A new Dawkins interview

June 21, 2016 • 1:00 pm

Hot off the press, with almost no YouTube views, we have a six-minute interview that Richard gave yesterday to the BBC’s “Sunday Morning Live” (the interviewer isn’t named). This is his first real appearance, beyond his videotaped Reason Rally speech, on a televised interview. Considering his stroke, he seems to be doing very well despite, as he admits, a slight tiredness in his voice (he’s also lost his ability to sing).

I doubt there is much that those who follow Richard will learn from this, but it’s still worth watching for as least one thing. At 5 minutes in, the interviewer seems to become a bit insensitive, not only asking him about his mortality and what he thinks lies beyond the grave (the answer should be clear), but then asking him if he’s changed his mind about that (the answer is equally clear). She seems to be probing, à la Larry Alex Taunton, whether Richard might be flirting with God after his stroke.

I doubt that an interviewer would ask the same question to, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury. “So, Archbishop Welby, have you considered the possibility that you’re dead wrong about your faith, and that when you die, well, that’s all, folks?”

Note Richard’s different-colored socks. I’m trying to find out what’s up with that.

69 thoughts on “A new Dawkins interview”

  1. You never can tell with socks. I once attended a poetry reading in London by the English poet, Robert Graves. He came dressed in a tux with chartreuse socks. 🙂

    1. I’m about to follow the link, but my hypotheses were initially : (1) colourblind (r /g) ; (2) his wife is an actor, sufficient reason; (3) pure iconoclasm.
      Off to follow link.

      1. Yes, what GI Aidan said.
        I frequently wore mismatched socks as a young man for the devil of it, and now I’m currently in my “Don Johnson” phase of personal stylings. If it weren’t for the goat heads I’d not wear shoes either.

      2. I can’t speak for Dawkins, but I do it out of laziness sometimes – I pick out two that look more or less the same and realize later that one is slightly different.

        1. Like I said – I do my sorting at the shop – charcoal grey. Very hard to tell the difference without counting holes – as the Bishop said to the choirboys.

    2. [Read RD’s reasons] I took a different tack to the same problem. Given a choice, charcoal grey socks ; do the pairing as they come out of the drying basket/ bag ; move on.
      But for functional reasons I still differentiate socks : pure wool next to the skin and thick ( cable-knit ?) socks next to the boot. It reduces blisters in my use case. The “charcoal grey” is good for the woollies, but not so available for “boot socks”. If you’re going to be different, be glaringly different!

    3. I stopped matching socks for many of the same reasons Richard gives. It was about the time I left home and had to do my own washing, match socks and mourn orphans.

      Over the decades many people have asked me why – or told me that – my socks don’t match. My stock comment is that I was sorry and that I didn’t read the instructions and wasn’t aware that matching was obligatory.

      1. I don’t have to match socks: I have only one kind (aside from hiking boot socks, of which I also have a single kind). All the socks go together, no effort required.

          1. Well if you’re one of those dancers with 2 left feet, that could be pretty convenient.

          2. I actually have a pair of socks that say “R” and “L” Silly, but I don’t dare to put them on without checking.

          3. Runner’s socks often have L and R printed on them, because they are slightly asymmetrical.

    4. I’ve accidentally worn odd shoes to work a couple of times. Rushing to get ready for work, going through all the morning ablutions half asleep and eventually grabbing two shoes that looked the same from the dark wardrobe. Luckily I mostly sat behind a desk.

      1. And we’re all talking about socks and the interviewer.

        I need to add how lovely it is to hear from Professor Dawkins again! His mind is still as sharp as ever.

        1. I see that as a good sign. To us, it’s just no big news he didn’t come to god(s) just because of a major setback. We’re happy he seems to be out of the woods, so socks are all that is left to talk about. 🙂

        2. Yes, but his evolutionary reductionism is just as bizarre as ever. At least to those of us who learned our biology from Ernst Mayr and our paleontology from S. J. Gould.

          And why make such a bother about the god-myths? I suppose he must really care about whether or not there is pie in the sky.

          2. I doubt he cares much about “whether or not there is a pie in the sky”. That argument is more or less settled. I think he cares more about what that belief does to the public understanding of science. Religion and science are 2 fundamentally different ways of viewing the universe and any religious belief corrupts the scientific understanding. Dawkins was Charles Simonyi professor for the public understanding of Science, hence his work to promote a scientific world view over a religious world view.

          3. Gould failed to contribute to the discussion with his NOMA hypothesis which is rejected by secular and religious thinkers alike. I prefer Dawkins’ open and honest but always fairspoken rejection of any reconciliability of science and religion.

          4. Sorry Fred, but I see that comment as rather mean-spirited. He has a right to express his opinion just like anybody else on the god myths, and his doing so has brought many to the same realization. In fact, after many years of vague deism, it was while watching a Dawkins documentary that I finally clicked there’s no God.

      2. I have only black socks, so I never know when I wear odd pairs. People don’t seem to recognize it either, or they are too polite to tell me.

        As for dark closets, having mostly black clothes makes it sometimes very difficult to find specific items in a big pile, like after doing laundry in the evening. But it helps keeping one mentally agile.

    5. I wear matching socks only because the different socks have different elastic tightnesses and lengths, so they feel different, which I find distracting. #oversensitive

  4. I can’t put a name to the interviewer, but she’s one of the regular “talking heads” on BBC morning news TV.

        1. @Antallan, you are partly right. Naga is the Hindi name for Snake. And yes, it’s a damn good name for an interviewer 🙂 🙂

  5. I know about the socks. He mentioned in one of his tweets: he does not have a particular preference for Democrats or Republican. 🙂

    1. Or maybe I’m wrong — the case might be I had that impression when I saw him wearing the strange socks. :))

      1. I don’t vote. But if I do, overall I’m on the Democrats side, but I do worry, the regressive left is way too stupid, what if the Democrats can’t do self clean?

    2. He treads the grapes of those wrathful ones equally?
      (Does EN_US have the same possible interpretations of “grapes” as EN_GB?)

  6. I have some great multicolored socks that come in pairs, though unmatched. Also got a set of 5 socks for my granddaughter, all different colors and patterns. you GO richard!

  8. I found that to be an unsatisfactory interview. I feel the interviewer did not try beyond clichés.

  9. The interviewer is Naga Munchetty. She works for the BBC, on breakfast TV, among other things.

  10. If I were more thoroughly and classically religious than I am and interviewing Richard Dawkins I might consider asking him if he has re-evaluated Catholicism (morally NOT doctrinally!) in the light of Pope Francis, or evolution-religion re Francis Collins, but I would regard it is incredibly rude and intrusive (or as Dawkins would colorfully say “effrontery”!!- a word his accent makes even more delightful) to ask him about re-evaluating anything in the light of his stroke. As bad as any question ever asked by Barbara Walters!

    (I guess I am “residually religious” like many Unitarians and culturally and ethically a liberal-Christian/Buddhist, but far far too skeptical of all supernaturalism to be much else. So come to think of it the issue I would be most likely to challenge RD on is Einsteinian religion.)

    1. “As bad as any question ever asked by Barbara Walters!”

      Barbara Walters was not content to merely ask questions; she felt entitled to give her unsolicited opinions, little digs and cutting personal remarks over the air to be heard by millions.

  11. I am sorry but the way the interviewer brings the question on “what lies beyond” is totally disgusting! First, with a smile, asking Richard how he is doing just like that is what she cares about, but then hits w/ the real question in mind.

    1. Agreed. Very disgusting. Do the religious folks ever just take a moment and try to realize not only how incredibly insensitive such questions are, but how badly it paints their supposed Deity?

      “Now that you’ve suffered through [insert health crisis], doesn’t it make you consider the existence of a loving savior?”

      Or…

      “Now that you’re dying of a terrible disease, don’t you want to embrace an omnipotent, benevolent God?”

      It’s completely callous and so totally clueless. Why don’t they ever pose such questions to people on the BEST days of their lives rather than when they’re sick or dying?

  12. I have sometimes worn different colored socks. When this is pointed out to me, I just say ‘and I have another pair just like them!’

  13. I wasn’t too bothered by her questions about his own position on faith and mortality. He certainly wasn’t! I think he enjoyed the opportunity to reiterate his lack of belief.

    I see it this way: It’s a man bites dog situation. Someone has religious faith is not news ((hence she likely wouldn’t ask the Archbishop of Canterbury). If they do not, and are very public about it, that is news. (Maybe some day it won’t be — I hope so — but for now, it is.)

    I think she was respectful while doing her job: I’m sure many in the UK are interested in Dawkins’ particular case regarding religious faith. (And the religious are always desperate for a conversion story: Sure click bait or dial-bait.)

    1. I concur. The questions were absolutely appropriate and politely phrased, and they gave him an opportunity to publicly fortify his inviolate unbelief.

      1. I agree too, the interview to me was a ‘I’m still here’ and that was good to see, all the while not over taxing her guest, given what he has been through. She seemed aware of his health advice.

  14. The difficult thing today would be to find an interviewer/journalist who does a respectable interview. Even those who made a living on the interview tend to be very poor…such as Charlie Rose.

  17. After watching the video I googled “Richard Dawkins singing”.

    Most of the hits are either something to do with Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer, or stories about a Christian heavy metal singer who gave up on religion after reading Christianity.
    One was a video made by a very snarky self-aggrandizing Christian with a clip of Dawkins explaining why he likes to sing Christmas carols.

    2. That story of the Metalcore band lead singer losing his religion is excellent. A great example of how a few brain cells, decent ethics and a bit of giving a shit about what is actually true, can be inimical to religion.

  18. Glad to see Dawkins looks good! His voice used to reminds me Harry Porter’s voice, maybe that was just wrong impression, but that’s what I felt. Hope Dawkins getting better & better.

    “Violence” is the line should never be crossed when atheists defense against religions — a very good question and a very good answer.

    Happened to find this video today, I think it is an interesting debate to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEA8rTQkim8

    1. Me too! It’s great to see him in public form again, still so much his singular, charming self. He’s one of my heroes.

  19. I doubt that an interviewer would ask the same question to, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Yeah. I’ve never known a nonbeliever to go up to a bereaved believer and try to comfort them by saying the deceased “had a good life, enjoyed it while it lasted; now it’s done and over. Good Night, Irene.”

    The faithful, on the other hand, have no similar compunction about attempting to comfort even professed nonbelievers with blather about the deceased being in a better place, enjoying eternal happiness, awaiting ultimate reunion with family and friends.

  20. I have always had a penchant for thick socks. My siamese cat had a penchant for chewing holes in them and also carrying them into the street and dropping them there. And she would take them from the laundry basket, freshly washed and dried, so, no! It wasn’t about the smell lol. Wearing odd socks became necessary.

    One of my favourite “Dad jokes”-
    Do any of your socks have holes in them?
    No.
    Then how do you get your feet inside them.

    1. I suspect that a lot of people would protest that a hole in sock has to “go all the way through”. The philosophers Achille Varzi and Roberto Casati have a book all about holes which explorers the craziness of these folk intuitions.

  21. Nice to see that he’s doing well after the stroke. He seems just as sharp minded as before and hopefully with time his voice will recover.

  22. I think the question was a reasonable one and reasonably asked.
    I think it is important that the correct answers to those kinds of questions are heard.

    Nothing lies beyond.

  24. I knew a teacher who wore a red Wellington boot on her left foot and a green one on the right. These signify port and starboard in nautical parlance. There is a joke about knickers (panties) from C&A which I will not explain.

Comments are closed.