Richard Dawkins talks at Adelaide Writers Week March 2010

Richard Dawkins talks at the Adelaide Writers Week.
Can watch the 16minutes on ABC TV Sydney, this broadcast will expire in 10days
Big Ideas series 3episode 11 (SYD)
Also on Big Ideas web page a 5:45 video of his talk Richard Dawkins on Why Evolution Trumps Creationism 12 March 2010.
Full video 44:10min

He's the King of All the Atheists, and now Richard Dawkins is hammering home what he sees as his key argument against the existence of God. In his book, "The Greatest Show on Earth", Dawkins aims to put the theory of evolution in a factually unassailable position. Here, at Adelaide Writers' Week in 2010, he goes through his book chapter by chapter, and in doing so attempts to convince his audience of the absolute veracity of Darwin's theories.

Zelong.

[edit on 19/3/10 by Zelong]

Pity he's coming down under, I used to be such a big fan. I read all his books, yet research wider than the narrow scope dawkins deals with led me to a spiritual awakening. I feel being an athiest was an essential part of my awakeing because I had to fully explore all possibilities, so I thank Dawkins for that and I still agree with his views on the dogma and doctrine of religion, Yet I think evolution is just a mechanism for creation so their both partly right. It was deep into his personal interviews that dawkins reveals just how unsure he actually is, lucky the bible bashers didnt get hold of those. The knowledge that Dawkins is missing is not supposed to exist in the mainstream paradigm. An ontological shift and an admitting how little the human brain can ever know would go a long way to cut through the false vascade of completness that rigourous cross analysis and experimental repitition gives to the scientific method, not to mention a philosophy outline in the science curriculum. A shift from the reductionist notion that narrow specialization of expertise can be sufficiently intercommunicated to provide the whole. I would like to ask dawkins does he think the universe is infinite or finite? simple question. If he says the universe is finite he would see the flaws mount up upon trying to prove so. If one says the universe is infinte the nothing can be said to not exist, but simply all that could be, is.

Edit
Any new material in this or is he just re-wording the old data again?

[edit on 19-3-2010 by polarwarrior]

Originally posted by polarwarrior

Any new material in this or is he just re-wording the old data again?

[edit on 19-3-2010 by polarwarrior]

Sorry I wouldn't know polarwarrior. I came across Richard Dawkins last night on TV for the first time and looked up the link for the full version of his talk. I've noticed he has launched a new book "The Greatest Show on Earth".


Zelong.

[edit on 19/3/10 by Zelong]

reply to post by Zelong

I have read all of Dawkins books except the last one...
...I have given up on him...
...he has been moving further away from science with each book...
...he is now a scientist who is out of his depth in psuedo-philosophy and anti-theology.

I have better things to do.



[edit on 19/3/10 by troubleshooter]

reply to post by troubleshooter


I watched the shorter vid just cuz I missed his accent and I enjoy remaining open mined, he spoke of how little people In the U.S beleive in evolution and he said "if only people were exposed to the evidence", well dawkins I think you need exposure to this evidence...

Compendium of anomalies from respected journals

reply to post by troubleshooter

Thanks troubleshooter for your insight. I'm further into the theory of evolution, I like the idea of Directed Panspermia (Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick)

Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic."

and Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe's Professor's alien life 'seed' theory claimed
And than evolution is activated and rolls on.



Zelong.

[edit on 19/3/10 by Zelong]

Originally posted by troubleshooter
I have read all of Dawkins books except the last one...
...I have given up on him...
...he has been moving further away from science with each book...
...he is now a scientist who is out of his depth in psuedo-philosophy and anti-theology.

I have better things to do.

[edit on 19/3/10 by troubleshooter]

I agree with you. What irks me is that he consistently seems to wilfully blur the God/evolution and religion/God issues.
There is certainly nothing wrong with him outlining and expanding on his knowledge on the theory of evolution - he is, after all, a very renowned biologist.
Evolution does not preclude God, and belief in God does not equate to following mainstream religious teachings.

His expertise is biology, and I fail to see why his views on God would carry any more or less weight than anybody elses. I have yet to see any credentials of his that make him any kind of expert on the question of whether God exists or not. Yet people hail him as an unofficial 'atheist leader' due largely to his eminence in another completely unrelated field. A reputation he appears to exploit.

I think that Dawkins comes across as a real-life troll when he discusses God, and his main intention seems to be to antagonise and irritate a certain group of people to sell books/gain notoriety.
I read one of his books, and his arguments for atheism were pretty mundane, and certainly nothing that we haven't heard before. What did strike me was that his words seemed particularily vitriolic, which is ironic considering he often cites religion as a cause of problems, when he is intentionally perpetuating the same 'us' and 'them' conflict which leads to most of the problems in the world.

Also, I don't want this to sound like a character assassination, but I do genuinely wonder what his exact motivations are; while Bibles and other religious materials are distributed and available for free, his books aren't exactly cheap to anybody with just an idle curiosity about his subject matter.
Yet if he's so adamant about his beliefs being right, shouldn't he make his material more accessible to people throughout the world ?

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Benji1999]

Dawkins was sensational on Q&A the other week...

Handed that illiterate moron Fielding' arse to him on a plate....Riveting television

Originally posted by Benji1999
Yet if he's so adamant about his beliefs being right, shouldn't he make his material more accessible to people throughout the world ?

Well, he does lecture constantly. He appears in interviews frequently. He releases speeches like the one in the link. He's produced the movie/series "Root Of Evil" (which broadcasters in the USA have refused to air), etc. His book isn't any more costly than others on the bestseller list.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Well, he does lecture constantly. He appears in interviews frequently. He releases speeches like the one in the link. He's produced the movie/series "Root Of Evil" (which broadcasters in the USA have refused to air), etc. His book isn't any more costly than others on the bestseller list.

I don't really claim to know that much about Dawkins, but are his lectures free or reasonably priced admission ?
His book may be reasonably priced in comparison to other best sellers, but not in comparison to Bibles, Qu'rans etc.
If someone was curious about one of his books, then they may balk at paying that money for it, yet if someone was curious about the Bible, then they'd have no problem finding it for free on numerous sites on the internet, or finding a free copy.

He writes as if he's on a mission to convince everybody of atheism, yet the percentage of people who have even heard of him, yet alone heard him talk or read one of his books, is pretty tiny.
If he is solely committed to his cause, then surely he must realise he's facing a losing battle - considering, that there must be 100s of Bibles handed out free daily by missionaries throughout the world.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also, what is his general audience like ?
I've got the impression that he's tapped into and exploiting a niche market of angry atheists, while spoonfeeding them things that they want to hear.
I've always imagined his audiences are largely atheists anyway, just as people listening to a preacher would largely be adherents of the same religion as the preacher.

I imagine his audiences and fans are mostly atheists, who jot down his points so as they can learn more points to use in their next argument with religious people !

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Benji1999]

Originally posted by Benji1999

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Well, he does lecture constantly. He appears in interviews frequently. He releases speeches like the one in the link. He's produced the movie/series "Root Of Evil" (which broadcasters in the USA have refused to air), etc. His book isn't any more costly than others on the bestseller list.

I don't really claim to know that much about Dawkins, but are his lectures free or reasonably priced admission ?
His book may be reasonably priced in comparison to other best sellers, but not in comparison to Bibles, Qu'rans etc.
If someone was curious about one of his books, then they may balk at paying that money for it, yet if someone was curious about the Bible, then they'd have no problem finding it for free on numerous sites on the internet, or finding a free copy.

He writes as if he's on a mission to convince everybody of atheism, yet the percentage of people who have even heard of him, yet alone heard him talk or read one of his books, is pretty tiny.
If he is solely committed to his cause, then surely he must realise he's facing a losing battle - considering, that there must be 100s of Bibles handed out free daily by missionaries throughout the world.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also, what is his general audience like ?
I've got the impression that he's tapped into and exploiting a niche market of angry atheists, while spoonfeeding them things that they want to hear.
I've always imagined his audiences are largely atheists anyway, just as people listening to a preacher would largely be adherents of the same religion as the preacher.

I imagine his audiences and fans are mostly atheists, who jot down his points so as they can learn more points to use in their next argument with religious people !

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Benji1999]

It's clear to me that Dawkins isn't pushing a religion and his books are not religious texts. He certainly doesn't enjoy the tax-exempt status that religious institutions benefit from which makes printing and distribution much easier. You might also ask yourself why people pushing other ideas, such as 911 conspiracy theories, UFO's, bigfoot, etc., do not publish their material to be distributed for free. It's hardly a mystery to me.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
It's clear to me that Dawkins isn't pushing a religion and his books are not religious texts. He certainly doesn't enjoy the tax-exempt status that religious institutions benefit from which makes printing and distribution much easier. You might also ask yourself why people pushing other ideas, such as 911 conspiracy theories, UFO's, bigfoot, etc., do not publish their material to be distributed for free. It's hardly a mystery to me.

Dawkins may not be pushing a religion, but he's definitely pushing an anti-religion philosophy.
My comments relate to his book ''The God Delusion'', in which he appears to be quite adamant that religion is responsible for alot of the earth's ills, and that atheism would be beneficial to humanity. Surely, if he was that sincere about what he was writing about, he would be morally bound to spread his message as widely and as cheaply as possible ?
He may not have the luxury of tax-exempt status, but surely he could set-up a service to provide donations from atheists for printing costs, so as he could distribute copies of his books throughout the world.
Take his native Kenya, for example, how many people have actually heard of him there, compared to how many people have read the Bible ?
Even if that would be too expensive, he could at least allow people to distribute his next book on the subject for free on the internet.

As for people writing books on 11th September attacks, UFOs and other such things. Yes, they're trying to make money, but they don't have to compete with people who are distributing copies of the Official Story for free, or promoting the belief that aliens haven't visited earth etc.

If Dawkins was genuinely interested in 'helping' the world convert to atheism, then he's not exactly going the right way about it, nor is he making much of an impression ! Other than on his bank balance...

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
Dawkins was sensational on Q&A the other week...

Handed that illiterate moron Fielding' arse to him on a plate....Riveting television

i just watched that...boy is that fielding a weakling...no conviction whatsoever...

the tired arguments of such religious fanatics are....quite simply...ridiculous...they claim we get our morals from the bible...but..erm...they dont believe we should kill gay people..

you cant have it both ways...its also typical that as soon as dawkins had them all cornered they started to attack him and screaming for more respect...when all he was doing is quote from their beloved book....why cant they see how childish there beliefs are?

[edit on 19-3-2010 by alienesque]

I think this can make people believe Money is the only god that exist