A Nice Richard Dawkins Clip

[Crown]

I don't want this to be spam, and I hope it hasn't already posted, but I just thought I'd share Professor Dawkins' introduction to his visit to the University of Oklahoma a few days ago. This man is just class, enjoy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It was a good introduction. The rest of the lecture (I was there) outstripped it though. Particularly the question and answer session.

[Posner]

Any hope of seeing the whole lecture? I think I have been through most of his videos unfortunately.

[Akkleptos]

Saw the clip. I'll stick to his books.

Maybe freethinkers from the US get a kick of theatrics like that, but IMHO it just cheapens an issue that deserves to be taken very seriously. Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy Dawkins' books as much as the next guy here, but dwelling on the religious backwardsness pervasive to the US -including when it comes to universities- is completely unnecessary and more akin to fanservice than it is to real content. Maybe the rest of the lecture was more educational, I hope.

Why is religion such a big issue in the Us is a mystery to me.

[Covenant]

Given how many people do not believe in evolution in America, taking a few swings at them, including some theatrics, is important. Otherwise, if you're merely polite and stay off to one side, you make it seem like you can't be an intelligent, rational person at the same as you're angry and dismissive. The theatrics are not just because it is fun, but also to show that the religious right are not unopposed in this country, even though their hold is quite firm. Such displays allow others to feel more comfortable in boldness of their own, and is a healthy step towards levelling the playing field where it comes to profession of belief or non-belief.

Until you realize how deeply entrenced religion in the US is, and how much it colors foreign and domestic policy, and how deeply it has dug into the educational system in an attempt to grow like weeds through any crack left unfilled, it will remain a mystery to you why it is such a big deal, and why such theatrics are borne out. In a country where 40 percent of people do not believe in Evolution, theatrics do not cheapen an issue, they just bring it down to a level closer to the audience you need to reach.

[Akkleptos]

Until you realize how deeply entrenced religion in the US is, and how much it colors foreign and domestic policy, and how deeply it has dug into the educational system in an attempt to grow like weeds through any crack left unfilled, it will remain a mystery to you why it is such a big deal, and why such theatrics are borne out. In a country where 40 percent of people do not believe in Evolution, theatrics do not cheapen an issue, they just bring it down to a level closer to the audience you need to reach.

Yeah, but how many of them could have been there attending a lecture by Richard Dawkins?

Until you realize how deeply entrenced religion in the US is, and how much it colors foreign and domestic policy, and how deeply it has dug into the educational system in an attempt to grow like weeds through any crack left unfilled, it will remain a mystery to you why it is such a big deal, and why such theatrics are borne out. In a country where 40 percent of people do not believe in Evolution, theatrics do not cheapen an issue, they just bring it down to a level closer to the audience you need to reach.

Does the expression "stooping down to their level" sound familiar? The City councils' opposition to the Dawkins lecture is funny enough as it is. IMHO, it would have sufficed to mention an outline of it, then moving on to the real topic. Oh, and even in countries typically regarded as shitholes by the Americans (and some others) the point would be pretty much moot:

i. e. :

"... demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking"

-cue audience laughing.

[Covenant]

From my experience here in the colonies, I don't think the idea of "stooping to someone's level" is widely regarded as negative. It is usually regarded as preferable to roll up your sleeves and get down in the muck with people, as this culture--even amongst the intellectuals--stresses that you shouldn't be too lofty to speak in ways people understand. So from a purely pragmatic perspective, it is effective. Dawkins doesn't need to elevate the message at the expense of a little goofing around.

Maybe in a more civilized country, it is viewed as distasteful for a scientist to carry on in such a way, as if a little looseness casts doubt on the seriousness of his work. I can assure you, it's not seen that way in goddamn Oklahoma. I certainly don't see what was wrong with it. It seemed to go over well with the kids there, and that's helpful.

As for the kinds of people who would be there, even if we assume they're all in favor of the message, so? Why not mock the other side? Acting aloof and unconcerned about the other side is partially what's gotten people into this problem.

[Crown]

Yeah, but how many of them could have been there attending a lecture by Richard Dawkins?

Where there was at least one there in that lecture, not to mention in his last lecture in Virginia the entire staff and student body of 'Liberty University' chose to try and sand bag him when he was speaking at Randolph-Macon Woman's College part 1. So in answer; you'd be surprised.

Saw the clip. I'll stick to his books.

That is of course your choice.

Maybe freethinkers from the US get a kick of theatrics like that, but IMHO it just cheapens an issue that deserves to be taken very seriously.

Cheapens 'what' issue? And how so?

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy Dawkins' books as much as the next guy here, but dwelling on the religious backwardsness pervasive to the US -including when it comes to universities- is completely unnecessary and more akin to fanservice than it is to real content. Maybe the rest of the lecture was more educational, I hope.

'Fan service'? What does that mean? And I think when you have people getting 'degrees' from 'Universities' that flat out reject the scientific process in the United States (hell one of them got promoted to the Justice Department under Bush for doing what was essentially a Bible studies degree) it goes beyond 'backwardsness' and outright alarming behaviour.

[Mayabird]

Akkleptos, this is the kind of environment we're talking about here:

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry; and

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s theory of evolution, called the “Darwin 2009 Project”, which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and

WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma.

Yes, it is real. HR 1015

Note: originally posted on LA.

[Akkleptos]

From my experience here in the colonies, I don't think the idea of "stooping to someone's level" is widely regarded as negative. It is usually regarded as preferable to roll up your sleeves and get down in the muck with people, as this culture--even amongst the intellectuals--stresses that you shouldn't be too lofty to speak in ways people understand. So from a purely pragmatic perspective, it is effective. Dawkins doesn't need to elevate the message at the expense of a little goofing around.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly subscribe to what you say regarding scientists and other scholars speaking with clarity, in plain English, and the goofing around bit can greatly improve the public's acceptance and comprehension of certain topics. 100% with you on that.

I just thought bringing up City Council's resolutions against his having been invited by the University in a powerpoint presentation with music and glitter was a bit too much and maybe even in poor taste -it didn't fit my idea of Dawkins, as I knew him from his texts, that is. Though I realise something should be done about closeminded authorities and their opposition to true critical thinking and science when it doesn't suit their baseless beliefs. Which brings me to

Maybe in a more civilized country, it is viewed as distasteful for a scientist to carry on in such a way, as if a little looseness casts doubt on the seriousness of his work.

Again, it's always refreshing -and more educational- when scholars and scientists resort to a bit of humour, IMHO. What I thought a tad out of place was making such a big fuss over what should have been expected opposition and official stupidity, given the location. But of course, that's my two cents. I liked the "skit", I just thought it was kind of redundant to shine all reflectors over to the "look! City officials are backwards puritanical anti-evolutionist anti-atheist fundamentalists!" little number.

Maybe Dawkins was genuinely suprised. Had he ever been there before? In that case, I would certainly have been shocked as well, had I been in his place. Or, actually, if I had been him, I may have begun my lecture with a jke about it, and then changed the tone to something dramatic, in the style of "But seriously, if things like that happen in this city... your city... " and then proceed to tell the audience how their authorities are trying to conculcate their very freedom to think for themselves.

So, you see, I agree humour is a handy tool in presenting a point. Nevertheless I think that, precisely because of things like those "resolutions" quoted by Dawkins himself (and which Mayabird kindly posted for our illustration), the topic is as undeniably serious as it is unacceptable in any modern country. Maybe in Oklahoma the sensitivity to offense in scientists, intellectuals and atheists has been filed dull through time and getting used to, but I still think it is totally outrageous.