Just watch the YouTube video …. it is rather funny.
Colbert is -as usual- an excellent foil for the guest to make some very good points. This time it is on God, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, of course.
-cvj
Dawkins on Colbert Report
Bookmark the permalink.
I am going to try to make this overly simple and reductionistic (both unfortunate but necessary).
First, if a valid criticim of Dawkins suggests that his competence does not include his discussing the qualitative nature of religious phenomena from the perspective of a scientist, then that same criticism need apply to all who discuss religion excepting only those who have extensive academic experience in its study (and that precludes metaphysicians). If on the other hand, the criticism is that as an atheist Dawkins cannot properly discuss religion, then that is ridiculous on its face.
Second, consider this contextual realization. Around the planet there are religions that have zero, one, three, four, seven, 17, 30, and 50 gods/goddesses. Each of these religions has a solid theological framework, is worshipped by countless people, and practiced regularly. Of the religions listed above none represent atheism, yet most people do not recognize that zero represents Buddhism, because most assume that Buddhism has god/goddess and that atheism is a religious phenomenon.
To subscribe that only this or that religion among all of these is “right” represents a view from a member of one of the ones that is “right” in the first place. Now, most scientists work in a naturalistic methodology that does not acknowledge the “god” problem, the work done is atheistic in its nature. Is it appropriate for these scientists to suggest that given the validity and verifiability of their work, atheist constructs have been of equal value to all other religious constructs–and that construct being that they are unimportant to the work. It seems to me that both Dawkins and Dennett, working in the field of evolutionary biology, might have something important and critical to say about how our species seems to create the constructs for religious faith and activities. They do so as scientists looking at the evidence among the history of speciazation over a billion years, and at the utilitarian evidence for our species development of religious constructs. To claim that their doing so is invalidated by their not being religious scholars really doesn’t matter.
I agree with Someone that Dawkins is outside of his circle of competence. The question of atheism is a methaphysical one, i.e. cannot be settled by scientific methods.
Someone:- A fair point to raise…
-cvj
Actually I realized shortly after writing the comment that I’d misread one of the ones above, so I take back my criticism.
Nothing wrong wih posting funny clips from comedy shows…I just wanted to draw some attention to the fact that Dawkins is outside his circle of competence here.
someone:- I agree that things are much more complicated than the discussion in the video. I would like to believe, and so would you, I suspect, that people make up their minds from considering a much wider set of arguments and experiences than a seven minute clip from a comedy show. It’s just a funny clip from a comedy show, I repeat. I see no evidence that the commenters are believing that the whole argument about religion is contained in that clip. So don’t despair.
Thanks for the interesting link, by the way!
Cheers,
-cvj
It’s remarkable that for all we hear about this country being controlled by Christians, there are supposedly-educated people here (like some of the commenters above) who seem to quite sincerely have the impression that there’s nothing more to theology than the straw men that Colbert sets up for Dawkins in the above video.
See http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html for an especially harsh critique of Dawkins’ latest book.
This is the best public repudiation of atheism I´ve ever seen. Colbert clearly identifies the main objections to atheism, the main being how can such a complex thing like intelligence arise from simple building blocks like elementary particles and corresponding forces. The Dawkin’s response is that you have to wait for very long time, but to me that is a greater miracle then invoking some kind of intelligent design or divine guidance (it is like building a house by throwing in the air the bricks and mortar until they fall into the place). Evolution can explain the small chages (i.e. how the giraffas got the long necks) but it cannot explain the appearence of life, or why the single-cell organisms evolved into humans.
I was so torn when i was watching this when it first aired. I greatly appreciate the Colbert persona’s efforts to show us the face of those with whom i am most opposed. But damn, i would have loved to have heard more from my hero Dawkins too. I don’t very often wish Stephen had been quieter, but this was one of them. Of course SR was channelling O’really and Hanniturd, and neither of them would have given Richard more than 30 secs.
If he interviewed Pat Robertson, he’d have to say he’s always been an athiest.
Hahaha, are you kidding? If he interviewed Pat Robertson, he would out-Robertson him by an order of magnitude.
And it would be AWESOME!
Richard Dawkins is having getting a star next to his name on my list of people I want to meet before I die. Colbert already has one, of course…
Whatever. He does his homework. Not only does he seem to know what he’s talking about, but he works in some funny angle at every turn.
I’m just glad it’s about 7 minutes, and not a half hour. You can only laugh so long. I’m too young to die.
Colbert says he believes in God. He has to. If he interviewed Pat Robertson, he’d have to say he’s always been an athiest. I’m unconvinced that anything he says is true. It isn’t his job.
Dawkins does agree with Colbert on the Bush reference.
Eiher that or – as is not uncommon common – he has a lot of physics-trained people on his staff (writing, or otherwise). Excellent.
-cvj
LOL! I can’t watch the video because I’m in a library right now, but I can already tell that it’s going to be great!
BTW, do you ever get the feeling that Colbert has taken a few physics classes? He did a hilarious segment on the Poincare conjecture, and I’m sure you’ve already seen the YouTube clip of his comments on Stephen Hawking. I mean, how many TV personalities have you ever heard mention Werner Heisenberg by name? 🙂