Questions for Richard Dawkins?

Perhaps he could explain how evolution works in order to make us understand why it’s true.

Perhaps you could read one of the numerous books he has already written on the subject…

I’d like to know what age range he is targeting.  It looks like twelve and up, but I wasn’t sure from the description.

That’s what The Greatest Show on Earth was about. This book is for kids.

Are there any efforts to get this book into Kindergarten or to somehow promote it for a wider audience?

Here’s a question about teaching evolution to children…  A number of the chapters in Ancestor’s Tale are great snapshots of events in natural history, or examples of new frontiers in understanding.   Stories like how Darwin brought back a number of birds from the Galapagos, all very different-looking, but was told that they were all finches.  Stories about the differing beaks of the finches, and how they’ve changed in response to changing food sources….  Stories about the different tortoises on the Galapagos.  I use those stories to teach my young daughter about evolution.

What stories can you share with us that can help explain the concepts of natural selection, genetic drift, etc, to a child?

If he could be a My Little Pony, what would he choose for a cutie mark?

He has stated that we start teaching our children evolution at the young age of 5.  Is this book written for children that young in mind? I find that children struggle with thinking about years, let alone millions and billions of them. Does he have tips on an easier way of explaining it?

Living in Indiana, a rather Christian filled state, it’s tough as an Atheist mother, raising two freethinking children. Does he have any suggestions on how to give my children a science based explanation as to why others believe in an invisible man in the sky that seems to grant wishes to some and not others?  I don’t just want to say, “That’s just what some people believe.” I have read ‘The God Delusion’, and I understand duality, but how to I explain it to a 5 and 4 year old?

Does he think that we have hope in regards to humanity shedding it’s
religiousness and one day being able to turn to Science for answers, without people forcing their religious beliefs into the equation? I lost my religion 2 years ago, so I am new to the game, but it
seems so hopeless. (But it may just be where I live.) Are we really
gaining numbers? Or are the statistics skewed? (In his opinion).

My mother in law died in 2007 when my children were 20 months and 4 months old. My eldest child often asks where she is and I have done by best to explain what happened. Having been raised in the pseudo-Christian religion of Mormonism, it’s tough for me to answer that question without invoking words and phrases like ‘better place’ or comparing death to an eternal slumber (she was cremated, which makes that reasoning harder).  Does he have any suggestions as to how I explain what happened in scientific terms, on a simple enough level without sounding cold and without scaring them? (Off topic, but one I struggle with).

I’d like to know, if he were to find a believer who had an open mind, what steps of logic would he would take to gently lead that person to be convinced to become an atheist?

Agreed on your question, but I also really, really love your handle.  Also, Gashlycrumb Tinies FTW!!!

Fellow Hoosier here (though current Chicagoan) – you’re not alone in the Crossroads of America.

OT, but I was visiting my parents a few weeks ago and found myself in a suburb full of yard sales. I was browsing aimlessly through (another) one and noticed some…unexpected…literature in a box of cast-off books. There were a couple titles on humanism, one anti-Christmas(ish) children’s book, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. 

I mentally did some cheering and waving. 

It probably wasn’t you (but it might have been!). 

And your questions, although I don’t have children, are things that I think about, too. I grew up in a very small town that was just saturated to bursting with Christian culture; it took 20 full years to even BEGIN to shake it off. Be patient, though – I think your interest in explaining these sorts of things indicate that you’re kind of a an awesome parent…just because you’re asking those questions at all. I suspect that it will pay off. Good luck.

Regarding his scale on the god delusion, what would make him go from a six to a seven?

Does he plan to write more books and on what?

Can he come to portugal so I can shake his hand and thank him for being awesome? 😀

Regarding his scale on the god delusion, what would make him go from a six to a seven?

Does he plan to write more books and on what?

Can he come to portugal so I can shake his hand and thank him for being awesome? 😀

Brain science can’t explain what a thought process or a memory is in terms of neurophysiology. Doesn’t that mean the physical universe, as a four manifold, is a surface in a higher dimensional space?

How do we teach evolution/science to young children without seeming to argue from authority or just so stories, how do we bring the evidence into the class room to allow students to think critically?

I’d like to know if he thinks there is anything we can do to get the critical thinking/science message out to children of religious or otherwise sheltered upbringing.

I was brought up in a christian family and was toought that evolution couldn’t be (the irreducible complexity arguement) and was discouraged from taking an interest in science. I just wish someone had shown me the evidence earlier, I didn’t discover the truth until I went to university…

when are this book and previous ones such as the god delusion will enter Argentina?

in that case i hope he will show up in lisbon… same motive here

Why does the book title have to qualify “True” with “Really”?  And is there a “really really true” that trumps “really true”?

Do you like turtles? 

Oh, and do you think that the term ‘Atheist’ has evolved in it’s perception within religious circles over the past 10 years?  Surely the term A-Theist should not exist, as it is the default position.  How do you not get weary constantly defending and explaining your logic to ‘believers’?

Lovin’ your work.

I’d like more reflection on the tense relation between the phenomenon of homosexuality in the animal kingdom and evolution by natural selection. I think this subject has always been undervalued and Richard Dawkins seems to avoid the subject. I realize it is a difficult and yet unknown area, but the subject is a very important one, theoretically (for evolution theory as such)  as well as for our understanding of this strange friction between a genetic formula that doesn’t favour procreation and its factual transmission to future generations.

Aw, come on now, he’s a science professor at Oxford, not a comedian. I’m sure he has great science jokes. There’s a great clip of him reading his hate mail aloud, pretty good show of a sense of humour in my mind, google it for a giggle.

What, in your opinion, are the reasons why we should believe something, come to believe something, change ojur beliefs about something?

And yet, as a theme, it is ubiquitous in our society.  I was about to say that at least Santa Clause isn’t so sinister, but then the “He watches when you’re sleeping” strikes me as very Old Testament.  Santa Clause does come to our house, but he doesn’t threaten to bring coal if you’re cranky because you’ve missed a nap.

A question I’ve always wondered about. Say you are at a dinner with people who pray before they eat. Being Athiest I don’t want to participate, but if I don’t it’s considered rude and disrespectful. Why is it not considered the same if they don’t recognize that I’m Athiest and participating goes againt what I believe?

I think RD has done explain everything as clearly as he could regarding the subject of gods and religions.  I admire him and salute his ability to present his ideas well to the general public.  (I did not become an atheist because of him at all.  I have always been one without thinking about it, and then I just stepped back half a step and observed the world and it became absolutely obvious to me that I am right.)  Sadly, as he said, people just don’t listen and just go “la la la” instead.

I truly believe that, he is one of the few persons who is capable of producing a documentary programme (in addition to a book) that can argue each of the many generic points religious people use to promote/”prove” the existence of gods.   The Channel 4 documentaries have been good, but would RD do one that simply go to attack and rubbish each of the most common tactics religious people use?  Books are good, but for many general public TV is more accessible.

I have to disagree. I would love it if we never talked about Elevatorgate again, at least until and unless it’s possible to do so without a massive shitstorm.

The American political landscape is littered with candidates whose religious views lead them to support such claptrap as “intelligent design” and the like.  Short of educating the entire electorate, (which would be great of course, but unlikely to be accomplished before the next election),  what’s the best way to combat this sort of aggressive idiocy?  (I notice Britain is relatively untroubled by this sort of thing.  How did it get to that point?)

My question for Dawkins was a broader version of yours.
My question: How does anyone “know” something they aren’t an expert in, without relying on the “authority” of those who are experts?

I trust scientists re: the age of the earth, global warming, how black holes work, evolution, that the earth is a sphere, etc., but I have not personally done experiments/investigations (and nor have I written a PhD thesis) on any of these topics.

(My answer to my own question would be that I generally trust the “system”/methods of science to be the best one we know of to find actual verifiable/demonstrable truths/facts…  but I admit that on a practical basis I often end up appealing to the ‘authority’ of ‘experts’ because no one person [specifically me!] can have the technical knowledge for high level understanding in so many complex areas.)

this Santa Clause is a subordinate clause, whereas Santa Claus only needs reindeer and a sleigh

Hi Leia,

I’m a journalist and author writing a book for nonreligious parents about handling the God Talk(s) with kids. I’d love to speak with/interview you for the book. Could you e-mail me? My book e-mail is relaxitsjustgod@gmail.com. Thanks in advance! 

this is a topic that abounds with conjecture. Where I live, the companies that sell grain seed, (barley, wheat, etc.) often advertise as 97% germination. After culling and cleaning, they are suggesting 3% will not germinate. Gay wheat? Well, I sure don’t know, but maybe Richard does. We don’t know the % of salmon that produce offspring in that madness of spawning they engage in, but we do know that in a wolf pack, only the alpha male and alpha female mate. The whole pack is involved rearing the one litter. What are the other fully adult wolves doing with their sexual instincts and does Richard know if this breeding format extends to other species? Please indulge me, I am no scientist.On the level of DNA (I think), when egg and sperm meet, the result is a female, with instructions that when mature, she will want to mate with a male. After the embryo divides once or twice, (I’m really out of my depth here) and becomes a male the program is supposed to shift so the newly male embryo, when mature, will want to mate with a female. But these instructions are not always carried out as the program unfolds and the female embryo that would be attracted to males retains this attraction when the embryo becomes male. Other permutations can occur, that’s nature! Nurture is another story that allows for endless situations where infants, children, are so impressed by someone that it becomes a sexual obsession that wants to be experienced. Perhaps Richard might find something in this conjecture worth commentary.   

what is a good website to send my nieces/nephews to that they can understand and wont lose interest in to learn about evolution and why the bible is EVIL?

I hope that Richard Dawkins did not find he had to modify his opinion on that ridiculous molehole made into a mountain as a result of the intense cyber bullying that took place around the issue. Prof Dawkins if you read this page you confirmed your place as this feminists favourite ‘atheist celebrity’ by not indulging in the pious hand wringing that took place. 

I am always puzzled by people who find Prof Dawkins arrogant and strident as I find his manner polite and pleasant (and indeed perhaps too reticent and mild in the face of the supreme ignorance of people like Ken Ham and Wendy Wright.) But I can’t say the same for several others who are labeled ‘new atheists’. Indeed some seem quite malevolent in their intolerance of religion in all it’s guises.

While religious concepts seem totally illogical to me, it appears as though a significant section of the world find religion essential to their wellbeing. I sometimes wonder if attacks on all religion especially moderate forms is not analogous to attacking people for being homosexual. Dawkins has spoken of religion as a bi product of evolutionary drives. Perhaps the need for it is innate in some people in much the same way that sexual orientation is innate.

I would be interested in hearing Prof Dawkins thoughts on the ethics of the type of attacks on, not just religion as a concept or ‘truth’,  but on specific religious people like Francis Collins by people like PZ Myers. Are we not in danger of being like Pat Robinsons and Michele Bachmanns attacking people for something they cannot control? Should the atheist movement not be more focused on providing a well lit and welcoming road for individuals who are open to scientific logic in most cases whether or not they can leave religion behind them?

As an educator have you found it particularly rewarding whilst writing your latest book to focus on the fertile minds of the young?

” Or do we perhaps teach them that not everything you hear turns out to be true”.

I think that’s a useful way of looking at the issue. Personally I think to strip early childhood of all ‘magic’ would be sad indeed. Discovering for themselves that Santa is not true is a right of passage in a way for children and one that aids them in developing critical reasoning skills in my view. The joy I have received watching the joy of my children after ‘Santa’ has visted is priceless and I wouldn’t sacrifice it on the atheist altar when such belief passes naturally anyway.

or as the lyrics to a popular song go…

“you better watch out!”

I have 101 questions for Professor Dawkins and have pasted the first 26 below.
I should say that I am an atheist and that these questions were mostly inspired from conversations with religious friends when I became a little stuck in answering them.
They range from atheism (19), faith schools (12), evolution (9), philosophy (22) and just plain silly(7).
I’m looking forward to the release of the book, but as I haven’t read it yet it’s difficult to form questions specifically about it.
Enjoy the interview and I look forward to reading it.
Warmest regards,
Steve
101 Questions for RD

1) Why are faith schools better than non faith schools in terms of academic results?

2) Have atheists won the battle? Is it just a matter of time before the entire world is atheist? Is the position of the theist untenable in the 21st century?

3) Considering how much is known about the topic and the vastness of the evidence, why is evolution so poor at predicting the future?

4) Do you accept that religion, as with the wheel, agricultural revolution and industrial revolution, was a necessary step on the path of human evolution and progression? If so, when was, or indeed, will be the best time for the human race as a whole to reject the concept?

5) How will science avoid the same arrogance that religion is often accused of?

6) Is the scientific method foolproof? Will the scientific method ever be updated, replaced or usurped by something else and if so can you speculate on how or what it would be replaced by.

7) Why does a banana point toward your face?

8) What makes a gene show an apparent ‘desire’ to survive?

9) It appears that through compassion and vastly improved technology, the human race seems to have all but halted natural selection in it’s own species. Does this mean that natural selections handmaiden, evolution, has also ceased and that we have therefore seen mankind’s ultimate incarnation?
 
10) Considering what is claimed by most deities, including the creation and manipulation of every single atom in the universe,  how would anyone ever go about proving the existence and confirm their alleged ‘powers’? in other words, what evidence would be sufficient to convince the scientific community of the existence of a deity?

11) Has any serious attempt ever been made by scientists to prove or disprove the existence of a deity? If so, please could you give a brief outline of their experiments and results.

12) If the local faith school was the best option for you children, would you consider lying about your faith in order to gain admission?

13) Should local authorities or national governments in any way fund faith schools?

14) Would you ban faith schools?

15) How would you personally define the word ‘soul’ and does it exist?

16) What are you views on the religion ‘pastafarianism’, and would you ever consider joining?

17) Is it desirable for there to be a God?

18) Is there any aspect of your life where you consider having faith, i.e. believing something without evidence, to be a good thing?

19) What would you expect to be different in the world today if in fact the Christian explanation for creation was the true course of events?

20) Is there ever a practical reason for believing something that isn’t true?

21) Which do you respect more, theists that have stuck to their original teachings or those that have made an attempt to alter their beliefs in light of scientific discoveries, yet still remain theists?

22) Is what is true more important the what is good for the human condition?

23) As statistics can often be presented in a lazy fashion, for example the Republic of Ireland has 4 million people and is a Catholic country, therefore there are 4 million Catholics in Ireland, what do you estimate the true world population of atheists to be? 

24) How do we know how to do the right things?

25) Statistically, the odds against the universe appearing how it does today must be enormous, vastly improbable, and statistically negligible. However, through observation we can see that it does exists in it’s current form. Are these odds not about the same for that of  a creator existing?

26) Is the subject of philosophy obsolete?

It’s a childrens book that is mostly pictures:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315465559&sr=8-1

An audiobook of it would be around five minutes long.

Thanks for the reply Mr Z. I’m sorry you didn’t like my questions and I’m sure you are right, many of them must have been asked before.
My main reason for asking them was indeed out of ignorance, but I have always considered that the best reason to ask a question.
I’ll try to do better next time.
Thanks again.
Steve

No matter what his book says, his manner and actions don’t match, I’m afraid.

Just because he wrote a book, doesn’t mean he believes everything he says in it… 

http://deanroberts.net

What brain science can’t explain simply reflects the infancy of the field.  Brain science is unrelated to whether there is a higher-dimensional space.  Anyway, the possibility of an embedding space is no evidence at all for its existence.

I’d like Dr. Dawkins to summarize the issues around “proving” universal negatives (“There exists no god with such and such characteristics” in comparison to “There exists no extraterrestrial life.”)  It seems that common-sensical “proof” entails both inductive reasoning as well as existing related information (e.g., the vastness of the universe).

Which historical naysayer has done the most to stifle scientific progress? I’m guessing  Richard Owen would feature quite highly, but I think it would be interesting to study the motivations of these immoveable rocks of dogma. Most were probably motivated by self interest and the preservation of their own standing.

Ask him why he is such a tremendous douche

Thanks for your response Pam. I think it’s very possible to have positive and negative feelings towards someone don’t you? 

I have been a huge Dawkins fan for a very long time. I think he’s funny, smart, and eloquent. I still think he’s those things. And I’m excited for his new book. But after Elevatorgate I am not 100% with him like I was. I don’t know if his thoughts are the same or if they’ve changed since so many people made excellent points against what he said. And I would like to know if he’s considered looking at what happened from another viewpoint. If he’s processed all these new thoughts and arguments (like rational thinkers and scientists do) and come to a new conclusion. Or the same conclusion. Or somewhere in between.

Ps- I am not a girl. I am a grown ass woman scientist who likes engaging in rational discussion. 

I think that deciding how to act is entirely personal.  I have a close young friend just now separating off from the extreme Catholicism of his family.  His mother arranged an outdoor reception honoring his graduation from high school.  His large extended family was standing around and prior to eating, there was a prayer.  I asked him if this was to be a traditional prayer.  He answered that he didn’t believe in this stuff any more.  There was then an enormous amount of crossing throughout the yard, and I could see my friend strenuously restraining his arms, but that his hands at his sides were twitching through the motions. 

Agreed Chrissy.  Maybe we should agree to end this thread now!

It matters because his response to Elevatorgate was condescending, rude, and dismissive. He made false comparisons and transparently manipulative arguments, of exactly the sort that he as a practiced communicator should be ashamed to make.

He eventually asked what it was that he didn’t get, and many people, including myself, patiently explained. We haven’t heard from him since.

My hope is that he’s had time to think about it and has had a moment of consciousness raising, as he’s acknowledged in the past.

What’s your favorite song?

(Please forgive me, I haven’t read Dr. Dawkins’ entire corpus, where he may have discussed this elsewhere, and I certainly realize this falls entirely within the teen-fandom sphere of interest, and thus may be considered puerile, at best, but I’m interested in the man, and I’d like to know.)

I’ll accept favorite musicians and/or composers as well.  But I like to think that after a very long day of fending off his detractors, he might come home, pour a drink, and listen to something.  I’m curious to know what it is.

Thanks very much,

Miss Percival
San Francisco, CA USA

He likes Verdi

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

(no, I don’t have the glossy 8×10)

I’m atheist, but let my daughter believe whatever she wants, she’s seven and believes in god, fairies, ghosts, vampires, dragons, santa, easter bunny, literally everything.  She also believes that jesus is a fairy, the first time she spoke about fairy jesus I laughed so hard.  I didn’t want to do this originally, I wasn’t going to tell her about santa or anything, but by the time she was two she knew all about him and god and everything else.  She asked me a few months ago if Santa was real.  I asked what her what she thought, she said that she thought he was real, I asked her why she was asking, it turns out that some kid at school told her he wasn’t.  I told her that people believe all kinds of different things, and that if she wants to believe santa is real, then she could.

We’ve had the same conversation about god and the tooth fairy, with the tooth fairy thing she said, “well who besides the tooth fairy would give us money for teeth, I mean, besides our parents”.  I almost laughed at that, and instead managed to say, “what do you think?”  With god it’s been a bit different, she’ll say stuff about god, like, “how did god invent …” and I tell her how that certain thing came to be, when she asked about how god makes lightening I got on Google with her and we looked up what actually causes lightening.  She said to me, “what about god?”   I told her that we don’t need god to know how lightening works, we use science for stuff like that.
I also told her that people believe lots of different things, that some people believe in god and some people don’t.  After one of these conversations she asked me if I believe in god, I told her that it doesn’t really matter what I believe, it only matters what she believes, but that I didn’t see any evidence that there was such a thing as god, same as I say for all the other imaginary creatures.  I’m kind of hoping that when she stops believing in Santa, she’ll stop believing in all the other imaginary beings.  

Dr. Dawkins,   What exactly did you mean when you said that elevator guy didn’t do anything wrong?

Although I am in total agreement with Richards stance on religion could you ask him whether he would ever consider debating climate change with deniers and so called skeptics. I think it would make good tv. And it would not be far removed from the structure of his religious debates.. There is a correlation, for instance creationists and climate deniers have very similar traits. Neither group research the “peer reviewed” empirical evidence, they cherry pick the information that supports their claims whilst ignoring the overwhelming data that contradicts them. This is the most urgent problem mankind has ever had to face and will be even more significant than the damage that religion could ever cause and that’s saying something. The spread of misinformation convinces the public to do nothing to reduce their carbon footprint. I think Richard with maybe a few climate scientists could make all the difference.

Kind Regards

James Williams

Dear Sir/Madam,
I have two questions for Professor Dawkins,
1) Professor Dawkins, in your book “The God Delusion”, you referred to interesting studies that basically showed that the higher one’s education the less one is likely to be religious. I am a scientist myself and I work with many scientists who are very religious, and in fact one of our most imminent scientists is also a pastor (he is a plant pathologist by the way). I am not disputing the results of these studies but my question is: what in your opinion would be the evolutionary reason for the human mind to be capable of holding contradicting beliefs. In other words, how do you explain the fact that some of the smartest scientists in this world are also capable of accepting illogical things as fact?
2) In a TV interview with Ben Stein you seemed to have accepted the theory that a higher being may have designed life as we know it and seeded this planet with it. Would I be correct to assume that this does contradict what you have said in “River Out of Eden”, in that the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, etc.).
 
Many thanks,
Nader Sallam
Australia