1. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100020 by Kevin Ronayne on December 18, 2007 at 4:56 am

Many thanks to Josh for providing these clips. They provide a fascinating insight into the differences between the various formats. At one level I agree that you shouldn't really need a hi-def format to appreciate a discussion like this, but looking at these clips I know I'd choose the HD formats every time.

A couple of technical notes:

(1) The 1080 HD format will really tax your PC hardware - you'll need a suitably powerful graphics card and a 1920 x 1200 monitor to play it properly and appreciate it.

(2) The 480 ('DVD') format seems to confuse certain playback software. As you would expect, QuickTime plays it back properly. However, both Media Player Classic and AVS DVD player render it incorrectly - the aspect ratio is not wide enough (or too high). If you are using either of these players, you can manually override the aspect ratio, and set it to the correct 16:9. It will then display properly.

2. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91440 by Kevin Ronayne on November 28, 2007 at 10:06 am

It's worth pointing out that a book such as TGD would probably have been banned (or at least very unwelcome) in Ireland as recently as 50 years ago.

The problem appears to be that rather than becoming more liberal, quite a number of "Islamic" countries appear to be heading in the other direction at present.

3. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70398 by Kevin Ronayne on September 15, 2007 at 10:33 am

From the article:

... Cornwell has done an excellent job in providing a book that should, in an ideal world, be sold taped to every copy of The God Delusion as an essential corrective.

In an ideal world, 'The God Delusion' should be taped to every copy sold of the Bible, Koran, Talmud, etc. as an essential corrective.

4. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66698 by Kevin Ronayne on August 31, 2007 at 3:12 am

Here we go again:

"The stated purpose of the book is to make its readers atheists."

Where, or where, does RD say that exactly? Lying for Jesus again by the looks of it.

5. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34767 by Kevin Ronayne on April 25, 2007 at 7:10 am

From the article:

"Prof Dawkins declined to comment on Lord Winston's criticisms until he had seen the full text of the lecture."

Which could mean:

"Prof Dawkins is trying to work out a polite yet scathing response"

or

"Prof Dawkins is contacting his publishers to see if his dedication to Robert Winston can be removed from future editions of 'Climbing Mount Improbable'"

.... nah, it'll never happen!

6. Irish poll shows parents no longer want to force religion on to children

Comment #32401 by Kevin Ronayne on April 17, 2007 at 2:21 am

From the article:

"Just over half claim they attend mass weekly"

This seems very high - maybe half those polled did indeed *claim* to attend mass weekly, but it's a fair bet that *actual* levels of observance are a good deal lower than this, especially in urban areas. It seems that Irish people still have a tendency to want to appear more religious than they actually are.

7. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28820 by Kevin Ronayne on March 31, 2007 at 4:35 am

Re Comment #28706 by Damien Trotter
"There was a HUGE cheer when Professor Dawkin's name was announced!

I didn't notice the look on Dara O'Briain's face, however, it must be noted that he too is an atheist."

Dara O'Briain actually announced and presented the Book of The Year award, for which TGD was nominated. I think he'd hardly have been able to contain himself if it had won, and he had to present the award to Richard!

8. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #27986 by Kevin Ronayne on March 27, 2007 at 1:52 pm

If at first you don't succeed, try scare tactics. So limbo is out, but eternal fire and brimstone is back in? What ever happened to Papal infallibility?

Better luck next time, Joey.

9. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26662 by Kevin Ronayne on March 21, 2007 at 2:57 am

By sheer coincidence, I am currently reading Cornwells' "Hitler's Pope", about Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII). To put it mildly, this is not a book which one would use to support the case for organised religion, and certainly not the current strictly hierarchical Catholic Church. Cornwell describes himself as an agnostic (or lapsed Catholic, depending on what you read), so I'm not really sure what he's up to here.

10. God's dupes

Comment #25900 by Kevin Ronayne on March 15, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Another classic quote:

"Mythology is where all gods go to die".

11. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23392 by Kevin Ronayne on February 28, 2007 at 11:08 am

Quote from Mark R, comment 42:

"No commericals either or was that just great editing."

The former ... my editing skills aren't *that* good, not by a long shot!! Yes, the BBC has no commercial advertisements at all. BTW, I don't know when the interview was actually recorded - it may have been the tail-end of last year.

12. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23339 by Kevin Ronayne on February 28, 2007 at 1:52 am

Just to clarify something here: at one point, RD refers to an Irish radio discussion, but what he was actually referring to was his TV appearance on "The Panel" program in early December last year.

I don't know much about William Crawley, so I wasn't sure if he was genuinely trying to trip RD up, or just acting as a "devil's advocate". Whatever his motive, it seems to have brought out the best in the Prof., who was able to answer calmly and at length. What a contrast to some other interviews! (Are you listening, CNN?)

13. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23226 by Kevin Ronayne on February 27, 2007 at 2:43 am

I'm surprised that no-one as of yet has mentioned RD's point from the God Delusion: that DNA analysis of Jesus could shed light on whether or not he had a biological father. In other words, the claim of virgin birth was one that in theory could be settled scientifically. I wonder if this means that we need to find a Y-chromosome in this DNA to debunk the virgin birth claim, or will it suffice merely to show that he was diploid and not haploid?

I speak partly in jest of course. At any rate, any evidence that contradicts the biblical account will be trashed by the faithful, just as predicted in TGD.

Oh, I add my vote for Mr. Mark's "communion wafer" put-down!

14. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21602 by Kevin Ronayne on February 10, 2007 at 4:42 am

Re Comment #21492 by NMcC
"Surely it was William Hague, the failed ex-Tory leader, taking the piss."

Ah! That's it. I kept thinking to myself that the interviewer sounds like some comedian who has guest-presented the BBC show "Have I Got News For You". Well, Hague has indeed presented said show, but he's not a comedian. Not intentionally, anyway.

15. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21600 by Kevin Ronayne on February 10, 2007 at 4:32 am

I think Clint Eastwood in 'Heartbreak Ridge' put it best:

"With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore the hell out of me"

Not to mention annoy and enrage, given McGrath's continuing misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins - both the man and his work. Honestly, it's like listening to a broken record.

16. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21392 by Kevin Ronayne on February 9, 2007 at 2:42 am

"This is not meant to be a friendly parody. The creator actually thinks they are deconstructing the arguments in The God Delusion (see the linked website below). - Josh"

Thanks to Josh for clarifying this up front. Personally, I think this parody has seriously backfired - it wouldn't be the first time the the religious/creationist lobby has shot itself in the foot like this.

The intended audience might indeed find it funny, although they would really need to have a more detailed knowledge of RD's work and arguments than they typically posess. However (and this is just my opinion) I think it works much better going the other way.

Oh, and thanks to Brian Coughlan for the "Kissing Hank's Ass" video link!

17. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16706 by Kevin Ronayne on January 8, 2007 at 8:00 am

I agree with the comments made by people such as wice (in #16700).

Christians who complain about films being made that mock Christianity but not Islam should probably consider it something of a back-handed compliment. Much as I'd like to see someone making "The Life of Omar", I don't think it's likely to happen any time soon.

Even the 1976 film "The Message" (aka Mohammad, Messenger of God) - which followed Islamic practice in not showing Mohammed's face at any time - provoked some fierce reaction, including a mass hostage taking in Washington, D.C.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad,_Messenger_of_God_(film)

In today's environment, I am willing to bet that the reaction would be more (and not less) extreme.

18. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15831 by Kevin Ronayne on January 3, 2007 at 8:54 am

While the point about having the opportunity to analyze Saddam's personality and pyschological development is a very valid one, I hope that RD is not arguing that it is somehow more important than his basic right to live. I think not, and I think the main thrust of the article is correct.

One nit-pick I have is this sentence:

Then again, are there lots of Saddams and lots of Hitlers in every society, but most of them end up as football hooligans wrecking trains rather than dictators wrecking countries.

I don't think so. Anyone who is serious dictator material would probably very quickly gravitate to the role of organizer, inciter and exploiter of other people. They are often very intelligent people who know how and when to keep themselves out of serious trouble.

Uniquely privileged evidence on the American government's enthusiastic arming of Saddam before they switched loyalties is now snuffed out at the tug of a rope (no doubt to the relief of Donald Rumsfeld and other guilty parties – it is surely no accident that the trial of Saddam neglected those of his crimes that might – no, would – have implicated them).

It is correct to say that Rumsfield et al are relieved to see end of someone who could implicate them on any number of counts, although Saddam's credibility would have to be taken into account - I'm not sure I would have believed a single word that he might have said without independent corroboration.

However "American government's enthusiastic arming of Saddam" is wide of the mark. I am always taken aback to see this assertion. It seems to imply that either:

(a) The US was the prime supplier of arms to Iraq
or:
(b) that only the US arms deals matter, and that other countries are somehow exempt because of their subsequent actions (or more accurately, inactions).

The second option is nonsense in my view, yet many people behave as if this is in fact the case. A moral philosopher could have a field-day with this. As for the actual arms sales to Iraq, see the following Wikipedia entry for a summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

This table explicitly excludes WMD's - biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. However, even with those included, the US would still have been a minor player in terms of arms supplies. Very probably, the supply of information and know-how and the organizing of some finance deals was much more important. Even taking these into account, the US would still have been a minor player, and much more so if a relative measurement is made adjusting for the size of the US economy. Another Wikipedia entry goes into more detail about this whole subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Military_armaments.2Ftechnology_2

For specific information on US arms deals (and other support) see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

As far as WMD weapons and technology is concerned, the US was far from the only country involved - even in the specific and devastating case of chemical weapons. I am scratching my head as to how the US can attract (very, very justified) criticism for supplying these, while other countries again seem to be exempt. For example, as far as I know, France has never been brought to task for supplying the nuclear technology and know-how that would have eventually allowed the Iraqis to build nuclear weapons. They cannot have been ignorant of Iraqi intentions, not least because the Iraqis were openly trying to acquire even more weapons-oriented nuclear technology than what they had to eventually settle for.

Very little of this information should be big news to anybody - most of it has been common knowledge for many years.

It is also worth pointing out that the Iraqi regime was largely bankrolled by the oil-rich gulf states, including Kuwait. This was presumably because of the war against an Iran intent on exporting (with revolutionary fervour) it's brand of Shia Islam. In other words, religion again. As far as I know, none of these countries have ever been seriously brought to task for funding a war against another country, which goes to show just how fickle standards of morality can be.

19. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14089 by Kevin Ronayne on December 21, 2006 at 4:43 am

I think the various Christian groups in Jerusalem are just the same, engaging in periodic turf wars to control certain Christian sites and artifacts.

Pythonesque? Absolutely. You couldn't make this stuff up.

20. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13692 by Kevin Ronayne on December 19, 2006 at 5:43 am

I say, I say: what's the difference between this program and "The Wizard of Oz"?

... there's only one straw man in "The Wizard of Oz"!

All jokes aside, it was a woeful attempt by Liddle to undermine atheism. It seemed to be a case of "OK, let's see if I can argue a case against atheism and atheists". I think he just looked for sound-bites and 'evidence' to suit whatever he wanted to say.

The way in which he presented opinions as facts was just appalling, not to mention playing fast and loose with history itself.

21. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13534 by Kevin Ronayne on December 18, 2006 at 6:04 am

So far, I've only got through 35 minutes and about 5/6 religious callers, and I am torn between laughing and crying.

Mike Dickin is excellent. A completely different style to Kim Hill, but thoroughly suited to the format.

I have just listened to a nutter speaking about the end-of-days prophesies in the bible. RD wondered loud if the program's filter for keeping out nutcases is working properly!

22. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #13497 by Kevin Ronayne on December 18, 2006 at 2:46 am

Wow - that was the best interview so far. Kim Hill sounds like a first-class presenter.

I will echo Philistine's sentiments (in comment #13485): What a pity it was broadcast at an off-peak time in New Zealand.

"... Ah, but here it has reached a wider audience."

Amen to that!

23. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13491 by Kevin Ronayne on December 18, 2006 at 2:22 am

Re: Comment #13487 by BushYakker on December 18, 2006 at 1:57 am

"This was typical of the nursery school grade patronising that ITV specialise in."
...
"People who regularly watch ITV news and current affairs (or any other ITV programmes) are usually somewhat cerebrally challenged."

Since I supplied the recording, I suppose I'd better clarify! For the record, I wouldn't watch ITV in the proverbial month of Sundays, not for news/current affairs, or for anything else. I don't even scan the ITV schedules, and I wouldn't have known RD would be making an appearance, were it not for the notice on this web site.

None of which means that BushYakker is wrong - (S)he is right on just about every point!

24. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12465 by Kevin Ronayne on December 12, 2006 at 4:08 am

RE: 2. Comment #12458 by bobafrett on December 12, 2006 at 3:39 am

"Well done to Dara O'Briain for letting Richard do the talking! Not a very common skill in many other chat show hosts.
The two guys on the left were a waste of space though."

bobafrett,

your two points are actually linked. Normally, the panelists would be interacting with the guest to a much greater degree in the interests of humour. However, I suspect that on this occasion they were instructed to keep relatively quiet, so as to allow Richard express himself without undue interruption.

25. God's Inbox

Comment #11825 by Kevin Ronayne on December 7, 2006 at 1:21 pm

Now that *is* funny! I love the 'Sopranos' reference, and all of the icons and other programs scattered around the desktop.

26. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11647 by Kevin Ronayne on December 6, 2006 at 8:35 am

Re:

32. Comment #11645 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 7:51 am

"18. Comment #11550 by Martha

That was a lot of writing for zero feedback Martha, I hope you just copied and pasted it. I found it humorous so you didn't waste your time. More talkers than listeners frequent this place, I think."

Don't worry Yorker. I think we can go with the copy-and-paste, as this comes straight from a well-known list of student bloopers:

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~beej/bloopers.html

How much of this stuff is real, how much is urban myth, and how much is just plain made up is open to question. I wouldn't be surprised if almost all of it was real.

27. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11297 by Kevin Ronayne on December 4, 2006 at 4:47 am

Re: Comment #11291 by Melisande

"OK I think I'm getting better with this whole fake vs real RD thing that keeps happening."

Melisande,

whoever is doing this spoof posting (there may be several people) is getting better as well. I looked at that post and said to myself "Well, it *might* be the Prof., but I doubt it".

This is getting to be like a version of the Turing Test. In this case, the question is: "Is that really Richard Dawkins writing that comment?"

I know Josh has promised a login/verification system for comments, but I presume the server changeover has delayed this for the time being.

28. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11287 by Kevin Ronayne on December 4, 2006 at 4:23 am

Re Comment #11281 by valleyshrew

"Is dawkins really ignorant enough to agree with the statement that "all christ ever taught was peace and love"? Assuming christ existed (and that's a big assumption to make), all we can say about him must be from the gospels, here are some passages:"

valleyshrew,

it sounds as if you haven't read TGD, or watched 'The Root of All Evil?', yet I doubt very much that this is the case.

Just because the statement wasn't contradicted doesn't mean that Prof. Dawkins completely agrees with it. There's a practical limit to how much qualification and explanation one can give when engaging in this type of Q & A format. A properly qualified answer that could stand on it's own two feet would really have required an article in itself. A certain amount of background knowledge is required here to interpret the answer properly.

And to think that *I* get accused of being pedantic.

29. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7719 by Kevin Ronayne on November 19, 2006 at 6:38 am

Re Comment #7711 by KateGoss:

"Why does it fall on Dawkins to disprove the existance of a god, when it really should be the work of the person pushing the least plausible case to prove god exists?"

Amen, Sister! That should always be one of the first arguments used when debating a theist - it puts the burden of proof fairly and squarely where it belongs.

30. BBC Profile - Richard Dawkins

Comment #4482 by Kevin Ronayne on November 4, 2006 at 5:09 am

The last section of the program could leave you with a completely mistaken view of what Richard Dawkins says - hell, it's not even an accurate reflection of what is in the 'Selfish Gene'. What about reciprocal altruism, for example?

On the flip side, it's good to hear from Matt Ridley, who rivals RD as one of the most readable of science writers.

31. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3737 by Kevin Ronayne on October 31, 2006 at 10:51 am

Re: Comment #3680 by NMcC on October 31, 2006 at 6:07 am

Nigel,

before I read the Desmond and Moore biography myself, I would have been under the impression that Darwin more or less sat on a near-complete theory for between 15-20 years, because it was too explosive. I suppose I was just really reflecting a commonly held and over-simplistic view. The truth is often much more messy and inconvienent than we would like it to be, and that is certainly the case with Darwin.

Prompted by our discussions, I am currently rereading large chunks of Desmond and Moore, as well as other works that deal with Darwin in some way or another.

As for RD, you are right - there's no real excuse to repeatedly make the same mistake. He himself has suffered from serial misquoting of his words, and that's just by people from within the scientific community. I can forgive anyone for making minor mistakes when they move into an area that is not a speciality of theirs. RD himself has done this before, but the errors have usually been minor and of no real consequence - no serious harm done.

I find the assertion about Stalin odd, as it something that any well-educated person would know was wrong. You don't need to be an expert on Marx or Engels (I most definitely am not) to know that the Soviet Union was not exactly what either had in mind. One of the things that I point out to people is that the USSR was one of the most imperialist states in history, given it's direct or indirect control of other states, including those unwilling republics within the borders of the USSR itself.

Since I don't see RD as having any personal hangups or blind spots about this or any other area of political history, it is perplexing to have Stalin's motives ascribed to ideology.

BTW, have you ever seen any of the Mark Steel lectures on the BBC? I'm thinking especially of the lectures on Marx and Darwin, but they are all irreverently funny.

32. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3672 by Kevin Ronayne on October 31, 2006 at 5:14 am

Re: Comment #3670 by NMcC, Belfast on October 31, 2006 at 4:37 am

Nigel,

thanks for that. Yes, I think we are in broad agreement, but it's still a matter that could bear a much more detailed discussion on the finer points - both the pros and cons, so to speak. There is a tremendous amount of detail that is germane to the whole issue. Naturally, I don't want to expound on said details here - even though I would like to do so, it would literally take all day, and then some. I was wondering if you'd ever read any detailed biography on Darwin? If not, I can thoroughly recommend 'Darwin' by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. It does a wonderful warts-and-all portrait of Darwin and the society that he operated in. It is 800 pages long (Darwin was a busy man!), but is very readable. I don't normally read biographies of scientists (or anyone else for that matter), as I regard personal details as being irrelevant to scientific argument. I decided I would have to make an exception for Darwin, given the enormous amount of sometimes emotive debate that still surrounds his life and work. I'm glad I did.

I haven't listened to the KPFA interview yet, although I have downloaded the file - I'll listen to it on my MP3 player later on. I saw your recent comment on the Tour Journal, but I didn't reply to it at the time - it pretty much speaks for itself. I'll study the earlier comment in the thread when I have a moment or two to myself.

I don't expect RD to be reading the feedback entries right now - he is probably up to his eyeballs. Maybe when he finishes the US tour in a week, he might have some free time. However, it would still be unreasonable to expect him to trawl through all of the feedback logs and forum threads. Perhaps you should start a forum thread under the 'God Delusion Book Discussion' section? There are already about 70 threads here, but most of them haven't reached double figures in terms of replies. I'm not sure how else one can achieve the required visibilty on this issue.

Regards,

33. Lawrence, Kansas : Speech

Comment #3660 by Kevin Ronayne on October 31, 2006 at 3:59 am

Re: Comment #3531 by Brian Dean

Brian,

thanks for the heads-up. I will try mencoder when I have a free moment. The command line bit doesn't scare me at all: I hail from ye olden days when 'windows' still meant something you looked through, and a 'mac' was something you wore in the rain.

34. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3573 by Kevin Ronayne on October 30, 2006 at 10:18 am

Re: Comment #3572 by NMcC on October 30, 2006 at 10:02 am

NMcC,

thanks for that. Apologies for any offence caused. As I said, the paragraph that I focused on in the original post was so like an arguement that would normally have been putforward by a Creationist that I couldn't let it pass. It seemed to be an ad hominem attack on Darwin which was a prelude to something else, which I can now happily acknowledge was not the case at all. Looking at your posts, I couldn't see anything at first glance that shed any further light on your position, at least as far as I could understand it. That's why I stopped and focused on that one paragraph.

Looking again, I see you are obviously a lot better informed than me on political history and theory, at least insofar as it relates to Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and probably any other 'ism' that you would care to mention. That's not my area, although I am more knowledgable on history than the average punter. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much at all, given the state of education these days.

Some of your other points are worthy of positive comment, but it's a fact of life that negative reaction tends to be stronger and more immediate than positive reaction - that's why I haven't commented on them yet! I especially like the bit about "assuage one's conscience through innocuous pin pricks aimed at Bush and Blair!". That's a point that I would like to elaborate on sometime, although my own reasoning might be different from yours.

Regards,

35. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3567 by Kevin Ronayne on October 30, 2006 at 9:22 am

Re: Comment #3488 by NMcC, Belfast on October 29, 2006 at 9:25 am

The original paragraph in your #3463 is quite explicit in stating (or at least in stating your opinion) that Darwin was to some extent cowardly. My reaction was predicated on the viewpoint and knowledge (or lack of it) that this implied. Given your undoubted knowledge of Darwin's life and work (which was not at all obvious from said paragraph), it is all the more rather surprising that you chose the words that you did.

Yes, Darwin was protective of his lifestyle and position - that is well known. But I also noted that he regarded this not only as an end in itself, but as a means to an end, namely his dedication to scientific study. The two went hand in hand. His own writings and correspondence are quite clear on that point. A premature statement of his theories would have scuppered both his lifestyle and his scientific standing. Cowardly or pragmatic?

BTW, the men I mentioned were indeed extreme examples - I made no pretence to the contrary. I pointed out that far less extreme action on the part of Darwin could nonetheless have thoroughly wrecked his social and scientific standing.

It is unfair to criticise Darwin for not rushing to publication on such a groundbreaking matter. One might as well ask, say, a test pilot to test-fly a brand new plane that had not been properly designed or tested at all. I admit that the analogy is far from perfect, but I hope the point is clear enough.

How long Darwin should have waited before publishing is a topic worthy of genuine debate. On seeing Wallace's work, Darwin effectively compared it to his own work from the early 1840's. He didn't regard his own work from that time as being anywhere near publication standard, and that was his call to make. Part of the reason why Robert Chambers got away with 'Vestiges' - apart from the anonymous publication - is that the work did not, even after repeated revisions - stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, although the establishment was outraged by it, the lack of evidence meant that it was regarded as less of a threat than it might have been. Darwin knew his evidence and arguments needed to be very good indeed, or else he would suffer the consquences. Privilege and reputation are double-edged swords.

Your statement that Darwin:

".. was content to let others fight the good fight whilst he stayed at home playing with his barnacles"

is unfortunately not a good one. As I pointed out before, Darwin accepted that he needed to broaden his own knowledge by a study such as this, and to allow his subsequent work to carry more weight, because of the knowledge and evidence he would acquire to support his theories. Not to restate myself, but the barnacles work also gave him insights into new evolutionary concepts. 'Playing with barnacles' simply does not do justice to nearly eight years of concerted study. The inference that he "let others fight the good fight" during this time can only be true to the extent that there were others at that time - in Britain at least - who were stridently pushing the evolutionary message at a cost (or risk) to themselves.

That line might have more weight if applied to the 1860's, in relation to human evolution. Let's look at this: the single line about humanity in the 'Origin' was enough to provoke a definite reaction, mainly because it came from such a figure of authority, in such an authoritative work. The 'Argument from Authority' is of course not a good one, but no scientist of standing can avoid having it applied to themselves. For Darwin to speak of human evolution in any sort of detail, he bore a much greater burden of proof, and he personally wanted much more evidence. It is true that he approved of Huxley and others speaking with less authority and evidence than he would have wished for himself. What was he to do? the cat was out of the bag - everyone knew that natural selection implicitly applied to humans, and that would have been the case even if Darwin had said absolutely nothing about humans. He couldn't stop or ignore people debating on a matter that he himself was sympathetic to, but for which he himself needed more evidence.

As to the point about Darwin getting others to do his preaching for him: as I noted, Darwin was a personally shy man, and never a good public speaker at any point during his life. He also preferred to simply get on with research as much as he could, and let the published results speak for themselves - that was his way of preaching. For what it's worth, Darwin was also sick for long periods of his life, possibly as a result of an infection or disease picked up during the Beagle voyage. He was very often unable to do his regular work, let alone do public speaking and debating tours.

Accusing someone of cowardice (or even a degree of cowardice) is not to be done lightly. If Darwin was an intellectual coward in some material respect, then the majority of us are cowards of the worst sort. Many all of us hold strong beliefs and moral convictions that if we were to act on them in any serious way, our lives would be drastically changed for the worse, or even put in serious danger. Everything is of course, relative, as you correctly point out. I would not expect someone in deepest Bible belt country to say or do the things that I can do, never mind someone living in Saudi Arabia.

One of Richard Dawkin's main points is that people should be of a more positive mind and take the courses of action that are actually open to them here and now. This is stated up front at the beginning of the preface to TGD - he could not have been any clearer about this. At little or no personal cost, many people can make a significant improvement. You imagined an exchange between RD and someone in Kansas, about the personal cost of action, with reference to Darwin. The US constitution is overwhelmingly on the side of the secular position, something borne out time and time again in the courts. Many people just seem to lack the conviction and the organisation, which is what he is trying to change.

Finally, since you alluded to Darwin in the abovementioned example, please remember that he eventually *did* expose himself to very considerable risk, despite all his careful preparation. He lost a potential (even probable) knighthood, and for a time lost the favour of much of the establishment, especially the powerful religious establishment. It was partially because of his risk-taking that his supporters were energised into action themselves.

BTW, in the interests of fairness, I want to fully endorse your comments about Stalin in your #3455 (comment #2 in this thread). Stalin probably at some point believed in the dogma that he publicly espoused, probably as a reaction to his harsh upbringing. However, his later actions show that he regarded political orthodoxy as a means to his own selfish ends. Since RD quotes Alan Bulloch (Hitler and Stalin - Parallel Lives) a couple of times in TGD, it does seem odd that he attributes Stalins' actions to a belief in doctrine and ideology. Anyone who had read this or any other account of Stalin would have known better.

It would have actually better supported RD's case if he dealt with the matter in more detail. Stalin may not have believed in any ideology, but a lot of the people who carried out actions on his behalf probably did, and Stalin took full advantage of it. The people who took part in the campaigns against the Kulaks did so in many cases with what seemed like religious zeal, although there were probably other motives mixed in as well, such as greed and revenge. Political ideologies can be just as damaging as religious ones, but they tend to have shorter shelf-lives, lacking as they do any supernatural underpinning. That's one of the reasons why ideological regimes tend to attack religion - if religion can't be somehow exploited to support your cause, then it's going to be viewed as a dangerous competitor.

Regards,

36. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3472 by Kevin Ronayne on October 29, 2006 at 5:21 am

Re: Comment #3463 by NMcC

"Yes, of course Darwin was afraid of the reaction of the religious establishment - just as he was afraid of the political and economically dominant establishment."

He had very, very good reason to be afraid of them, given (for example) what had happened to the Rev. Robert Taylor - an earlier 'Devils Chaplain' - and Richard Carlile. Shelley and Byron also spring to mind. Of course, these were all extreme cases by the standards of the time, but any sort of backlash could have wrecked Darwins' lifestyle and social standing. Unless you want everyone to be a fearless gung-ho hero for their cause, Darwins' position was very reasonable. He also saw his lifstyle and social position as a means to an end, the end being his devotion to scientific study. It's worth noting that the publication of the 'Origin' very likely cost him a knighthood, and that despite the deliberate lack of reference to humans - that was a potentially explosive topic that he needed more time to work on.

"Darwin, in fact, was afraid of quite a number of things. He was, I think, something of an intellectual coward."

The 'intellectual coward' description is laughable, unless you consider it laudable to advance dramatic new theories and beliefs without proper evidence. Belief without evidence tends not to work very well in science.

"He himself said that elaborating his theory was like confessing a murder."

The 'confessing a murder' quote dates from 1844, in a letter to close friend and confidante Joseph Hooker, IIRC. Darwin was well aware that he needed to flesh out his ideas and theories a great deal before they could bear scientific (let alone public) scrutiny - what he was proposing was after all revolutionary in the truest sense of the word. Reaction to the anonymous publication of 'Vestiges' by Robert Chambers in 1844 only served to underline this. Darwin undertook an exhaustive study of barnacles primarily to establish his scientific credentials, and hence allow him to speak with some authority on species and evolution in general. The barnacle work was actually of tremendous benefit in furthering his understanding of evolutionary concepts.

Darwin still viewed his writings on evolution as something of a 'work in progress', even in the mid-1850's when he had collected an enormous amount of evidence. Even without Wallaces' inadvertant prompting, he would have eventually published a treatise on natural selection in some form, as part of a series of works - this is more or less what happened anyway.

"Hardly the attitude of a bold and confident expounder of scientific truth."

Darwins' published work, private writings and other communications all point to someone who was thoroughly committed to the pursuit of scientific truth. Don't mistake public shyness and basic politeness for lack of conviction and moral courage. He exhorted the like of T.H. Huxley to go out and spread awareness of his ideas in way that he himself could not have done.

Everything I've just written about Darwin is well known to anyone who has ever read anything about the his life and work. He is one of the most widely researched and written about people in history. You cannot reasonably expect to be excused for writing what you did on the grounds of ignorance. It smacks of the wishful thinking, lies, half-truths and quoting out of context that is practiced habitually by Creationists. But maybe you have a different explanation?

37. Lawrence, Kansas : Speech

Comment #3179 by Kevin Ronayne on October 26, 2006 at 6:55 am

After several attempts, I have managed to capture and convert this into .AVI (DIVX 6) format. That's the good news. The bad news is that it's over 750MB in size, presumably because I was reencoding on the fly. If I had been able to capture it in raw format (no compression), I might have been able to then reencode later down to something a lot smaller than this. An uncompressed intermediate file would be enormous of course, but I think I have enough disk space. BTW, the original Real Player file is about 125 MB in size - you can see it in your browser cache if you let it load completely, but you can't use the damn thing afterwards, not in any way that I can see.

Any advice from video gurus would be appreciated, as I'm willing to try again if there is a realistic chance of producing a reasonably sized file.

38. Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists

Comment #2840 by Kevin Ronayne on October 24, 2006 at 3:03 am

This review is more polite and more intelligent than most, but the introduction itself highlights the basic flaw in the Rabbis' thinking:

“DO YOU believe,” the disciple asked the rabbi, that God created everything for a purpose?”

“I do,” replied the rabbi.

Now *that* is more or less saying that he believes in predestination, which taken to its' logical conclusion means that there is no free will. Of course he (and many others) would say that it is not what he actually means, but the logical implications of his 'watered down' version are still staggering. It is a very common refrain amongst religious people - I've had more than enough first-hand experience during my lifetime. As a form of logical arguement or rational reasoning, it stinks. The very idea that God would deliberately inflict some form of suffering or hardship to illustrate a point, or as a test! Worst still where the person being tested is sometimes not the one suffering first hand! Richard Dawkins does allude to this in TGD, mentioning a couple of obscene pronouncements by (I think) the theologian Richard Swinburne, about the Holocaust and Hiroshima. He could have highlighted this line of religious reasoning to a greater degree, but perhaps he has never been exposed to it on a day-to-day level in the way that many other people have.

One could ask the Rabbi why God would bother to use atheists to teach religious people the error of their ways? Or why he couldn't have made his laws and teachings a lot clearer from the outset? One of Richard Dawkins' salient points is that we don't get our morals from holy books - religious people 'cherry pick' their moral teachings, which is of course very true. A complementary point would be that the interpretation of what is good (i.e., what gets picked) has varied enormously over time, and the driving forces for these variations are rarely purely theological arguments. Religion is very often changed from the outside, which is the exact opposite to what most religious people would claim. This is especially true where a religion (or its' practioners) shifts to a 'kinder, gentler' version. On the other hand, where it 'regresses' to a more fundamental form, the driving forcs are usually theological and reactionary in nature.

39. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2779 by Kevin Ronayne on October 23, 2006 at 11:53 am

That photo portrait of Richard Dawkins makes him look like a Mafia Don - Marlon Brando himself couldn't have done better.

Now I'd better go off and digest the article itself, which is rather long - a real feature piece in other words, unlike so much modern reporting and commentary that is of soundbite proportions.

40. University of Kansas Speech

Comment #2249 by Kevin Ronayne on October 20, 2006 at 5:15 am

Brilliant stuff. I listened to the entire podcast last night, and I will do so again this afternoon while I'm on the road - just the thing to while away a long bus journey. RD has very little to learn in terms of presentation skills and delivery, but he was helped by the crowd being all but completely behind him.

I would echo one of the earlier comments in saying that he would be a match for most stand-up comedians. I nearly cracked up at his description of some large church congregations being akin to something between "... a rock concert and a Nuremberg rally". It was all the more funny because I actually anticipated what he was about to say.

It will be great to get the video. While the audio is good enough for someone like me, I think only the video would suffice if I was trying to convince someone else.

41. University of Kansas Speech

Comment #2139 by Kevin Ronayne on October 19, 2006 at 6:18 am

I'm listening to the podcast right now and the quality seems good enough to me all things considered. I guess that periodic whirring noise is the iPod hard disk firing up as it writes each few minute's audio from RAM to disk.

42. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1931 by Kevin Ronayne on October 18, 2006 at 4:24 am

Good interview! I've never seen Stephen Colbert before either. I guess he was just playing "Devils Advocate" in a light-hearted way. Richard obviously knew what the tenor of the show would be like. It would have been nice to have had a longer interview - say, 10 to 15 minutes - which is what you would have gotten on the same sort of show in Ireland or Great Britain.

43. There is no God, sayeth Dawkins

Comment #1916 by Kevin Ronayne on October 18, 2006 at 2:35 am

What a strange, strange review. Watson seems to spend more than half of it bending over backwards to acknowledge the points made in TGD. Then he pledges his allegiance up front, fair and square to the Argument from Design:

"How can it be that the intricate elegance of a dragonfly's wing just . . . happened?"

... which also counts as the Argument from Personal Incredulity, not to mention a breathtaking dismissal/ignorance of the last 150 years of biology.

Another gem:

"This is a scientist who has stepped out of his professional cool and become incandescently angry about religion"

Why are we still hearing this? Compared to some of the defenders of religion, Richard Dawkins is sweetness and light itself. Actually, it would not help him to get very angry about religion, as it would impair his ability to present his case rationally. A pity some of those on the other side don't behave as he does.

Thanks to some of the other commentators for the background information - it's always helpful to know what constituency the reviewer is ostensibly defending, and what their reputation is like. It does indeed seem that all shades of religious life feel threatened by TGD - Catholics, Baptists and Anglicans, and that's just some of the Christians!

A quick word to Monkey Man (Comment #1913): I've got two words for you, my fellow Simian: Pascals' Wager. It is a hallmark of certain groups of people that they just keep on throwing out the same old tired arguments, despite said arguments having been debunked a long time ago. To take further what Brian Coughlan said in Comment #1915:

"If you really beleive in being burned eternally for what basically amounts to random chance (born in Iran you'd by a muslim) ..."

It gets better than that. Persia (Iran) used to be a mainly Sunni state, but Shi'a Islam became the 'official' state religion under the Safavids in the early 16th century - by force and bloodshed if necessary. When you see the amount of Shia/Sunni rivalry in the Middle East today, it seems something like a sick joke that your allegiance should be directly dictated by a decision taken hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

44. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1313 by Kevin Ronayne on October 11, 2006 at 10:06 am

Once you get past the opening 6 or so introductory paragraphs, the rest of this review is mostly lies, half-truths, mistakes, misconceptions, misreprentations and unwarranted conclusions. Whatever happened to 'Thou shalt not bear false witness'? When it comes to defending religion from criticism, it really does seem that the truth is the first casualty!

If I wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this review, I think I could easily be here until midnight (note: it's currently 5:30 pm). Just a few choice items will do for now:

"... the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind" - and why, oh why should it by?

"As Dawkins explains, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being's existence" - no they don't, they question it, and find the evidence very unpersuasive.

"Accordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God." - reading through this review, I can't say I understand either.

"He ... is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution .. " - this is a lie, pure and simple - either that, or he has not done proper reasearch, and is therefore guilty of lying by pretending to know. Anyone who had read Richard Dawkins would know that he believes on the basis of evidence, and has readily stated (and still does) that he would change his mind if suitable evidence ever came to light.

"Amazingly, Dawkins denies that he is himself an absolutist" - very amazingly indeed, since the review had earlier quoted the line that "God almost certainly does not exist", which is of course not the language of an asbolutist.

I can only echo the sentiments of fellow commentators: Is this the best Albert Mohler can do? Along with this and loudmouth debaters like David Quinn, it seems as if serious opposition to Richard Dawkins is pretty thin on the ground right now.

45. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1189 by Kevin Ronayne on October 10, 2006 at 11:27 am

I've got to agree with all of the recent comments about the interview/debate/confronation. When I heard that Richard Dawkins was appearing on this show, I assumed that it was going to be a straight one-to-one interview. Take it from me: Ryan Tubridy simply does not have what it takes to keep someone like David Quinn under control during a debate. For that, you would need a hardened news broadcaster, not someone who presents what are basically light entertainment shows.

The aim of someone like David Quinn in this situation is basically damage limitation by sound bite - the louder the better. He knows he can't beat Dawkins in a fair fight, and he took full advantage of a very weak moderator. As Andy Lewis says "Richard's book is the refutation of Quinn's arguments". The aim of these media situations is to try and coax people to read it, and Quinns only real aim was trying to prevent that.

46. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1187 by Kevin Ronayne on October 10, 2006 at 11:03 am

Kimpatsu wrote:

"I can't find the file. The link provided takes me to a bunch of radio shows, none of which list Richard as bing on them. Can anyone help?"

Look for this link on the page:

Monday 9th October - Click here

For some reason, the contents of this show are not listed on here at present. As noted above, Richards's interview starts after about 8 minutes.

47. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1147 by Kevin Ronayne on October 10, 2006 at 5:12 am

If you were to do a name association test with 'Richard Dawkins', then most people would respond with the 'Selfish Gene' - that's assuming that they had heard of him at all, as there is still a distinct lack of general public awareness when it comes to science and scientists. Many people still labour under the completely mistaken belief that he stands for genetic determinism. It is probably a tempting line of attack for any opponent in an interview/debate situation like this, even when they themselves know it to be false.

For that reason alone, I think Richard needs to be able to respond to this sort of attack with a clear and well-defined (even pre-prepared) response about free will. That does not, of course, mean that he has to adopt a dogmatic position about it.

48. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1136 by Kevin Ronayne on October 10, 2006 at 3:11 am

Christian J Burnham wrote:

"The other guy was pretty obnoxious"

Background information: the 'other guy' is David Quinn, one time editor of a newspaper called the Irish Catholic. He now works as a columnist for the Irish Independent newspaper. I used to respect him as a moderate, reasonable and perceptive commentator. All of that went clean out of the window after hearing this debate. It was an absolute joke to hear the nonsense that he came out with! Obnoxious? I would also add smarmy, glib, arrogant, overbearing and a few other terms as well.

Now here's the important point as I see it: we might have no problem seeing this guy and his arguments for what they are, but I wonder what impression the general public might have? The radio show in question is a pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of content, and its regular audience might not be in a position to judge the debate as You or I might. Contrary to what some people might say, Richard Dawkins is usually very polite in conversation and debate, and can come across as somewhat diffident and even unsure in certain circumstances.

Then again, I wouldn't want people to be convinced of anything important simply by force of oratory, personal appeal or clever arguments. It's substance that matters, and that can take a lot of time and effort to get across - about 400 pages worth, if You get my meaning.

P.S. if you see: 'Comment by strong' in front of my name, it is some sort of glitch - try as I might, I can't get rid of the 'strong' bit from the preview.

49. Collateral Damage: Part 2

Comment #513 by Kevin Ronayne on October 2, 2006 at 1:44 pm

Richard Dawkins writes:

"I don't know why the Zeitgeist changes so consistently, but it does."

A full answer to this would take a while - there is probably an entire books' worth in it, if not several books! I suspect that a whole range of overlapping forces help to shape 'Zeitgeist' - scientific and technological advances, increased awareness through better education and communications, and the availability or lack of resources are just some. For example, our increasing concern for the environment is in no small part driven by the realisation that our resources are running out. If there were 'only' a few hundred million humans on the planet right now, I suspect that we might care far less about such matters, even if we had the same amount of scientific knowledge at our disposal.

Knowledge gained by hard-won experience - and its effective dissemination - is a key force in shaping opinion. Poison gas was used mainly to facilitate swift breakthroughs in the trench warfare stalemates of World War I, but the revulsion to its use meant that it has (despite continued production and stockpiling) been used only sporadically ever since - usually if the perpetrator expects to get clean away with it. On the other hand, the reaction to the aerial bombing of cities in World War I was much more ambivalent, partially because there was relatively little of it. In the inter-war years, there was a broad spectrum of opinion, ranging from the fatalistic (the observation by Stanley Baldwin in the House of Commons that 'the bomber will always get through'), to a firm belief that bombers would be unable to overcome properly organised defensive systems. Intervening events might have helped to clarify matters - indeed, if there was ever an example of art influencing the 'Zeitgeist', then Picasso's 'Guernica' must surely be it. It took the large-scale bombing campaigns of World War II to clarify to everyone just what aerial bombing could and could not do, and just how much damage it could cause.

It would be wrong to assume that mass killing by aerial bombardment represented some new low in human behaviour with no precedent. Throughout recorded human history, it was a regular occurrence (if not commonplace) for civilians to be butchered on a large scale. The view that it is wrong to target civilians during the course of organized warfare is a relatively recent development - and even then, much depended on the colour of the civilians' skin. In the last 150 years, the rapid development of new technologies has offered enormous possibilities for war as well as peace. Commenting on the submarine as being a 'barbaric' weapon, Admiral 'Jackie' Fisher went on to observe that '… the essence of war is violence, and any moderation in war is imbecility' - Total War, in other words. Such a view would have been widely subscribed to before 1914, but after two World Wars it has became almost impossible to justify to any rational person. The problem is that there are still plenty of irrational people around, mainly because of religion.