You'd expect a vinegar-and-baking-soda sort of interaction when Bill O'Reilly interviewed Richard Dawkins -- but in fact, they had a pleasant, civil discussion with no voices raised or names called, and concluded it by agreeing to disagree. I know, such a thing seems beyond the range of possibility, for both of these men whose favored means to attract attention to their opinions is to confront and outrage rather than to reason and converse. But here's the interview to prove that it really happened:
Now, it's true that O'Reilly dominates the discussion and throws in a few cheap shots and intellectual shortcuts (the Declaration of Independence does mention the "Creator" and "Nature's God" but does not "heavily" use the language of religion, for instance; it is mainly a list of political grievances against King George III), but remember that it is O'Reilly's show, so that means O'Reilly gets to control it. If Dawkins wants to be in control, he can go do his own show. Dawkins surely knew what he was getting into when he agreed to make the appearance. But while O'Reilly dominated the conversation, he did not monopolize it and Dawkins got a substantial platform to respond to his opinion, which is pretty fair, all things considered.
Whether it was a case of both men making similar tactical decisions to be reasonable in order to be persuasive, or a case of both men being coached by producers to avoid letting the disagreement descend into a more stereotypical kind of O'Reilly-style shouting match, or if it was just that they both took their meds that day, this is the way people ought to talk to one another about how they disagree; they don't have to moderate their position to show one another respect and they don't have to back down to try and understand each other. Ultimately, I think it was a decent exchange between a prominent theist opinion leader and a prominent atheist opinion leader. So good on, to both O'Reilly and Dawkins.
A better, deeper, and even more civil exchange has been had recently between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan, by the way. Of course, the conclusion is again, as it must always be, an agreement to disagree.
April 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I guess I'll assume that Dawkins is a head of an atheist group. Since when is it a cheap shot to mention that "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? If you don't believe that is fine. That is your right. But don't rewrite history in saying that this nation wasn't founded on religious beliefs. That would be untrue.
... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thanks for the clip.
The cheap shot I was referring to was O'Reilly saying that the Declaration of Independence is "heavily invested" in the language of religion (or words to that effect). I do not disagree that the Declaration references the existence of a "Creator" and "Nature's God," but my point is that the document is not religious in nature nor is it an expression of a religious belief. It is a secular, political document, not a religious one. And don't forget that its primary author had decidedly non-Christian beliefs about the nature and origin of the universe.
And you can learn more about Richard Dawkins here. He's written a book called The God Delusion which has been a bestseller for more than seven months now.
I realized he was a deist, which to me meant no miracles but that did stop him from attending the weekly church services held in the House of Representatives.
Jefferson did write this.
Post a Comment