Richard Dawkins will be interviewed on Australian TV tonight, at 8pm. Since the news down under is full of this nonsense about the canonization of Mary McKillop, I hope they’ll talk about that madness, and that Dawkins will introduce a little reason into the media.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Yeah, I’ve spent the last couple of days lamenting my country’s fascination with this particular piece of nonsensical superstitious garbage. The newspapers today are filled with pictures of grinning, wide-eyed morons celebrating a complete rejection of reality.
It’s 2009, people. Grow up!
Saw this on the ABC website today, will definitely be watching (or at the least taping).
Richard Dawins?
Speaking of that tawdry madness, Grand Moff Pell has spoken. The emperor will be happy. Prayer cures cancer and they find your lack of faith disturbin….
http://www.theage.com.au/national/pell-adamant-prayer-cures-cancer-20091221-l8fy.html
Thank the Flying Spahgetti Monster I haven’t missed this! Thanks for the heads up PZ.
Now… the tricky part. How to watch this with a devout nth generation Catholic husband in the same room?
And there we have it – the same old, happily fleecing the sheep. This needs a heavy smack from the reality cluebat. I hope Dawkins addresses it.
At least they had the billboard pic with Mary and Joseph from New Zealand in the Herald Sun the other day.
This saint business is just so unbelievably stupid, I don’t quite know what to say.
And there is a certain irony in the fact that some dude in Minnesota, USA gives me tips as to what to watch on my local ABC at night…:-)
By the sounds of it Andrew Denton asked him a fair bit about his childhood in Kenya etc. Dont expect too much.
Plus it probably isn’t being done live – it would have been shot at least a couple of weeks ago, before Australia got its first
saintmagic prayer fairy for morons.Well, I’m sure people will get around to addressing the magic prayer fairy and the miracle of twitter. Not that it will make any difference to the good
hucksterscatholics.This whole Saint Mary thing makes me embarrassed to be an Aussie. We like to think all the religous crazies are in the US or the middle East, but this has brought them all out of the woodwork. I pray to His noodyless that He will make this bad dream disappear. RAmen
Yet another addition to the pantheon – just how many godlet/fairy things do these “monotheists” need? I know they say saints are merely intermediaries, but it looks like a variety ancestor worship to me; one which is evolving right under the morons brown little noses.
It has been more than a few decades since I was part of the catholic community (meaning a child compelled to be part) so my memory of the canonization process is a little dim. As I recall they fire the putative saint’s remains out of a canon and if they land upright and cast a shadow they become a saint in six weeks. Or something like that.
The Sydney Morning Herald has this to say of tonight’s programme…
Elders with Andrew Denton: Richard Dawkins
ABC1, 8pm
“FRANKLY the origins of the species remain a mystery to me. I’ve never quite got the genetic drift beyond a basic understanding that the dinosaurs died out, the collective gene pool was switched to delicate spin, we did the funky gibbon and the fittest survived. I couldn’t tell a hominid from a homo habilis if the building blocks of my DNA depended upon it.
Even so, I was looking forward to this encounter between Andrew Denton and the Mr Big of the evolutionary world, Richard Dawkins, as an opportunity to pinpoint the selfish gene. Instead, to Dawkins’ obvious frustration, Denton focuses the conversation on the personal. He barely touches upon the evidence for evolution, preferring to ask Dawkins his “definition of wisdom” and what makes him laugh at himself.
The missing link is entirely missing; not even a primeval beetle gets a look in. The Oxford academic does say that his boyhood in Kenya honed his sense of wonderment and he discusses his belief that the idea of a divine creator belittles “the elegant reality of the universe”.
His views on the “pernicious” effect of magical fiction on children are the highlight of the interview. Dawkins may be the essence of scientific reason but you wouldn’t want to leave him alone with your Harry Potter collection and a box of matches.”
I will certainly be watching.
As for Archbishop Pell saying that prayer cures cancer, I will get out and shut down all those nasty wasteful oncology schools. Lets face it who needs a scientific trial when you have the word of the catholic clergy? MMMMmmmmm hello little alter boy….
“Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson said yesterday Mary would have ‘had a little smile on her face seeing the good news spread by text messages.'”
Would this be before or after she asked what in the fuck text messages were? Or even after finding out what garbage can be found on the internet? Sheesh.
If Dawkins is suggesting that we not expose children to stories featuring magic (Tolkein, whatever) for fear of inspiring delusion, I really can’t agree in the slightest bit. It’s perfectly possible to teach children to distinguish magic and reality, allowing them to thrill in the nature of the universe and world at large while still listening to and reading the products of the remarkably creative human mind.
Thanks for the heads up, I didn’t know about it. I really don’t watch TV all that often but I’ll be sure to tune in for this! :)
@13: That reviewer clearly missed the point. The programme is Andrew Denton (who has proven himself quite a good interviewer with ‘Enough Rope’) interviewing elders. That’s the name of the programme – Elders. He asks them about life and what they’ve learnt, etc. Of course it’s bloody personal!
This is just like the reviews of ‘The greatest show on Earth’ (and the interviews RD gave) where they yammered on about ‘The God delusion’ and atheism instead of the book and evolution. Many people obviously can’t see past Richard Dawkins as the Militant Atheist.
You want ridiculous Catholic shenanigans? Try this: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/holy_see_declares_unique_copyright_on_papal_figure
‘If Dawkins is suggesting that we not expose children to stories featuring magic (Tolkein, whatever) for fear of inspiring delusion,’
Dawkins has appeared in ‘Doctor Who’ of course, which never strays from hard science :-)
There’s nothing wrong with fantasy. It’s stocked in the ‘fantasy’ section of the bookstore and it has the word ‘fantasy’ written on the back cover. Ask the fans of fantasy what they like and they’ll say ‘fantasy’. They know what it is: the clue is in the name.
It’s the stuff featuring gods and miracles that people claim is true that’s the problem.
Speaking of debates, bloggingheads has Wright vs. Hitchens up. Wright misundersands, mischaracterizes and becomes shrill; he then whines about Hitchens’ TONE. A ping-pong tree sponge is more self-aware.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24732
Thanks co. That has got to be an inspiration to atheist cartoonists everywhere.
What? They think they have extradition treaties that the holey sea can use to prosecute unauthorised references to the pope or his image?
Will definately be watching our national broadcaster tonight. Professor Dawkins seems incapable of uttering a dull sentence.
I too am absolutely amazed by this Mary McKillop business. On TV last night was a woman (a nun I think) talking about when the Pope came out to Australia (for the huge taxpayer subsidized Catholic Love-In in 2008), he prayed at some site significant to McKillop. It may have been her tomb, or it might have been the spot where she used to clip her toenails, I’m not sure.
Anyway, this nun was saying that she beleived that Joe Ratzinger and Mary “had a good rapport together.”
What the hell are these people on? Whatever McKillop may have been, she is, after all, -dead-, and thus unable to form rapport with anything.
Admittedly, she did speak to me this morning to tell me that my fly was undone when I was about to leave the house and thus saved me some embarrassment, but come on!
Seriously though, why is it that the media does not jump onto it when people like this claim to be speaking to dead people or imaginary beings? If I had made my claim above in all seriousness publicly I would rightly be thought a loon, or even more so. But the head of one of the largest enterprises in the world, in fact a nation state, makes the same claim and no one bats an eyelid.
Because it would be “impolite” and might offend someone.
Why, the opium of the people of course.
Will they exhume her and carry her rotten corpse around I wonder, like the dude they carried with them to Sydney last year ?
“Dawkins has appeared in ‘Doctor Who’ of course, which never strays from hard science :-)
There’s nothing wrong with fantasy. It’s stocked in the ‘fantasy’ section of the bookstore and it has the word ‘fantasy’ written on the back cover. Ask the fans of fantasy what they like and they’ll say ‘fantasy’. They know what it is: the clue is in the name.
It’s the stuff featuring gods and miracles that people claim is true that’s the problem.”
***
True stuff! I thought it bizarre (and weirdly out of character) if that was what he was saying.
Will try to get this on YouTube quickly, depends if the new messy DVD recorder works.
Great Waves, the ABC will put it online on their site.
Today I had the pleasure of hearing one of the local talk-back radio hosts credulously allowing their guest waffle on about the “strict criteria” used to “verify” miracles without the slightest hint of critical comment.
We’re not as bad as the USA but, it seems, we are trying.
Darren, who was that if I may ask ?
Denton does some excellent stuff but is a little over-rated as an interviewer. It’s just that really skilled interviewers are so few and far between that he stands out in mediocre company. At least he’s fair dinkum and his interviewees aren’t merely grist to his career mill.
As for the magic prayer fairy, McKillop, I’m confused about how a mere mortal can “create” a saint. Surely she’s already either a saint or not. I would have thought god decides. What’s the pope and his buddies got to do with it? They can only report that they think that’s what god might have decided. They can’t actively “beatify” or “canonize” her. God already did that. Or not.
Then there are the saints that have been defrocked over the centuries. Does god retract their blessings and their miraculous granting of the wishes of the prayerful – like, retrospectively? How does that work?
Get in the guy who worked out the transubstantiation. He’s good at sorting out these sorts of paradoxes with the wave of a magic rhetorical wand. “Looks like wine, tastes like wine, smells like wine, molecular composition of wine – but it’s blood, okay, not any old blood, blood of christ, okay, there you go.”
Just for the record, apparently 68% of Australians believe in a god. Long way to go yet.
C’mon Aussies! Time to make a noise about how fed up we are with this religion shit clogging our system.
The Saint Mary stuff is stupid enough, as is Bishop Pell’s rubbish (if its a “long shot” to pray for a cure what makes him think it works at all?), but we have had the iniquitous funding of the Parliament of World Religions ($2.5m for 4000 attendees) with none for the World Atheist Convention at the same venue which has sold nearly 2000 tickets already.
We had over $150m funding for the Catholic love in on world youth day, we have chaplains in all the public state schools along with fundie religious instruction.
Time to get active. Join the Australian Secular Lobby (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=171506088479) and the Australian Atheist Foundation if you haven’t already (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/). Lets really start making a stink and kicking back when the media give these loonies a free pass.
I don’t believe it: Looking closely at the photo on the ABC website – RD is SMILING. This is the first publicity shot of Prof Dawkins that actually does not look like a scowling, anti-fun New Athiest.
Hooray for Public Broadcasting!
Form over content moron @ 31,
If you’re so concerned about form, I suggest you learn spelling next.
Ya know , if you dismiss what RD says because he’s not smiling and “anti-fun”, I might just dismiss what you write here because you can’t fucking spell.
I’m watching it now and I assume that the comment about Harry Potter was some hyperbole on the reviewer’s part. Let’s see.
:)
If you’re outside Australia, (or miss the broadcast) you should be able watch it on iView:
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/search/denton
I suspect it’ll show up after the broadcast.
Rorschach, I strongly suspect Rixaeton was being sarcastic, simply commenting on the way Dawkins is usually [to his opinion. I wouldn’t know if he’s right or wrong] represented.
And it’s not a misspelling. Everybody knows that, while many people are athy, Dawkins is the athiest of them all.
[Chuck Norris facts blueprint]
Richard Dawkins expected the Spanish Inquisition!
[/Chuck Norris facts blueprint]
I just heard the bit that the reviewer was talking about with fantasy books.
He’s just wondered if fantasy might predispose someone to being religious. He didn’t assert that they did. He seemed to be thinking out loud.
Well I got caught up watching other stuff, luckily I taped it and will hopefully watch tomorrow morning.
Im watching old Star Trek episodes.
He’s aired such things before. Though I’ve got to say, most the people I know who are into science fiction and fantasy are usually atheists.
As for the predisposition to the supernatural, Bruce Hood has given the best explanation I’ve ever heard with Supersense. A must read, even better than Michael Shermer’s How We Believe or Why People Believe Weird Things.
Just watched it. Pretty good interview. The last question was hilarious!
*spoiler*
Denton: “Having read a lot of your work, I’m curious… what star sign are you?”
Dawkins: (startled look) “Are you serious?”
Denton: “No, I just wanted to see your reaction. It was worth it.”
For anyone interested, it’s online here. Check out the Web extra.
I think it was a terrible interview, almost embarrassing at times. Denton has done far better than this, very awkward questions and little rapport.
Disappointing. :-(
Denton can do (and has done) far better than this.
He concentrated on irrelevancies, and hardly touched the issues that matter.
I too was disappointed with Denton’s questioning. He has spoken of his beliefs in other programs and I feel this prejudiced his line of questioning and the way he responded to the answers given. Very uncomfortable to watch at times – could have been so much better.
Well, to be fair, the interview seemed to be focused more on Richard as a person, rather than on his message…which is certainly a viable option.
I agree, it seemed very stilted in places. Richard admits that he doesn’t know why people should be interested in him rather than his message and what he can tell them…he seemed to find a lot of the questions dealing with himself quite uncomfortable and awkward, which of course would affect the rapport between the two of them.
To be honest, I found the web extra better than the interview that was screened.
I concur with JeffR — I normally enjoy Denton’s interviews but this one was poor. Not sure why. Denton has shown in the past that he has an ability to open people up. In this case he clearly misfired and Dawkins became more guarded. His questions seemed more confrontational than enquiring and I wonder if he had an agenda to push on this occasion. The whole thing kinda came off as a wasted opportunity.
I tuned in with a reasonable level of anticipation. Elders is generally an interesting show, learning about life from those who have had a lot of it.
It seemed that Dawkins came into the interview expecting to find much of the usual “tell me about evolution and your new book” kind of stuff. Anyone who knows how Denton operates knows that he will not discuss (scantly if at all) the big issues, if you want that information it is easy to find. Denton cares not for the usual things and tries to delve deep to reveal the real person underneath. The person we never get to see.
I thought Dawkins was surprised and somewhat puzzled by this but nevertheless endeavoured to provide some interesting insight into his life and the person he is. He appeared uncomfortable much of the time, unfortunate as it was quite the opposite of Denton’s intent.
Dawkins seemed to think if he has any useful wisdom to offer it is through his work as a scientist and not so much his own personal musings on how we go through life. Denton has an ability to give his audience a sense of getting to know the interviewee though this attempt was not his most successful.
Definitely better than last week’s episode though: an Australian aboriginal woman who later became a catholic nun talking about how she reconciles the Dreamtime stories with her Christian faith.
Denton is just as embarrassing as the rest of the australian media contingent, I’m not surprised this interview went that way.
Anna Coren is at CNN now.
Enough said.
Honest quality journalism clearly is not a tradition in this country.
I agree with a lot of the comments so far, the interview really wasn’t anything to write home about.
“Wnat does it mean to you to commune with your books?”
Remember Denton from that piss weak ‘Enhough Rope’ which was about as dilettantish as this ‘interview.’
Or with proper Australiana: ‘Fuck me dead’ said Foreskin Fred, the bastard from the bush.
‘Wnat’ is better known under the spelling ‘What’, but could maybe be used as a contraction of ‘whatnot’ in the future?
Oh, and Australia’s paedophile-protector-in-chief (Pell) gets his first saint, canonised for not being a whistle-blower?
Richard couldn’t wait to get out of this awkward interview, he was up before the last question was finished :-)
I don’t blame him, I feel the same way when people ask me personal questions…
* this may contain spoilers:
I too feel that the interview was awkward. I get a rather strong sense of genuine humility about Prof Dawkins; he really does appear to be more concerned about… well science. Reason and logic, and understanding the reality that surrounds us and we are a part of, seems to be far more important than letting the public or the interviwer know what his personal opinion might be of things like belief, or wisdom.
I found it amusing and deeply logical that, when asked “How do you define ‘wisdom'” Prof Dawkins replies “I have a perfectly good dictionary on the shelf over there.” Almost Mr Spock-ish.
And for the benefit of Rorschach, I have a great deal of respect for Prof Dawkins, even if I cnt speel somtimes. Or put commas in their place :)
I had a mixed reaction to the interview…
I think some of Denton’s questions were too blunt and obvious and put Dawkin’s on the defensive. It was as though Denton expected Dawkin’s to have a little anecdote to explain his point of view on success or wisdom.
I am very interested in Dawkin’s as a person. The one thing that really sparked my interest in him as a person was seeing him talking to a woman going on about “triangle DNA” and he didn’t shoot her down. I think it was from “The enemies of reason” (will have to watch that again soon).
The last question was the highlight and that expression and long pause before Dawkins asked “Are you serious?” was priceless.
I am very much looking forward to the atheist convention in Melbourne.
i like it when interviews have personal bits and it started out rather nicely but it seemed to get too awkward as it rolled on.
I think Denton expected Dawkins to spout pseudo-philosophical babble like most other people would. What is the definition of wisdom? Can you imagine the Dalai Lama answering such a question? 4 hours of nonsense, which would add nothing to the discussion. For that reason I think Denton missed the mark a little with the direction of his questioning. Its a shame, because Denton commonly does much better than this effort.
Every time I hear Dawkins speak I am more impressed as to how genuine the guy is.
Imagine if Denton had asked about what prompted Richard to write The God Delusion. He might have been able to sit back and listen for the rest of the interview. Sigh, golden opportunity down the drain.
Oh, and what was with the “strident atheist” descriptor?
Believe it or not, Carl Sagan and the Dalai Lama have engaged in countless hours of ‘nonsense,’ and saw pretty well identically in most issues.
Yeah I’m bitter, but there are much more deserving targets of hostility.
@devnull
I thought Dawkins did a great job of answering those questions. Especially on “the definition of success”, which was a rather strange question.
Saw the show last night.
It was dissapointing, Denton can do better.
Although I thought his last question was a beauty.
Now getting off track to the saint issue.
They are coming out of the woodwork in Oz now.
Front page of the Daily Telegraph, a Sydney daily newspaper.
Australia’s next saint, lets not stop at one.
URL below
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/my-dead-son-has-miraculous-powers-says-lina-tannous/story-e6freuy9-1225812574412
I thought Richard was going to job him one (punch him) after that last question. He seemed to want to escape as quickly as he could at the end; I would like to know whether he even spoke to Denton again after the handshake (he was smiling, though it could have been one of those “you’re a fucking goose” smiles).
I don’t think the interview went well for either Denton or Dawkins. I got the impression that Dawkins had not done his homework on Denton beforehand, otherwise he would have known that Denton would be asking questions about things like success and wisdom.
Instead, Dawkins dismissed that line of questioning, telling Denton to use a dictionary, which was patronising and made him (Dawkins) appear arrogant and pompous.
For Dawkins to get up and walk out before the interview finished was particularly rude. He obviously didn’t get the joke and took it personally and yet, for the entire interview he made it clear he wasn’t interested in getting personal. It showed another side of Dawkins, which was possibly Denton’s purpose.
I agree. It was particularly telling when Richard said something along the lines of “…the questions you’ve been told to ask everyone (in this series)”. I thought Denton was a little offended by that (“no, they’re the ones I’ve chosen”), and it became clear that perhaps neither man had done their homework.
In Richard’s defence, he was probably a little defensive, considering the nutjobs who sometimes con him into an ‘interview’.
Like a lot of people I found the interview disappointing. Richard Dawkins may be a very private person but he has become for many a figurehead for humanism. The “Elders” series attempts to find out more about significant men and women towards the ends of their lives, what they have learned, loved, and felt along the way. If Richard was not willing to give up this information perhaps he would have been better to decline the interview. But by not answering these questions he has actually missed out on a great opportunity. Many religious people make the claim that without God you cannot live a rich and satisfying, meaningful and emotional life. Here was the perfect opportunity to show that a life of the mind and the humanist world view could produce all these things. I have no doubt that Richard has had a rich and rewarding life and picked up a few unique insights along the way and I would have loved to know more about his perspectives on life. But instead he came across as a dry old academic who was not interested in the human experience. His deference to the dictionary definitions suggested that he doesn’t participate in concepts like wisdom and success and perhaps even emotion.
Perhaps his long and combative relationship with the media has taught him to keep his mouth shut. Perhaps he really is an intensely private person. I have the greatest respect for Professor Dawkins but it felt like a missed opportunity to me.
What a pity we didn’t have Douglas Adams to step in and give his own life experiences. Now I know I left my ouija board lying around here somewhere ….
I prefer to think that Douglas is not gone, but just spending a few years dead for tax purposes…
Sorry i’m a bit late for this one, if people wanna watch it but live outside of great ozzy land the following link works fine for me:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/
ITS SNOWING!
It wan’t a good interview at all on Denton’s part. Denton, for all his cleverness and humanity, couldn’t deviate from his formulaTake your researcher-generated fact sheet. Smile. Give an intimation of empathy. Slide the knife in. Get a reaction. Simulate surprise, or sympathy.
He delights in catching subjects off guard by knowing more than they thought possible. “My dog, what else might he know about me that’s supposed to be secret?” This, of course, gives Denton the upper hand. Nice for him but not good for a really authentic interview.
He does seem to collect heads for his wall, even if they’re not on his “career” wall but now, rather, on his “trophy” wall.
For a really good interviewer the way was clear for Denton to simply chat with Dawkins about life in general, things that Dawkins would be comfortable chatting about. Little animals, delight in nature. Stars. Squid. And through that we would have gleaned more of the wisdom of the man without the persistent challenging and provocation. Denton seemed to be wanting to have him “answer for” his position. Well, Dawkins doesn’t have to answer to Denton for his position but if he’d had a chance to chew the fat we might have learnt far more and been given a chance to understand him for more deeply.
No glory for Denton in this one. Not in our book.
It was probably the worst interview I’ve ever seen Andrew Denton give.
Somewhat OT:
The whole ‘Australian Saint’ biz has a Sydney couple jumping on the bandwagon to fleece the gullible:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/my-dead-son-has-miraculous-powers-says-lina-tannous/story-e6frg12c-1225812662714
“Dawkins has appeared in ‘Doctor Who’ of course, which never strays from hard science :-)”
Are you sure it was Richard Dawkins who appeared in Dr Who? His wife, Lalla Ward, was in it as Princess Astra and then Romana. Which episode did RD himself appear in?
Disappointing. Lost opportunity. etc. etc. I didn’t find the final question funny. If Denton had shown some real skill he would have rolled with it and moved on without trying so hard to be a dick.
Boo. Disrespectful. Most of the interview was pointless and impolite. The ending was horrible, nothing more than a setup to embarrass Dawkins. I also cringed every time Denton mixed his own beliefs in with his questions and snide retorts. There were also deeper explanations that Dawkins gave for why people feel a love for their god on the web extras segment at the very end before it cuts off that were edited out of the broadcast version.
I’ve got to say I enjoyed the last question, it seemed a very Aussie thing to do. But as for the interview as a whole, too many questions that just fell flat. It seems that Dawkins didn’t do his homework before agreeing to such an interview, which is a shame because the interview last year with David Attenborough was fantastic.