Oh boy, I can't wait to watch this, I hope he likes it

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, February 21st, 2009 1:42am PST - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

See I don't understand why Richard Dawkins keeps banging this drum. Maybe because of how vocal he is, he keeps getting confronted by Christian and creationist viewpoints and so he feels he needs to fight back, but really he's never going to win anyone over with that method of communication. He is highly respected by people in the scientific community and is pretty much preaching to the converted. Anyone who's ever been won over by the logic of science and the evidence, and evolution is pretty unlikely to be swung over to the dark side, and anyone strongly swayed by promises of eternal hell, and punishment for lack of faith or doubt, and promise of heavenly eternal reward and who truly believes these things is pretty damn unlikely to change their mind. So both sides will be pretty stubborn and he's only likely to appeal by connecting with the more emotional and primal side and dare I say it religious side of someone's nature before he could even have a hope in hell's chance of swaying their view. Besides this he just doesn't have the charisma. He's logical, respected by scientists, quite arrogant (perhaps rightly so), and in short he has none of the qualities required to change someone's mind who thinks in completely different terms and operates on such a completely different wavelength to him. I do feel he'd be better expending his energy on being a great scientist and furthering the cause of science and not wasting his effort fighting against religion.

I don't see why if evangelicals can keep banging their drums, Dawkins can't.

Dawkins is "preaching" to the convertable... people who will listen but who may not have been exposed to the right information. He knows that there are people who will never change their mind, but there are plenty of others who really are looking for answers.

I'm glad that Dawkins exists. Perhaps more people will invest in reason rather than custom in the future. It will be a gradual change, but it will only happen because more and more people like Dawkins exist in the public domain.

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zifnab.

>> ^Psychologic:
Dawkins is "preaching" to the convertable... people who will listen but who may not have been exposed to the right information. He knows that there are people who will never change their mind, but there are plenty of others who really are looking for answers.
I'm glad that Dawkins exists. Perhaps more people will invest in reason rather than custom in the future. It will be a gradual change, but it will only happen because more and more people like Dawkins exist in the public domain.

I really believe that resurgence of atheism is actually part of the response to the rise of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity in Northern America. This is where the issue is more prevalent and most debated in our time. In Europe the transition from religious belief to atheism has been fairly organic with the release of more information and public discourse over many years.

However Atheism doesn't really encompass a spiritual side to it which is a necessity to many, in this regard I believe it will lead to new age beliefs becoming more normalized in society, we will proclaim ourselves atheist against man made religions while creating newer interpretation of why we are here and what our purpose is. Since Atheism like science is a fairly cold and inhumane system of belief. There is wonder in mathematics but there is no love in it.

Likewise it is totally predictable that the current economic crisis and the failure of the free market system could lead to a different kinds of resurgence in religious belief. Since the rise of religion in the early to late 90s was part of the decadent high times of the 70s and 80s. Studies show that in times of great difficulty alot of people turn to God for solace.

>> ^asakatali:
I don't see why if evangelicals can keep banging their drums, Dawkins can't.


He can. I'm not saying he can't I just don't see the point. If someone told me there was a magical elephant that ruled the Universe and controls all the laws of physics (and a large number of people also believed this) and I were a talented biologist I wouldn't take that as a challenge to convince everyone that the magical elephant doesn't exist. I feel he's made his point and responded to everything he can respond to and expressed his viewpoints in as clear and rational way as possible, if the rest of the world keep banging on about magical elephants then just ignore it and carry on with important work that can only help strengthen your position in the long run. Don't give credibility to the stories by constantly answering to them and rebutting them. My second point was that he's not got the same charisma that would give him the edge in convincing people and winning them over.

>> ^Psychologic:
Dawkins is "preaching" to the convertable... people who will listen but who may not have been exposed to the right information. He knows that there are people who will never change their mind, but there are plenty of others who really are looking for answers.
I'm glad that Dawkins exists. Perhaps more people will invest in reason rather than custom in the future. It will be a gradual change, but it will only happen because more and more people like Dawkins exist in the public domain.


If that's the case then I suppose it's fair enough, maybe it's useful to have someone winning these people over. I personally don't know any. I only ever meet atheists/agnostics, and very occasionally Christians. The Christians I've met are not open to questioning their beliefs so I wouldn't spend a great deal of my time trying to win them over, and besides they've heard it all before, and they all have very good answers (as far as they are concerned) to anything you may raise to doubt Christianity. Admittedly none of it follows real logic and is filled with lots of slightly clever logical fallacies that win over those who don't notice it, but still you can see when a Christian smugly answers one of your questions about anything which doubts God/Christianity/religion in general that you're not going to change their mind.
Anyway, as I mentioned before I just don't think Dawkins himself should be doing this. I'm not saying there shouldn't be someone out there fighting this socio-political PR battle on behalf of science, just that why Dawkins?
Why are we sending one of our most talented scientists to fight a battle for hearts and minds when he isn't talented in this area? It just seems such a waste. I'm sure there are much less talented scientists who are charming, knowledgeable and charismatic who would be better suited to this kind of role.

The distance between New York and San Francisco might not be 10 feet, but the distance between Berkley and Seattle is about six inches!

I read some statistic that 95% of Americans believe in God. I also read that 60-70% of those people actually don't believe in God, but are ashamed and afraid of admitting it because there is such a stigma from society if you aren't religious.

I am atheist, but my wife's family is Mormon. They knew going into our marriage what my stance was, yet my choice is constantly an issue with my in-laws. My mother-in-law actually told me one time that I couldn't be a good father if I didn't go to church. Seriously.

Dawkins and his colleagues are reaching a lot more people than you think. Those people that are rational enough to understand that the bible (for example) is not some rigid set of rules to live your life by but are too afraid to admit it need someone like Dawkins to make them less afraid to talk about their beliefs (or non-beliefs).

mrk871, I think you're vastly underestimating the amount of "fence-sitters" when it comes to religion. Like Hive13 said it could be as high as 60% of people who might not believe as strongly as they let on. Dawkins may be smug and a bit snarky at times, but he's been a hugely powerful agent in getting people to discuss religion, however uncomfortable it might be for some.

One of the reasons Dawkins is a brash as he is is because he's hoping a little of it will filter down. One of the things that annoys him and me immensely is this privileged position that religion has which puts it above criticism. We're not allowed to say god doesn't exist because you just don't criticise religion. Dawkins is being seen through forums like this and being seen to be critical and logical. The more people see this the more they'll get used to the fact that religion is just as silly as it sounds and that saying so isn't wrong.

Religious people have long used their right not to be criticised to criticise others. It's about time the tables turned. As Hive13 said, loads of people are afraid of the stigma associated with not being religious. They don't believe but they say they do because it's just what you do. The more these people get used to the idea of someone being able to say 'Hold on a minute, you're talking bollox' the sooner they'll be able to stand up and be counted.

Does Dawky have extra eyebrows shooting up at diagonals from his normal eyebrows?

>> ^hixsonj:
mrk871, I think you're vastly underestimating the amount of "fence-sitters" when it comes to religion. Like Hive13 said it could be as high as 60% of people who might not believe as strongly as they let on. Dawkins may be smug and a bit snarky at times, but he's been a hugely powerful agent in getting people to discuss religion, however uncomfortable it might be for some.


^ ^
And in response to other posters above too.
I guess I don't face the same levels of Christianity that people in the US face. It's easy to be atheist in the UK. If anything it's probably the reverse of the US i.e. it's more embarrassing to state that you are a Christian than an atheist.

Anyway the main jist of my point is that I feel that _Richard_Dawkins_ himself is wasting his time.
I.e. he is much more valuable to science than to be fighting against religion.
Maybe I'm wrong about the being able to sway people thing, and so we do need someone stating the cause of science and fighting back against religion.
It's just from over here it seems like we've lost a great scientist to a load of petty squabbling over something non-existent.

So I'm not saying there shouldn't be someone talking about it. Obviously from what you're saying there should be.
Just why use Dawkins?

It seems like sending an astronaut to negotiate some complex business deal.
I.e. there may be value to the business deal, but why not send someone more suited to the job, and let the astronaut explore space?

*blocked in Canada

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by CrushBug.