Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss double down on disbelief

[rug]

IVAN SEMENIUK
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Apr. 30 2013, 6:00 AM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Apr. 30 2013, 6:00 AM EDT

Between them, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss are among the most outspoken scientists who say the world would be a better place if religion were relegated to the dustbin of history – or at least taken out of action as a political and social force. In best-selling books and numerous media appearances, both have repeatedly made the case for the scientific worldview as an alternative to faith, sometimes to the discomfort of fellow scientists.

Starting in 2003, the scientists began teaming up in public talks in which they lay out their arguments in the form of a conversation. Filmmaker Gus Holwerda picks up this evolution as the pair take their skeptical show on the road, tangling with religious leaders, talk-show hosts and several thousand years of cultural inertia. The result is the feature-length film The Unbelievers, which had its world premiere in Toronto at the Hot Docs festival on Monday night.

Before the screening, Dr. Dawkins, a professor emeritus at Oxford University, and Dr. Krauss, who is director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State University, sat down to talk about science and religion with The Globe and Mail.

Is there a risk that by challenging religion head-on you galvanize your opposition?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/richard-dawkins-and-lawrence-krauss-double-down-on-disbelief/article11624891/

Dawkins, Krauss on CNN to Discuss New Documentary 'The Unbelievers'

&feature=player_embedded

[dimbear]

1. Galvanizing the opposition is an excellent idea. They're awfully rusty. n/t

[Phillip McCleod]

9. oh dimbear.. once again your witticisms cut to the chase. \n

[edhopper]

2. My God that is right!

Before you know it religion will organize into a force that perverts the political path of nations.

We don't want that to happen.

[longship]

3. Poorly done interview.

These guys have a lot to say. CNN reduces it to simplisticity, mainly because of time constraints.

Of course, we atheists never do not hear that people have to have religion to be good, or that a lot of good is done in the name of religion. Both of these are non-sequiturs. The first is demonstrably false; the second is irrelevant.

Thanks for the post.

[rug]

4. I agree. This one is much better.

Canadian journalism versus U.S. journalism.

[longship]

5. Link please? Thx. nt

[rug]

6. D'oh

[longship]

8. Now that's how to do an interview.

I take it that this is a CBC affiliate. I have been a CBC fan for a long, long time, back to Hockey Night in Canada with Bud Lynch on CKLW-TV channel 9 out of Windsor, Ontario.

Thanks, rug. I hope everybody eschews the CNN clip for this one. Or, maybe uses both to understand just how horrible CNN really is. CNN has all the time (24/7 news) to cover things properly, but it takes the CBC to cover this properly on their "Morning Show" (undoubtedly the CBC version of the "Today Show&quot .

They even got to cover the strident atheist issue, one that I am particularly interested in debunking.

Many thanks.

[skepticscott]

7. And probably also

to pander to their audience, who they know doesn't want to think too deeply or see religion put under too glaring a spotlight.