gives an insight into his views.

turvy

I am pulled two ways by Dawkins. On the one hand, he speaks a lot of sense, and I respect this. On the other, he speaks with the apparent authority of one who has access to the One And Only Truth, and this frightens me. I believe he is no less dangerous (*in this particular respect*) as those religious believers who (also) believe they have access to the One And Only Truth.

I know this isn't a popular view, but it's mine, and I submit it for consideration.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC,

<>

Do you mean he appears to be right?

No I guess you mean he appears to be excessively confident that he is right. I can see whay that sort of thing might be frightening if the message were at all oppressive, or involved appeals to authority. But in Dawkins case?

Perhaps we should count the number of times he argues by appeal to authority in the program. If we agree that he doesn't, much, perhaps you will change your mind?

Hi Both

He does often speak with great authority and does come across as Right (in an almost divine authority way). This didn't cause me concern in the past but it begins to grate and make one wonder just how right he can claim to be.

I will be pleasantly surprised if this programme and the one next week are not heavily polemical. It would also be refreshing to see that C4 was willing to give airtime to all those that he criticises in the same way that all public service broadcasters in the UK have to give equal/proportional airtime to political parties during election campaigns.

*takes a deep breath and prepares to wait........ *

turvy

Well what he has just said about the Roman Catholics was all very true.

It's hardly objective (so far) but, where religious programming accepts faith as fact and broadcasts accordingly, RD is accepting absence of faith as fact and explaining why.

<>

You are kidding, right? There are thousands of hours of religious broadcasting a year. A program like this is once in a blue moon.

The program was unavailable here

I don't suppose any kind, thoughtful subscriber to this thread happened to record it?

Yep. I missed about 2o seconds after the last adbreak. As soon as I fu=igure out how to transfer VHS to my PC & it's DVD burner I'll let you know (but I'll get the second episode first). Unless anybody recorded it straight to DVD of course.

Argh! Typos.

What kind of system are you using?

EB:

Yes, overly confident. As Turvy said:



Dawkins mentioned several times the 'I am right; you are wrong' mentality, and correctly applied it to several of his subjects, while failing entirely to see that He is also a member of that club!

IMO little of what Dawkins said was actually wrong, but his presentation - his unjustified and unjustifiable certainty - detracted from what he had to say. I felt he was also using science as a vehicle to promote his religious beliefs (as an Active Atheist, he actively believes there is no God, as opposed to a 'passive atheist' who simply finds the concept of God so unlikely it doesn't impinge on his thoughts at all), which I feel was inappropriate.

Science - when correctly and appropropriately applied - works for us in the real world. I believe this to be about the strongest justified and justifiable recommendation for any belief system known to man. That science can prove nothing, nor disprove the existence of God or fairies, means nothing in comparison.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<< I felt he was also using science as a vehicle to promote his religious beliefs (as an Active Atheist, he actively believes there is no God, as opposed to a 'passive atheist' who simply finds the concept of God so unlikely it doesn't impinge on his thoughts at all), which I feel was inappropriate.>>

Semantics aside (thank God), who would even comment if he launched an attack on the plausibility of the Greek pantheon? Just cause it's our ancient superstition of choice there's some kinda fuss?

But, back to semantics, P-C. Passive and active atheism? Wossat then? And what's the difference?

Hi Pedro!



As I said: an 'active atheist' *actively* believes there is no God, as opposed to a 'passive atheist' who simply finds the concept of God so unlikely it doesn't impinge on his thoughts at all.



I imagine scientists would, if he tried using science as a tool to do it with! Science is a great and useful thing, but it can't disprove or debunk God or religion any more than religion can manufacture CDs.

We spend too much of our precious lives, IMO, concerned with questions *that we know* cannot be answered. "Does God exist?" "Is the universe a figment of my imagination?" "How many angels will fit onto that pin-head?"

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Surely an active atheist must be, unless they're a fundie of some sort, a passive atheist initially? Meanwhile, you seem to think that because we can't know anything *absolutely*, we should take all claims of knowledge equally. Beg to differ there, amigo!

<<EB:

Yes, overly confident. As Turvy said:



Dawkins mentioned several times the 'I am right; you are wrong' mentality, and correctly applied it to several of his subjects, while failing entirely to see that He is also a member of that club! winkeye >>

This is a misunderstanding. You may think you are right about Dawkins (in an almost divine authority kind of way ). But you are not.

It is a religious error to associate truth with authority. They believed Jesus because he spoke with authority, etc. What Dawkins is saying is reasonable, and appears to be true. This has nothing to do with authority of any kind.

The believer has been taught to perceive authority wherever they perceive truth. This is not a natural or sound connection. So you perceive authority in Dawkins. This failure to make a distinction between being right and having authority is holding you back.

Why is this such a common, almost universal, reaction to sentiments such as I have expressed? I'm sure I've never said such a thing, but it's been said *to* me many times. I am genuinely mystified about this.

For the record: I do *not* think that all claims to knowledge should be considered equal, or treated equally or with equal priority.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"