Richard Dawkins Interviewed By Andrew Denton
Richard Dawkins was recently interviewed by well-known and respected Australian television presenter Andrew Denton, on Denton’s show Elders With Andrew Denton.
Dawkins is generously previewed by the show’s producers as follows:
Richard Dawkins is the essence of scientific reason, an evolutionary biologist, a best-selling author, and strident atheist. He’s been declared one of the most influential - and provocative - thinkers of our time.
Denton is a friendly and congenial interviewer who is skilled at probing his guests in a respectful yet revealing manner. He is also an avowed atheist and so therefore on the same ‘team’ as Dawkins. For someone touted as “one of the most influential and provocative thinkers of our time” and despite plenty of opportunity given by Denton, Dawkins came across in this piece as quite two-dimensional, evasive and jaundiced - not at all a commendable nor inspirational ‘champion’ of atheism. Dawkinsian parenting seems aimed at producing imagination-stunted, rationalism-impeded automatons. No thank you.
What is clear from the interview is Dawkin’s restricted ability to speak in any meaningful way about anything outside his particular expertise in evolutionary biology. Dawkins flatly refused to engage in subjective philosophical discussion with Denton about metaphysical questions. In fact, any attempt by Denton to engage with Dawkins on deeper philosophical questions was met with rabbit-caught-in-the-headlight stares and silent (but noticeable) reflux movements. This, I think, reveals Dawkin’s lack of prowess in the area of philosophy and the exact reason that Dawkins flatly refuses to debate formally with philosophers. And yet Dawkins is an “influential thinker” in our time? Hardly.
I’m interested to see what everyone else thinks.
Watch the full program on ABC iView here.
Watch the web extra interview here.
Transcript of the entire interview here.
Kyle Kivett
on December 22nd, 2009
Another example of Dawkins being over his head as the spokesman for the New Atheists. A capable scientist, perhaps, but a poor philosopher to be sure, especially when off-script from his area of expertise - biological evolution. Seems to demonstrate the media’s interest in offering talking heads instead of truly plumbing the depths of the issues. This is the equivalent of interviewing Pat Robertson as a representative of Christendom. An example, perhaps, but not universal and not the best.
Unfortunately, most people probably find Dawkins convincing because of his celebrity, and in spite of his lack of philosophical arguments. Christians are not being represented (by the media or themselves) well enough to combat Dawkins poor arguments, let alone the real challenges posed by thoughtful atheists. Christ himself, Peter, Paul, and hundreds of years of philosophers had convincing answers to skeptics’ questions than are being asked anew, but most Christians don’t know enough to answer them now. We have work to do.
rogermorris
on December 22nd, 2009
Comment on Facebook by Peter G.
I like Dawkins too, and was disappointed with his below-par responses. At two points I found things a bit jarring. First, the narrator (Denton):
“The complexity of life and the universe seemed better explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
Really? The universe has boundary conditions that select for or against its survival? It has genetic mutations, and is self-replicating, or perhaps having relations with the universe next door? Dennett was right! That “universal acid” has finally reached its full potential…… See More
And second, Dawkins:
“things like tradition, authority, and revelation… are not ways of knowing anything”
Actually, they all are. It turns out there is legitimate authority (eg. parents, teachers, professors). It turns out there is reliable tradition (eg. some oral traditions convey reliable knowledge). And it turns out that people reveal things all the time that then constitute knowledge in the hearer.
Of course I know what he meant: there’s no God to underwrite any of those modes. But then he goes on to say:
“Evidence is the way you know anything that you know, and I tried to put into language that a ten year old might understand- how we get evidence, and how we evaluate it.”
Wait a second. We know absolutely nothing apart from evidence, right? And yet we know how to evaluate evidence? But how did we come to know that? Obviously by the only means of knowing anything - evidence. This entails a contradiction: we could never have known how to interpret evidence without first knowing how to interpret the evidence.
Empiricism, the “way of knowing” Dawkins has in mind, and upon which the scientific method is based, cannot be proven by its own standard. It is not possible to prove scientifically that scientific epistemology produces certain knowledge (take the problem of induction, for instance), or is the only means of coming to know.
Given the acknowledged limits of science/empiricism in terms of failing to prove its validity by its own criteria, how can it foreclose other possible ways of knowing?
rogermorris
on December 22nd, 2009
@Kyle. Right on the money. Dawkins is not a philosopher’s boot lace and he knows it more than anyone.
@ Peter G. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. To coin a rather explicit visual metaphor, empiricism manages to “crawl up its own backside” and is self-refuting, exactly in the same way that logical positivism did a number of decades ago.
Empiricism fails its own criteria of validation, as you so eloquently explained.
Thanks for reminding us so clearly of the irrationality of empiricism. This is the exact reason why Dawkins flatly refuses to debate Christian philosopher and epistemologists. He’s knows, I suspect, that he would be eaten alive. … See More
Unfortunately, his arrogant and confident presentation combined with his smart-sounding Oxford accent will continue to convince the average Joe & Mary out there that he is an “influential thinker of our times”. Sadly, he is not.
Roger
on December 22nd, 2009
You guys are dreaming. What makes your brand of faith any better than any other? Nothing.Noah’s ark, Adam and Eve and just about everything else in the bible that is presented as history of the world or the universe is demonstrably untrue.
Same goes for every other religion on the planet. It’s all so saturated with myth and motive that, on throwing out the bath-water there isn’t much baby left. Never-the-less; don’t toss the baby.
You are at the pointy end of three and a half billion years of evolution on earth and 13.7 billion years of the evolution of the universe. That’s as sure as the earth ain’t flat and, if you want to, you can read the evidence - not just Dawkins and Darwin… DNA, astronomy, archeology, paleontology… do you think these sciences are all some massive hoax cooked up by the devil to fool people into going to hell? If so, you may as well insist that the earth is flat and all evidence for anything is false. You would be back in the dark ages, burning witches and casting out demons.
I have seen Dawkins address questions of faith (so can you - google it).
On matters of philosophy and religion: don’t confuse the two.
Faith is just an excuse for lazy thinking.
Philosophy, like science changes, the former is an analysis of the way we think about the world, the latter is the search for understanding; a philosopher can analyze a religion, where-as a religion is stuck in time, it can’t address anything outside of its own blinkered world view; it cannot both change and maintain it’s doctrinal foundation.
Religion is guilty of more human suffering and environmental degradation than anything else that has ever happened on the planet.
Thank god I’m not religious… It makes people do the weirdest stuff; fancy sitting in church listening to the same old stuff regurgitated endlessly when you could be out mountain biking, surfing, sailing, playing tennis, rock climbing, thinking…
I’m not saying there is no “GOD”, first cause, whatever… Just that, I don’t think, that if there is, he, she, it gives a tinker’s toss about you, your prayers, what you wear or anything else.
Get a life, don’t waste it.
rogermorris
on December 23rd, 2009
Roger. My suggestion is that you read over other content on this blog and if you are on Facebook, join in the discussions there. Much of what you raise is discussed and debated in depth on these forums.
Peter Humble
on January 1st, 2010
All religious/philosophical debates aside, it was an astonishingly appalling set of questions he provided to Dawkins. I don’t even like the guy or have much sympathy for his views but Denton’s line of questioning amounted to a provocation from beginning to end.
Denton clearly has no respect for Dawkins position (and frankly I don’t either) but it was a missed opportunity to not allow Dawkins to express himself in a more gentle & expansive context that Denton normally provides his other guests.
Ranger
on January 19th, 2010
When asked about his emotional response to nature (about the only passage actually worth reading in TGD), his response was sad.
I’m not going to quote word for word from the interview, but asked about being brought to tears, he responded that biologically he doesn’t know the purpose of tears and that such a response is typical due to being a social animal and that there is no special meaning to such a response.
His reductionism in effect defeated the whole beauty of an emotional response to nature.
Mariano
on February 1st, 2010
And now, yet again, Dawkins has turned down a debate challenge:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2010/01/yet-again-most-intelligent-well.html