Once Mr. Dawkins has succeeded convincing the world, what will he have accomplished?
I'm not a religious person but I am realistic one.

Sure, religion is getting a lot of bad press lately, and certainly there are some bad apples. But how about the overwhelming percentage of good apples among them: Look at who is helping the homeless, picking people off the streets when they hit rock bottom, stand at street corners in freezing temperatures and collect donations for the Salvation Army, running soup kitchens, and support a zillion of poor and under-privileged men and women. Take all that away, and see what kind of a world we'd be left with.

Part two - the spiritual aspect, or one of basic human values.
Maybe Mr. Dawkins will convince the majority of us that we are nothing more than a bio-electric coincidence of nature. Everything we are can be explained with the basic rules of natural law and logic. The result is that our whole existence has no meaning beyond a bunch of chemical equations. Thus, our human values have no meaning either. By plain logic, the feelings we have for friends or family is a result of the same equations that govern our physical existence, merely a delusion that our life has any meaning.
So, if we watch our best friend drown in a lake without us moving a finger to his rescue - fine. Life doesn't have a meaning. Remember, it's just a series of chemical reactions. How about shooting your mother, does it matter?

Given a choice of a)Living in Mr. Dawkins' world, or b)a world that is guided by spiritual religious values that cannot be put into math equations, I take the latter - because the other option scares me.

And in closing, a thought about being a bit arrogant - do we really know-it-all? Mr. Dawkins doesn't know anymore than the rest of us what is beyond the universe that we live in, and it is a bit presumptuous to claim we do.

Your interview was shameful in it's attempt "dumb down" portions of the discussion for the audience. Dawkins on stage and you converse like a 6th grader? Give your audience a little more credit.

Richard Dawkins is breaking the cardinal rule of science. He is no longer a dispassionate observer of the natural world but pursues his distaste for religion with the zeal of an evangelist.

Dear Evan,

I saw your interview today with Richard Dawkins on religion. I would just like to point out to you that atheism is not a religion or a set of beliefs. It is a term that was given to people who do not believe in god by religious people. If I do not believe in Santa Claus I guess I could be labeled an anti Clausite.

Stalin was an atheist but he do not slaughter millions of people in the name of atheism. And as Dawkins correctly pointed out Hitler was a Roman Catholic, although it can be argued that Hitler did not do what he did in the name of religion.

However there are many examples in history where massacres have been done in the name of religion ie the cruades, the inquistion, witch burnings, 911, etc etc along with religious attitudes to women, and non whites (until recent history) and homo sexuals.

Evan how would you explain the actions of those millions of atheists known as Buddhists who have had no slaughters like Judism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity?

Dawkins is perfectly right in his intolerance to what religion really is --- superstition.

Richard Dawkins is deluional. If I were a religious person I would pray for him.

Good Morning, I watch your show today about what Richard Dawkins had to say about the belief in God or God(s) and the impact it's having on our society, I do think some aspects of God and religion do help our fellow man and women, but Richard Dawkins makes a good point, maybe it's time for the Human Race to move on or evolve further, were we are all on a common platform, a true open society.

Thank You

This was my first time hearing Richard Dawkins speak, and found his views interesting and thought provoking. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Evan's questions or his demeanor. I also found Carole's statement about smacking someone upside the head condescending and rude. I can think of only two people who need to be "smacked upside the head."

I am reminded of a dilemma authored by French mathematician Blaise Pascal. He wrote:

"If God exists, I have everything to gain by believing in Him. And if God does not exist, I have nothing to lose by believing in Him. Either God does exist or He does not exist. Therefore, I have everything to gain or nothing to lose by believing in God."

In "debating" Richard Dawkins, I think you missed out on a great deal of what he might have offered viewers, and in this reduced the value of the interview. You spent time on areas long since "debated" and likely understood by reasonably well-informed people, and left me wondering if you had actually read any of the books you mentioned in the continued movement towards atheism/ no religion in our society, including the God Delusion. What's next a debate on whether Evolution really is a good factual basis for understanding the biology of life on earth? That a belief in god/gods is delusional is surely obvious. Understanding why a large segment of our society persists in the perpetration of delusions might be a more interesting line of inquiry. The religious myths indoctrinated into our minds at an early age are hard to shake off but until one rejects religion (any religion), good luck being able to be rational in your understanding of our species or our place in this world.

The Dr. Is right.

Richard Dawkins just tells the truth. Doesn't get emotional about it just the truth. His arguments are so compelling. Best thing I've watched on a Sunday morning for a long time, except Corrie of course!

Richard Dawkins does such an admirable job of trying to explain to Evan how evolution and natural tendencies can and do produce what humans have come to understand as good behaviour. Evan seems to have great difficulty getting this.
The sexual lust analogy and the animal adoption examples were very clear in explaining how humans have come to perform "good works".
It was also quite biased and inappropriate in the middle of the debate to cut to a clip and suggest that Dawkins believes Darwinism explains "everything". We did not hear this come from Dawkins' lips, nor was he given opportunity to dispute or debate this claim by Evan. Richard Dawkins would state, I am quite sure, that there has yet to be discovered, if ever, a theory that explains "everything".

Your interview with Richard Dawkins was an embarrassment. As an interviewer all you did was critize his views and opinions.

Dr. Dawkins has, in my opinion, always fallen just short of sufficiently explaining why atheism has not CAUSED the atrocities of the 20th century.

I will not speak directly to the motivation of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have all done a great job of this already. An EXPLICIT definition of atheism will suffice.

Atheism is an absense of belief in gods and the supernatural. Religion and faith are theories about the origin of the universe and life, and, usually, that the creator has given out rules of conduct for humans to govern their behaviour with. An atheist is someone who says that he or she doesn't believe that hypothesis.

Atheism is NOT an hypothesis. It is a rejection of religious ideas only. In fact, to call a person an atheist tells you absolutely NOTHING about what that person does believe. It only tells you what that person doesn't believe. Atheists just don't believe in god. End of story.

Atheism is absent of content. It PROPOSES nothing. An atheist is free to believe anything, so long as it is not supernatural.

Facism, communism, and religion are PROPOSALS. Atheism is not. This is why people are not motivated to do evil by their atheism. An atheist can be a facist, or a communist. And they have been. But atheism does not lead to facism and communism. Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have done a good job of showing that religion does a better job of that than atheism does.

Atheists these days tend to believe in reason, objective truth, and the marketplace of ideas. John Stuart Mill, Thomas Payne, and David Hume are the "patron saints" of modern atheism. Atheists don't believe these things because of their atheism, but they couldn't put these things above irrational religiosity without atheism.

So, Atheism proposes nothing and leaves us free to find other paths. It does not dictate what those paths should be. I PROPOSE, that we follow the path of reason.

I enjoy the show very much and watch often for an intellectually stimulating debate of interesting and timely issues.
I must say Carole's comments following the interview with Richard Dawkins related to "feeling like slapping someone side the head" further reinforced Mr. Dawkins assertion that religious faith curbs independent thought and fosters division. I would like to know what made her feel like slapping someone. Was Carole less open to intellectual debate by her own religious beliefs and do those beliefs condone slapping someone with different views side the head? As a woman I applaud and appreciate daily the valuing of independent thought and evolution of morals and standards outside of religious faith through the feminist movement, irradication of slavery, gay rights etc. I can wear what I want (unlike some religions), participate in society at all levels including the highest position (unlike many religions), can make my own decisions about my reproductive/sexual health (unlike some religions) and on I could go.
I would like to hear more from Richard Dawkins not slap him side the head. He was a breath of fresh air in this fear based time of religious extremism.
Thanks again for a thought provoking program.
Shelley

Very interesting man and heart seems to be in the right place. I think he is inaccurate though, in saying that all the important movements in history were secular in nature, simply because they may have been carried out by people who were not literalists or identified with a particular religion or even a God. It would seem "secularism" is not without divine impulse as described and understood by parties on both sides of the debate. It would also seem one era's secularism is, in hindsight, most often another's return to basic ethics and honesty that is re-codified, redocumented and re-incorporated into "religious" belief. I think "secularism" as understood by Mr. Dawkins is a form of genuine "revivalism" against the staid complacency and cold comfort of a generation working within materialistic and ontological challenges of a given time in history. Each generation must preserve the "vessel" of human consciousness, the soul if you will, in the face of often great change and challenge to previously held maxims.As a result, you are unlikely to find much difference at all between ethical secularism and balanced religious practice. In a technical and practical sense, you will find worship and a sense of the sacred in both and that both likely worship the same things.

I very much enjoyed the piece with Richard Dawkins.

Richard claims belief in God is irrational. As a great rationalist, Richard must admit that his own belief in the power of human rationality is as faith-based as any religion.

Even though human rationality is a valuable tool for humankind, it is not necessarily the only source for human progress.

Where human rationality meets its limits, religion can help provide the meaningfulness to a person's life.

hi.I always watch your show,i learn a lot tanks.
1- if the father of this poor little girl quaz parvis(who she was biten to death by her father)was atheists, she would have been alive to day.by the way i am so sad by her lost(its a shame to humman been because we all failed to save her.you can call me an persian athiests. finnaly i strongly support Mr,Richard Dawkin. thnks. love ARMAN-FARSI.

I commend you on not giving Mr.Dawkins a free ride with his beliefs.
His explanation for the motivation behind the evil and horrors wrought by the likes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, was laughable.
To say in effect that the evil caused by those who espouse religion is triggered by their religion, but that atheists who do so are just simply evil, is circular, self-serving and illogical.
His further argument that for Stalin (and presumably, Mao )only Marx, and not his atheism, should be looked to, makes me wonder if he ever read Marx, and some of the hallmarks of his beliefs, or perhaps Mr.Dawkins hopes no one does.
Mr.Dawkins truly began to grasp at straws when he used the analogy of sexual lust for man's impulse to do good.

Best Regards,
& Merry Christmass !

As a longtime fan of your program I was disappointed with Mr. Solomon's so-called "debate" with Professor Dawkins. No New insights, just the same old "what about Stalin and Hitler?" arguments that Professor Dawkins has easily handled a hundred times. The fact that the Professor did so once again with good humor and patience, even though he was rarely allowed to finish a sentence,is a testament to his character and professionalism.

Mr. Solomon, you brought a knife to a gunfight. That's an analogy.Perhaps you could have one of your researchers look up the meaning of the word for you.

I found the Dawkins segment to be, as usual, subtlety racist against non-believers. I especially found distasteful Carol's parting shots about how she would like to hit Dawkins, maybe she would like to hit a Christian or Muslim for their viewpoints too. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I am far from a Dawkins champion, but I found him in the interview to be very reasonable and patient. He seemed to struggle with Evan's repetitive questions in which Evan's personal beliefs were showing through, no matter how impartial he tried to be.

I am only a common man, but I am a non-believer. From the way the interview and after was conducted, I guess that makes me a second-class citizen.

Ridiculing people for their religious belief is hatred; ridiculing people for their lack of religious belief is hatred too.

Is it really necessary to try and package the evolution of human compassion as a consequence of either Religious or Darwinian theories? Leave those to find compassion where they may - as long as they find it. My social consciousness is grounded in my very awareness of the social need to help those less fortunate - perhaps it's just economics. They say it takes a village to raise a child -- this same social proximity must also be responsible for our social growth. Is it evolving - I certainly hope so - is it based in either Darwin’s Theory or Religion - who cares.

I am livid at Evon's attitude and disrespect for this man and his views, forthrightness and honesty. Evon did not debate him - so much as, belittle his views. Evon took great 'licence' in his comments and did not appreciated the acuity and sincerity in this man's words. I really lost a lot of respect for Evon as a journalist, as this interview progressed. Evon, contact me about your biases - and enlighten me about your emotions during this interview - as they were mis-applied, in my view !

The ban on Mr. Dawkins book by Catholics lends serious credence to his opinions otherwise why all the fuss!!!

While I may not know whether or not there is a God, I do know a couple of things:
1. we each have both the right and the responsibility to consider the question. That consideration may take a lifetime and the conclusion may be that the answer is indeterminable. Still, we have that obligation.
2. morality, integrity, ethics exist regardless and independent of religion. They are necessary for a civilized society. They didn't need a burning bush and a tablet, although these symbols may have been useful at the time.
3. values exist independent of religion. One does not need religion or religious beliefs to 'do good works'. I for one refuse to have my 'works' judged either good or bad by others whose values differ from mine. Each of us in fact has an obligation to formulate our own value hierarchy, not dictated by others whether parents, religious leader or whoever, many of whom may have questionable motives.
4. in formulating our own value hierarchy, the only proper pinnacle is one's self. Any other pinnacle suggests that we are living by others' standards and values.
5. "He profits most who serves best." This a former Rotary International slogan, one to which I continue to adhere to. I believe it covers all facets of life from my family to my community to my business to the world at large. Profit may come in the form of material rewards but more often it comes in the form of personal satisfaction. Thereby, I maximize my personal value system. As Ayn Rand might say, I have acted selfishly.
An saying, which I believe originated in the far east, goes like this:
I slept and in my sleep, I dreamed that life was joy;
I awoke and found that life was duty;
I served and discovered that duty was joy.
[My apologies to the author for both forgetting his name and for paraphrasing his words.]

Also wanted to say that I find REALLY strange that Mr. Dawkins is so utilitarian as to reduce basic human compassion, or "Agape'", to evolutionary misfirings and having no place or practical use in society. VERY bizarre and shows he has not likely experienced this first hand, or understands the experience, which really makes him less an authority to speak on the subject of God. In one sense, he is Carl Jung's nightmare human.

People who make decisions in their lives based on what books written by primitive people thousands of years ago are stupid.
People in the media who defend, support these people are also stupid but they are also irresponsible. As, if one encourages irrational religious thought one also encourages religious fanaticism. Maybe if the Moslem killer of that innocent young girl in Toronto had been told a little bit more often about Darwin, maybe, just maybe he would not have done it. But no, he was told by the "politicaly correct" media and political establishment that religious thought is totally "in" in Canada.
This country, the western world, the whole planet needs more people like Dawkins.

DANIEL YELLE
MONTREAL

Common ground between reason and religious dogma? There could coexistence certainly, but it has almost always been religion that has upset the applecart, from burning "heretical" scientists along with their knowledge, to demanding equal time in classroom's as "science". Mr. Solomon's combativeness only proved Mr. Dawkins' point. Like most theists, when the "truth" of their claims is challenged they feel affronted, yet they then demand that science prove things like the non-existence of God.

In fact, since Mr. Dawkins can't reasonably expect religion to go away, what he must therefore be demanding is what we, in our supposedly enlightened society, should all be demanding--that religions stop calling themselves the absolute and unassailable truth (can all of them be right?), and start calling themselves what they are, systems of belief couched in tradition, folklore and yes, superstition.

Mr. Solomon offers Stalin as an example of atheism run amok, but again he misses the point. Communism is no more a science than is theism. By its very nature, it's a philosophy more like the religions that Mr. Dawkins deplores; It requires absolute faith, it suppresses competing philosophies, it has scriptures that may not be contested...the list of similarities goes on and on. Communism is yet another example of philosophy (or religion, if you will) taking precedence over reason, to society's detriment.

In closing this segment, it was suggested by Ms. MacNeil that Mr. Dawkins deserved "a slap upside the head". Why didn't she express the same sentiment when the Dalai Lama talked about how bad homosexuality is? I suppose that, as a holy man, he's inherently entitled to a degree of respect that Mr. Dawkins does not deserve. Right?

Or, even more succinctly...

In this corner, RELIGION!

1) Religion is a proposal.
2) Religion (generally) proposes that the universe was created by an intelligent being.
3) Religion proposes that the creator set down rules for appropriate behaviour by humans.
4) Religion (generally) proposes that there are punishments and rewards for humans that disobey or obey those rules.

In this corner, ATHEISM!

1) Atheism is NOT a proposal.
2) Atheism is completely devoid of content. It is merely a rejection of religious hypotheses.
3) Atheism leaves people free to find other non-supernatural hypotheses for governing their day to day behaviour.
4) Atheism leaves the pursuit of justice up to humanity.

re: F.J.D.'s comments.
Please refer to my earlier post, and to this shorter summation of it.
I am curious as to how you would respond.

What, precisely, do you think that atheism proposes? What does atheism propose as "the way" to live? In truth, atheism says nothing about it.
Religion, Facism and Marxism all do propose something, however. Therin lies the differentce. That some have looked to Marx/Lenin and then acted upon those beliefs is not a result of their atheism, it is a result of their communism.

As for Dr. Dawkins' defense of the evolutionary roots of morality and his analogy with lust, I suggest you do some research into his work "The Selfish Gene", game theory, and tit-for-tat morality in nature before passing judgement. I think you'll find that the purile nature of the interview dumbed down what he was trying to bring to the table.

Dear Evan...
I was very disturbed by the implication that only “believers” are able to be philanthropists or supporters of charitable organizations.
I was raised Catholic in a Catholic family, but even as I child I remember having doubts about what the nuns were teaching me. Eventually, I came to the realization that I had not been “blessed” by the Holy Spirit and, thus, had not been given the gift of “Faith”.
I married a Catholic and raised my children to be good Catholics because I felt my lack of Faith was my problem, and I wanted my family to have all the values of a Catholic upbringing. I eventually stopped going to Mass every Sunday when my children became teenagers and refused to go.
I am now 67 years old now, divorced, and I have a small business to supplement my income. For the year 2006, I had a taxable income of just under $24,000, yet I have been supporting children in Africa through Plan Canada since 1979. I went from supporting one child to three children. I have set up an endowment fund with Plan Canada to which I contribute $1,200 a year.
I am an atheist and proud of it! The word “god” irritates me to no end. I see little girls in the Sudan being raped, starving, with no homes, and tears come to my eyes. Can you explain to me how this so-called “benevolent” god you believe in can look at this and not be totally devastated? I would not have enough tears to shed for the number of children who die every second of the each day.
If my compassion and need to help is a freak of nature, so be it. It just means that the rest of you were not “blessed” with this malformation in the brain as those of us fortunate ones.
Sincerely...

Scientists use science to make a model of the phenomonal world. But as science answers the questions it poses, it ends up creating further questions. When one looks for the ultimate reference point to the beginning of science, it cannot be found. For example - genetics come from bio chemistry. That comes from chemistry. That in turn comes from physics. That comes from mathematics, and ultimately that comes from the mind. Darwinian science cannot explain a lot of things. When looks for the ultimate reference for the mind - it cannot be found. Is it in the brain? Of course not. Is it outside the brain? Of course not. It has no location. It has no characteristics at all. It is colorless, shapeless, has no center or fringe, yet it knows of things perfectly - can discriminate things - it is the pure presence of the phenomenal world itself. Once the illusion of duality is cut through; then mind and reality itself merge into a whole. The nature of the cosmos itself is spontaneously present as the non-dual non-conceptual mind. There is not a "being" up there - this is the delusion Mr. Dawkins talks about, and I personally agree. But once one realizes the eternal aspect of their conciousness - they are at once "in love" with themselves because the true nature is not in conflict with itself, and in actuality, "loves" itself in a way of completeness as apposed to "love and hate". This is the love of God or Jesus Christ Christains seek (Union of God and the Holy Spirit). When Mr. Dawkins talks of delusion, he must understand that Darwinism is as much a delusion as the notion of a "God up there". They are just more divisions of the bounded mind trying to "exaplain" everyting and coming up short everytime because of a primordial ignorance of its essence.

Thank you very much.

Chris Levy

I watched the Richard Dawkins interview with great interest and although I respect Evans intellect and professionalism I did think Mr. Dawkins was more persuasive to the objective viewer. Using the reference to Hitler and Stalin to illustrate the evil of an atheist culture was a weak argument, the longer the interview went on the more I believed that Evans questions were based on his beliefs and his upbringing rather an objective alternate opinion.

I was raised a Protestant but from an early age began to question the dogma that I was exposed to at every opportunity, coming from Belfast the polarity of religion manifested itself in more than debate and it became evident to me that religion lent itself to the control of the masses by pitting one group against another.

It always appeared to me that argument that each section of the religious community used to support their good deed was exactly the same argument they used to condone an atrocity committed by the “Other side.” Using God as your justification for any act relieves one of the responsibility of any consequence arising from that act, if that is indeed true then no persons good deed is altruistic but only the manifestation of divine intervention.

Although I did agree with some but not all of Mr. Dawkins points, I do believe that there is something innate within a person that compels us to behave in a moral way. I do not support the simplistic argument that our environment is responsible for our behaviors, if that were true then every survivor of the Nazi death camps would be a psychopathic serial killer.

Incidentally, I enjoy the program immensely. The biggest compliment I can offer is that it reminds me of many of the great BBC current affairs programs I grew up watching and which played a part in how I viewed the issues that effected my environment.

The man is 100% correct...do we really need to lean on some man-made code of conduct to co-exist on this planet ? Anf if my God is better that your God should I get you to convert or kill you for it ? Hey, wake up everyone out there..."god" is the root of all evil and the cause of 99% of all civil strife, past, present and future ! Didn't the crusaders kill in the name of the Almighty One ? It is a pointless concept for the meek and the weak. Good luck to the religious right !

Dear Evan,
You will certainly have to get up much earlier in the morning to debate Mr. Dawkins. I know nothing of you personally, but a rather simplistic and dogmatic religious emotion seemed to eminate throughout your interview that continually attempted to discredit his position. Sadly, these methods highlight an intolerance to others that so often are at the heart of organized religious views.
Please remember that the rest of us can be spiritual and accepting of the notion that we dont have all the answers. It keeps us open and tolerant of others.

After reading the posts on this website, all I can say is thank Goodness I am not alone is my disdain for the way atheist Richard Dawkins was dealt with in this interview. To bill this as a "debate" was the first insult; the CBC should have found someone of equal stature if a true "debate" was intended. What actually occured was an interview by an incredibly biased reporter. The second insult was more direct and requires a formal apology from the CBC, not only to Mr. Dawkins but also to all atheists in Canada. To suggest that Mr. Dawkins deserves a "slap upside the head" borders on hate speech. She may have been laughing, but that doesn't make her comments any less offensive.

Overall, I feel Evan did a great job of asking Dr. Dawkins tough questions. While I agree with Dawkins on many of his thoughts about evolution, I think Evan pointed out some clear fallacies in Dawkin's interpretation of the historical racism issue and the evils that can come about as a result of Atheism. While I think that Dawkins is a very intelligent man, and tries his best to explain everything by reason, he oddly enough denies the mass murders in Europe and Asia (e.g. China)in the name of Atheistic ideals. I know from personal experience that the oppression in eastern Europe was due to atheistic ideals cleverly veiled; promoting "reason" and "equality". My family and I immigrated to Canada particularly because we knew that there was freedom of religion and freedom of conscience (you can't have one without the other).

P.S. Yes, Martin Luther King Jr. was religious! And so was Mother Teresa, Tommy Douglas (a Baptist minister, and voted the "greatest Canadian"), John Paul 2 (partly responsible for tearing down the iron curtain), Maximilian Kolbe, and so are the majority of people who help the poor in Canada, "Generally speaking, those who give more can be distinguished by a number of
characteristics. They are more likely to be older, to have higher levels of education and income, to be married or widowed and to be RELIGIOUSLY ACTIVE."(2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating) As well, "Volunteer rates were highest among youth, those with university degrees, those with household incomes over $100,000, and those who attended religious services weekly."(2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating)And, "Compared to all Canadians, those who attend religious services weekly are twice as likely to be top volunteers (22% were top volunteers compared to 11% of all Canadians)." (2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating)... you get the idea...

I think Evan was somewhat demeaning in his belittlement of Richard Dawkins by his "cross examination". This may titilate the audience but does little to stimulate a reasoned approach to the debate.I haven't read Mr. Dawkins' book but I did read Daniel C. Dennits book Breaking the Spell, which is a scientific approach to the evolution of religion. Dennit wrote the his book hoping all believers would read it with an open mind.He feels it's very timely because of the danger posed by fundamentalists taking power or attempting therefore whether it be Islamists or Chritians.Isn't a belief really a cultural thingpassed on from parents to children? Dawkins and Dennit have been involved in manypolemics trying to establish a scientific approach to the religious phenomenon.
Which came first , language or religion?And did religion really begin when Man first saw his own image in a pond?
I would very much like to hear Evan interview Daniel Dennit and discuss his book Breaking the Spell

Religion has and continues to be used to condition people not to question authority and that is why governments support it by not taxing religious organization. Religion is not about spirituality, it is about obeying without question.

Just like non-religious who pick what morality they want to adhere to the religious pick and chose what verse in the Bible they want to adhere to. Religion does nothing to better our world, however, it does provide solace for people who instead of taking action against wrong doing say it is God's will or our leaders are only human and can't help but be corrupted.

Look at the US where 100 million people believe the end of the world will occur in their life time. They point to the events caused by actions taken by their democratically elected government that they continue to support as evidence of the end being near. This is a self fulfilling prophecy and they are happy to see the end as the end to them means the end of their suffering and eternal happiness as promised in the Bible.

Religion is more harmful them most people think. Surely many of us can see the way religion trains people to accept authority without question. Allowing all types of inhumane treatment of fellow human beings without objections as is evident by the fact that Bush won two democratic elections in the US supported by the Christians while torturing and holding people indefinitely without any semblance of due process.

Wake up religious people and start practicing what you preach and maybe then many who don't believe would not so easily claim hypocrisy in religions. I mean if the religious vote to adhere to the famous verse "do unto others as you would have done unto you". Do you want our soldiers tortured if captured? If not then don't torture others. Do we want other countries to adhere to international law then we need to adhere to international law.

Evan,

You carried yourself very poorly in that interview. With a Masters degree in religious studies one would think you could have done better than that. In no way did you act like the professional that you claim to be. A real let down for CBC.

I've read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et.al. IT'S ABOUT TIME!

When Carole surprisingly hit herself "upside the head" and Evan's eyes bugged out in scarey faces during the interview, it became more of an entertainment than a debate.

The question of whether or not you found your common ground with one of the world's most foremost atheist can be answered in one word, no.

Kathy Henderson
Ottawa

In listening to this discussion between your presenter and Richard Dawkins, I was amazed at how far apart the use and definition of simple words are.

To a scientist, the word "belief" is short-hand for "a publicly available, testable conclusion based on testable evidence obtained in an open and democratic manner".

However, whenever a scientist uses the word "belief" in this way, as a social nicety to keep the flow of discussion going, religious people sieze on this nicety and then try to equate the scientist's use of the word "belief" to their own personal use of that word, which is: "I read it in the Bible (Koran or other holy scripture) and therefore it must be true". The religous person then goes one step further to proclaim their own "faith" as being of equal worth to the scientist's "belief", on the grounds that "all faiths are created equal to all beliefs and are entitled to equal air time".

Most faiths are cryptic, undemocratic and any evidence for the thing or things believed in cannot be tested.

Perhaps in debate, the religious should be more charitable to scientists and acknowledge that the scientist uses the word "belief" as shorthand, rather than sieze on the opportunity to make a logical fallacy by switching definitions.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Woof
Sandy Bay, SK

The discussion spent some time on charity. The act of giving, of making donations, is one of the hoariest old chestnuts ever brought up in the debate used in an attempt to prove that there is "something" that transcends a purely biochemical approach towards things like donations to strangers as being "evidence that disproves Darwinism". Firstly, Darwin did not originally use the words "Survival of the fittest" - in fact, it was Herbert Spencer, an economist. "Natural Selection" only talks about the ability of the "sufficiently fit" to have grandchildren (offspring of the offspring). Once that happens, then natural selection is at work.

Feelings of "Love" are easily dealt with in scientific terms. We feel good when we are in love - we have to, otherwise we wouldn't do it. If we felt bad about being close to a person of the opposite sex, to the point where we didn't procreate and didn't raise babies, then we would have been long extinct. Feelings of "love" are almost tautological in that sense. Humans have to name things - the good feelings that we have when in love, caused by the various endorphins like seratonin, need a shorthand word, and "love" is the word we have. "Love" is just shorthand in the way "belief" is shorthand. However, the religious once again miss the point of science when they say "We feel love, God loves us, therefore God exists and love was a gift from God."

Yours sincerely,
Peter Woof

The Boxing Day 2005 tsunami is also evidence of Dawkin's comments about charity usually only being extended to immediate family. In many ways, Dawkins does not have to invoke the hypothesis of "misfiring" as he called it to explain the size of donations.

The tsunami, the natural disaster, invoked huge pledges from many countries to assist the victims. Some things need to be remembered. The time of that tsunami was when most of the Western world was either sitting down to Christmas Dinner, or were just recovering from it. Also, many of the children of the Western world were holidaying there - Swedish youngsters in their early 20's, Norwegians, Dutch, English, Canadians, Americans and Australians. The "family" connection was right there. The tsunami occured right at the time when "family" was uppermost in the thoughts of the Western world.

However, when one looks at the list of size of donations, donor countries and per capita donations and other statistics associated with disasters to "non-family", such as to the victims of earthquakes , floods, the recent cyclone in Bangladesh, drought in sub-saharan Africa and issues such as relief of suffering in Dafor, then the United Nation's figures tell quite a different story, one of underfunding, of attachment of "strings" and "conditions" to donations and other efforts to impose the values of the donor on the recipients of aid.

The United States is often criticised by the UN as imposing conditions on aid and relief effort and of donating very little in relation to the economic power, or even on a per capita basis. Many donor countries are criticised for the way that donations often must be spent to purchase goods and services from the donor country. Recently, George W Bush's administration has been criticised for funding "Christian" organisations to carry out charitable works.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Woof

I claim that all this proves that the "family" hypothesis is well-supported, and that indeed there is very little "misfiring" of evolution. By imposing conditions, by the government funding of "Christian" charities aligned to the values of the current US administration, we are proving that it is "family" to which charity is extended. By insisting on funds being used to purchase goods and services from donor countries, the "gift" is in fact being given to "one of us". By giving funds to right-wing fundamentalist Christian organisations whose values are aligned to the US administration, GW is giving funds to "one of us". During the tsunami, the US attempted to include in the value of its donations, the costs of running the military, the warships and other expenses of that kind. Once again, charity is being given to "one of us".

When I have put this argument to religious people, the best they can say is that I am being "cynical". As with other logical reasoning, the accusation of being "cynical" is an attack on the person (argumentum ad hominem) rather than any real effort to consider the evidence. There is no cynicism in simply pointing out that most human behaviour, even the so-called "selfless love in charity" does have a sound basis in natural selection and does not need the invocation of an Almighty to explain it.

The evidence is there in the statistics. I have not included the URLs (links) to the relevant United Nation's web pages because sometimes emails that contain links are deleted by the anti-virus software. However, if you want them and cannot find them, just ask. The relevant UN organisations are CERF, OHCA, for starters.

In my recollection of the Bible, when Jesus was asked "Are you the Son of God", His reply was pure equivocation "It is you who say that I am". Not exactly a simple "Yes", is it?

Yours sincerely,
Peter Woof

The fifth commandment is very simple "Thou shalt not kill." (period). Permission to kill was given to people in this way (as I recall) "Because you have hardened your hearts and will not keep My commandments...", and so it was, it was humans that were given permission by God to kill one another, to stone homosexuals and prostitutes to death, but fundamentally, this permission was against God's will. One would think that Christian nations would not kill, would not have the death penalty, but they do, following "man's law" rather than God's law. The fifth commandment in my fundamentalist reading of it is unequivocal; "Thou shalt not kill".

Jesus taught us what to do in the Parable of the Prostitute "Let you who is without sin be the first to cast the stone". Needless to say, the fundamentalist right-wingers, whether in Christianity or some other religion, equate this as meaning "Anyone who has not been found guilty of a crime in a court of law, has the power to impose the death penalty". I don't interpret the parable this way, the wording is for "those without sin" (whatever that means), perhaps meaning "those without moral blemish".

Once again, Dawkins was completely correct in pointing out how people just pick and choose the pieces of the Bible and religious scriptures to support their position.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Woof

I think that Mr. Dawkins is delusional himself. He claims that the world would be a better place without religion. That's a big hypothetical situation for a man of facts, evidence and science to be preaching. The world was simply shaped by religion. If there were no religions we could be living in an oasis of peace or we could be taught to worship our political leaders like they do in North Korea. I do agree that there have bee terrible things done in the name of religion but there have also been good. I also agree that Stalin was not only compelled by atheism either. My problem is that Mr. Dawkins would not use the same logic to determine the case of anyone killing in the name of religion because to him religious people don't have the freedom of thought and is would be absurd that there were any other reasons.

This brings me to another point. When people do stupid things in the name of religion they mostly do it because they are indeed stupid. Take the case of Aqsa Parvez. Her case is of her quarrel with her parents in not giving the liberties she wanted. I guess the hijab debate was the last of many confrontations and it lead to her unfortunate murder. It really doesn't have to do much about Islam at all, but if the small connection of the hijab weren't there, CBC and bunch of other channels wouldn't be "investigating" Islam in the first place. This man killed his daughter because he was of a violent and controlling nature. It just so happens he is muslim.

Atheist's such a Dawkins do not provide "rational" explanations for any of the issues that they claim religion perverts. You are telling me that it is more rational to believe that humans evolved from apes than to believe that there is a God? In my opinion atheists do not seem to have the depth that is necessary in accepting faith.

That was really sad, and while I hope for better from the CBC, I won't hold my breath (Chomsky was right).

Given the predictable and ridiculous posts which always contain the same half-truths and straw men, it's obvious that we non-believers (I use the positive term, communitarian naturalist) need to spend a minimum amount of time debating this and organize around a set of values that we can embrace publicly and personally, not out of faith but because we choose them voluntarily flowing from our evolved tendencies towards goodness, the received distilled wisdom of countless generations captured in mythologies, and our own experience and understanding of history.

The humanist manifesto was a useful start, but it's too broad and amounts to faith, among other problems.

I saw the show and agree with Mr dawkins.
Maybe its time we as humans acknowledge that the use religion is a crutch,without it humans tend to fall to the wayside. All of the problems in the world today have religion as a starter and fuel for the fire.You do not need to be religious to be a good person.

Why would strangers give gifts?

By giving gifts and donations to complete strangers there is some hope that the giver of the gift would be welcome in the community.

By being welcomed in a community of strangers, there is always the possibility of miscegination. This is the strongest biological mechanism to avoid inbreeding.

The fact that much missionary work is done by religious orders does not take anything away from the biological basis for people devoting their lives to strangers and giving gifts to strangers.

Gift-giving to strangers is a biological "necessity".

Believe it or not, what really matters is that we are lucky enough to be living in a time and place where Dawkins can express his very reasonable views without fear of being tortured or burned at the stake for heresy. Although there are those who would still condemn his soul to a Hell,by their rules,almost everyone will be there anyway. Doesn't every single God religeon damn anyone who doesn't precisely agree with them.
Thank whoever...our part of the world has 'evolved' beyond the thousand years of the dark ages of total religeous rule to where we are able to use the minds we were 'blessed with' reasoning together or for ourselves without physical fear of any dogma.
However,tattered by the personal baggage we all carry, thanks for the Dawkins interview efforts and another Sunday morning well spent!

I'm in total agreement with the majority of posters. The interview I just finished watching was not a debate, it was an extremely poorly constructed emotional attack by Evan. Followed by a tasteless and irritating insult by Carol. My "faith" in what is one of my favorite CBC programs has been seriously shaken.

In answer to your exit question to the viewer, do I think that atheists are becoming more fundamentalist? No, we're simply becoming more vocal and less scared to express ourselves. If there's one thing that religions have been able to agree on throughout this planets past, it would be that atheists are safe targets. As pointed out by a previous post, Carol has shown that its ok to attack the atheist in a flippant manner but an attack against the Dalai Lama for his questionable views would be wrong because he has the moral authority of a religious leader.
In addition, to imply that the only reason people give humanitarian aid is because of their religious faith is incredibly insulting to all the non-faith based NGO's and atheists such as myself that give incredible amounts of time and money to helping those in need. Atheists all over the world are helping and loving others, and we seem to be doing this without the weight of a self serving desire to avoid eternal damnation. Funny how that works.

I agree with many of the previous comments, but what I believe is wholly unacceptable and worthy of comment is Carol's comment concerning slapping Dr. Dawkins. That comment was completely unprofessional, irrational, and impolite when directed at any guest who volunteers his/her time to be on the show. I hope the next time this show tries to land a notable guest that individual declines due to the fear of being derided after the interview - not to mention that nothing Dr. Dawkins said was inappropriate, and any exasperation he displayed was due to the same tired arguments and ignorance being hurled his way.

Dear Evan and Carole,

I noticed you were going to be talking to Mr. Dawkins as follow up to the recent murder of a girl which may have been religiously motivated.

I took the opportunity to watch as I find his views refreshing and pretty much correct. In this particular case, I once again enjoyed his responses, they were clear and concise.

I would like to express my disappointment in the interview itself and the attitudes of the hosts after the interview.

If the interview was to be a debate, as you claimed, then make your arguments and allow rebuttal. If it’s an interview then pose questions and ask questions on statements that are inflammatory or incorrect and use fact to support your further investigation. It is inappropriate to shake your head in opposition based on your obvious bias to his views and yet not listen to the point being made.

I was particularly surprised with the post interview comment by Carole MacNeil and subsequent chuckle had by all. I thought Dr. Dawkins’ responses were wonderful and I had no interest in “smackin’ him upside the head”. I’m lost as to where you were frustrated by his perfectly sensible arguments. His demeanor was never inappropriate. I truly was baffled by the comment and reaction of both hosts following the interview. Looking at the reactions on your website, I see I’m not alone in my disappointment.

You’ve embarrassed yourselves with the obviously biased discussion and unprofessional reaction to very reasoned responses. Where I had enjoyed your previous efforts, I find myself less interested in watching your future programs.

Regards,

Rod Saville, P. Eng.
Calgary, AB

Galileo was put under house arrest not so much for inventing the telescope (which he didn't), but for encouraging people to think about what it was that they were seeing through the telescope.

Dawkins also encourages people to think, only to be met with simplistic dogma.

Science will always be iconoclastic towards religion, as long as religion steps outside its proper realm of considering morals and moral codes. Religion did have a role in attempting to explain our origins, of attempting cosmology, and should not be demeaned for having done this in the past. Perhaps it is time to "let go".

Fundamentalism portrays allegory as truth, such as in the "story of creation". There are many stories of creation in many native societies, and there is nothing to show that the Biblical story has any more value than any other story of creation. Yet, I have yet to hear of any fundamentalist champion the rights of native peoples to tell their *original* stories of creation, and to give them "equal time" in the school curricula. Why either religion or science has to "go there" actually escapes my powers of reason.

Creationists have yet to explain the amazingly rapid evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

By the way - humans did not "evolve from apes", rather, humans, hominids and apes share a common ancestor.

In previous posts I have committed the "crime" of "reification" - of treating abstract concepts as actual objects. "Natural Selection" is the shorthand name for a process that is very detailed in its operation.

Shorthand is necessary to help the flow of discussion. Reification has its place as shorthand, but argument does need to be about the processes.

I have always turned to CBC radio and television for intelligent,sophisticated, and enlightening programming. Today's "debate" between Mr. Solomon and Mr. Dawkins was anything but, at least in terms of Mr. Solomon's contribution. I, along with many others I suspect, have a genuine interest in the elemental questions I thought might be seriously probed and delineated through this interview. I was considerably disappointed in the results largely due to Mr. Solomon's juvenile approach to the various issues raised to say nothing of Ms. MacNeil's absolutely silly and embarassing comment at the end.
Such crucial questions to consider in this age of frightening fundamentalism, and such and uncharacteristically incompetent treatment by these two hosts.

As a follow-up to my previous comment, I have noticed that the Tag-line used to advertise this segment asks "Can there be any common ground when we go head to head with one of the world's foremost atheists?" I ask only this; Where is it in the CBCs mandate to take up the religious position against atheism, to vigourously advocate on its behalf? Religion has plenty of intelligent advocates in this country, and the CBC, and its viewership, would have been better served to have one of them debate Professor Dawkins.

that guy is a fool.god is real as him and me if god was like man a lot of us that will not be around. he make a promise to noah that he will never flood the earth again and he put a rainbow in the sky so he can remember the covenant that he man with man and he is saying god is not real when judgement day come he will kno.and hell with him and scientist talking about with we came from monkey or ape hell with that god made man in his own image and animal but them self so if he was form from a monkey i was not so tell that guy he need a life plus the bible talk about the lamb like beast who do you thing is the lamb like beast its america u.s.a so if its was not for america and england and other country that help with world war 1 and 2 we would have not like happy and peacefull in this world

Wow!~
This is a great debate!! Interesting reading above! I have read "The God Delusion", and tried also to, and accomplished reading much of the Bible. I love to read, and lately there are many subjects on the nasty affects of religion. As was stated above, in many comments; Religion may have done, or is doing some good in the world. But, of the true problems created in this world, one that is very prevalent in the world today, that is the common denominator for all other of our great problems, and that is one statement: "Go forth and multiply". If you do a search for overpopulation on the Internet, you will get dozens and dozens of sights explaining why overpopulation is not a real problem, but only perceived. All of these sights are the result of a concentrated effort by one Christian faction or another. Check it yourselves. But, if you read a book called "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn: (who was also a Catholic Monk at one time), or "Guns Germs and Steal by Jared Diamond, or "Collapse, How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed", by the same author, it quickly becomes evident that: "Go forth and multiply", and "all the beasts were put on the earth for mans use" and other such Biblical references, one quickly realizes that the fundamentalist religious man, is the biggest threat to his own existence!! And all other creatures on this earth!! This is the true "evil" of these religions. When you think of it as a rational intelligent human being, we don't believe in the tooth fairy, we don't believe in the great pumpkin, why the heck should we believe something as "crazy" as Gods, God, Allah, or anything else without at least more than one book as so called "evidence"!!

Keep up the interesting debates, and Evan; I think you did try to be impartial, and did state that it was a debate. I realize from watching Sunday Morning enough that you are probably a devout Christian, and no disrespect meant!

Lars Hildebrandt

Mr. Peter Woof....you obviously are an educated man, and your own greatest fan, but is it really necessary (at this point in time) to send 8 email? Perhaps you are the one that should have been interviewed.

Relgion corrupts, absolute religon corrupts absolutely.I sometimes search for and give money to panhandlers.Religious people tell me this should be done theough religious organizations,that it would do more good.WRONG! I dont care if they buy beer or whatever, I dont judge them. I dont need relgious credits or acceptance to do so.

I found that Evan Solomon did a great job debating with Mr. Dawkins. I think it is possible to co-exist with each others belief system. I do find however, that there are extremists in both theist and atheist, and that we should be mindful and respectful of each other values.

Merry Christmas and Happy Festivus!

The whole debate itself, and Dawkin's book, is anti-logical. Certainly, if Dawkins is refering to God as an imaginary, bearded man above the clouds - then yes, this pre-rational construct is worth deconstructing. But if one is to regard God as 'mystery', then God can neither be proven nor dis-proven: God escapes any rational attempt to be proven or dis-proven by the human mind. Mystery has an essence that transcends logic and rationalism; it is neither an object nor subject, and therefore cannot be framed within rational arguments. So just as it is as easy to 'construct' some notion of God (as many fundamentalist religions do), an atheistic stance has to have one of these constructs (a straw-man) to refute. So its a performative contradiction! (i.e. one must start with a belief in one of these straw-man Gods to deconstruct it!). Athiestic arguments - based on rationalism alone - cannot handle the non-dual nature of the Mystery itself in the trans-rational realm of mysticism.

I'd like to make a comment on where someone mentions about Buddhism being an atheistic religion. It's not. The reason why some 'North American' Buddhists use this term is similar for the reason I just gave above - that is that any notion of 'God' as an object/subject, that is any 'mental construct' of God, creates a false dualism which cannot be God. Buddhism ascribes and aspires to going beyond all rational and non-rational trappings of the human mind - to simply experience mystery by silencing the mind. It's not that Buddhism is 'athiestic' - rather, it is one religion that has been wise to simply not put any word at all on experiencing the mystery itself.

PLEASE! at least get facts straight. richard dawkins' book was made into a documentary by channel4 (uk) and *not* the bbc! i encourage readers here to find a download (p2p filesharing) or even watch it online (youtube/googlevideo) since people in canada will likely never see it broadcast on tv.

too bad that in this interview evan asks the wrong questions and shows us that he just doesn't get it (and tries to lighten things up by being immature on top of everything else).

regigion is nothing more than sales and control at its most basic level (spread the word and do what your religion's doctrine says). let's not forget about opposing contraception because we want to ensure that there are always more people in our religion than the others. yes, it all comes down to out-populating the other religions and making your own the dominant one. 2000 years ago having as many children as possible might have been a great idea except for one thing-- the other guys weren't stupid either and they did the same thing. so here we are, a world with over six billion people and contraception is still off limits as far as religion is concerned.

as long as religions oppose something as sensible and life-saving as contraception (think of famine, overpopulation and aids in africa) then religion is bad for everyone and will continue to have a detrimental effect for everyone regardless of the country they live in.

Your segment stated that "Dawkins believes Evolution explains everything". In fact, Dawkins seems to be asking us admit that NOTHING explains everything and that we should not therefore reasonably conclude that the universe is guided by an intelligent force. A weak interview which avoided the really interesting issues for the controversial ones. Disappointing.

I am so glad to see that the CBC has finally dropped all pretence of being impartial. The interview and closing comments on Dawkins was the CBC’s heart laid bare. If one cannot counter an idea with logic, then simply “slap [them] up side the head” (followed by gales of laughter). It’s disgusting what passes for journalism and editorial comment these days; predictable and disappointing, but still disgusting. The greater shame, however, is that my tax dollars are helping to fund it.

There is a much simpler explanation to why some people, as Even so grandiloquently put it, “are horny to do good.” The simple answer is ego. If they help someone less fortunate than them, it makes them feel good about themselves, because it means they are doing better than him or her—even if they don’t consciously admit it.

Mary Helen,
During my childhood I had a great teacher, the Reverend Dr. George of the Lindfield Presbyterian Church (pre-ecumenical).

When I was in primary (elementary) school, I went from Christian Denomination to Christian Denomination, spending about 2 months in each, never hearing anything that made sense. The headmistress (principal) did enquire and I told her that I was making my religious choice. I was left to follow my chosen path.

However, Reverend Dr. George did make sense. In between explaining the Scripture, he also discussed world events - the Cuban Crisis was still building and many children were scared from the news reports. He also discussed other things, like why DDT was causing some crop failures because the DDT was also killing insects necessary for pollination. He led the Sunday School classes in much the same manner. The day came when the good man passed away.

With his passing, Sunday School stopped making sense. The new leader made no more sense than the others that I had heard at school. At the age of 12 I read the Bible from cover to cover in his memory.

When discussing the Bible with the latest preacher, I felt like an idiot for remembering detail, especially inconsistencies, from chapter to chapter, let alone book to book. These were difficult times - South East Asia was igniting, the Vietnam war had started, and yet there were no answers. At age 14, Suharto came to power in Indonesia and there was yet another blood bath happening. At 16, again I read the Bible from cover to cover. My questions about contemporary Western values and Jesus' teachings were dismissed.

When I read that atheism is somehow equated with science and is "head to head" with organised religion or faith, I can immediately sense the irrelevance of the debate.

Perhaps if my innocent questions as a child had been answered by a competent church leader, I would not need to be so prolix in this debate and in this, my ninth brightly shining email...

Two questions I feel all of us should answer before taking a side on this subject.
Where does love come from?
Where does our moral knowledge
come from? (right and wrong human moral behaviors)
This is some of what I have found.
Love is between at least two or more people, characters, entities, etc, (if we entertain the thought of receiving love through divine means, then the giver must have experience with Love. And to experience love, I feel, we need more than just one character involved. This to me is evidence for the trinity).
A solid, provable, explanation of how human moral behavior evolves or has evolved does not exist.
I realize that most of what I use to help me explain why/how we have this knowledge comes from the bible and is unprovable (I can hear the groans), but I find it difficult to see why it would evolve. Or what processes worked together to form them?
If this world is laid out for survival of the fittest, as states the theory of evolution, you would think our species would dump these weaker (caring, sympathy, etc) emotions over time to keep moving forward strongly?
The same Science exists and is used on both sides of the creation/evolution debate;
We teach our children that evolution is fact without ever mentioning the other plausible side of the argument. But evolution is not fact. It is the same as Christianity, Muslim or any other faith based structure.
Before you fly out of your seat at your monitor, think about it.
Evolutionists MUST make a leap of faith from the evidence to the theory proposed by its father Charles Darwin. The same way that creationist's make the leap using the same evidence.
But what I feel Evolutionists can't explain and Creationists or Christians can is where love comes from (it takes at least two: can't be one God by himself, how would he know what love is)
and
Why humans have knowledge of what is morally right and wrong.
Anyway, just thoughts that I ponder and hope will help.

I get the impression that Evan was searching for a "chink in the armour" rather than looking to have his questions answered, I'm afraid. The deliberate misunderstanding of the sexual simile was below your usual standard!

A few posters have pointed out the unfortunate young woman who was killed in an argument with her father, but I find the more interesting juxtaposition between this piece and the formerly Canadian clergyman in the piece following, who felt that people of faith are being "shut out" of political influence in Canada.

Given the results in the U.S., I can only say: Amen to that!

i have to say first, that i have always found dawkins kind of annoying and condecending. because of this i was surprised to find myself becoming defensive of him during this interview. evan came off sounding like a first year undergraduate who is just excited to be allowed to speak in class. he did nothing but mouth off and take away from dawkins time and draw attention to pro-theistic arguments that have already been shown to fail.
for example, evan suggested that if an athiest acted morally it was because they thought they would get something out of it. dawkins ignored this jab and moved onto the next. the counter point here is 'so what? so do theists, unless you dont count eternal salvation as some kind of reward...'
i also wanted to say that i wasnt sure the bit about giving a darwinistic slap up the side of the head was necessairly directed at dawkins, but i dont know for sure. she could have meant generally or she could have meant evan after making an ass of himself
the idea in the teaser that dawkins was some kind of grinch out to kill god, suffocate baby jesus and burn down our christmas trees was a little much. its okay to celebrate the holiday and what that means regarding time spent with friends and family without necessairly appealing to the jesus legend.
many people above pointed out they found evans questions didnt streatch dawkins arguments to new levels and that it undermined the intelligene of the readers. i would echo that, except that really i felt like i heard more about what evan thought than i heard dawkins. next time get a real interviewer on for a guy like this, someone who knows their stuff well enough to ask the tough questioons while at the same time translating from ivory tower talk to every-day talk.

The nature of the relationship between religion and science is much more complex than Prof. Dawkins presents. The assumptions implicit in the structures of religion and science are inextricably entangled, and ultimately paradoxical. Furthermore, there is much evidence from science and mathematics to suggest that this conjoining of paradoxical elements is a natural state whenever we consider the nature of ultimate truth. In other words, when we attempt to draw absolute conclusion, the best we can do is to show that there is no such thing as absolute truth because the parts are paradoxically conjoined. The discussion of the principles of evolution is also incomplete without looking at the well-studied science of emergent self-organization. Many experiments show the manner in which order, far above random reorganization, can spontaneously arise in special systems. In one experiment described by Prof. Stuart Kauffman, (in At Home in the Universe p 74-83), the number of possible states of a system - that randomly would yield billions of possibilities - in fact yields only 317. It would appear that there is an intelligent design at work, but this is not the case. The reason that a high level of organization arises is easily understood from studying the setup of the experiment. This is a simple experiment but extrapolation to very complex systems seems reasonable. The limitations of science and religion to each create singular truth (on the nature of some infinite system) are not understood or even discussed in academic circles. Those on each side of the argument are too entrenched in their singular views. But then again, that is the way it is supposed to be if we are to insist on declaring what is absolutely true.

Dear Evans,

When you pointed out how can Dr. Dawkins explain about people helping other strangers and Dr. Dawkins try to explained that there is a defect on does that do help. I must say, the fault is on does that DO NOT help others because it does not matter if you believe in creation of evolution we all are related to each other, and thats why we care not just for humankind but for eveything in this universe. And I my say that we has intelegent animals we should care for everyone and everything around us and NOT ONLY for those in our bloodline.

And about atheism, the comments from Larry Rochette (above), explains better about Stalin and Hitler than Dr. Dawkind did on you show,

JC

I almost enjoyed your interview with Richard Dawkins,but then I witnessed Evan Solomon's questions become delusional and the segment ended with a prompt emotional
punch from cohost Carole MacNeil. The questions began to fall off the rails when Solomon asked Dawkins about the
existence of human altruism, as if altruism is a purely religious concept? I wonder how he arrived at that conclusion, from Judaism? from Islam?

But the next questions were completely bizarre, what does "loving your children" have to do with religion (or god)? Does Solomon believe that atheists don't actually feel any love for their children? Perhaps he was merely squirming
in order to regain his theistic footing after being completely disarmed by Dawkins' well-reasoned responses? Whatever was the case, I was brought face to face with Solomon's own deeply
embedded delusions - he actually exposed his private shortcomings rather extensively in this interview (as opposed to the next feature). This botched style of interviewing went a long way in establishing the holistic rationality
of the Dawkins perspective.

And then Carole's "I feel an urge to slap someone upside the head!" exposed for all of us her own delusional convictions. I take it that she had no rational or
reasonable response to Dawkins' evocative common sense, except to threaten the scientist/philosopher with physical violence. Why?

I am amazed and almost shocked today because I have watched this program over the past few years in the hope that I
might gain some insight into what makes people religious or what "makes them believe" in gods or spirits. Now it
seems that I must suspend my own rational intelligence in order to accomodate the delusions of these two interviewers.

What a dismal failure in a precious opportunity.

Bob

I have to agree with the majority of posters here...what happened to CBC News Sunday? Evan Soloman's interview with the athiest was embarrassing to watch. He was ill-prepared and ill-informed and way out of his league there. And Carole MacNeil? Who are you supposed to be now? You lounge there like some great news-eating Java the Hut and burp out the most ineloquent, dumb things after a segment. John Candy couldn't have played your role any better. In fact, it seems to me that News Sunday has become just that, a parody of itself. I don't think that This Hour or the former SCTV could send a take off of this show up any better than these hosts do. I used to watch...I used to TAPE this show for fear of missing it because I thought it was that good. I thought Carole MacNeil was smart and trustworthy and a digger for news; I thought Evan Soloman was earnest and honest to a fault...and I think they were...once. But now it's like they're the pampered CEO buffoons of some sinking company - they bask in their own glory, revel in their own smugness while all around them, the ship is sinking. Maybe it's time for some new blood, eh? Maybe it's time to steer the Sunday news back to where it was. She's seems to have been adrift for a long time. I know I'm just a small voice, but hey Mothership! If you're reading this, consider these posts, okay? Thanks.

Dear Evan and Carole,

I was very disappointed with the "debate" on CBC News Sunday. It was unfortunate to see an award winning evolutionary biologist pitted against someone who's questions revealed a deep misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution has been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century and taught to high school students.

Evan, your cookie cutter questions showed poor journalistic research and Carole, your inappropriate comment only showed your inability to think rationally. A response of frustration when presented with calm reasonable arguments speaks mountains for your own critical thinking abilities.

I have never written in to any show but I can't believe the way Evan acted on this weeks show. I am embarassed to be in the same Country as him and for that matter, the same species. Sure journalism is hard work but if someone doesn't lack the skill to ask interesting and intelligent questions they are not doing the viewers justice. I have watched and listened to CBC for my lifetime but will be sure to be more leary of the CBC Sunday program.

Evan did a great job debating Mr. Dawkins who has the hardest 'denial' shell I have ever seen - his mind is closed - but, to paraphrase the Bible, blessed are those of little faith for the joys from the kingdom of heaven is theirs to discover someday.
And to quote Plato, "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of the understanding."

I enjoyed Sunday's debate between two of my favorite people, Mr.Dawkins and Mr.Soloman. However to endlessly debate the opposing views of mankind makes a much sense as two five year olds debating the existence of Santa clause. There will never be a winner in this debate. Freedom of religious choice means the freedom to choose or not choose to believe in what ever guides your life. When will we forget about debating and judging each other, and learn to respect and accept each other as loving and caring members of the family of man.

Richard Dawkins asserts that religious faith is not a good thing, and suggests that more atheism would make the world a better place. For this he is labelled "militant" and "fundamentalist" in his atheism.

But for every person who says the same things that Dawkins says against religion, there are thousands of religious people who say far, far harsher things against atheism (and against atheists), without anyone raising an eyebrow in response.

For a religious person to be labelled "fundamentalist" in the news media, he has to do something heinous, such as burning down a rival sect's house of worship. But for an atheist to be labelled "fundamentalist", all he needs to do is argue about ideas.

What a wonderful journalistic double standard.

Evan... EVAN... Absolutely pathetic. Get someone elso to talk to Dawkins. Have a proper interview..

I hope Evan Solomon and Carole MacNeil are embarrassed about their performance on this show.

Evan Solomon, who apparantely has a masters degree in religious studies, makes it blatantly obvious that he hasn't read any of the books (many bestsellers) mentioned in this piece. Zero. You'd think he'd try to stay more up to date on the subject of his degree?

Perhaps the questions Evan Solomon asked were not to his benefit but for the public's - in which case I would have to ask if he believes that the Canadian public is slow.

Further, all he does when receiving answers is either laugh or get angry. This doesn't help any of his points, which would still miss their target even if he had better manners.

To top it off, Carole MacNeil mentions how much she would like to "smack" Dawkins.

Thanks for circulating this on the internet. Now the rest of the world believes that Canadians are a bunch of violent clods that would rather beat and yell at our guests than learn anything from them.

If your raison d'etre is to make a mockery of Canadian educational institutions as well as Canadian journalism, then well done. Good job.

Evan was so far out of his intellectual depth it was embarrassing. All that expense of a university education and this is the best he can come up with? I wonder if he can get a refund.

Carole, stick to reading the words on the autocue/teleprompter. Adlibbing ain't for you.

Your demeanor in the interview with Dawkins was rude and immature. Your preconception that his arguments were illogical was clear. This attack only proved your shortcomings as an interviewer or "debater" and not his as an intellectual.

Evan,
I love how you say it is such fun to debate. Insulting someone isn't a debate. Saying we're "horny" to help people did nothing for your point or your reputation.

Has religion made the world a better or worse place?…It seems to me we are asking the wrong question.

There are numerous religions in the world today with the most basic tenet being that their ‘God’ is the one true ‘God’ which breaks society into two camps for the followers of that religion; ‘US’, the people who believe in my God and ‘THEM’, the people who do not believe in my God. There is no argument that religion has done a lot of good in the world but any belief system that encourages that sort of division can be used by ‘true believers’ as a rationalization for any sort violence. Our past is littered with the bodies of innocent people who were tortured and murdered in the name of God. But the same can be said of Governments and various political organizations as well. The problem is not religion but any system of belief that creates a division within society.

Any belief system whether religious or political that divides people into an ‘US’ and ‘THEM’ idea leaves the back door open to any fanatic or zealot to misuse that belief as justification for any atrocity they can dream up. The question should be … Why do we continue to create divisions when we should be trying to find the things that make us all the same?

Oh dear! Now THAT was embarrassing -- for CBC, that is! The segment was hardly a "debate," so Evan can stop patting himself on the back. And what was with Carole and Evan's chortling at the end? (It reminded me of the way men used to treat those pesky "women's libbers" back in the 70s.) Bad form, folks!

Prof. Dawkins speaks succinctly, intelligently, passionately and (gasp!) with an English accent. This makes him sound, to many North American ears, as arrogant.

Are there no rational, agnostic/atheist reporters out there? Come out, come out, wherever you are! Have Dawkins on again. Next time, have a non-superstitious person interview him.

When interviewing someone with the long history of science popularizations that Prof. Dawkins has, I would give them, and your audience, enough credit to avoid "dumbing-down" the argument. I would also suggest that rather than trying to be a hard-hitting journalist, or whatever, you might try to be an informed journalist. Not only did we evolve from apes, we are apes, and you'll have to take scientific classification, not Darwin, to task for that. It is a terrible shame to me, and many people I have discussed this interview with, that this is how Canadian understanding of science is represented though the CBC. Please, don't be so patronizing to your viewers, or so disrespectful to people who are taking the time to talk to you.

As soon as anyone attempts to assert that Hitler was motivated by atheism, you know you're dealing with an irrational person. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is quite rational. I am always amazed at how much sense Richard Dawkins makes.

Great showing by Dawkins, despite the inanity of the interviewer.

Why is it so hard for people such as him to understand that science does not claim to have all the answers? Rather, it makes continual progress via well-tested methods. If science had all the answers there would be no more need for research.

Many of these comments seem a little harsh on the interviewer. Considering he had to know at the start he was taking the doomed end of an argument to a leading intellectual, there had to be some self-deprecation in there somewhere. Have some charity!

Mr. Evans, you got clobbered, but so has everyone else that took up the cause of religion with Professor Dawkins (so don't feel bad). You are to be commended for your bravery.

I was quite disappointed to see the "debate", where every question was answered, but with little if any rebuttal, save a laugh or snicker. If this were considered a debate, I would hand it to Mr. Dawkins, since Evan offered little to it.

The ending "slap" comment by Carole was unprofessional and embarrasing. Sounds like something any good christian would do.

Okay. Okay. We've all made our points, eh? Mine are as harsh or nastier than most - but I think we do have to keep this in context. Evan Soloman and Carole MacNeil ARE good journalists - that's why they're there. We all lauded the CBC when they brought these two to the Sunday News and I'm sure we'll breathe a sigh of relief when they get back to doing what they do so well. Sometimes when we sit at the amen corner too long, we get too comfortable in the pew - I think we've all made that point. But remember why we were attracted in the first place. I don't want to see any more Canada AM/ W-5 softball stories...that's all we'll have if these two don't grab their bootstraps and tug. I wanna see Evan and Carole stay in the mix; kick up the dirt; root out the wormwood - they can do it, they did it before. So let's forgive and forget. Otherwise, it's the 'happy gang' from CTV or the Barbara Walters/Faux News - 'tick' 'tick' 'tick' smoke and mirror snake charmers. I say, go Carole! Go Evan! Oh, and GO Leafs!

The CBC should be embarrassed by the conduct shown by both the interviewer, Mr. Solomon and the shrill at the end Ms. Mac Neil.
I was always under the impression that the level of professionalism at the CBC was just a little higher than shown both during, and after the 'interview'.
Apologies should be proffered to Mr. Dawkins on your behalf.

I want to comment to your discussion with Richard Dawkins of Darwinian reason for doing good versus secular reason.

As an agnostic, raised atheist, I find Evan’s view that I am unable to do good since I am not religious somewhat offensive. His intonation was that “doing good” is driven by ones belief and therefore, if one is a non-believer, the motivation is not the same. What a slap in the face to non-believers who want to contribute.

Are you in effect telling all atheists and agnostics that they do good for some other selfish reason and are not motivated by the need to help a fellow human being? I have been giving and working for charities because it makes me feel good to help. Are you suggesting that maybe I should re-examine my motive for doing so? I think not.

Also, I’m not sure I appreciate or fully understand your guest’s view of sexual parallels. Other than that, great stimulating discussion. Keep up the good work.

I felt like I was watching Fox News.

/disappointed

Richard Dawkins, in the time available, gave thoughtful and lucid answers to the questions posed. My quick trawl through the comments suggests that his answers struck chords with many, so your programme is to be congratulated on that.

However, I didn't quite understand Carole McNeill's 'slapping' remark. I wonder if she knows that it's not original: one UK journalist said, of Richard Dawkins, something like 'Doesn't he make you want to slap him, sometimes?' And that was from someone who largely approved of his stance. I wonder if Carole would like to explain precisely what she meant.

I was astonished by Solomon’s derogatory tone in referring to Darwinism! That explanation of the wonderful process and pageant of evolution has never been falsified - it has been found consistent with observation countless times, and is the foundation of modern biology.

However, I sympathize with his dilemma, and recognize that he (like Ms. MacNeil) has not yet reconciled his beliefs with the facts of life.

Dawkins was grudging in his recognition that religion had motivated some individuals to do good. Another important attribute is the comfort that religion has provided to millions of people faced with mortality.

Dawkins suggests that displaying altruism to remote strangers is an example of inappropriate behaviour, following an evolved response. He should not describe this as “misfiring”: the “firing” is sound enough, but it is directed in such a way that it will not enhance the organism’s chances of survival! Perhaps “biologically unjustified” would do? Solomon might then have understood that he was referring to the biology, not the ethics.

Moreover, given that Dawkins lauded recent secular advances in contemporary values, I’m sure he would agree that the charitable impulse, even if it has no obvious value in population genetics, may be selected for in the field of cultural values: a meme whose time has come.

Dawkins’ work would be an excellent preamble to a CBC Sunday programme on secular humanism. How, freed from ancient myths and contemporary delusions, we should construct a modern ethical code. It would not, of course, be social Darwinism for today we value the lives of individuals. Nor would it be difficult to extend our circle of compassion to include the entire human race, indeed all the living world and our over-stressed planet. We would appreciate that, rather than hoping for divine salvation after life, our time on Earth is all we have - as Alan Watts said `this is it”. We alone are responsible for the future of humankind and it behoves us to care for it compassionately and sustainably. We would build on the Golden Rule and recognize the folly of basing our economies on perpetual growth and our social relations on competitive marketplace values.

I watch CBC Sunday every week and I am usually impressed with the quality, until the recent interview with Dr, Richard Dawkins.
Evan's interview was the worst I have ever seen him give. Obviously biased against Dawkins, ignorant of Dawkins's actual position and seemingly went out of his way to miss the point every time Dawkins made one! He looked like a complete amateur, and an illiterate one at that. Carols "slap upside the head" comment just made her look like a twit, then they laughed and both looked like twits. What a disappointment.

Did I miss something? Was this the CBC or was it The O'Reilly Factor?? Mr. Solomon conitually interupted, cut-off and laughed while Professor Dawkins was speaking. I have never seen an interview on the CBC conducted with such a lack of professionalism. Mr. Solomon should be embarassed by his conduct and now I believe his integrity as a journalist is in question.

Regarding the point that the urge to help a stranger is in someway spiritual, it can easily be explained in Darwinian terms, as any who have studied it know. During our early evolution those that were selfish and didn't help the group were selected against, and did not pass on their genes. This is stonger the community or tribe the better it is for the individual.
I do disagree with Professor Dawkins that this urge is a misfiring of our Darwinian instinct. I believe that what has changed contemporarily is the size of our community. We now live in large cities with millions of people but I would still consider these people part of our community. And even beyond that I would contend the world is part of an extended community of sorts.
This is a major part of cultural and community evolution. There are many excellent scientists who study this phenomenon in Darwinian terms and have produced good arguments that the benefit of the community is for the benefit of the individual.

Dr. Dawkins has ably produced 400 pages of analysis and conclusions to debunk religions of the past. He joins many others. It is a valuable FIRST STEP manual for anyone who has not commenced their spiritual "renovations". Looking at an old house you will find much that is no longer serving you, is rotten, and needs replacement. Walls have to be moved, plumbing, heating, floors, roofing, etc., urgently need upgrades. Those of us who are well into the spiritual renovation process could use the talents of Dr. Dawkins directed at opening new doors in the spiritual quest. His dismissing the millions of anecdotal metaphysical experiences occurring everyday as "misfirings" of the Darwinian theory of evolution, was not adequate or helpful. He, and others trying to address the spiritual dimensions of our cosmos, would be wise to be open to thoughts coming from "Tomorrow's God", or "What God Wants" or "New Revelations" by Neale Donald Walsch, or current quantum physics and mechanics ideas coming from the scientific community like Brian Swimme, Diarmud O'Murchu, or other insghtful observers of the connection between physical and spiritual realities like Deepak Chopra, Jean Houston, Gary Zukav, Wayne Dyer and hundreds of others. There is an evolution going on in the spiritual as well as the physical realm.
I appreciated Evan's pursuit and prodding in asking Dr. Dawkins to expand his horizons and dreams beyond the needed "renovation" realities.

Just another voice to the chorus.We all have good days and bad days.That's ok,we're
all a bunch of monkeys,anyway.
But,Evan was way over his head in this
"debate".

Evan Soloman is a public personality I have always respected as articulate and informed. Then I see him interview Richard Dawkins and yikes, he turns into a wide eyed first year theology student, cutting off the good professor with questions last pondered during grade school lunch hour. For a moment I thought he may even have disputed that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes!
The "slap upside the head" comment caused me no dismay..I expect nothing elevated from her.

What an interesting guest and what an awful job done by the interviewer. What was with the mocking laughter from Mr. Solomon? Please try to arrange another "debate", this time between Mr. Solomon and Christopher Hitchens.

I'd like to see Dawkins hermetically sealed in a specially enclosed environment populated only with people of like Belief. They wouldn't survive very long having to depend upon each other's lust. Charity is not an aberration unless you are socio- or psycho-pathic like Pickton or Bundy; or the rugged individualist and other ingrates who lack the understanding that the good will of the majority sustains and allows them to live by their own Beliefs no matter how costly to our society.

Atheism is as much a religion as anything else. Denial doesn't mean that something outside of our arrogant human understanding doesn't exist. The gods Lust and Greed are why many commit inhuman and destructive things against others, animals, and the earth. Denial of "God", not true religious principles, drives people to destroy others and steal their belongings. Evolutionary Ascension has emboldened and encouraged the cruel enslavement and extermination of Indigenous peoples, Africans, Jews and other “undesirables”.

Darwin, disillusioned by Christianity, tried to set up his own religion; in part borrowing from non-Christian ones to devise his theorem of our origins. The gist of his “doctrine” is “survival of the most deserving--(not "the fittest" as is often misrepresented)--that being the Caucasian race”. All non-Caucasian "races" are supposed to die off (or be helped to do so if that doesn't happen fast enough--so much for billions of years). Briefly his hierarchy of races, from "least" to "greatest" is: Gorilla, Australian Aborigne, Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasian. Environmental friendliness isn't an imperative either.

The human genome project has already proven that there is only a 0.012% difference between the “races”; thus race is really a false class system.

There should be a separation of pure empirical science from religion (Darwinism, Creationism, Atheism, whatever). From there we can make up our own minds thank you.

CC: Attribute, Share Alike

I watched this interview even after hearing the horrible teaser for it. I was disgusted by Evan's obvious lack of pre-interview research. It is bad anough that the average person has no idea what "evolution by natural selection" is, but for an interviewer, a supposed journalist, not to understand it before interviewing Richard Dawkins is beyond embarassing. I used to never miss your show on Sundays. I thought I might learn something from watching it. But I can now see that if an appaling lack of preparation went into this interview, it probably does with most others as well. And with one statement from Carole after the interview, I lost all respect for her as well. I am sadened and embarassed for my entire country when the best and brightest "journalists" on a previously well-respected network does not promote learning and investigation, but instead keeps itself firmly rooted in bronze-age thinking.

Can I ask Carol to explain, during the next show preferably, what she meant by her "head-slapping" comment? How often does she feel the urge to take a debate in the direction of physical violence? Do these feelings occur frequently, or just when someone challenges her religious sensibilities? Ayan Hirsi Ali has bodyguards because people want to take the path of violence against her, so we know these feelings are not unique.

Oops! by capitalized "God" I mean a 1st cause of Supreme Omniscient Intelligence and Ability, undetectable and undefinable by human standards, that is obviously humble enough to allow us humans to make up our own minds on the matter in the face of evidence we each can detect.

Personally, I find Atheists and Evolutionists just as arrogant and intolerant as some of the people on the "other side". Except, they don't want to give credit to Something or Someone that's obviously bigger and better than them; kinda like the Colonialists who labelled people "savages" and other derogatory words because of pure and simple conceit.

We can define things up to the "Big Bang" but no human has adequately explained (at least to me) anything before the event-- the "why"--nor do I think they ever can.

CC: Attribute, Share Alike

Leenie, you said:

“I'd like to see Dawkins hermetically sealed in a specially enclosed environment”
How very Christian of you.

“God(...) undetectable and undefinable by human standards”
So how do you know he exists?

“. . . that is obviously humble enough to allow us humans to make up our own minds”
I thought you said he was undefinable.

And, yes, you CAN make up your own mind. However, if you decide something that goes against his "will", your "Supreme Omniscient Intelligence" will torture you for eternity. Some choice!

In response to Leenie J., I'd be embarassed to give my last name, too. Thanks for the gift of laughter this holiday season. It's hard to know where to start.
Many psychopaths are not only believers, but believe their terrible deeds are motivated by their idea of God, the Devil, etc. If you want, you can use such a broad definition of the word religion that it encompasses atheism, but then it's almost meaningless. Atheism is a place holder to the question of which God or Gods or Goddesses you believe exist, in the same way that black may not be a colour, but if the cat is (all) black, it's not orange. It doesn't tell you much about what a person thinks about reality or commits to. Most of the Colonialists you refer to were Christian. As one minor example, please read about what the Spanish christians did to the natives of Cuba.
I think the best line is "...God...undetectable and undefinable by human standards.....". This reminds me of the disease with no symptoms and no consequences.
I suspect some Atheists and Evolutionists are arrogant and intolerant, but I haven't met them yet. The ones I know would be happy to give credit to "something or someone that's...bigger and better than them", but there's no evidence of such a thing.
As for what was going on before the big bang, the answer is WE DON'T KNOW, the three most underused words in the language, and we may never know. Or maybe we will.

PS: Evan and Carole will read the most over the top criticism to discredit it all and them smile their self-satisfied smiles and tell us how much they love hearing from us.

Relgion:
Residental schools-killing for God
The crusades-thousands killed for God
Brazil-thousands killed for God
Afghanistan-Canada and US killing for God etc. etc. etc.
An admirable quote by J Messelier.Paris 1773: I should like to see,and this will be the last and most ardent of my desires.I should like to see the last King strangled with the guts of the last priest.
Maybe less killing for God and more Santa Claus would be appreciated.

What an absolute waste of airtime, the interviewer simply spent the time arguing like an uninformed child. Asking clearly argumentative unresearched questions and reacting to the answers by rolling his eyes, cutting him off mid-sentence and laughing in a transparently condescending manner. This was a disgusting display of biased "journalism".

I lost a __LOT__ of respect for the journalistic integrity of the cbc after watching this and I feel shame in being Canadian if this is what our news media has digressed to.

Ooo, I hit a sore spot with the new Religionists.

imho,

“Walk”,
how do I know YOU exist? I'm not a Christian. But You seem to have a very condescending stereotypic attitude towards Christianity though. I admire those trying to live up to a Spiritual standard; willing to face the test of their Beliefs; the good they do positively benefits me too.

Let Dawkins also face the consequences of his ideas. He's belittling something that's allowing his views to exist. He's too self-serving/dismissive of competing beliefs. I dislike that.

So "God"'s a "him"/“he”, eh?; very telling. I never asserted any gender to “It”; only my paltry human inability to describe the indescribable. Logically, cause and effect is in play in our universe even if We can't comprehend it.

“Dwayne”,
dear, it's hard to accommodate someone capable of disagreeing with you, huh? C'mon, you know that Spirituality is often used as a theme song by those with less-than-Spiritual motives. Colonial greed disguised as “Judeo-Christianity” is still benefitting Western societies at the expense of others. What a contrast to a Spirituality that promotes a more mutually satisfying existence.

Maybe you dislike that some of us can see right through Dawkins. After all, You in your own wisdom Know no arrogant Atheists/Evolutionists! Hello! they believe in a blatantly Arrogant and Negative RACIST theory that has been scientifically dis-proven (at least where race is concerned); that's why imho Evolution is an intolerant Belief not a fact.

Just because you can't see the wind doesn't mean it aint there. I have a right to think, after considering his assertions, that Dawkins is also delusional.

Walk the walk. Be better than those with whom you disagree; maybe then your Belief will seem more credible. Isn't that what you expect from the “other side”?

CC: Attribute, Share Alike.

Dawkins is being disingenuous when he says that religion is responsible for all evil. Most, if not all, religions conciously tell their followers to do only good, and no evil at all. Not even in private. So how can they be said to be so evil?

Well, the only way in which you can say that religion is evil, is a) insanity, i.e. it doesn't know better (such is our civilization's defence for the Climate crisis) The *cosmology* of Christianity dates back to Aristotle, and even farther back from ancient times, so to criticize them for their lack of scientific rigour is just plain ... disingenuous.

b) manipulation, i.e. people on top know it is wrong, but they fool the people into doing evil by labelling it good. This is the German people's defence, and the defence of all the blind-followers around the world. These are the people Dawkins should be addressing, people who should know better but just couldn't be bothered. Most religions have degenerated into mere cults, or at best sheep-like herds, with local priests keeping the flock in order through threats and intimidation coupled with love and acceptance.

To fault them for their blindness is as easy like shooting fish in a barrel, so I think Dawkins should abandon this whole argument too.

When Dawkins says religion discourages independent thought, is divise and dangerous...he is talking more specifically about cult-like behaviour.

That most religion degenerate into cult-like status after a few ... oh -- thousand years, is not surprising. Any old corporation which loses the creative edge will also degenerate into a cult--with managers becoming tyrannical instead of persuasive etc.

Cults are an evolutionary holdover from simpler days, when the survival of a tribe demanded exact obedience and there was absolutely no room for error--which is an inevitable result of experiment and independant thought. They are the manifestation of the behaviour-software in that part of the brain called the "Reptilian brain." Things like anger, greed and aggression come from there. All religions have known about this type of behaviour--and properly labelled it as satanic. So how Dawkins can say religion is evil escapes me. Religion which is evil is evil masquerading as religion. Religion is the last refuge for the scoundrel.

Well said, Dwayne. It doesn't look like Leenie is going to respond.

"Lennie"
Don't confuse accomodation with agreement. I'd fight for your right to believe whatever nonsense you want, but I've been hearing the same half truths and straw men for decades, and your original post was insulting and deserved a vigorous response.
Just as it's not appropriate to condemn non-believers with the bad behaviour of other non-believers, it's not reasonable to blame all Christians for the bad behaviour of some. However, if the colonialists weren't christians, I don't know who was. People can divide along lines of race and religion, but the fights are usually about power and property.
I don't agree that you "can see right through Dawkins", so I can't dislike you for it. He was being as patient and straight forward as he could be.
Many characteristics that most people associate with race are genetically determined (such as skin colour at different latitudes to balance vitamin D with cancer risk). However, the definition of race has been expanded to include many things which aren't.
My blind friend knows that my dog exists. If you couldn't detect the wind in any way, and it had no effects whatsoever, would we even name it.
While nothing is perfectly certain in science, evolution is as much a fact as electricity, as there's mountains of evidence from many disciplines. Most of the experimentation takes place before the analysis and description.
It's not a race. I'm not trying to "be better than those with whom you disagree". I try to be as good and generous as I can be. We can all take a lesson from Jean Vanier and make a place at the table for everyone.
This will be my last post. Thanks for taking the time to read.

Leenie,

Sorry I offended you. Your first post seemed so angry at Dawkins that I thought you were a Christian. Rereading your posts I get the feeling that your beliefs may be something like “new age spiritualism” (if you don’t mind the phrase). I’m an atheist and I respect all people’s beliefs as long as they don’t impinge on my life. My wife is a Christian (in the best sense of the word).

I realize a supreme being would probably be non-gender or female (in the sense of a being who creates life). Again - - the incorrect Abrahamic god assumption. Also, I did’t quite understand what you were saying about racism. I grew up in a non-church going family (in the late fifties) in Boston. We were never racist. None of the atheists I know are the least bit racist.

If you don’t mind, I’m curious if you have read Richard’s book, “The God Delusion”. He’s not trying to force anyone to change thier beliefs, he’s just presenting his beliefs to whoever is interested. Also, do you believe in the theory of evolution?

Thank you.

I am personally ashamed of CBC's conduct in the interview and after the interview's show segment.

Evan should apologize to the Dr. for the child-like behavior.

Joe: You are making an assumption that religion makes people good. This is not true. The religion system is not a matter of good and bad, but of reward and punishment. Religious people aren't good, per say, but are living a life to get on Gods good side, or working for a reward.

Now, we can bring out the facts that atheists make up less than 2 percent of the population in jail in America, whereas they make up around 10 percent of the total population. That's interesting, is it not?

We would be better off without religion. It brings out the bad in everyone. Many wars are religious based.

Dr. Dawkins, as usual is has written a brilliant book. The religious sorts want to discredit the book however they can.

I reccomend all atheists reread the bible, as it will only strengthen any atheistic beliefs. All Christians should reread the bible as well. They should also read some of Dr. Dawkins writings.

Also, what's with this Hitler comparisons That's the same thing teenagers come up with when they're at a loss for a real argument. Wasn't Hitler a roman catholic anyways? Why wasn't it brought up that the pope during WW2 denied 2500 or 3000 Jews access to the Vatican? Those Jews were captured and presumably killed. Are you going to tell me the Pope was an atheist?

I think the childish interviewer is confused by the fact that things can be done religiously, done without religious influence, and done atheistically.

I am a scientist in training (Geneticist) and I want to say I have never lost nor questioned for a moment by belief in one omnipotent God (my faith is Islam), who is beyond the comprehension of the human brain. To me the scientific basis of my belief is that while you can say all you want about Darwinian evolution (and there are some quite interesting clues to evolution in the Quran, which it does not entirely refute.. e.g., Allah says he created all life from water in one verse; "And I created every living thing out of water" Quran 21:30), the evolution theory has no explanation for the origin of matter nor of energy. Nothing comes from nothing, and this is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and other sciences as well. So then where did the first atom, molecule, quantum of energy come from? There could be other planets with more intelligent life forms than us homo sapiens, we are presumptious in thinking our limited brain can explain everything. I believe the Creator of that brain is having quite bemused (or perhaps some other feeling that is not within the range of human feelings)!
Finally I quite agree with Dr. Dawkins in that we must use our reason in our formulating our beliefs, and really the belief in God is totally based on reason. The scientific community has a long way to go before it discovers all the secrets of life (we still have not completely understood the process of DNA replication, crucial during cell division), but there is no doubt that all matter and energy, or the basis of life/creation has to have had an origin. Its a simple scientific law.
Just one more point before ending; At no time has Islam ever condoned acts of terrorism. I don't know what version of Islam Osama and co are following, but it certainly is not the true version. A lot of the problems in the Muslim countries today stem from the fact that many Muslims have little knowledge or understanding of Islam sadly.